Sell a spare 5d3 for 1dx?

[KKCFamilyman]

I am considering getting the 1dx for manual exp comp, better tracking, cleaner iso images 3200-6400, more customizable features with the second mn function button.

I shoot portraits, indoor sports, nature and gettigpng into wildlife. I can sell my second body and get the 1dx, sigma 50mm art, 1.4 extender iii.

Or

Get 16-35 2.8 ( for landscapes, large groups)
More backdrops, lighting, etc
300mm f4 is
1.4 ext iii
St-e3
Canon 8-15 f4
Grip

I have a $6k budget and on the fence on the 1dx or more completing my lens lineup.
Just looking for options. Is the 1dx worth the reasons I mentioned?

 

[BL]

I am considering getting the 1dx for manual exp comp, better tracking, cleaner iso images 3200-6400, more customizable features with the second mn function button.

Is this worth $3k+ to you? I think the biggest gain with this upgrade would be 12fps, but I get the impression these are more wants and nice-to-haves.

Get 16-35 2.8 ( for landscapes, large groups)
More backdrops, lighting, etc
300mm f4 is
1.4 ext iii
St-e3
Canon 8-15 f4
Grip

Based on what you like to shoot, I think you can do a lot more with the above. The 1DX and a 50 aren't going to let you do a whole lot more than what you're likely capable of shooting now.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am considering getting the 1dx for manual exp comp, better tracking, cleaner iso images 3200-6400, more customizable features with the second mn function button.

Is this worth $3k+ to you? I think the biggest gain with this upgrade would be 12fps, but I get the impression these are more wants and nice-to-haves.

Get 16-35 2.8 ( for landscapes, large groups)
More backdrops, lighting, etc
300mm f4 is
1.4 ext iii
St-e3
Canon 8-15 f4
Grip

Based on what you like to shoot, I think you can do a lot more with the above. The 1DX and a 50 aren't going to let you do a whole lot more than what you're likely capable of shooting now.

I think he just got a big white- 300 II, IIRC.

 

[Menace]

I have both these bodies and I'm very satisfied by both. In your case, I believe the 2nd option is better bang for your $6k.

"Get 16-35 2.8 ( for landscapes, large groups)
More backdrops, lighting, etc
300mm f4 is
1.4 ext iii
St-e3
Canon 8-15 f4
Grip"

 

[wickidwombat]

I have both these bodies and I'm very satisfied by both. In your case, I believe the 2nd option is better bang for your $6k.

"Get 16-35 2.8 ( for landscapes, large groups)
More backdrops, lighting, etc
300mm f4 is
1.4 ext iii
St-e3
Canon 8-15 f4
Grip"

he has the 70-300 L, I don't believe the 300 f4L offers enough to be worth buying in this case, its old its IS is old and clunky, still a good lens if you had nothing in that range anyway. The tamron 150-600 is a much better lens if your are chasing cheap reach with high IQ

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi KKCFamilyman.
You say you are getting in to wildlife. Unless the bonus of the 1DX are worth the extra cost I would head towards longer lenses, wildlife is addictive and you can never have too much reach available, yes you can have too much reach fixed to the camera at a particular time, but you have two bodies so grab the other with a shorter lens on it! I would certainly include a 2x III in your list since the 5D III update to enable f8 focus.

Just my tuppence.

Cheers Graham.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

I just want to clarify. If I sell my extra 5d3. That would fund at least the 1.4 ext iii, the sigma 50mm 1.4, and some extra backdrops, st-e3. I would just be giving up the uwa 16-35, 8-15 basically. I did also return my 300mm 2.8 since that is just too much. I would prefer to wait until canon answers with a revised 100-400. Events and portraits still remain my main focus.

 

[mackguyver]

I did also return my 300mm 2.8 since that is just too much. I would prefer to wait until canon answers with a revised 100-400. Events and portraits still remain my main focus.

If the 300 f/2.8 was too much, then I think the 1D X is probably going to be too much as well. The 1D features are really nice, but there are simple workarounds to most of them that can be done with the 5DIII. I think the 1D X is really for those needing one or more of the following: combat-ready build quality, 12 FPS (are you missing a lot of fast moving shots?), or are someone who uses big whites a lot and and would benefit from the higher votage drive for faster AF, or for someone who has pretty much all the other lenses and gear they need. If wildlife or fast motion things like sports aren't a priority, lenses and other gear are a better investment. The 5DIII is an amazing camera and the 1D X is better, but (other than the frame rate) not mind-blowingly better.

