-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How many people buy the best equipment they can afford?
- Thread starter jhendrix
- Start date
I own both the 5DIII and the 1DX, and to be honest, it's the 5DIII that I end up bringing to my son's soccer and baseball games. I really want you to consider just how close these two cameras are before pulling retirement funds in order to pay for what might be hair-splitting differences. In the end, I would say that the greatest difference will be in the lenses of choice anyway. For example, the 5DIII+70-200 f2.8 II > 1DX+70-200 f4 II in most regards, with the exception of burst rate. That 12fps on the 1DX can quickly become overkill too. There's really not too much else to it.
Last edited:
Hi Jhendrix, I have two suggestions: 1. Get/use a monopod w/ L bracket on camera and let your feet be part of the zoom (follow the action)..Sports photo equip/lens are very expensive. 2. Have you considered a good bridge type camera? I glanced at the dpreview of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ 100 w/ 1'' sensor, 25-400mm equiv (16X) lens. DP awarded its "Gold Award" with its review. In my experience, Good glass is the best up grade to any camera system ( DSLRs come and go, but good glass last more than several camera body generations). My current camera bodies are not the current newest bodies (D60, D200, D3000 ( I like that CCD sensor-another story), 5D, 5Dll) but I have the best/fastest glass I can afford and it works for me.. Good shooting to you on what ever you decide to go with.
"Afford" is a flexible concept. I mean, I think most of us could technically afford digital medium format (anyone who has a house or a decent car can afford one), but do we buy those cameras? Not often. As with more things in life, there is a cost/benefit analysis. Enthusiast/prosumer full frame 35mm digital is a good balance of quality and cost for me. I personally wouldn't buy any camera using retirement savings (unless I were retired). If you're interested in a sports camera and the 5D3/D810/D610 isn't fast enough, and the 1DX doesn't pass your cost/benefit analysis, keep in mind that a new high speed Nikon is rumored to be released soon. In addition, the 7D Mark II is due to be announced at Photokina this year (if the rumors are true). Those should both be very fast but also reasonably priced cameras.
Last edited:
Not a silly question but not easy to answer in a way that might be all that helpful. I often buy the best I can afford or what I consider to be the best I can afford. This has led me to owning far better gear (especially lenses) than my skills can really justify but I don't mind that.
If you really can decide you need a pro 1DX and nothing else will do, the choice is simple and the cost is justified. It's just a matter of how far you want to agonise over whether you really need to spend that kind of cash and how much financial damage the purchase will do to your future retirement resources.
You have presented a dichotomy viz having the 1DX will presumably give you "fantastic" shots vs settling for a lesser camera like the 7D which gives you "just OK" shots. But is it that simple? Sure a pro sports shooter will use a 1DX because it's a requirement to get the job done. However, would your daughter look back on those shots years from now, when she will doubtless have plenty of other things to think about, and really see the difference much less care?
Only you and she can answer that, of course. IMHO, unless she's planning a career in professional football, I doubt it would matter that much to her. What will count is that Dad was there to preserve those moments rather than the shots were world class photography. But if, after due consideration, it does matter AND if you feel you can develop skills enough to get the best out of the 1DX then, go for it.
I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but could you not rent the 1DX and other bodies to compare and try them out to see if one will make the difference you're looking for?
Just my 10 cents.
Trevor
Last edited:
bhollis
Veteran Member
I buy the best equipment that I can reasonably afford and that I can reasonably justify.
So, although I could afford a 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, I opted instead for the f/4L IS. Why? Because I don't need f/2.8 for the kind of shooting I do with this lens, and I didn't want the additional weight and bulk. But when it came to the 24-70 f/2.8L II, I went ahead and paid the premium price because I felt this lens was a good fit for me.
Similarly, although I could probably afford a 1DX (although it would be a stretch and my wife would probably leave me), I simply don't need its additional features (primarily higher burst rate) for the kind of shooting I do. And, once again, I didn't want the additional weight and bulk. So I got the 5D3.
If I were you, I'd wait another month and see if the rumors of a 7D2 come true. Might be just what you're looking for.
Last edited:
Albert Silver
Veteran Member
Myeah, I'm not sure if they will let him run around on the the soccer field while they play.
Thank you for your comment and thanks to everyone else who has commented.
This is not a purchase I will be making next week.
Rock and Rollei
Veteran Member
It depends on how you define "best". In my case, it's very unlikelly to be a 1Dx, simply because I wouldn't carry the thing as much; for the same reason, the f4 L lenses are better for my purposes than the f2.8 ones. I buy what I feel best suits my needs - it can be cheap kit or expensive kit, but given the choice of two items that will do the job within my budget and size criteria, I'll generally get the better-performing one.
gavin
Veteran Member
I do but also now I need to find a reason to upgrade. I am not convinced that a better 24-70L makes my photos better ;-)
tko
Veteran Member
Memories are memories, no matter how much noise and motion blur. I've taken thousands of family photos. Very few are technical wonders, very few have ever seen them. When I look back 10 years later, I don't care about the image quality, the memories still return.
Taking money out of retirement sounds crazy, almost like you're using your daughter to fuel GAS. What about her college? Her 1st car?
