1DX Worth the Money?

[bdunbar79]

I have both the 1DX and 5D3. The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable. So easy to spend someone else's money. The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4. But I get paid to shoot sports. If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm currently shooting with a 60D and 5D Mark iii. I was originally going to get the 1dx but the 5d iii came out sooner. I wanted something with high fps, and am wondering is it worth spending the money. I know it's an amazing camera, however a 1d mark 4 is a lot cheaper lol

Are you asking if it will earn more money than the cameras you have? That really depends on whether it will allow you to get money shots that lesser cameras might not be able to capture.
If photography is a hobby, and its required to do what you need, you have no choice.
My take is that its the ruggedness, low light capability, high AF speed that set it apart from the 5D MK III. For a average user, this is not going to justify the price difference, but if you need those features than get it.
Some of us, of course, like to have the best possible tools, and get one if we can afford it.

 

[pedro]

@viggo: Highly appreciated! Thanks a lot! I know the 5D3 does 102K. So craziness within me to go for insane ISOs exists...LOL. So I will have to say to myself: Well, look man, the 5D3 does 51k like the 1Dx does the 102k.

 

[awinphoto]

Here's an unbiased POV... There is a saying... once you go black, you never go back... while that could be interpreted in so many ways, (get your head out of the gutter people!), it's hard to go lesser in anything once you experience the best of any one thing... You dont go from a driving a Lexus to driving a hyundai, that is unless something drastic happened to your personal situation. That being said, if there is something lacking, in your case, FPS, then the next logical choice is to step up to the next line of camera. AF, same module, just different tracking engines and metering engines... so that's an edge to the 1dx, but that's not to say that the 5d3 is an inferior camera in any way. IQ... 4 less megapixels, so it will be slightly cleaner thanks to physics... how much is the cleaner files due to smaller sensor and how much is from a better sensor... TBD.

For me, i know professionals charging 15,000-20,000 a wedding shooting 5d2's in program mode and have 5d3's on order, and I know pro's making less than me with 1dx's and D4's... I wont discourage anyone from getting the best gear they can afford, but i also know the difference between need and want. Do I want the 1dx? hell ya. Do i need it? nope. For me, will it earn me any more $$ than my 5d3? Not unless I start working for sports illustrated or espn. I love how my 7d guns through 8 FPS but in reality, I could probably count on 1 hand how many times I required that burst to get the shot i wanted... I can see how different people, depending on different shooting styles and needs will require different feature sets, and if that's your situation, go for it. But first, think rationally, do you NEED the 12 FPS... will it earn you money? Will it help you get a shot that your current gear cannot achieve? Are you hitting a ceiling right now with your current gear? Or is it a splurge that is nice to have the emblem on the neckstrap and the bragging rights that your camera is worth more than your friends car? We can debate different peoples merits and if one truly needs a certain gear or if a certain amateur or hobbyist really should get gear that a lot of pro's cannot even justify buying. To me, i dont upgrade unless I feel i've reached my ceiling and plateaued with a certain gear or if I feel it can take my photography to the next level and inspiration. Only you can answer these questions... But take in consideration your return on investment if any, and take in consideration want vs need... Then you'll come to the right conclusions...

 

[Viggo]

I have both the 1DX and 5D3. The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable. So easy to spend someone else's money. The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4. But I get paid to shoot sports. If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

Why would I say something I don't see? It makes no sense. I'm just saying what the differences are, because a lot of people say, meh, it's no difference. Well, that is wrong. And why would it cost twice the money if 4 less mp and a bigger body was all that was between them??

To your defense, I haven't used any other raw-converter than Lightroom 4, and process the 5d3 files in Lr and it is STILL as we talked about when the 5d3 was new, the images aren't as sharp as the 5d2.

If it is the files from the 1d X or if it is MUCH better support in Lr, I don't know, but I have shot 20.000 images with the 5d3 with Reikan calibrated lenses and I haven't gotten one image sharp as I did from the 5d2 or the 1d4. The 1d X is way different, I can apply much less sharpening to get them truly sharp, and overdoing it a tad makes them pop like crazy.

