johneric8 wrote in post #14628852
I think it's funny how the 5dmk3 owners are trying to dream up scenarios where the 1dx isn't that much better than the 5dmk3. Look, if you're making a very nice living as a pro photographer in which I am it's a very easy choice, a no brainer as a matter of fact. What some people don't understand is that spending an extra 3k on a body that could make you that back at one wedding is an expense you will take on without blinking. And Yes, the 1dx is much better equipped to handle weddings than the 5dmk3. If you are shooting weddings for a living and feel you need tons of MP you certainly have a different style than me.
You're kidding right? As far as I know, the 1Dx and 5D3 share pretty much the same AF system. The difference is that the 1Dx uses color information as part of its AF algorithm correct? So which part of that isn't suited for wedding photography again? The AF system on the 5D3 is more than capable of handling any situation you would encounter at a wedding. That's not defending the 5D3. That's just fact.
Compared to 18.1MP, 21.3MP is "tons of MP"? Certainly not. That's a minuscule difference.
Now if the 1DX had a stop or two over the 5D3 in high ISO performance, I would certainly entertain buying it. It would probably have to lean towards 2 stops to shell out an extra $5k. Believe me. I want that to be the case, although I seriously doubt it. Do I need the build? Nope. Nice to have? Sure. I used to shoot with a 1 series body and I certainly appreciated the build. Do I need the faster fps? Nope. 6fps is good enough for me. Is 10 fps better? Again, sure. But I don't need it.
It seems like the opposite is happening. Those who are considering the 1DX is trying to convince themselves that the 1DX is light years ahead of the 5D3. From all indications, it's is not.
What's $3000 as a wedding photographer? Sure, not a big deal. But hey, if I don't have to spend $3000 for a camera I don't need, then well, the smart thing to do is the keep that money in the bank, no?