Buying the 1DX

C

charleyboy14

Messages
205
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering if any togs on here intend on buying a 1dx when they come out or whether you have one on pre order. also what you currently shoot
 
Last edited:
Haa when you asked what I currently shoot I thought you meant shoot with... SPORT and I will want the 1dx for mostly indoor sport or very poorly lit sports stadia..

I keep one mkIV to use with a 400mm lens as the 1dx wouldnt be any good for that... and already ahve a buyer for the other :)
 
KIPAX said:
Haa when you asked what I currently shoot I thought you meant shoot with... SPORT and I will want the 1dx for mostly indoor sport or very poorly lit sports stadia..

I keep one mkIV to use with a 400mm lens as the 1dx wouldnt be any good for that... and already ahve a buyer for the other :)
Click to expand...
yeah you'd lose a good bit of ground on a 400
 
charleyboy14 said:
Nah just wondering. from my own experience you can allways tell who the top boys are by who has the newest gear first
Click to expand...

I know (met seen not actually know) a lot of top agency photogrpahers .. getty or action images still using mkIIs
 
KIPAX said:
I know (met seen not actually know) a lot of top agency photogrpahers .. getty or action images still using mkIIs
Click to expand...

Yeah but the independents that have to fight for work because they don't have the security of a job, the majority use the new shiny stuff lol
 
charleyboy14 said:
Yeah but the independents that have to fight for work because they don't have the security of a job, the majority use the new shiny stuff lol
Click to expand...

You sure about that?

I know plenty of freelancers still using mk2s and old lenses because they do the job and allow them to pay rent every month.

What is this fallacy that exists on here whereby people think that a picture editor actually gives two farts about what camera was used for an image? Do you think they look through the EXIF before agreeing to use it?

The only camera snobs seem to be the majority of TP. I know why kipax is getting a 1dx but I can guarantee you, the number of freelances getting them will be rarer than rocking horse ****.
 
Last edited:
charleyboy14 said:
Nah just wondering. from my own experience you can allways tell who the top boys are by who has the newest gear first
Click to expand...

Really? Kit for the job and all that, but a lot of freelance people have to pay bills and don't have the money to splash out on new kit every 18 months.
 
All the above is correct


jamesb84 said:
I know why kipax is getting a 1dx but I can
Click to expand...

I attack the market from a different angle... my outlay wil be paid back because i am getting the work nobody else can do at a lower level in a small town...

hence my comment it gives me the edge... not the edge over agency guys at football.. but the edge over my newspapers who cant afford gear that works well indoors and cant afford the long lens for cricket:)

I make more money at a game watched by 50 people than most photogrpahers sat at glamour premiership or championship football match

sat afternoon at old trafford and a mkII will get just as good pictures as a 1dx IMHO
 
Byker28i said:
Really? Kit for the job and all that, but a lot of freelance people have to pay bills and don't have the money to splash out on new kit every 18 months.
Click to expand...

I thought all freelancers had to pay bills?

In fact the more I think about it the more insulting your comment is.. I am not rich. Photogrpahy is paying for the new 1dx ..Its an investment.. It wil allow me to get pictures uncle bob or whatever his name cant get and keep me in employment longer... I worked very very hard to get the jobs to pay for that camera... the money (inc sale of a mkIV) is 100% from photo work.. I am out in 5 minutes to go sit at a freezing cold 3g pitch at the local college shooting girls football.. I aint really looking forward to it.. I worked about 14 hrs yesterday on photogrpahy with two schools sports jobs and the PP

working hard at photogrpahy pays for the equipment which is an investment in my life and keeps my work going..

a bit hard to take people thinking i have loads of dosh to splash out on new equipment on a whim :(
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
sat afternoon at old trafford and a mkII will get just as good pictures as a 1dx IMHO
Click to expand...

very true, gear helps to a certain extent but i also proved that i could get good football photos from the emirates stadium with my non pro d90 and d300s and 80-400 lens. Gear aint everything
 
KIPAX said:
In fact the more I think about it the more insulting your comment is..
Click to expand...