So, take off the teleconverter. Be patient and get good photos in the 1st half when she comes close by the sidelines. EVERY photo won't be great, but some will, and you'll have saved enough for a down payment on a car.
Taking money out of retirement sounds crazy, almost like you're using your daughter to fuel GAS. What about her college? Her 1st car?
So, take off the teleconverter. Be patient and get good photos in the 1st half when she comes close by the sidelines. EVERY photo won't be great, but some will, and you'll have saved enough for a down payment on a car.
n3eg
Veteran Member
I set a goal and save up for it. Usually when I'm close the prices drop and the two meet a little early. I've found over the years that rushing a purchase almost always winds up in disappointment or a warranty return.
You can only decide what you can afford and what IQ means to you.
so beg steal borrow or rent a 1dx and then you will know.
i recently decided I could afford a 1dx, about a month ago, and 6,000 photos later I am frankly gobsmacked by the quality in every area - but you have to complete the package with the very best lenses....
I now view my 5d3 as a toy and a light alternative...
and now just to wind you up.... I recently hired a 500f4isii for my 1dx wildlife shots and suddenly realised that my throwaway not sharp enough shots were all as sharp as my 5d3 70-200isii shots !!!
so beg steal borrow or rent a 1dx and then you will know.
i recently decided I could afford a 1dx, about a month ago, and 6,000 photos later I am frankly gobsmacked by the quality in every area - but you have to complete the package with the very best lenses....
I now view my 5d3 as a toy and a light alternative...
and now just to wind you up.... I recently hired a 500f4isii for my 1dx wildlife shots and suddenly realised that my throwaway not sharp enough shots were all as sharp as my 5d3 70-200isii shots !!!
phototeacher
Veteran Member
paulbysea
Leading Member
I think a 5D3 would be the better choice too. I moved from the 7D to 5D3 and was amazed by the low light performance, speed of focusing etc. Go for a 5D3 and get better lenses when you can afford it. I would not take money out of your pension investments, you could seriously regret it latter on.
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
I buy the highest quality tool to accomplish my purpose. Sometimes, that's mid-level gear. I see no point in the bulk of the 85/1.4G, for instance, when the 85/1.8G often exceeds my expectations.
bhollis
Veteran Member
Rather than shooting at high ISOs, have you considered losing the 1.4x TC, shooting at half the ISO you needed with the TC, and cropping? Sure you're going to lose IQ from cropping, but when you compare that with the loss in IQ from the TC together with the additional loss in IQ from the higher ISO, you might just be better off shooting without the TC.
Just a thought . . .
Last edited:
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
As the title says, a small problem, not a big one, but something to be addressed all the same:
The 7D is an APS-C camera, where both the 1DX and 5DIII are full-frame. (duh.) But you're already using a 1.4x TC with the terrific 70-200 f2.8 L IS, by which I presume you need the reach. On the 7D, you're essentially getting a 155-450 mm equivalent reach, compared to 100-280 mm on full frame. That's a HUGE difference. And even considering the extra pixels on the 5DIII, you're still looking at doing a LOT of cropping.
The 1D Mark IV was mentioned by a couple of posters. With that model, Canon made it's best APS-H sensor to date. And the 1.3x crop - a good compromise between full frame and the more extreme 1.6x crop of the 7D - provides a field of view equal to about 125-365. Of course, it's a 1D, which means awesome AF, rock solid construction, and speed that makes the 7D feel like a Pinto. The UI is very similar to your 7D, too. And the price won't cause you so much consternation. We don't hear a great deal about the 1DIV, I am guessing because 7D sales cut into it on the speed side while the 5D-series cut into it on the IQ side. But it's an amazing machine that will likely exceed your demands without exceeding your budget.
Best of luck
ps.
By the way, since this post discussed the issue of cropping, teleconverters, etc., it might be worth pointing out that the 70-200 EF 2.8 L IS is actually good enough to sustain a 2x TC without a signficant hit in optical quality. Speed MAY be an issue, but a fast body with a huge battery pack and dual microprocessors like the 1DIV and 1DX can probably cope just fine, offering a field of view of 180-520mm and 140-400mm respectively... and at a constant f5.6 max aperture, too!
I've been thinking of changing cameras since last spring. For years I have used a 300 f4 IS as my field lens. When I purchased the 70-200, literally on a whim I said why not put the TC on it and see how that works. Already had the TC. Immediately I fell in love with the options the zoom lens provides with the TC.
Night games only came into play this past spring when my daughter started HS soccer.
All the years before the games were daytime.
I do think I will end up getting a Sigma 120-300 and use it with and without a TC.
TC in good light, without TC in bad light.
Camera selection now comes into play.
Since I have ruled out the 1DX, that leaves the 1D mkIV or the 5D mkIII.
The 1D provides a little more reach but the 5D has better ISO, at least that is what everyone is saying.
Is it more than one stop? When I compare DPR test images, it is hard for me to tell exactly what the difference is between the two.
I have had two 1D cameras and loved them both.
The high ISO 1D images seems to preserve detail better based on the DPR comparison chart.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum