Why should you choose the 1d over the 5d

Sorry meaning the 1dx ii vs the 5d mark iv
In that case there is not as big a difference as there is between the 1Dx and 5D3.

The big advantage for sports with the 1Dx2 over the 5D4 is the high FPS, it's build and outstanding AWB. 5D4 AF is better than the 1Dx but not as good as the 1Dx2. 5D4, AWB indoors is very good. Otherwise there is not a lot to choose between them.

Buy extra batteries if you go for the 5D4. The 5D4 and 1Dx2 AF are significantly better than the 7D2. Both will AF is far darker conditions than anything else from Canon.

--
Blake in Vancouver
Canon and Zeiss Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows stuff.
 
Last edited:
...not to buy a Canon 1DXII: Price and weight.

If neither of these is a factor to you, get yourself one ASAP.

You won't believe what a perfect photography device it is.

PK
 
AF and fps for sports are key. 7 fps is not that fast when I shoot volleyball indoors.
 
Sorry meaning the 1dx ii vs the 5d mark iv
More info I guess to gauge your answers on. I shoot sports mostly currently w/ a 7dii. I'm looking for an upgrade to get better results with increased ISO due to lower lighting of late games and gyms. Looking at the spec comparison sheet the 5dmark iv looks like it comes out ahead except in ISO range. So I guess I'm wondering is the new 1dxii worth the cost over the 5div. I don't want to buy the 5 and to be disappointed.
As others have said, the 1DXii is just a better sports camera in so many ways. The original 1DX is no slouch either, and you can get a refurbed 1DX for $3999 direct from Canon with a 1 year factory warranty. This is only a couple $ more than a 5D IV + grip. That would be my recommendation.

You don't have any decent sports lenses listed in your signature but then again you don't have the 7dii listed. The EF 70-200 f/2.8 is a must as far as I'm concerned. Its the go to sports lens unless you are only shooting field sports, and even then its good to keep on a 2nd body.

John
with the new 70-300 II and 100-400 II lenses out, the 70-200 range is no longer a rational lens to have any more due to its short reach, IMHO. when i lost my 70-200 f4.0IS and wanted to replace it, i thought about its replacement a long time and then i opted for 100-400 II, i couldn't be more happy about my decision. the weight is not that different among them, either ;-)
 
Not sure where that info goes, but I own a 70-200 and 120-300 2.8 already both work well for sports
 
with the new 70-300 II and 100-400 II lenses out, the 70-200 range is no longer a rational lens to have any more due to its short reach, IMHO. when i lost my 70-200 f4.0IS and wanted to replace it, i thought about its replacement a long time and then i opted for 100-400 II, i couldn't be more happy about my decision. the weight is not that different among them, either ;-)
I don't see what experience you have that makes you think a 70-300 and 100-400 is going to be compared to a 70-200 for the same thing by people who know what they're doing.

I do not pack for the day and at the last minute substitute a 70-200/2.8 with a 100-400/4-5.6 for the hell of it. Do you got to the zoo a lot?

--
"Boo hoo! If I don't like you I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I bet you'll be devastated"
 
Last edited:
with the new 70-300 II and 100-400 II lenses out, the 70-200 range is no longer a rational lens to have any more due to its short reach, IMHO. when i lost my 70-200 f4.0IS and wanted to replace it, i thought about its replacement a long time and then i opted for 100-400 II, i couldn't be more happy about my decision. the weight is not that different among them, either ;-)
I don't see what experience you have that makes you think a 70-300 and 100-400 is going to be compared to a 70-200 for the same thing by people who know what they're doing.

I do not pack for the day and at the last minute substitute a 70-200/2.8 with a 100-400/4-5.6 for the hell of it. Do you got to the zoo a lot?
 
For wildlife noise is an advantage as I have some great second shots as the noise set them to alert! For sports who cares....
 
I see I was not clear. I meant to refer to the sound of the shutter/mirror.
 
Both bodies have their strengths, and you won't be disappointed with either for sports. You can get a new 1D C body at B&H right now for $3,999. It's basically the 1dx (original, not the Mark II) with improved thermals and firmware.

I love the 5D IV for the big MP, and the 1Dx II for it's speed and ability to get the shot. Both have great AF.
 
If you wanted to purchase one of these which would it be? I mostly shot sports and am looking to upgrade to a full frame. Looking at most of their respective stats, I just don't see the reasoning in the 1d. So I come to you to let me know what I'm missing for just looking at the stats.
Wait until July..... shhhhhhh ;)
 
The 1DXII locks focus in low light better then the 5DIV, possibly better then any camera I have used. You never have to wait on the camera! I often use it in single shot mode, but you can still fire it receptively at very decisive moments.

For low light indoors, gymnasiums, flicker control is great. Great fast glass is a must. I used to shoot indoor sports with a 1DIIn and 200 1.8, which was the only camera lens combo that could lock focus and shoot clean shots in poor fluorescent light.

I shoot side by side with my partner who shoots a D5. No difference in keepers. ITR is not as good, but technique makes them equal. I often turn off ITR.

I have a 1D C as back-up, the same as the 1DX in terms of stills performance. Not as much DR, AF points... as the 1DXII.

John
 
Last edited:
If you wanted to purchase one of these which would it be? I mostly shot sports and am looking to upgrade to a full frame. Looking at most of their respective stats, I just don't see the reasoning in the 1d. So I come to you to let me know what I'm missing for just looking at the stats.
if the main point of your question is body ergonomics, sealing against rain, comfort to hold, and other features, there is no comparison between the 2...that is why the 1D bodies are considered "Pro" bodies! i have both (2 1D bodies) and i find a considerable difference between the 2 ;-)
1d2 shutter lasts twice as long if not more

5d4 has too many MP for sports and buffer fills up really fast!!! This aspect has not been mentioned previously.

1dx2 is the king of autofocus whereas 5d4 couldn't keep up with even the 1dx.

noise....

1dx2 for pro sports. Even 1dx is better than 5d4 in this area.
 
1d2 shutter lasts twice as long if not more
5d4 has too many MP for sports and buffer fills up really fast!!! This aspect has not been mentioned previously.

1dx2 is the king of autofocus whereas 5d4 couldn't keep up with even the 1dx.
You know this how? You only have the 1Dx of the three bodies..

I have and had all three cameras. (sold 1Dx) The 5D4 cannot keep up with the 12fps and buffer, but in every other respect its AF is superior to the 1Dx.

--
Blake in Vancouver
Canon and Zeiss Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows stuff.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested in hearing more about your experience. There are not many decent comparisons between 5d4 and 1dx out there
 
Sorry meaning the 1dx ii vs the 5d mark iv
You could ask why most sport PJs at side of NFL chose 1Dx II over 5D IV? ;-)



canonsuperbowl-728x403.jpg




--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top