5D III, 5DS or 1DX

David Arbogast wrote in post #17615899
OK, 5 FPS with a quick-to-fill buffer might be a deal killer, but let me put it this way: who do you want to go to bat for you? A big powerful home run slugger with 50MP muscles that knocks in home run after home run, but also gets thrown out a lot because he only runs 5fps? Or do you want the little guy that bats for high average, runs the bases at 10 fps, but doesn't knock it out of the park with regularity because his 18MP muscles are too weak?

Hehe, don't take me too seriously; it's how I see it, but I absolutely respect and admire the other options as well.

You might need to translate that into cricket for the UK members

AJSJones wrote in post #17615972
You might need to translate that into cricket for the UK members

I know virtually nothing about cricket, but I recently listened to Bill Bryson's (audio) book on his travels in Australia. He has a hilarious take on cricket. Here is a bit of it:

More of it here: http://www.wandererscr​icket.com/Yank_view.ht​ml

Sorry for the off topic, but couldn't resist as I had just listened to that last week.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17616006
I know virtually nothing about cricket, but I recently listened to Bill Bryson's (audio) book on his travels in Australia. He has a hilarious take on cricket. Here is a bit of it:

More of it here: http://www.wandererscr​icket.com/Yank_view.ht​ml

Sorry for the off topic, but couldn't resist as I had just listened to that last week.

I (as someone who grew up in the UK and moved to the US) enjoy Bryson, but his take on cricket is woefully out of date, with Twenty20 and lots of action usually creating more action and being more engaging than one of the most exciting baseball games (a no-hitter) where nothing much happens - and that's why it's good.

(The cricket analogy would be something like comparing a batsman who can swing the bat hard and gets lots of boundaries but often misses and gets out quickly, while the other one is a slow and methodical batsman who ends up with more runs/inning and takes a long time over it).

AJSJones wrote in post #17616187
I (as someone who grew up in the UK and moved to the US) enjoy Bryson, but his take on cricket is woefully out of date, with Twenty20 and lots of action usually creating more action and being more engaging than one of the most exciting baseball games (a no-hitter) where nothing much happens - and that's why it's good.

(The cricket analogy would be something like comparing a batsman who can swing the bat hard and gets lots of boundaries but often misses and gets out quickly, while the other one is a slow and methodical batsman who ends up with more runs/inning and takes a long time over it).

Of course bad light would stop play in the 7D2 vs 5DS match.

Thanks for all the input. I want to get a full frame for a second body as of now but I'm not ruling out a 7D mkII in the future. I haven't been keeping up on the 7D mk ii's focus issue forum to see what the latest consensus is as to if it's a real problem or more user error but I will read up on that.

From what I've seen of highish ISO shots from the 5DS/R (up to 6400) I don't see it being any worse than the 5D3. Couple with more than double the resolution it is IMO a much better body for just about anything. Its only drawbacks for me in comparison to the 5D3 are price and file sizes. So for me it is between the 5DS/R and 1DX.

If I was only shooting wildlife (where I wouldn't be filling the buffer with any regularity) and no motorsports, track and field or similar I'd find it very hard to select the 1DX over the 5DS/R.

The 1DX does offer a couple of points which I would really like though: faster AF acquisition and nicer (for me) ergonomics, plus of course the faster shot rate and larger buffer. For me personally the larger weight of the 1DX is a moot point - I'd be gripping the 5DS/R anyway and from my experience with Nikon bodies I wouldn't be surprised to read the 5DS/R with accessory grip is actually heavier and bigger than the 1DX. And it'll still be less ergonomic.

In all honesty, high ISO performance is not a big deal to me as I seldom find myself shooting over 1200 and prefer to keep it lower if possible. I'm not saying I wouldn't like it to be good at higher iso's as maybe I'd venture into that realm if the camera is good at it. So the old adage " more megapixels equals more noise" doesn't seem to be true so far with the 5DS?

mfingar wrote in post #17612804
The 5DS has proven useful capturing birds in flight, I think it'll be an interesting airshow body.

Yes, airshow body. I'm interested in how it will work for aircraft in flight.

Quack Me Up wrote in post #17616850
...So the old adage " more megapixels equals more noise" doesn't seem to be true so far with the 5DS?

I think that is a fair assessment.

I've been watching Lloyd Chamber's review of the 5DS and 5DS R with interest (it is a fee-subscription based review site), and he has documented that the noise level of the 5DS matches that of the 5D III at their respective resolutions. The result is that if you then down-sample the 5DS image to match the 5D III's 22-MP resolution, the 5DS image is cleaner and retains greater detail.

Even better, the 5DS images do not have the ugly pattern noise lurking in the shadows that the 5D III suffers from.

Finding some interesting posts about how huge the files are from the 5DS, no surprise, and how it could pose a problem for those of us with "not so huge" amounts of memory and hard drive space when it comes to processing those huge files. Definitely a consideration to throw into the mix.

Quack Me Up wrote in post #17618638
Finding some interesting posts about how huge the files are from the 5DS, no surprise, and how it could pose a problem for those of us with "not so huge" amounts of memory and hard drive space when it comes to processing those huge files. Definitely a consideration to throw into the mix.

Luckily, RAM and HD costs have dropped at the same time as sensor MPs have gone up, so yes you need to upgrade the truck if you are hauling bigger loads

I would go for 1DX because

- fps, fps, fps
- best autofocus system ever
- very good ISO capacities (very usable to ISO 6400), up to ISO 800 you can recover shadows and so.
- render of color and the look is unique
- amazing custom settings (you can switch fast into TV mode with 1/20 to go along with bird with this effect, you just need to set on a button and voila!)

And I don't work for Canon. And yes, I own 1DX and I'm so happy!

I rarely find I need the FPS, in fact I pretty much have never used 10fps. The only time was when pre-focussing and shooting when a bird approached to get that landing shot (the D4s has a focus mode that detects when something is in focus and fires).

5-7fps seems to be a sweet spot for wildlife and BIF, shooting at 10fps I really do find the AF struggles and the number of missed shots increase more than exponentially.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17613858
Sell the 7D, buy 7D2 and 5D3

Starting to look like a good possible option. When it comes to the 1DX vs 5Diii, do you think the 1DX has a noticeable edge in low light and low contrast situations as far as achieving and keeping focus? I'm just trying to see if the 1DX is worth the extra money and in what areas it would hold a definite advantage over the 5DIII. Frames per second difference is of no concern to me
Thanks.