I don't care if people say they are very simmilar. Trying to shoot my kids with the 5d3 was incredibley much easier than with the 1d4, but with the 1d X EVERY shot is perfectly exposed and focused, and I always have the right moment in a burst.

And the perfectly exposed images results in much less rescuing in post which also leads to less noise.

I do agree that you have to be very careful with the 25600 iso, but compare 6400 iso and the 1d is HIGHLY useable and they clean up very nicley, whilst the 5d3 is gritty and ugly. The new lightmetering in the 1d X had a lot more to say than I first thought, as I said, no need to rescue an image, it just sticks.

If that matters to YOU, I have no idea and I don't care, but if it is someone out there who wonders if the 5d3 is the best there is and like me, want to buy the best even if they don't earn that in within 4 months (or at all), the answer is very clear....

If you don't have the money to spend on a 1d X, fine, not all people have it or even remotley close too wanting to spend it. But if you do, don't settle for the 5d3 when you can have an EPIC smilemachine in the 1d X.

 

[JR]

as a very happy user, my simple answer is YES!

 

[Viggo]

Here's three images shot at 51200, 102400 and 204800, quick and dirty.

They're just imported into to Lr and Color noise reduction set to 20, nothing else done. I adjusted the light so the exposure would read the same. It was nearly complete darkness at 204800, yet with the side af-point, non crosstype, expanded with 4 hit focus in One Shot. The images are uncropped full size jpegs.

 

[bdunbar79]

I have both the 1DX and 5D3. The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable. So easy to spend someone else's money. The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4. But I get paid to shoot sports. If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

Why would I say something I don't see? It makes no sense. I'm just saying what the differences are, because a lot of people say, meh, it's no difference. Well, that is wrong. And why would it cost twice the money if 4 less mp and a bigger body was all that was between them??

To your defense, I haven't used any other raw-converter than Lightroom 4, and process the 5d3 files in Lr and it is STILL as we talked about when the 5d3 was new, the images aren't as sharp as the 5d2.

If it is the files from the 1d X or if it is MUCH better support in Lr, I don't know, but I have shot 20.000 images with the 5d3 with Reikan calibrated lenses and I haven't gotten one image sharp as I did from the 5d2 or the 1d4. The 1d X is way different, I can apply much less sharpening to get them truly sharp, and overdoing it a tad makes them pop like crazy.

I don't care if people say they are very simmilar. Trying to shoot my kids with the 5d3 was incredibley much easier than with the 1d4, but with the 1d X EVERY shot is perfectly exposed and focused, and I always have the right moment in a burst.

And the perfectly exposed images results in much less rescuing in post which also leads to less noise.

I do agree that you have to be very careful with the 25600 iso, but compare 6400 iso and the 1d is HIGHLY useable and they clean up very nicley, whilst the 5d3 is gritty and ugly. The new lightmetering in the 1d X had a lot more to say than I first thought, as I said, no need to rescue an image, it just sticks.

If that matters to YOU, I have no idea and I don't care, but if it is someone out there who wonders if the 5d3 is the best there is and like me, want to buy the best even if they don't earn that in within 4 months (or at all), the answer is very clear....

If you don't have the money to spend on a 1d X, fine, not all people have it or even remotley close too wanting to spend it. But if you do, don't settle for the 5d3 when you can have an EPIC smilemachine in the 1d X.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the 5D3 was the best ever. However, if you are shooting weddings with a 5D3 and getting paid, the 1DX will get you no additional business or money. The photos to the normal person do not look any different. People are not pixel peepers. I've tested the 5D3 and 1DX at all ISO's. 25,600 and above on both are unusable. In fact, they had the exact same level of noise it appeared. Therefore, the high ISO crap doesn't hold too well with me, considering I can shoot with both at 12,800 and and don't need to go higher.