 

[Menace]

I did also return my 300mm 2.8 since that is just too much. I would prefer to wait until canon answers with a revised 100-400. Events and portraits still remain my main focus.

If the 300 f/2.8 was too much, then I think the 1D X is probably going to be too much as well. The 1D features are really nice, but there are simple workarounds to most of them that can be done with the 5DIII. I think the 1D X is really for those needing one or more of the following: combat-ready build quality, 12 FPS (are you missing a lot of fast moving shots?), or are someone who uses big whites a lot and and would benefit from the higher votage drive for faster AF, or for someone who has pretty much all the other lenses and gear they need. If wildlife or fast motion things like sports aren't a priority, lenses and other gear are a better investment. The 5DIII is an amazing camera and the 1D X is better, but (other than the frame rate) not mind-blowingly better.

Some very good points here mackguyver especially the higher voltage and the big whites.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

I did also return my 300mm 2.8 since that is just too much. I would prefer to wait until canon answers with a revised 100-400. Events and portraits still remain my main focus.

If the 300 f/2.8 was too much, then I think the 1D X is probably going to be too much as well. The 1D features are really nice, but there are simple workarounds to most of them that can be done with the 5DIII. I think the 1D X is really for those needing one or more of the following: combat-ready build quality, 12 FPS (are you missing a lot of fast moving shots?), or are someone who uses big whites a lot and and would benefit from the higher votage drive for faster AF, or for someone who has pretty much all the other lenses and gear they need. If wildlife or fast motion things like sports aren't a priority, lenses and other gear are a better investment. The 5DIII is an amazing camera and the 1D X is better, but (other than the frame rate) not mind-blowingly better.

Those are good points. I just want to clarify that the 300mm felt large and was so expensive for what it was. I felt if I was going that route I would save for the 400 with extenders for next season. Lately i have been doing some indoor water polo at a high school and wanted better files to work with in the iso 3200-8000 range. Also when I am chasing the kids I felt the multiple mn buttuns that can be configured on the fly sounded beneficial such as being in one shot and being able to prog my dof to aiservo and the other the all focus points if the kids/animal just moved to quick to react.

 

[Dylan777]

I did also return my 300mm 2.8 since that is just too much. I would prefer to wait until canon answers with a revised 100-400. Events and portraits still remain my main focus.

If the 300 f/2.8 was too much, then I think the 1D X is probably going to be too much as well. The 1D features are really nice, but there are simple workarounds to most of them that can be done with the 5DIII. I think the 1D X is really for those needing one or more of the following: combat-ready build quality, 12 FPS (are you missing a lot of fast moving shots?), or are someone who uses big whites a lot and and would benefit from the higher votage drive for faster AF, or for someone who has pretty much all the other lenses and gear they need. If wildlife or fast motion things like sports aren't a priority, lenses and other gear are a better investment. The 5DIII is an amazing camera and the 1D X is better, but (other than the frame rate) not mind-blowingly better.

Those are good points. I just want to clarify that the 300mm felt large and was so expensive for what it was. I felt if I was going that route I would save for the 400 with extenders for next season. Lately i have been doing some indoor water polo at a high school and wanted better files to work with in the iso 3200-8000 range. Also when I am chasing the kids I felt the multiple mn buttuns that can be configured on the fly sounded beneficial such as being in one shot and being able to prog my dof to aiservo and the other the all focus points if the kids/animal just moved to quick to react.

Keep in mind, the weight of 400mm f2.8 IS II is heavier, handheld becomes more challenge.

I bought the 300mm for indoor swimming, but like you said, it wasn't enough reach. In my case, it wasn't enough for close-up shots. I took a bite on 400mm f2.8 IS II and that was a right decision. With two bodies, it fits well with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II combo.

If you ever decide on 400mm f2.8 IS II, be prepare for decent tripod and gimbal head. I plan to add decent monopod to use with my Wimberley II in near future.

Just in case, this thread has great feedbacks from knowledgeable members: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20609.0