Not meant to be. I was responding to the comment of "you can allways tell who the top boys are by who has the newest gear first "

In your case Kipax I've watched and admired your work. Watched as you upgraded to Mk4's and the reason for it. I remember some interesting discussions at the time of your upgrades and your justifications. If you look bacl it's exactly the same why I thought you'd be one of the first on here to get the 1Dx

But only the top boys have top kit? Really?
 
KIPAX said:
I know (met seen not actually know) a lot of top agency photogrpahers .. getty or action images still using mkIIs
Click to expand...


Suggesting it's not about the camera.....It won't make you a better photographer no matter how you justify the purchase.
I used to shoot Aston Villa on a NC2000, never failed to supply images even with the 1.5 fps and a nice delay on the shutter.

Just look at the work of Eamon McCabe or David Ashdown, film pushed to it's limits and lots of manual focus.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
k.. I am out in 5 minutes to go sit at a freezing cold 3g pitch (
Click to expand...

Can I suggest one of these?
http://www.exo2.co.uk/stormwalker-2...ath=11&zenid=4f05f64a8bdae171bdafb5634ac2e1fd

I have one for riding my motorbike all year around. Lightweight, washable, works a treat and very toasty. You can then run the two lower back panels off the battery pack for about 70-90 mins (might be worth getting two?). Very handy for when it starts getting chilly and you're sat around a pitch. I've used mine shooting youth rugby for the last few years.
 
KIPAX said:
I thought all freelancers had to pay bills?

In fact the more I think about it the more insulting your comment is.. I am not rich. Photogrpahy is paying for the new 1dx ..Its an investment.. It wil allow me to get pictures uncle bob or whatever his name cant get and keep me in employment longer... I worked very very hard to get the jobs to pay for that camera... the money (inc sale of a mkIV) is 100% from photo work.. I am out in 5 minutes to go sit at a freezing cold 3g pitch at the local college shooting girls football.. I aint really looking forward to it.. I worked about 14 hrs yesterday on photogrpahy with two schools sports jobs and the PP

working hard at photogrpahy pays for the equipment which is an investment in my life and keeps my work going..

a bit hard to take people thinking i have loads of dosh to splash out on new equipment on a whim :(
Click to expand...

I adgreed,its a tool,and if buying a new tool can get you more work go for it.
:)
 
Edtog said:
Suggesting it's not about the camera.....It won't make you a better photographer no matter how you justify the purchase.
I used to shoot Aston Villa on a NC2000, never failed to supply images even with the 1.5 fps and a nice delay on the shutter.

Just look at the work of Eamon McCabe or David Ashdown, film pushed to it's limits and lots of manual focus.
Click to expand...

The shots Eamon McCabe pulled of,still one of my fav photos his shot of a greyhound racing :)
 
Edtog said:
Suggesting it's not about the camera.
Click to expand...

I think everyone who has spent any time on photogrpahy knows its not about the camera... however it is in some situations... if you ahve ever been in a soccerdome using f1.8 and 200 shutter at iso 12800 you will know that your going to get nothing using a canon 10d :) if you go to cricket with a nifty 50 your not going to get in your face player shots like you do wiht a 400mm +tc .. thats a reality.

yes you get different shots... but not the ones you where hired for :) so yes ed i can justify the purchase..
 
Byker28i said:
Can I suggest one of these?
http://www.exo2.co.uk/stormwalker-2...ath=11&zenid=4f05f64a8bdae171bdafb5634ac2e1fd
.
Click to expand...

I photogrpah sat down mostly so its my lower back that gets cold.. even that would be too short when sat down leaning forward... got some full body thermals...it was bitter cold out there this morning.. but job done :)

I know what you mean.. about buying equipment... i havent got the money to spare.. its taken 2 yrs to save that in the business and now all going on the next camera.. but its justified.. the job paid for it and it will get me more work.... just didnt want people thinking i was well off and could just go buying anythign willy nilly... oh and it will be over 2 yrs since the 1div was released and bought :)
 
I wouldn't mind a 1DX, but I think I'd rather wait and see what the 5D MK III/D800/D4 has to offer. Rumours of these 36MP Sony sensors interest me.
 
I'd assume if you were a pro wanting a 1DX then you'd be already too heavily invested in Canon to worry about Nikon and the 5D MK III wouldn't have the features you'd require. The spec of the 1DX did underwhelm me a bit though.
 