I can't wait for the day the 1DX replacement comes out and then the 1DX will suddenly be crap and we should all be spending the money for the new $8000 replacement, because there will be "no comparison between the two."

 

[awinphoto]

I have both the 1DX and 5D3. The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable. So easy to spend someone else's money. The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4. But I get paid to shoot sports. If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

Why would I say something I don't see? It makes no sense. I'm just saying what the differences are, because a lot of people say, meh, it's no difference. Well, that is wrong. And why would it cost twice the money if 4 less mp and a bigger body was all that was between them??

To your defense, I haven't used any other raw-converter than Lightroom 4, and process the 5d3 files in Lr and it is STILL as we talked about when the 5d3 was new, the images aren't as sharp as the 5d2.

If it is the files from the 1d X or if it is MUCH better support in Lr, I don't know, but I have shot 20.000 images with the 5d3 with Reikan calibrated lenses and I haven't gotten one image sharp as I did from the 5d2 or the 1d4. The 1d X is way different, I can apply much less sharpening to get them truly sharp, and overdoing it a tad makes them pop like crazy.

I don't care if people say they are very simmilar. Trying to shoot my kids with the 5d3 was incredibley much easier than with the 1d4, but with the 1d X EVERY shot is perfectly exposed and focused, and I always have the right moment in a burst.

And the perfectly exposed images results in much less rescuing in post which also leads to less noise.

I do agree that you have to be very careful with the 25600 iso, but compare 6400 iso and the 1d is HIGHLY useable and they clean up very nicley, whilst the 5d3 is gritty and ugly. The new lightmetering in the 1d X had a lot more to say than I first thought, as I said, no need to rescue an image, it just sticks.

If that matters to YOU, I have no idea and I don't care, but if it is someone out there who wonders if the 5d3 is the best there is and like me, want to buy the best even if they don't earn that in within 4 months (or at all), the answer is very clear....

If you don't have the money to spend on a 1d X, fine, not all people have it or even remotley close too wanting to spend it. But if you do, don't settle for the 5d3 when you can have an EPIC smilemachine in the 1d X.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the 5D3 was the best ever. However, if you are shooting weddings with a 5D3 and getting paid, the 1DX will get you no additional business or money. The photos to the normal person do not look any different. People are not pixel peepers. I've tested the 5D3 and 1DX at all ISO's. 25,600 and above on both are unusable. In fact, they had the exact same level of noise it appeared. Therefore, the high ISO crap doesn't hold too well with me, considering I can shoot with both at 12,800 and and don't need to go higher.

I can't wait for the day the 1DX replacement comes out and then the 1DX will suddenly be crap and we should all be spending the money for the new $8000 replacement, because there will be "no comparison between the two."

I couldn't agree more... I guess that's one of the big factors with pro photography... It's not a matter of "if you can only have 1 camera"... but there is so much other stuff we contend with... strobes, softboxes, modifies, on/off camera flash, rigs (if your incorporating video), stands, lenses, cameras, computers, storage, maintenance, living expenses... yes just about every photographer to some extend deals with some if not most of these, but in the end, unless the return of investment is there, if a lesser gear can pull off what we are putting out at the same quality or ease, then is splurging a good investment? Some use the best gear, and I applaud them... Some get by with the bare minimum and charge an arm and a leg for their stuff... kudos... There's no right or wrong answer to what gear people use, but to splurge just to splurge especially if you get nothing back from it, to me, is silly... instead of spending the $3000 extra on the camera, what about investing in quality lights, PW, backdrops, stands, props, posing tables... crap you could have more than most studios and have a more well rounded photography experience... but, if a 1dx is your thing, knock yourself out.

 

[Viggo]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

 

[bdunbar79]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

I'm still confused. What moments aren't you catching? I've shot basketball with a 5D3 and didn't miss one shot. What are you shooting?

