still a good time to buy a mkIV?

I shot 4 years of high school sports, both at the division and state championship level with a sony. I sold my camera to pay for some of college, but I'm now looking to come back and shoot hockey and baseball. My question is, is it still a good time to buy a 1D mk IV, or should I just jump ahead and get a 1DX? I'm looking for a 300mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 if the 300 is too long for hockey. And opinions? I'm new to canons so Im open to any advice.

It's both true that the 1D Mark IV is still a very capable camera and the 1DX beats it in most apects.

Don't forget that the 1DX is a so called full frame camera, but the 1D Mark IV is what Canon calls an APS-H. Thus the angle of view of a 300 mm put on a 1D Mark IV will be like when using a 390 mm lens on the 1DX.

The 1D4 is an outstanding camera, and at 1/2 the cost, coupled with the 1.3 crop, it would make a great sports camera. It was when it came out, and it still is, nothing has changed in sports to make the 1D4 obsolete.

I have found that every time I upgrade to a newer/better body...I use the one I replaced less and less. And it's not because they don't perform well...it's just the newer technology makes that much of a difference. (In most cases)

I have both bodies...very pleased with both of them...but the high ISO performance on the 1DX really is impressive. And you do see the difference in the FF v.s the 1.3 crop factor on the lV. But you can't go wrong with either.

Heya,

For the money, shooting what I shoot, I'd get the 1DIV over the 1DX & 5D3. But that's me putting emphasis on weather sealing and heartiness, while keeping great ISO, great AF, and great IQ, and a bit of reach addition with my 600mm, walking in swamps.

For sports shooting in low light, like hockey, and sometimes baseball (night), get a camera with awesome ISO performance. You don't need weather sealing. The 5D3 has the same AF as the 1DX. So really, 5D3 makes sense for you.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17033031
Heya,

For the money, shooting what I shoot, I'd get the 1DIV over the 1DX & 5D3. But that's me putting emphasis on weather sealing and heartiness, while keeping great ISO, great AF, and great IQ, and a bit of reach addition with my 600mm, walking in swamps.

For sports shooting in low light, like hockey, and sometimes baseball (night), get a camera with awesome ISO performance. You don't need weather sealing. The 5D3 has the same AF as the 1DX. So really, 5D3 makes sense for you.

Very best,

There isn't a huge difference between the 1D4 and 5D3. The 1D4 was better than the 5D2 to begin with.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17033037
There isn't a huge difference between the 1D4 and 5D3. The 1D4 was better than the 5D2 to begin with.

Do you think the 1D4 & 5D3 are built equally, weather resistance equally, durability equally? And the crop factor?

I don't have these two cameras, I'm no expert at all on this, but it seems to me the 1D4 has the edge for someone wanting to walk in bad weather, shoot wildlife in bad conditions, etc.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17033097
Do you think the 1D4 & 5D3 are built equally, weather resistance equally, durability equally? And the crop factor?

I don't have these two cameras, I'm no expert at all on this, but it seems to me the 1D4 has the edge for someone wanting to walk in bad weather, shoot wildlife in bad conditions, etc.

Very best,

No there are differences in build/sealing, but my experience tells me that most hobbyists aren't diehard enough to actually test the build and weather sealing. The pros, whose livelihood depends on their results, have to trust the build and weather sealing, and most likely really test it.

The most water most camera bodies on these boards will see is a light drizzle (if that), and both cameras can handle that, it will matter more what lens you use.

My comment should have been more clear, I meant in low light high ISO, there isn't a huge difference between the two. The progression is 5D2, then 1D4, then 5D3, then 6D for ISO performance, and the difference from the 5D2 to 6D is what, maybe 1 to 1.5 stops, depending on copy variation? That isn't a big range for 4 cameras to share.

so 1dmk4 looks like the favorited camera. so how about these lens choices. I'm basically starting all over and my previous lens wasnt the best, it was mostly me learning

300mm F2.8L mkI
40mm pancake (after game portraits)
70-200mm F2.8L IS mkI or mkII?

and I'm planning on getting the pl-220 to carry it all along with a second battery. does that sound like a good kit, or am i missing anything basic?

Heya,

Instead of the 40mm F2.8 for portraits, maybe the Sigma 35mm F1.4 instead?

Otherwise, the 300 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 II are excellent kit.

Do you feel the 300 F2.8 is worth the $6k more than the 300 F4 for your purposes?

As it is, looks like you're already investing about $12k into this setup to shoot hockey & baseball as an enthusiast.

Very best,

KGII wrote in post #17033334
so 1dmk4 looks like the favorited camera. so how about these lens choices. I'm basically starting all over and my previous lens wasnt the best, it was mostly me learning

300mm F2.8L mkI
40mm pancake (after game portraits)
70-200mm F2.8L IS mkI or mkII?

and I'm planning on getting the pl-220 to carry it all along with a second battery. does that sound like a good kit, or am i missing anything basic?

If you have the budget and are looking at the 300 f2.8L, why not consider the Sigma 120-300 OS sports edition? Great lens from all accounts, and is my dream lens for sports currently. It would be extremely more versatile at sports events where you can walk around and shoot from the sidelines, etc.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17033350
Do you feel the 300 F2.8 is worth the $6k more than the 300 F4 for your purposes?

He said the version 1. I don't think anyone in their right mind would pay $7,000 for a version 1 300 f2.8 IS.

My. Budget is the 10K range. This has been set aside for a while as I've had a well paying job for years, and while it is $12k it 1) won't be all bought at once and 2)it is money that has been saved for this purpose.

In terms of 2.8 vs 4.0 our football field at the high school is very poorly lit, along with the high school hockey rink, I have very strong ties to people in the athletic department still and hope to use that that as a way to get towards shooting nicer events and making some side money. I hope that all makes sense.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17033378
He said the version 1. I don't think anyone in their right mind would pay $7,000 for a version 1 300 f2.8 IS.

Correct. About $3500 I think. The total for all 4 plus extras is just shy of 10k.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17033367
If you have the budget and are looking at the 300 f2.8L, why not consider the Sigma 12-300 OS sports edition?

12-300 almost had a heart attack.