Which upgrade - 1D4 or 400 2.8 IS

redmonkee

redmonkee

Messages
2,653
Name
PHILIP
Edit My Images
No
Right guys this is just something thats jumping around inside my head at the minute, but no doubt it is something i'll be looking at more seriously next year when funds allow.

Last night I was shooting Cricket in very dark dim conditions, and was having to use ISO 1000 on my 1D3 to get shutter speeds of 1/640, luckily it was junior cricket so this speed was fast enough.

This is something I try and avoid as I like my images to be as clean as possible in case parents wish to buy prints.

Also I couldn't help but wish for a little more reach. I was using a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4X TC.

So my question is would you upgrade to

1. Canon 1D4 and sell one of my 1D3's
Cost of upgrade = £2200

or

2. Upgrade to used 400 2.8 IS and sell my 300 2.8IS
cost of upgrade = £1300 approx

Advantages of the 1D4 option would give me a better body, with better ISO (something I could have done with last night), plus more MP so more cropping ability therefore extending my 300 + 1.4 even further.

Advantages of 400 2.8 option would be owning this dream lens, and when coupled with the 1.4 I doubt i'd ever have to crop a file again :)

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I'd do some tests with your mkIII to see how far you are happy to push the ISO. I use mine up to iso3200 and happily sell the images with just a little bit of NR in Lightroom 3. At 100% on a monitor the noise does show but prints are fine.
Obviously its critical to get the exposure right in the first place.
 
My take on it would be number 2,
the 400 would give you more reach without loosing any stop's of light like you are getting with the 300 + 1.4, as the Mk3 is a good camera anyway..;)


My way if still with Canon would to buy both:) (but I'v got a good wife) and enjoy my upgrade..:D:D
 
having had a good late copy of the mk3 I would go for the mk4, this camera is better than the mk3 in every way, there has been times where I would like the 400 but I could not hand hold it like the 300f2.8
 
Just trying to save the OP some money :D
If I could afford a mkIV I'd get one tomorrow but I can't.
The point I was making is that iso1000 is a low iso setting for a mkIII. Its capable of more than that
 
1D mk1V.
Before you decide check the weight of the 400mm F2.8 to see if you can handle it. Very heavy , but I suppose it depends on usage, and how far you have to carry it.
C
 
Phil, I don't want to be a party pooper...but I've always had the philosophy of "upgrade when necessary and upgrade when you've earned the money".

If you've earned £3500/£6000 through the photography then great...go nuts! However, I wouldn't recommend spending money before you've earned it. That is a recipe for disaster.

Sorry. :gag:
 
jamesb84 said:
Phil, I don't want to be a party pooper...but I've always had the philosophy of "upgrade when necessary and upgrade when you've earned the money".

If you've earned £3500/£6000 through the photography then great...go nuts! However, I wouldn't recommend spending money before you've earned it. That is a recipe for disaster.

Sorry. :gag:
Click to expand...

James I think you're right, and thank you for nipping that little idea in the bud. I do tend to get these crazy thoughts once in a while.

For the record I think it would've been the 1D4 option. But that'll wait till I get my agency work :thumbs:
 
redmonkee said:
James I think you're right, and thank you for nipping that little idea in the bud. I do tend to get these crazy thoughts once in a while.

For the record I think it would've been the 1D4 option. But that'll wait till I get my agency work :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thats OK...I get the same thoughts and I recognise this in you! The trouble with this place (and I mean this in the nicest way!! ;) ) is that you can mentally spend thousands with just a couple of threads!
 
Have to agree with Jimmy :) I use a 1D3 and 300 (with 2x extender for cricket!) and have never really had a problem with anything.. a 400 would be great, but when I know it's paying and not before.

As of 2 days ago though.. it is paying.. itchy feet time :D

I had this discussion with Rovers_Andy a while ago.. I shoot Prem League football so ISO is rarely over 2000 at night matches, whereas he was shooting at lower league grounds and really needed 4000+ to get results.. so he upgraded (and switched to Nikon at the same time!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top