 

[Dylan777]

I have both the 1DX and 5D3. The files from the 1DX are NOT way sharper than the 5D3 and the high ISO noise from both cameras at 25600 are unusable. So easy to spend someone else's money. The only reason I bought the 1DX is because yes, it is superior to the 1D4. But I get paid to shoot sports. If I didn't get paid to shoot sports, the 5D3/1D4 combo would be MORE than enough for me.

Why would I say something I don't see? It makes no sense. I'm just saying what the differences are, because a lot of people say, meh, it's no difference. Well, that is wrong. And why would it cost twice the money if 4 less mp and a bigger body was all that was between them??

To your defense, I haven't used any other raw-converter than Lightroom 4, and process the 5d3 files in Lr and it is STILL as we talked about when the 5d3 was new, the images aren't as sharp as the 5d2.

If it is the files from the 1d X or if it is MUCH better support in Lr, I don't know, but I have shot 20.000 images with the 5d3 with Reikan calibrated lenses and I haven't gotten one image sharp as I did from the 5d2 or the 1d4. The 1d X is way different, I can apply much less sharpening to get them truly sharp, and overdoing it a tad makes them pop like crazy.

I don't care if people say they are very simmilar. Trying to shoot my kids with the 5d3 was incredibley much easier than with the 1d4, but with the 1d X EVERY shot is perfectly exposed and focused, and I always have the right moment in a burst.

And the perfectly exposed images results in much less rescuing in post which also leads to less noise.

I do agree that you have to be very careful with the 25600 iso, but compare 6400 iso and the 1d is HIGHLY useable and they clean up very nicley, whilst the 5d3 is gritty and ugly. The new lightmetering in the 1d X had a lot more to say than I first thought, as I said, no need to rescue an image, it just sticks.

If that matters to YOU, I have no idea and I don't care, but if it is someone out there who wonders if the 5d3 is the best there is and like me, want to buy the best even if they don't earn that in within 4 months (or at all), the answer is very clear....

If you don't have the money to spend on a 1d X, fine, not all people have it or even remotley close too wanting to spend it. But if you do, don't settle for the 5d3 when you can have an EPIC smilemachine in the 1d X.

I wonder if you can feel the Ferrari's engine when driving down Nathan Road in Hong Kong?

Make no sense to spend extra cash on the features that you do not need. Regardless the out comes on both bodies, PP still needed at the end. My 2cents.

 

[Viggo]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

 

[bdunbar79]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it. What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist. I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it. But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you. You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX. I use each for a specific purpose. When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop. And yes I can notice 22 vs 18. For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better. Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do. It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX. I kept both for different reasons.

 

[Bombsight]

It's not a question of it "being worth the money" which, btw, is a stupid question.

Only you can make having or buying a 1DX worth spending the $$$. :

Your question is along the same line as somebody telling a great photographer that his "camera takes good pictures". Tha camera doesnt take pictures, the owner of that camera does.

 

[awinphoto]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

Stop judging on what know nothing about? Are you serious? I do this stuff for a living... I think i've got a good grasp of the photography industry. I dont know about your personal taste and spending habit, and frankly between you, neuro and briansquib, i'd love to have your disposable income... unfortunately i've got 2 kids to feed and keep a sucessful business afloat amidst dozens of wanna be photographers crawling all over craigslist offering photography for a song and a dance, and other nation wide photo companies that have the overhead to offer print prices at ridiculously low rates... Money, in the photography business, is vital... To me the 5d3 purchase was a big purchase, probably the most i spent on any one piece of equipment I've gotten to date, period... Is the 1dx a better camera, yes, but can it deliver photos I cannot get with the 5d3? hell no. Would I make 1 more dime if i got the 1dx over the 5d3? nope, but I tell ya what, I would be out of business and a hobbyist, just like you. Stop being so freaking defensive.

