How to spend $3000 now or keep saving?

[sb in ak]

Another vote for the 5D3. Easy to get lost in the mess of numbers and graphs on the internet to the point of paralysis by analysis. The Exmor sensors are better at lower ISOs but you're going to have that baby cranked up for stage events. It's an excellent camera for those sorts of things and an extremely versatile piece of equipment in general.

You could also look at the 6D. Slightly better ISO performance than the 5D3 and an amazing centerpoint for low light, though the rest of the AF points are weak and limited in their range.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

5D3. The 1DX is better at the top-top end. But is it REALLY necessary? I can do low-light events with my 5D2. I struggle with it's ISO performance. The 5D3 is a whole other league. I've seen guys shoot at 100k ISO and images look fabulous. I'm sure there is post involved. But I couldn't tell. Shows in which I need a flash, I see guys next to me with 5D3s without a flash. Jealous.

I shoot manual so AF doesn't matter all that much. But if I could score a 5D3 for about $2k, I'd seriously consider selling my 5D2.

 

[dgatwood]

I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.

This. I used to get mostly great photos of plays even with my relatively ancient XTi. In my experience, it isn't the camera that makes or breaks stage photos, but rather whether you shoot in RAW and whether you know how to use the camera in full manual mode so that your shots aren't consistently blown out by the automatic exposure thinking it needs to bring out the details of the black floor rather than the bright highlights that just happen to be people's faces.

I think a 6D would do a stunning job, and I'd be surprised if the better autofocus of a 5Dmk3 or a 1DX would make much difference in such a controlled environment. Just my $0.02.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.

This. I used to get mostly great photos of plays even with my relatively ancient XTi. In my experience, it isn't the camera that makes or breaks stage photos, but rather whether you shoot in RAW and whether you know how to use the camera in full manual mode so that your shots aren't consistently blown out by the automatic exposure thinking it needs to bring out the details of the black floor rather than the bright highlights that just happen to be people's faces.

I think a 6D would do a stunning job, and I'd be surprised if the better autofocus of a 5Dmk3 or a 1DX would make much difference in such a controlled environment. Just my $0.02.

Great explanation. I've always shot RAW and with my first couple of shoots, also included JPG. But since, only RAW. And it makes a HUGE difference saving images in post processing.

 

[MovingViolations]

My take is wait long enough to save enough for a 5D MIII with a Canon 50mm 1.4 and an 85 f1.8 to start if you are upfront of the auditoriums. Better yet rent this combo and see were it will take you before biting anyone's propaganda. Canon wins for me over any Sony offering. I don't see the Return on an investment with the 1DX or Nikon D4. Best possible sharp and fast to focus glass will cost the same on any camera that will perform in low light. I've used a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM for shooting from the back of a dark auditorium using a monopod and by keeping prints small got buy with it. For me monopods beat IS. The new 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM is showing much better DXOMark scores. So if you need to be in the back that might be the #1 choice. Only you can find out for sure by trying it out. That is a $5000 combo or there about. A fixed 200mm f2.0 is costly and not flexible like the new 70-200 is. If you are going to always be up front or in the back that simplifies lens selection. Be sure to do your home work on the focus speed of any lens. The 85mm f1.2 is a no no for fast focus requirements. Great for what it is intended for though. If you shoot from the back you will get better images due to the way the tele creates the image. Ears start to look much better in balance with the nose after 135 mm or so. The Canon 100mm f2.0 seems to be another possibility depending on distance and width of the stage. There is also a great 135mm L series fast lens for great image quality in low light. One day you might find yourself shooting two bodies with two primes. There are shoulder harnesses for such. There is a reason photo journalists have 2-3 bodies strapped to them. No time to change a lens. You have a lot of research, trial and error ahead of yourself to get it right. Best wishes and happy shooting.

 

[scottkinfw]

Dick,

I think that your statement is a bit over-reaching. Better don some asbestos. I always want more/better for less, but I can't agree with your statement.

I am sure others will put it more strongly.

Scott

Canon's sensors are embarrassing compared to Sony's. I can't think of one thing that is better if you get a Canon sensor. Why not get the A7R? I might sell my 5D3 to buy something like that. I guess focusing speed and fps are the main advantages of 5D3/1DX in this comparison. Maybe they focus better in the kind of events you mentioned.