Laudrup said:
The spec of the 1DX did underwhelm me a bit though.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what your going to do with it.. ISO capabilities make it a massive jump from the mkIV and worth the upgrade for me.. Not for others though..
 
KIPAX said:
I photogrpah sat down mostly so its my lower back that gets cold.. even that would be too short when sat down leaning forward... got some full body thermals...it was bitter cold out there this morning.. but job done :)
Click to expand...

Comes down quite low. On the battery pack it's just the lower back panels (kidney panels ) that heat. Worked well for me.
Being little I tend to have to have many layers etc against the cold.
 
With the newer more powerful Digic 5 processors(x2) and also that it has had an extra digic 4 processor for the metering system alone, The max number of shots that will be possible will also change, I guess this will be lower than the MkIV... I know they have stated that the spec of the new batteries has a slightly higher capacity but I think from experience the numbers will be down...Luckily they have made the form factor the same as the MK3 and MKIV....But again their capacity is lower than the newer 1DX battery....I still want to have a go with a CF installed to play myself...
 
KIPAX said:
sat afternoon at old trafford and a mkII will get just as good pictures as a 1dx IMHO
Click to expand...

Totally disagree, the ability to crop into an image for extra "length" alone gives it that much more of an edge, then there is the ISO mk2's are good to what 400 (800 max) then the AF on the mk2's are well rather poor (makes no difference if you old school and have the skill to MF all the time) the list goes on

Granted it's down to the tog but having the gear makes things much easier and thus lets you be more creative
 
charleyboy14 said:
Totally disagree,
Click to expand...

my kinda guy ....rubs hands :)


charleyboy14 said:
the ability to crop into an image for extra "length" alone gives it that much more of an edge
Click to expand...

the 1dx is full frame the mkII is cropped so surely one negates the other in the example we are discussing..

charleyboy14 said:
, then there is the ISO mk2's are good to what 400 (800 max)
Click to expand...

So what? the example was a saturday afternoon... good lighting will mean both bodies on iso 400 probably and thus you wouldnt see much dofference if any... change the example to saturday night and yes the 1dx would wipe the floor with the mkII ...


charleyboy14 said:
then the AF on the mk2's are well rather poor (makes no difference if you old school and have the skill to MF all the time)
Click to expand...

Sorry but the AF on the mkII was never a problem.. in fact a lot say it was better then the mkIII.. I had two mkIIs and never had a problem with AF esp in the example scenario we are talking about..

charleyboy14 said:
the list goes on
Click to expand...

No it doesnt and the list you gave is flawed..

I gave an example of a sat afternoon shooting football.. its a given we are talkign decent lighting... there wouldnt be much difference..

your list of differences is good for a night match and other scenarios... I am buying a 1dx for the reasons you give... but i dont think i will see much difference on a nice sat aft at football.. i will see a massive difference at most other jobs i do :)
 
I'd love a 1DX but I cannot justify nor afford it, and to be honest I don't really need it.

For a sports photographer though, it is an obvious investment.
 
KIPAX said:
my kinda guy ....rubs hands :)

the 1dx is full frame the mkII is cropped so surely one negates the other in the example we are discussing..

So what? the example was a saturday afternoon... good lighting will mean both bodies on iso 400 probably and thus you wouldnt see much dofference if any... change the example to saturday night and yes the 1dx would wipe the floor with the mkII ...

Sorry but the AF on the mkII was never a problem.. in fact a lot say it was better then the mkIII.. I had two mkIIs and never had a problem with AF esp in the example scenario we are talking about..

No it doesnt and the list you gave is flawed..

I gave an example of a sat afternoon shooting football.. its a given we are talkign decent lighting... there wouldnt be much difference..

your list of differences is good for a night match and other scenarios... I am buying a 1dx for the reasons you give... but i dont think i will see much difference on a nice sat aft at football.. i will see a massive difference at most other jobs i do :)
Click to expand...

Oh kip i love reading your posts you really make me chuckle (in a serious way)
 
I certainly wouldn't say that the AF on the mk2 is poor!
 
I don't ever remember having any problems with the EOS system since 1990, one of the reasons Nikon lost its way (before the D3) was the EOS had far superior AF.
The mk3 undid all that, and the rest is history...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top