Canon 1DX (Jpeg)

[Secretariat]

Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
Thanks.

[RuneL]

Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
Thanks.

If you need to ask this question you probably don't need a 1D X.

[nightbreath]

A person who shoots JPEG may not understand why he needs RAW at all and don't see potential it provides. 1D X should deliver best in the world JPEGs, I believe, but would he even notice that difference? I think the answer is "no".

[bdunbar79]

Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
Thanks.

If you need to ask this question you probably don't need a 1D X.

You get the stupid comment of the day award, and this is impressive, considering the high MP and 6D threads going on right now. 

To actually help, yes you can shoot JPEG if you need fast turnaround time/minimal processing.  A good example of this is when I first transitioned from event photography to sports photography.  When I first shooting sports, the school needed the photos right after the game to post on an update website.  This is no longer the case and I now do RAW shooting and do 8 x 10's for the athletes (NOT necessarily for the school).  Just remember if you are shooting JPEG, you'll need to shoot at a certain sharpness, contrast, white balance needs to be correct, etc., more so than RAW shooting.  For the 1DX?  I'd probably set sharpness to 3, but that's just my preference.  You'll need to experiment with other things like contrast and saturation.  This is what I did and it helped for when you cannot process your images.  Hope this helps.

Whether someone buys a 1DX or a 20D, the determining factor on whether they need the 1DX or not is NOT what type of image they shoot.  Prime example is SI shooters than send the JPEGS straight to laptop, straight to SI for live updates and post-game photos, hence why that comment is nothing but assanine.

To further answer your question, yes shooting in JPEG mode has nothing to do with the 1DX.  You will still get all of the advantages and power of the 1DX, so go ahead and buy it if you can afford it even if you shoot in JPEG.

[AmbientLight]

I shoot in RAW+JPEG (for previews) most of the time using both 5D Mark III and 1D-X. I don't do and I won't do any side by side tests, but I get the impression that the out-of-camera JPEGs of the 1D-X are better compared with the 5D Mark III, which appears to me to have been designed primarily for RAW shooters.

Although I do post-processing on RAW files only, I have experimented with post-processing JPEGs as well and Adobe Lightroom does a pretty good job there, so you do have an option, even though RAW files are better suited to post-processing.

[neuroanatomist]

Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
Thanks.

If you need to ask this question you probably don't need a 1D X.

You get the stupid comment of the day award, and this is impressive, considering the high MP and 6D threads going on right now. 

+1

[Kernuak]

Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
Thanks.

If you need to ask this question you probably don't need a 1D X.

You get the stupid comment of the day award, and this is impressive, considering the high MP and 6D threads going on right now. 

+1

Photojournalists with a quick turnaround time to get important news photographs to press will routinely use JPEGs and they will be out in all weathers, which means good weathersealing. I also know of some pro wildlife photographers who shoot in JPEG with 1 series cameras, because they don't have time to do a lot of editing.

[Studio1930]

Yes, the 1DX would still be a great tool to use when shooting jpg.  I shoot RAW most of the time, but I use jpg when I shoot dog sports since the buffer will fill up with RAW sooner than I need.  I sometimes will shoot 70 to 100 consecutive shots before letting up on the shutter button.  RAW just can't do that but the 1DX can do that at 12 fps in wonderful jpg.  You do have to learn your settings (as others mentioned) and I have found that they are drastically different settings depending on whether I am shooing in low light indoors or bright sunlight outdoors.

Oh, I also forgot to mention that shooting 30,000 images in one weekend takes up much less hard drive space if you shoot jpg instead of RAW.  Workflow is also much, much faster and sometimes that makes a big difference.

[stoneysnapper]

I shoot Scottish Football with my 1Dx (soccer for our US friends) not paid work or anything, just for a Football website and I shoot in Raw. I intend giving jpegs a go at some point but as my deadlines are not immediate I use Raw. I spoke to a experienced Pro Sports Photographer earlier this year and for football he only shoots jpeg, he's a Nikon user. He doesn't have the time to process and convert after a game when he needs to get his images to agencies/newspapers quickly, within 20 minutes or so, in order to sell them. Lets face it Newspapers dont need the highest image quality for the printing quality and size they use, online versions may have changed that though.

BDunbar's comments are interesting as I need to experiment with the set up for jpegs. As a Club photographer largely doing landscapes for comp entries I have never once shot jpeg since I converted to Raw around 4-5 years ago. There is absolutely no doubt for my Football shoots that jpegs are the solution, most of Studio1940's reasons above explain why but I suppose one can become too reliant on the convenience of Raw editing in Lightroom. For me its a confidence thing in not shooting jpeg.

In answer to the original question, 1Dx and mostly jpegs, cant see why not, thats what most Sports/Press photographers will do, who I'm guessing are the largest %age of owners of the 1Dx.