Yes, I'm in the business of capturing memories, but unlike you, i'm paid to capture sometimes strangers memories whom i know nothing about. I dont have the luxury of rapid firing while a bride walks down the isle hoping i get 1 in focus... If i went that approach I wouldn't have card space to get past the ceremony. Everyshot is calculated, composed, and done just the way I want it. Do I get missed shots? Before the 5d3, constantly... but I'd regroup and make sure I nail the next. Just shot a wedding recently... Ceremony natural light with ISO's bouncing in the 20,000 range... didn't miss a shot... The rest was flash and my keeper rate was in the 60-70%, with a lot of the non-keepers being duplicates... please dont talk down to me like an idiot, I know what I'm talking about... you got a 1dx, good for you... but from my experience, if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera.

 

[Viggo]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it. What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist. I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it. But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you. You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX. I use each for a specific purpose. When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop. And yes I can notice 22 vs 18. For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better. Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do. It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX. I kept both for different reasons.

The OP asked about if it's worth the money, and yes it is. And for me to just say yes, would prompt someone to ask, why, what's better?

And that's what I did.

But fair enough. We have different needs and style. I also shoot a lot of kids, and I don't need to crop there, I would crop for sports, so there's one difference. And nothing wrong with either.

This is why Canon make the 1100d and the 600d (and the 650d was just to show you how black rubber can turn white, apparently : and the 5d's and the 1d's. We all now the same thing here. There's good reason why they make all of them. Different needs and wants.

And we can argue until we are blue in the face of which one is better. I have friends who use the first 5d, because it has better edge sharpness than enay other camera on the planet. I'm not getting into that, I'll just take it for what is, and argument for or against something and make up my own mind.

*shakehands* bdunbar79

 

[Viggo]

Who says I don't have lights? That has nothing to do with it. It's not splurging, it's not my job. I invest in memories and do this for my own sake. Stop judging something you know nothing about...

And yeah, in a studio situation , I agree, you shouldn't get a 1d X, the 5d2 will du a killer job. But I don't spend more than an hour a year in studio invironment. I like to take my lights out, and shoot things that move.

I agree that clients would never see the difference, but I know what I can and can't get with those two cameras. In fact I do think there is no comparison between the 1d4 and the 1d X.

I have a very specific wish and personal demand for a camera, and the 1d X is the first camera that really feels like a giant leap there.

People tell me, oh, that's a nice picture, well you should see the 10 moments I didn't catch... that's how I think...

Stop judging on what know nothing about? Are you serious? I do this stuff for a living... I think i've got a good grasp of the photography industry. I dont know about your personal taste and spending habit, and frankly between you, neuro and briansquib, i'd love to have your disposable income... unfortunately i've got 2 kids to feed and keep a sucessful business afloat amidst dozens of wanna be photographers crawling all over craigslist offering photography for a song and a dance, and other nation wide photo companies that have the overhead to offer print prices at ridiculously low rates... Money, in the photography business, is vital... To me the 5d3 purchase was a big purchase, probably the most i spent on any one piece of equipment I've gotten to date, period... Is the 1dx a better camera, yes, but can it deliver photos I cannot get with the 5d3? hell no. Would I make 1 more dime if i got the 1dx over the 5d3? nope, but I tell ya what, I would be out of business and a hobbyist, just like you. Stop being so freaking defensive.

Yes, I'm in the business of capturing memories, but unlike you, i'm paid to capture sometimes strangers memories whom i know nothing about. I dont have the luxury of rapid firing while a bride walks down the isle hoping i get 1 in focus... If i went that approach I wouldn't have card space to get past the ceremony. Everyshot is calculated, composed, and done just the way I want it. Do I get missed shots? Before the 5d3, constantly... but I'd regroup and make sure I nail the next. Just shot a wedding recently... Ceremony natural light with ISO's bouncing in the 20,000 range... didn't miss a shot... The rest was flash and my keeper rate was in the 60-70%, with a lot of the non-keepers being duplicates... please dont talk down to me like an idiot, I know what I'm talking about... you got a 1dx, good for you... but from my experience, if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera.

