Does anyone on here own a 1DX who does not work professionally?

why all this? Get it done. Buy the Camera

yep, making the call today for a better price.

To date, all my gear has been paid off due to small photo jobs here and there. When I say small I am referring to $300-$1000 jobs.


I appreciate that the mk3 may be slightly better but a silly thing imo canon did was have two memory card slots of different card sizes. why????????

Either support SD or CF, but its pointless having two different slots in one camera. This alone was a turn off for me. The mk3 imo seemed to be a move by canon to keep the masses happy while they gave birth to the 1dx. My idea here is that the mk3 isnt a poor quality camera, its a great camera. I just dont think canon really has added enough to it to justify the significant price increase. AF is great, and yes I have used one and no, I still wanted the mk2. The AF wasnt the selling point. Now I find I want speed, build quality, HIGH ISO, redundancy in memory cards that are the same card, a bit more weight, yep I like a heavier camera, longer shutter life. At $8000, this isnt going to be a camera I will get bored of and sell again. These cameras are like one of a kind prestige cars, you buy it and enjoy it for a very long time. oh, I also lost a job about 5 months ago because the client asked what gear I had and they turned me down as they said 5dmk2's were amateur cameras. I argued the point, but if having good gear can HELP in getting a job then good gear I shall get.


later peeps

TSchrief wrote in post #15272261
As I stated above, I am a bit busy with the Holidays and the end of the college semester. I would like to try this. Well, I did open my big fat mouth. If I don't have something posted by Christmas, someone please remind me or PM me. I have the equipment to make as good a stab at this as anyone. Besides, what did SI photographers do before digital? Surely not cave-paintings. There must have been some film shot somewhere! This will be an interesting throw-back!

Fuce: Actually, I agree with you.
umphotography: Do you realize I am talking about film here. Camera is irrelevant.
Levina de Ruijter: Yes, provided I don't fall flat on my face.

Ive shot both formats.....Film cant touch what the newer cameras are capable of producing,, not in a million years,, compound that with what you can produce in photoshop v/s what a lab did with film and you quickly realize why just about everyone that has shot film has their Hassys collecting dust in their closets. Film is dead and has been for the last 4-5 yrs.

Regarding SI photographers.. ask one that has shot both formats.. They will say pretty much tell you what i just said......they shot with the cameras of their time.....better question is to ask which format they prefer.....No brainer.

On the subject of film, I must bow down and commend the old film shooters who didnt have the lcd screens to help with setting your exposure. We have it so easy these days. I read in a photomag that ' its easier to be a photographer these days due to technology making it easier'

Ive got one and im not a pro but since when do you need to be a pro to own one? Some of my mates spent thousands on cars or bikes i spent mine on a camera

I have 1DX and i am not a pro, just enthusiast or hobbyist.

I think the hard part about buying an $8000 camera is that it is a such a small piece of equipment for the price. Most people into dirt bikes would not hesitate to buy a new $8000 dirtbike and thrash it the first time they took it out in the dirt. I wonder how many people here on POTN have a $20k Harley, yet most of those same people would hesitate to spend $7000 on a Rolex watch. -rick

1Tanker wrote in post #15270990
And an $8000 dSLR is a huge amount of money, compared to an $80 p&s..........in the grand scheme of things.

That said, if i could afford it.. even on plastic, and pay it off in under 2 years.. i'd buy one.

I say.. do it!

lensfreak wrote in post #15271000
$8000 to $80 is no proportional comparison to $8,000,000 to $8,000. Every person in modern day society has $80 somewhere.


yes, you can pay it off over 2-3 years. It would be the camera you keep for a very long time. Let me clear up that, if you have medical or important payments for personal reason i would not suggest you lash out, but if you are employed and supporting your family and things are going along nicely and you get a small job everynow and then to tale some photos or you have a serious passion about photography and not some seasonal fling where you will try another hobby later, then you should consider the 1dx

lensfreak wrote in post #15273393
On the subject of film, I must bow down and commend the old film shooters who didnt have the lcd screens to help with setting your exposure. We have it so easy these days. I read in a photomag that ' its easier to be a photographer these days due to technology making it easier'

Yea, and it seems like everyone and their mother has a DSLR... and Flickr must have a trillion photos online... does anyone else get the feeling that everything has already been shot? Unless its people, it all seems like a rehash at some point.

