Funny you should ask.. I have done over 20 cricket matches this season so far.. I made the decsion to use the mkIV for the extra reach and could not see any advantage in using the 1dx...the mkIV worked perfect..
Last sunday I decided to swap cameras for the second inning as I wanted to try the dx multiple exposure options (I failed miserably wiht that BTW) and subsequently shot a fair bit of cricket wiht the 1dx for first time..
http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?album=CRICKET/2822/
The pictures cropped from full frame v the pictures with extra reach.. I think the 1dx slightly wins out..more pleased wiht them.. the files from 36 onwards are 1dx and all the ones before are mkIV
Please note anyone viewing my pics.. this is not a portfolio or a showcase for my work.. these are pictures for sale...
I have a very important match on sunday with a bowler about to break a massive wicket taking record.. I will use the 1dx for the extra frame rate to make sure I get the shots with a window of a few seconds.... rest of time for the amount of cricket pics I do.. probably go back to mkIV
If I had to make a choice.. the 1dx would win for everyhting.. but as I already did 200 thousand clicks.. let the mkIV be the workhorse for a bit.. thats my thoughts
addyonbit1 : one of the pro photogpahers i look up to has got himself a 7d for cricket.. even more reach and as above.. its a workhorse just for cricket only.. as mostly shot in decent light then the 7d is great for shooting all day..
addyonbit2 : I dont get on wiht extenders on the 400mm using a 1.4 you dont get every shot.. the ones you do get are great but not all are good quality.. without the extender all are good quality... I use the 1.4 with the 70-200 at junior small pitch football and thats about it.....really dont get on wiht extenders me.. never have