2 5d3's or 1d x
- Thread starter KKCFamilyman
- Start date
- Status
danski0224 said:
The 1Dx sure is THE flag ship at the moment. But your high ISO assessment shows improvement potential.
It depends on your idea of a clean image and it depends on your photographical preferencies as well.
So the ISO 1600 criteria seems a bit far fetched.
In an article earlier this year http://www.uncagethesoul.com/night-photography/best-canon-night-camera/
Ben Canales stated:
"Between the 1Dx and 5D3, it’s again difficult to find a winner here. In this scenario we’re not cranking the shadows to their breaking point, so at the “safe” level of ISO 3200 both seem to perform equally well. I think the 1Dx image catches the eye simply because of the Aurora colors in it. At this usage level, there’s not a big difference between the 1Dx and 5D3."
....
"The 5D3 was NOT usable at 8000, but I’ve heard 6400 is manageable and I believe it. But unfortunately, I didn’t have one shot at that ISO for testing, so it stopped at 5000. ... Amazingly, the 1Dx was controllable all the way up to 12,800! By controllable, I mean a night shot at this ISO- I felt confident in how I edited it that I would post it online as one of my professional portfolio night shots. That doesn’t mean I’d make a print out of it (digital display vs professional print are leap years apart in regards to ISO’s) but I am confident to show it online. To me, this is a big difference and another reason the 1Dx champions out front of the others."
...
"As I mentioned in the beginning, the price difference between the 1Dx and 5D3 is very large with the 1Dx costing TWICE as much as the 5D3. In regards to Night Photography alone, I don’t think the 1Dx’s abilities justifies that size price jump. In fact, bang for buck, I think the 5D2 is still the best “entry level choice” since used 5D2′s can be found on Craigslist for under $2k, as opposed to new 5D3′s at $3,500. However, if you want to be on the “front lines” of night shooting, an upgrade to the newer bodies is a must as it is evident their abilities to handle higher ISO’s has expanded considerably and is very exciting. If you have an older 5d2 and are considering a new camera- I think the 5D3 is a fantastic purchase if you are or want to be in Night Shooting. Get the 5D3 and save that other $3k for one or two L series lenses. However, if you do have the budget, and want the best, the 1Dx represents the cutting edge of Night Photography with a Canon camera."
...
"f you allow me to rant further on- I do not think the 1Dx or 5D3 represent a “game changing” jump in night shooting. Years ago the 5D2 and Nikon D90 were literal game changers in their ability to controllably shoot much higher ISO’s than previously possible. Those cameras literally changed what was thought possible. The 1Dx and 5D3 provide substantial, exciting progress, but they won’t turn the world upside down. Looking to the future, if I could get my hands on the next camera advancement- having that NOW would probably blow my mind compared to the 5D2 and 1D4. Saying this, I realize how spoiled we have become with the rate of progress in our cameras. As mentioned, I discovered how to shoot stars on the very old Canon 30D body. With that camera, ISO 1600 was usually my limit and now the 1Dx is making ISO 12,800 possible?!? Our expanding ability to go out into the dark and bring back images is incredibly exciting and I have no doubt in 1-3 years I’ll enthusiastically be doing another test up on a mountain with new cameras and higher ISO’s."
BTW, this is my late cat, taken early this year at ISO 51k. ;-)
Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
Upvote
0
I use both, 1Dx & 5DMKIII, and I have 2 Bodies of each so I have some experience with your dilemma, which Camera will be best for you ??, depends on what you shoot.
Looking at your previous Posts, I would suggest the 5DMKIII might be the Camera for you unless you start to get into shooting in extreme conditions.
There really isn't (in my opinion) any real difference in Image IQ between the 1Dx & 5DMKIII, but there is a world of difference in the Conditional capability of the two Bodies, the 1Dx you can pretty well treat like dirt in Rain, Snow, Dust (I have) & the Camera keeps working, the 5DMKIII isn't any where near as well protected in the same conditions.
The 1Dx has a few extra bells & whistles, but that's what they are, bells & whistles, may or may not be of any real use, although I do find the 12 fps is exactly what I need in my own wildlife shooting.
