I want to get into photography... macro... astro... wildlife/nature... local sports but for personal not business. Want something that also has decent weather sealing so I don't have to be concerned about getting caught out in a storm. Looking at some videos online showing some of the amazing pictures/video coming out of the 1D X Mark III... even in extreme low light just blows my mind. But then so does the price for just the body.
Is there such a thing as a consumer level camera that can perform to that kind of level minus some of the bells and whistles? Like slower shutter speed etc? If so what would you suggest and what lenses? My preference would be Canon but open to other suggestions. I only mention Canon because it seems a lot of things I have been reading and videos I watch tend to mention how great the autofocus is on most models in say comparison to complaints about Nikon and the not so great autofocus.
If you could buy a 1D X III for a fraction of the price, how many 1D X III's would Canon sell? Not many. However, the good news are that these top end sports/PJ cameras are well into the field of diminishing returns, that is, that you can buy cameras with most, but not all, of the performance for a fraction of the price. What you'll need to give up is some combination of robustness, frame rate, viewing and AF capability, and low light performance, but not all. In return you might gain what is called 'reach' - if you think that the 1D X III is expensive, you haven't yet looked at the lenses you'll need to bring distant subjects in close.
Also, remember that the reason so many 1D X III images look so good is that they were taken by really good photographers and processed and edited by top notch picture editors. Those same people using 'consumer' cameras would probably get the same quality of results. A poor photographer using a 1D X III will still produce rubbish, the camera isn't going to come to the rescue. So, the lesson is, if you become a really good photographer, most cameras will produce really good results. Also, if you're getting into photography, you're probably better off honing your skills on something simpler than the top-end models.
The 1D series also has genuine all-metal build, which you won't find in any other DSLR apart from the top-end Nikons (D5, D6, D850), so go cheaper and you'll lose that.
So, what else you might give up.
i) Sensor size. This will compromise low light performance, but in exchange you'll gain reach. The only camera with AF capability is the same ballpark is the Nikon D500. You'll also lose a little in terms of frame rate, topping out at 10FPS.
ii) Frame rate. The lower end FF cameras can take photos every bit as good as the 1D X III, but won't have the same frame rate and often not the same AF performance. You could get a Canon 5D IV, which has the similar AF performance, more resolution but a lower frame rate. Over the Nikon side of the pond you have the Nikon D780, which is a lower price camera, but good AF and reasonable frame rate.
iii) The SLR viewfinder. Your other option is to go mirrorless. Whether giving up the SLR viewfinder is a problem is controversial. For myself, I find that the SLR viewfinder is much better for action and moving subjects, the EVF is better for most other stuff. It might work out differently for you. Once you go mirrorless, there are loads of cameras with good frame rates, high quality and at often lower prices than DSLRs with that performance. Again, you need to make the sensor size choice. For FF sensors you can scan the Sony, Nikon and Canon R ranges, all of which have cameras which will come close to a 1 D X III. Once you look at smaller sensors, making the same trade as mentioned above, you could look at Fujifilm and micro Four Thirds. In the latter, you'll find cameras which can exceed the 1D X III frame rate, but don't have quite the same AF performance, at least in some aspects.