Yes I am serious!

You wanna hear my story? I just moved 6 hours from where I have lived all my life. I have a 3yr old boy and a 9 month old daughter, we bought a house, we don't have jobs. Guess what, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this. My income? That doesn't matter. I am a dedicated saver by nature. I bought a t-shirt in 2006, my newest piece of clothing. I eat water. That's how I can afford what I want. Including the 1d X. None of this matter at all.

You might know about photography business, which I never claimed nor am a part of.

"if you cannot get a shot with a lesser camera and you need that top of the line camera to pull it off, it may say more about the photographer and not so much about the camera"

Then why are you using a 5d3 and not a Canonet QL17?

And please tell this to the sports photogs who shot in the Olympics and others that depend on great gear to perform what they want and/or need.

 

[bdunbar79]

Things the 5d couldn't catch at f1,2. Try catching the eyeball of a running person up close with the 50 L, and have the right moment, under any circumstance.

Basketball with a 70-200 at 2,8 is different. I don't why people need so bad for me to not need a 1d, I try to offer my advice and thoughts since I've had both and the 5d since April. I am not the only one who likes and wants the 1d over the 5d and feeling it is absolutely worth it. Is it worth it to you?

Everybody wants you to have a 1DX and enjoy it. What they don't want is to come up for justification of it using shortcomings of the 5D3 which don't really exist. I'm glad you enjoy your 1DX and are getting great shots from it. But you don't need to justify it to anyone but you. You don't have to list shortcomings of the 5D3 to justify the 1DX. I use each for a specific purpose. When I do baby pictures or weddings, I'm banking on the 5D3 because I can use the extra 4 mp with they way I crop. And yes I can notice 22 vs 18. For sports, however, I leave the 5D3 at home and shoot with the 1DX, because it's way better. Enjoy it for what you need to do/want to do. It is nice to hear your perspective since you got rid of the 5D3 for a 1DX. I kept both for different reasons.

The OP asked about if it's worth the money, and yes it is. And for me to just say yes, would prompt someone to ask, why, what's better?

And that's what I did.

But fair enough. We have different needs and style. I also shoot a lot of kids, and I don't need to crop there, I would crop for sports, so there's one difference. And nothing wrong with either.

This is why Canon make the 1100d and the 600d (and the 650d was just to show you how black rubber can turn white, apparently : and the 5d's and the 1d's. We all now the same thing here. There's good reason why they make all of them. Different needs and wants.

And we can argue until we are blue in the face of which one is better. I have friends who use the first 5d, because it has better edge sharpness than enay other camera on the planet. I'm not getting into that, I'll just take it for what is, and argument for or against something and make up my own mind.

*shakehands* bdunbar79

You got it. Hey, I agree it was worth the money. I bought one didn't I?

 

[DMITPHOTO]

Well, interesting conversations. My whole point to this when I asked "is it worth the money", not meaning should I go spend 7 grand on a camera, but meaning are the features the 1dx offers worth the $7,000 price tag. And from what people have posted, it seems like if your using a professional level camera, it's amazing. For my needs of what I'm wanting a camera to do, the 1dx might be a tad over kill when a mark4 would work just fine, but I use the 5d3 for landscape nature portraits, anything that the more pixels the better. And I use the 60D for mainly just macro and or will attach a 70-200 or the 500 being its not full frame. But shooting wildlife and sports, the 5d3 just isn't as fast as I wish it could be fps wise. The auto focus is snappy and will lock on, and 6fps isn't to shabby, but just isn't fast enough to capture small birds in flight or more of a moment happening in some sport. I do make a little money selling wildlife prints and things to do with sporting stuff, but I figured id be getting a used mark4 unless there's some place that has it new, but new is $5,000, and used range from 3-4,500. So I figure I'd be using the camera a lot I'd want something it be worth the price and last. Which the 1dx will do. Lol but this thread turned into something different so I guess I should've phrased my question better instead of being so vague.