It's great having an extra body, myself I always have one 1Dx set up with the 200-400f/4, the other with 70-200f/2.8 II and a 5DMKIII with the 24-70f/2.8 II, but is it really necessary ?/ only you can make this determination.
Someone earlier suggested using the money for other uses, a holiday, lenses etc, might not be a bad idea, it's nice to have that extra Body, but you need to really think hard on priorities if owning that extra Body is stretching the finances, Photography needs to be something stress free and enjoyable, hard if every time you pick up that extra body you feel it's somewhat superfluous.
Looking at your previous Posts, I would suggest the 5DMKIII might be the Camera for you unless you start to get into shooting in extreme conditions.
There really isn't (in my opinion) any real difference in Image IQ between the 1Dx & 5DMKIII, but there is a world of difference in the Conditional capability of the two Bodies, the 1Dx you can pretty well treat like dirt in Rain, Snow, Dust (I have) & the Camera keeps working, the 5DMKIII isn't any where near as well protected in the same conditions.
The 1Dx has a few extra bells & whistles, but that's what they are, bells & whistles, may or may not be of any real use, although I do find the 12 fps is exactly what I need in my own wildlife shooting.
It's great having an extra body, myself I always have one 1Dx set up with the 200-400f/4, the other with 70-200f/2.8 II and a 5DMKIII with the 24-70f/2.8 II, but is it really necessary ?/ only you can make this determination.
Someone earlier suggested using the money for other uses, a holiday, lenses etc, might not be a bad idea, it's nice to have that extra Body, but you need to really think hard on priorities if owning that extra Body is stretching the finances, Photography needs to be something stress free and enjoyable, hard if every time you pick up that extra body you feel it's somewhat superfluous.
Upvote
0
Thanks again for the comments. Just wanted to give a status update.
My original 5d3 is being reoplaced by a new one ( something was offi in the mirror box.
I have these few options.
Get another 5d3 for backup and be able to change lenses less.
Get the 16-35 and a 6d
Get the 16-35 and a 70d body and 100mm macro.
Leaning toward the 5d but unsure if there is a better way to spend $3k. I recently added a flash, got my 85mm 1.2 so really lens wise I only want a 16-35, 100l macro, 70-300l for trips and daylight shooting
Any suggestions.
My original 5d3 is being reoplaced by a new one ( something was offi in the mirror box.
I have these few options.
Get another 5d3 for backup and be able to change lenses less.
Get the 16-35 and a 6d
Get the 16-35 and a 70d body and 100mm macro.
Leaning toward the 5d but unsure if there is a better way to spend $3k. I recently added a flash, got my 85mm 1.2 so really lens wise I only want a 16-35, 100l macro, 70-300l for trips and daylight shooting
Any suggestions.
Upvote
0
C
chilledXpress
Guest
I have 2 5D3's and a 1DX... honestly I use the 5D3's the majority of the time. I think they are a little more versatile for the events I shoot, mainly weddings and charity events. I checked your SmugMug profile it looks as if you like portraiture... the 5D3 is an outstanding portrait body and having two with a 24-70II and 70-200II is just about perfect. Especially when you grab one or the other and don't have to think for a second which body is which.
Upvote
0
I have to say... This is one of the smartest discussions I've read on equipment in a while. God bless.... 
The 1DX is a damn fine camera. But for you purposes, it's just not necessary. It's like having a Ferrari as a daily driver. Sure it's great. But wouldn't a small SUV be 10x better except for the bing-quality?
And for a second body... Unless you're shooting lots of paid gigs. It's just not necessary. And when you do a paid gig, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to rent for a few days than have an expensive 2nd body sitting around for a year or two. Even for $1500, you can rent a camera for THREE months at least. So figure that... If your rental fees are approaching the cost of owning, then buying is probably a better deal. That's what I do with lenses...
And if you must buy something, then maybe a lens? At least you won't lose money on a quality lens over the short term.
The 1DX is a damn fine camera. But for you purposes, it's just not necessary. It's like having a Ferrari as a daily driver. Sure it's great. But wouldn't a small SUV be 10x better except for the bing-quality?