 

[NWPhil]

I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.

+1

 

[JohnUSA]

My vote... 5D3... the most versatile all around camera. Focus has been super accurate in lowlight situations ( wedding receptions/cocktail hour ) for me.

Buy a refurbished 5D3 via Canon's site and take 10% off if trading-in a broken P&S Canon. That's what I did and my 5D3 only had a shutter count of 5. It's been rock solid through 10,000+ images so far.

 

[Zen]

I´m no expert on the Sony, but for low light stage events ... I would be surprised if the AF on the Sony is anywhere near the 5DIII/1DX. And what happens to DR and all the rest of it in high ISO territory ...

I´m OK with people expressing their views in black and white, but to call the 5DIII/1DX sensors an embarrassment compared to Sony is to stretch the fact, especially in low light situations. If you add all the rest you need to make good images, I believe Sony is left in the dust.

Me too! I'd put my 5D3 against any Sony product any time. It's not only the sensor that makes an image. The glass and the processor have something to do with it too.

Zen

 

[David_in_Seattle]

My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. I would like a camera for low light stage events.

Based on your tagline "1D3 with 70-200 IS f/2.8L, 5D2 with 24-70 f/2.8L" I assume you do not own/use other lenses at the moment. I use to shoot with a 5Dmk2 and now with a 5dmk3. In my opinion the mk3 is about 1 - 1.5 stops better in high iso noise and dynamic range vs the mk2 in low light situations. The mk3's AF is drastically better for every scenario…but since your fastest lens is f2.8, I would actually recommend buying a few fast primes and just use the center AF point on your mk2 for focusing. The 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, and 50 f1.2 work wonders in low light scenarios. Also, don't forget that a canon speedlite can help with your AF issues in lowlight.

 

[jdramirez]

I'd say jump into the pool. Gear devalues over time, bodies more so than lenses... but if you get a 6d for 1500 now and a 50 f1.2, that would go a long way in getting you close to where you want to be. Then when the time comes, sell the 6d, decide on the lens... it can be cheaper than a rental.

When I got my Canon xs, I paid about 400 plus two lenses. Two years later I sold all of the great for what I originally paid. Fast forward to my 60d and after two years I lost 150-200 in value... still pretty cheap for a two year rental.

 

[jdramirez]

Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.

 

[rs]

Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.

+1

If 135mm is a regularly required focal length and a wide spread of AF points isn't needed, the 6D/135L system would be hard to beat in low light.

 

[sama]

My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. I would like a camera for low light stage events.

Canon 5D3 now selling US$2,549 on EBay - bigvalueinc

 

[jdramirez]

Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.

+1

If 135mm is a regularly required focal length and a wide spread of AF points isn't needed, the 6D/135L system would be hard to beat in low light.

The 1DX is a great body, but you can achieve comparable results at a fraction of the price. Another guy mentioned it before, but I thought it was interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJqHPHLExo

pictures of herons catching fish? Sometimes you don't need the best to capture mundane...

 

[CarlTN]

Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.

+1

If 135mm is a regularly required focal length and a wide spread of AF points isn't needed, the 6D/135L system would be hard to beat in low light.

The 1DX is a great body, but you can achieve comparable results at a fraction of the price. Another guy mentioned it before, but I thought it was interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJqHPHLExo

pictures of herons catching fish? Sometimes you don't need the best to capture mundane...

That's a funny clip! Reminds me of some people on here, only they aren't funny ...

 

[jdramirez]

Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.

+1

If 135mm is a regularly required focal length and a wide spread of AF points isn't needed, the 6D/135L system would be hard to beat in low light.

The 1DX is a great body, but you can achieve comparable results at a fraction of the price. Another guy mentioned it before, but I thought it was interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJqHPHLExo

pictures of herons catching fish? Sometimes you don't need the best to capture mundane...

Someone here introduced me to that clip but it seems apropos. Spending other people's money is so easy. Sometimes a t1i will suffice for someone's photographic ventures... plus a good lens of course.

That's a funny clip! Reminds me of some people on here, only they aren't funny ...

 

[alexanderferdinand]

I would go for the fast glass(es) first.
One up to two stops faster.
You will need them anyway for low light.
Then you can decide, if you need/want a newer body too.