Canon EOS 1-DX or 5D MkIII

S

skybluekid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm wanting to upgrade from my D50, and want to know what your opinions are.

Should I upgrade to the 1-DX or will the 5D Mk III be good enough ?

In other words, other than price, what will the 1-DX give me that would be worth the price difference compared to the 5d Mk III.

I am aiming to try all types of photography from floodlit sports events to close up macro, and studio work.

Any input would be appreciated.

Cheers.
 
Muchine gun fps speed, spot metering dedicated to AF point, slightly better ISO and i think bettr AI Servo which will follow you subject across the frame. Someone please correct me if i am wrong.
 
If you can afford the 1DX then just go for it.

but

the fact that you even need to ask the differences between the 2 cameras tells me that the 1DX isn't for you-Yet.

It sounds like you are just looking at trying out lots of different kinds of photography.It might be better to try these things with the 50D you have and then see where that fails and then you will have a lot clearer picture what upgrade path to take.

Cheers
Gary
 
I have a Sigma f2.8 70-200mm for Sports photography & wildlife.

I have a Canon f1.4 50mm for indoor low light band photography.

The only problem I seem to have with 50D is the graininess at high ISO, and maybe the focussing is not as fast as I'd like, even with AI Servo.

I am new to this, but after a lot of research, I'm undecided mainly because would the difference between those two problems be huge between the cameras, and would I clearly see a huge difference in my end results.

Again thanks for the input :-)
 
I'd say with your chosen subjects I'd get the 5dIII and a shed load of other stuff. 200 is nowhere near long enough on FF for sports or wildlife.

There's no macro lens, no std zoom, no wide angle, any flash equipment?

Camera bodies are just tools for capturing what's in front of them, lenses, lights, knowledge and opportunity are the things to spend your money on if you want to take better pictures.
 
Phil V said:
I'd say with your chosen subjects I'd get the 5dIII and a shed load of other stuff. 200 is nowhere near long enough on FF for sports or wildlife.

There's no macro lens, no std zoom, no wide angle, any flash equipment?

Camera bodies are just tools for capturing what's in front of them, lenses, lights, knowledge and opportunity are the things to spend your money on if you want to take better pictures.
Click to expand...

This...the 5D3 is epic I love it :D the 1DX is even more epic but as the others have said it really doesn't sound like you need it really ;)
 
I have the same dilemma! I want to upgrade my 5DMkII. I use the 7D for Wildlife and a 300 f2.8 with x1.4 and x2 TCs. For studio and everything else I use the 5DMkii, 24-70L 70-200mm f4 IS. Macro 100L and 17-24 wide angle; all Canon.

I can afford a 1DX or instead buy a 5DMkIII plus battery grip plus 70-200mm f2.8 II

Although my heart says 1DX I think the 5DMk III and faster lens more than makes up for the extras on the 1DX
 
skybluekid said:
I have a Sigma f2.8 70-200mm for Sports photography & wildlife.

I have a Canon f1.4 50mm for indoor low light band photography.

The only problem I seem to have with 50D is the graininess at high ISO, and maybe the focussing is not as fast as I'd like, even with AI Servo.

I am new to this, but after a lot of research, I'm undecided mainly because would the difference between those two problems be huge between the cameras, and would I clearly see a huge difference in my end results.

Again thanks for the input :-)
Click to expand...

both 1dx and 5diii will be light years ahead of 50d in the right hands, but to be fair even the fairly affordable 1DsII and 1DIII are head and shoulders above in all departments.

Definitely 5DIII is more than enough, and put the difference to better quality glass.
 
daugirdas said:
both 1dx and 5diii will be light years ahead of 50d in the right hands, but to be fair even the fairly affordable 1DsII and 1DIII are head and shoulders above in all departments.

Definitely 5DIII is more than enough, and put the difference to better quality glass.
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
I've taken some shots today with my 50D, and I've attached two. I'm wanting better results. I've taken on board the comments, and having just got the Sigma lens for £900, I'm not keen on spending another £1,000 on a better lens, so will the 5D Mk III give me better results, with my lens, or should I save my money and save for a better lens ?

Cheers guys :-)

photostream


photostream
 
Last edited:
....looks like I don't yet know how to upload photos....Sorry guys :-)
 
Hi Simon

You'll need to upload the images to flickr or a similar hosting site, or your own webspace and use a link to them within your post. If using flickr theres a bb code in the share tab.

I'd agree with the other posters that If you can't really grasp the differences between the 1dx and 5d3 then I don't think dropping 4K on a body is going to be the best route.

The 5d3 is a huge step up over the 50d and you could spend the difference on some more glass. I also use the Sigma 70-200 and its a great lens, but for wildlife and most sports it's simply too short. A 300 f2.8 with a 1.4tc would be something to consider.
 
digitalfailure said:
Hi Simon

You'll need to upload the images to flickr or a similar hosting site, or your own webspace and use a link to them within your post. If using flickr theres a bb code in the share tab.
Click to expand...

I've opened up a flickr account, added the photos - Where do I find the bb code ?

Sorry if I'm being slow and a pain, but I'm a newbie :nuts:
 
5d3 for you with longer lens, having a 1dx will look good with other sports photographers, but you need to clean up your backgrounds and give your shots some punch. Longer faster lens will help tidy up up the shots using depth of field.
So save some money on the body and get better glass at the front.
I have both 7D and 5d3 and I don't go anywhere without the 5d3
 
Hi Simon, Having looked at your settings on Flickr, I would have reduced the ISO to 200 or even 100, as your shutter speed was 1/8000 sec at ISO 400 with an aperture of f/3.5. Im not too sure how sharp the Sigma 70-200 is wide open (f/2.8) but this would be the best setting to limit the Depth of Field and throw the distracting background out of focus. Remember to fill the frame and dont rely on cropping after the game.

Good result for the Robins, it looks like they have turned the corner.

Keep posting !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top