And for a second body... Unless you're shooting lots of paid gigs. It's just not necessary. And when you do a paid gig, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to rent for a few days than have an expensive 2nd body sitting around for a year or two. Even for $1500, you can rent a camera for THREE months at least. So figure that... If your rental fees are approaching the cost of owning, then buying is probably a better deal. That's what I do with lenses...
And if you must buy something, then maybe a lens? At least you won't lose money on a quality lens over the short term.
Upvote
0
chilledXpress said:Dylan777 said:+1...and when there is almost no light, 35mm Sigma + 85L is also a deadly combo
Nice combo... I usually swap out the 24-70II for the 50L and go low profile with the 135L for a fast-ish tele. I love the AF on the 135 better than my 85L.
I had the 135 and if it had IS would have kept it but felt my 70-200 was a better option. I really hope canon or sigma launch one soon.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
I wouldn't suggest this option for two reasons: the 6d...
* ...has a different usability than your 5d, so blind switching will be difficult (other than 60d & 6d)
* ... af isn't designed for the f2.8 of the 16-35L - esp. with ultra-wide focus & recompose is difficult, and the outer points or the 6d are disappointing even with the 17-40L.
Upvote
0
A
And-Rew
Guest
For me, the option was always the same from the outset.
As much as i love the 1Dx - i would always go with the 2 x 5D III bodies and my reason is simple...
Things can go wrong, and often do at the most inconvenient of times. For me it was a fashion shoot up London with my trusty 5D2 - 29 exposures in the A/F screen lost a lug and fell off. As much as i enjoy the art of working manually - i was unable to perfect the art of using the 5D2 as a pinhole camera for a whole day. :'(
The AF screen cost £20 to replace - needless to say i bought 2 of them - a short while later when i could afford it, i bought a second 5D2 body. At the time i could have traded the first 5D2 in for a 1D4 or 1Ds3 for not much more than the cost of the 2nd 5D2's but that redundancy is just toooo important to forego.
For me that is the important thing with photography - redundancy. you've paid all that money for lovely kit, you've learned to use it to extremity and perfected your style. You have a day off work and undertake a shoot - which often costs money - and the whole shoot falls apart 30 minutes in do to a failure of kit - often costing not a lot as well
As much as i love the 1Dx - i would always go with the 2 x 5D III bodies and my reason is simple...
Things can go wrong, and often do at the most inconvenient of times. For me it was a fashion shoot up London with my trusty 5D2 - 29 exposures in the A/F screen lost a lug and fell off. As much as i enjoy the art of working manually - i was unable to perfect the art of using the 5D2 as a pinhole camera for a whole day. :'(
The AF screen cost £20 to replace - needless to say i bought 2 of them - a short while later when i could afford it, i bought a second 5D2 body. At the time i could have traded the first 5D2 in for a 1D4 or 1Ds3 for not much more than the cost of the 2nd 5D2's but that redundancy is just toooo important to forego.
For me that is the important thing with photography - redundancy. you've paid all that money for lovely kit, you've learned to use it to extremity and perfected your style. You have a day off work and undertake a shoot - which often costs money - and the whole shoot falls apart 30 minutes in do to a failure of kit - often costing not a lot as well
Upvote
0
If you want a backup body, and you can afford it, I always suggest the SAME body as your main one. This way you have one system, and can switch seamlessly. I used to have 1Dx/1D4 combo, but the systems were different enough that I saved up, sold the 1D4, and got another 1Dx. It was well worth it because now I can just switch cameras instantly and start shooting.
For your question, I suggest another 5D3 if you need a 2nd body. If you don't need the second body really, then I wouldn't spend your hard-earned money.
For your question, I suggest another 5D3 if you need a 2nd body. If you don't need the second body really, then I wouldn't spend your hard-earned money.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
Coming from a two body camera owner....A second body is a second camera...."Backup" helps justify a second though...
Upvote
0
Thanks for all the advice. I was out this weekend and had to rush for some portraits and wished i could just grab another body with say a prime and have been shooting with a standard zoom. Its not an always need but would have been nice. This was not a paid gig. Though lenses woukd be nice I feel like you can are limited with just one body. Does that sound crazy. I really don't need any of my gear but as an enthusiast exploring paid gigs I would like to build up either a second camera or more lenses.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