I joke that I have a pro budget with amateur results.... I take pics just for fun.

Irfan wrote in post #15273510
Yea, and it seems like everyone and their mother has a DSLR... and Flickr must have a trillion photos online... does anyone else get the feeling that everything has already been shot? Unless its people, it all seems like a rehash at some point.

To some degree.. just like with music. But just when you think they can't come up with any original.. good songs, it happens. Same with movies too, but i've pretty much lost interest in those. Same s**t, different day.

umphotography wrote in post #15273327
Ive shot both formats.....Film cant touch what the newer cameras are capable of producing,, not in a million years,, compound that with what you can produce in photoshop v/s what a lab did with film and you quickly realize why just about everyone that has shot film has their Hassys collecting dust in their closets. Film is dead and has been for the last 4-5 yrs.

Regarding SI photographers.. ask one that has shot both formats.. They will say pretty much tell you what i just said......they shot with the cameras of their time.....better question is to ask which format they prefer.....No brainer.

I agree with everything you've said. At this point, I am not expecting an all manual film camera with a manual focus lens to turn in 1Dx (or even XSi) results. It will be fun to see what I can get. I shoot a few rolls of film a year anyway. May as well try something off-the-wall. BTW, I went looking for ASA 800 film today. No luck. Even that may prove more difficult than I planned. Amazon has some, but I really don't want 4 rolls of it. I'll keep you posted.

lensfreak wrote in post #15273393
On the subject of film, I must bow down and commend the old film shooters who didnt have the lcd screens to help with setting your exposure. We have it so easy these days. I read in a photomag that ' its easier to be a photographer these days due to technology making it easier'

But cameras back in the 70's had a metering system that told you if you were over or under. Film was also a lot more forgiving.

MaDProFF wrote in post #15273569
But cameras back in the 70's had a metering system that told you if you were over or under. Film was also a lot more forgiving.

It also helps to know HOW your camera is metering. My first SLR was a Yashica FX-2. Still brings a tear to my eye that my last (I had 3 of them) one died this year, and mercury batteries are now illegal. Anyway... the FX-2 and my current FX-3 Super 2000 bodies used a center-weighted average metering system that covered about the center 1/3 of the frame. Once you got that down EC was a snap. Lots of metering and re-composing in those days. More AF and re-compose today.

Flash photography with film was a nightmare of mental calculations (distance, aperture, guide number, film speed). I don't miss that, but I do it every once in a while just to show off. Digital only youngsters seem to think it is magic.

timnosenzo wrote in post #15272599
Why anyone would want a 1-series as a personal camera completely escapes me. I shoot professionally and I prefer my 5D3's over a 1Dx any day.

That's kind of a narrow minded comment. It's like saying only race car drivers need sports cars, or only professional motocrossers need motocross bikes.

People derive satisfaction and enjoyment through many different avenues, such as hobbies. I am a hobbyist outdoor and sports photographer who just happens to have a 1DX. Could I get the same quality pictures I am getting now with my 7D? Well, yes and no.

The 1DX has very accurate focus that honestly yields me 10 out of 10 tack sharp images, when I can keep the focus point on the bird in flight that I am tracking, or one of my children in a sporting event. I would be lucky to have 4 out of 10 on my 7D.

I can afford a 1DX and feel that the extra cost is well worth the piece of mind knowing that I have a much better chance of capturing "The Shot". Some photo opportunities are truly once in a lifetime, and I want to have the best equipment to capture that opportunity.
That's my $0.02

Where does everyone keep coming up with the 1Dx being an $8k camera? At least in the U.S., most noteworthy online authorized dealers have it for $6,799 and I actually got mine from an authorized dealer for $6,499. Still very expensive, but a tad better than $8k....Unless you guys are quoting overseas prices.