? Upgrades? DSLR-Body 1DMk4 vs 5DMk3 vs 1Dx?(Category:EOS Digital SLR Bodies)

[ZoeEnPhos]

? Upgrades? DSLR-Body 1DMk4 vs 5DMk3 vs 1Dx?(Category:EOS Digital SLR Bodies)

To all Forum readers/contributors and Photographers here!

Please could anyone have some good advice to me!
I do have some serious plans to do one upgrade of my set of DSLR-Bodies!

But I feel quite unsure to make the very best and balanced decision if maybe choose the older (there are some mint-condition for sale now) of the 1DMk4 or go all for the new version of 5DMk3 or maybe going all the way to the newest 1Dx?

Main subjects are:

* Macro (flowers in nature)
* Landscape/skyscape
* Birds also BIF and animals
* Low-light-conditions in the nature with flowers, birds, landscapes

(I already have some good primes and they are mainly only the so called Canon "L"-lenses which I use together with my 7D and 5DMk2.)

But I do also have additional plan to purchase either the new version of EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II or maybe rather (when using full frame) the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM II also wish to upgrade my EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Version I to the version II because of the better MFD and 4-step IS and two flourite-elements making it very good with my Extenders EF 1.4x III /2x III.

I prefer hand held wildlife photography and walking around in every kind of environment in the nature and I still do not even have a monopod but yes I do have sturdy tripods (Gitzo systematic 6xCarbon) but no Gimbal head yet for the tele lenses.

That is me in a nutshell right now.

Thanks for spontaneous thoughts and if you have time and opportunity for your valued advice!

Best Wishes!

Charl

[HDNitehawk]

Charl

What you enjoy doing is so broad that each camera would excel at some points over the other.
I think in general if you want one all purpose body the 1D X would be the way for you to go.
The 5D III with more mp than the others would probably win in true macro and landscape/cityskape.
The 1D IV would be good with its 1.3 crop for wildlife but not landscapes, it does do fairly well with macro. You would want this camera over the 5D III for wildlife. The faster frame rate of the 1D IV will help with BIF.
The 1D X would do all well and give you low light high ISO advantages the other two do not offer.

Good Luck

[neuroanatomist]

I agree with Rick - the best 'compromise' (in the sense of uses, not quality) is the 1D X. The one downside is the 'loss' of the 1.3x crop of the 1DIV - but, some recent comparisions posted by Richard Lane of the 1DIV+500L II vs. 1D X+500L II+1.4xIII (a couple of pages of them!) show that you have to look really hard to see a difference in IQ there, and even when there is a difference, it can go either way.

Also, since you mention both the 500 II and the 600 II, I am fairly certain that the 1D X + 600 II would beat the 1DIV + 500 II. Not sure if you've used the 500 MkI, but the new 600 II weighs about the same as the original 500/4 IS, and I can tell you that for me, at least, the 1D X + 600 II combo can be handheld (I do have a nice RRS tripod and gimbal, but the shots below are handheld, click for larger).



I think for the uses you indicate, assuming you can afford a long enough lens for birds/wildlife on FF, the 1D X is the way to go. In particular, the high ISO performance is stellar. I notice you have the 7D and 5DII, and I did as well. Everyone's tolerance for image noise is different, but personally, I preferred to keep my 5DII at ISO 3200 or lower (6400 for 'emergencies'), and my 7D at ISO 1600 or lower (although before the v2 firmware I ended up at 3200 a lot with Auto ISO). With the 1D X, I find that ISO 12800 works as my normal upper limit, with ISO 25600 for 'emergencies'. Both shots above are ISO 6400, and this one is ISO 12800:



Good luck with your decision!

--John

[HDNitehawk]

Also, since you mention both the 500 II and the 600 II, I am fairly certain that the 1D X + 600 II would beat the 1DIV + 500 II.

Well, not if the subject were elk several thousand feet up the side of a mountain. But for the occasional bird in the local park trail at sunset I would go for that.

[neuroanatomist]

Well, not if the subject were elk several thousand feet up the side of a mountain.

It's only a 2 pound difference - just leave the water bottle at the base of the mountain, same total weight and avoids the need for a pit stop on the way back down.

[HDNitehawk]

It's only a 2 pound difference - just leave the water bottle at the base of the mountain, same total weight and avoids the need for a pit stop on the way back down.

That is good idea. The improved image quality and low light performance would really help. Especially when I pass out from dehydration and end up spending the night on top of the mountain. High ISO is real important in the dark.

I had this worked out in the past. Unfortunately, my youngest son graduated high school last year. In a few months he will be moving out. I have lost all of my pack mules.