will the 1D X mk III be worth it for me? I am not a pro

I am currently doing a lot of bird photography (and small rodents - Squirrels chipmunks etc) but also do landscape and all around. I am not a pro just someone who loves taking pictures.

Unfortunately I am also someone who loves gear! Definitely have GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

Currently I am shooting with an 80D and 90D as well as a 6D mkII. I recently got a 5D Classic because it is just plain fun to use and I don't mind leaving it my car so I always have it.

My 90D does 10 FPS and I can get about 25-28 Raw+JPG in a burst but then it has to catch up. Two things make me look at the 1D is the supposed 20 FPS and the bigger buffer (unlimited for JPG)

10 FPS has been fine although 20 would be better, but the main thing is the bigger buffer, as I am typing this I am wondering if finding a used 1D mk I one that is sound but may be rough looking, does it or is it the mk II that has unlimited JPGs on the buffer?

I am selling some guns anyway to thin the herd and wouldn't mind putting it into camera gear

Is there anything currently limiting you when using your current bodies?

If I were in your shoes, I would have to question what $5500 - $6000 could buy me. For me, finding a used Mark 1 or 2 would be very attractive once the 3 comes out. The difference in cost would allow me to look into longer and faster primes. I would say the biggest thing you'll notice aside from its physical size and build is the AF. That would be a nice upgrade to what you have right now. From what I found online it looks like the buffer on the Mark 1 for large jpeg is around 100 - 180, the Mark 2 is unlimited, using fast cards.

As equetefue asked, are there serious limitations you are finding with your bodies right now?

I will echo the previous posters. What are the limitations of your current bodies?

You seem to be hung up on the unlimited buffer for JPG. I just did a test with high FPS in my ageing 60D. Shot 82 frames, before the rate slowed down due to the buffer being full. Noter I said slowed down, not stopped.

In my book 82 frames is pretty much unlimited, it corresponds roughly to shooting high FPS for 16 sec. More ammunition than a WWII Spitfire...

If you wish to lay out this kind of cash, why don't you buy one of the Canon super teles for BIF?

I think the main thing is the buffer, while 20 fps would be nice.

On my 90D I am getting the following with the motordrive

90D memory card SanDisk Extreme PRO 300 MB/s SD/XC II
JPG 35 jpgs and 5 seconds before buffer fills
RAW/JPG 20 raw+jpg 3 seconds tops before it fills I normally shoot raw + jpg

80D memory card SanDisk Extreme PRO 95 MB/s SD/XC I
JPG 125 jpgs and 16 seconds then it slows to about 3 frames a second
RAW+JPG 19 raw+jpg and about 3 seconds.

80D memory card SanDisk Extreme PRO 300 MB/s SD/XC II
JPG 125 jpgs and 16 seconds then it slows to about 3 frames a second
RAW+JPG 21 raw+jpg and about 4 seconds.


It is the raw that really slows it down. I had never tried shooting just jpg with the 80D I am amazed at how many I can get certainly enough for catching a bird taking off or landing or flying by. I tried the faster memory card in the 80D and got basically the same FPS rate
Yes the 80D and 125 jpgs is more than sufficient.

I can understand why the 90D is only gets 35 jpgs the jpgs are about 10 mb each. 3-5 seconds isn't enough really for birds unless you try to anticipate the action you want.

Since starting BIF I have been using raw+jpg where I always used to shoot JPG only. I wonder if for birds I should go back to my 80D and shoot just JPG's?


I always use a vertical grip so the size and weight are similar to the 1D.

I am a bit disappointed in the burst on the 90D I wish it was even just twice what it is.

I will go out and try shooting just JPG's and see what I get and can I get good quailty, probably totally depends on choosing the right white balance.

I think it actually may come down to remembering Commander Spocks saying

“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but is often true.”

I fully recommend an used 1DX2... best camera I've ever used. There was nothing about the 1DX2 that I found to be lacking in any way whatsoever: amazing files out of camera, 14FPS is blazing fast for birds, AF that never let me down, supreme high ISO performance. Aside from maybe a significant bump in resolution, I can't really see much that would compel me to dump $6000 for the III over a great condition, used II.

The huge difference b/w the 1DX2 and all other Canon bodies is the AF performance, and metering linked to the AF point. These two things will make you say "holy crap, look at what I've been missing"... Don't get me wrong, the bodies you're using are more than capable of performing and getting the shots, but the 1DX2 is on another level altogether, and must be experienced to truly appreciate.

Have you considered RENTING a 1DX mk II or III?

I will try renting both a Mk II and when it comes out a Mk III

just for the heck of it I decided to grab one of my Bluejays at random from yesterday, overcast and very low light. I was waiting for squirrels to jump to my feeder so didn't change the camera settings on the 90D
shot at 1/1000 f/4.5 ISO 640 auto WB
processed real quick (10 seconds) in Lightroom no sharpening just hit it with a preset

actually I don't know how much extra the raw image would get me especially it I took some time with it.

I really think I will try some JPGs and then look for a 1D mkII, even then I am suddenly wondering do I need it.

It was the 90D that I used but it is still not in the database.... so I put 80D

I personally would put my money on better and faster glass. That in itself will give you a fast and better "birding" set up.

Jeff,
Have you tried using the fastest memory cards available? While you are filling up the buffer on the input side part of the problem may be draining it on the output side. It's also a lot cheaper than a new/used body.

I second Chet's suggestion of renting a body before buying.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #18985482
I will try renting both a Mk II and when it comes out a Mk III

just for the heck of it I decided to grab one of my Bluejays at random from yesterday, overcast and very low light. I was waiting for squirrels to jump to my feeder so didn't change the camera settings on the 90D
shot at 1/1000 f/4.5 ISO 640 auto WB
processed real quick (10 seconds) in Lightroom no sharpening just hit it with a preset

actually I don't know how much extra the raw image would get me especially it I took some time with it.

I really think I will try some JPGs and then look for a 1D mkII, even then I am suddenly wondering do I need it.

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=189​85482&i=i224192785
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Absolutely rent it, because it's like you said in your previous post: sometimes the excitement of the unknown really is greater than the reality of it.

Gorgeous Blue Jay capture!! The 90D is outstanding camera, and is a perfect example of what I was saying, how your current gear is more than adequate for making stellar shots. And like everyone else has stated in this thread, you need to figure out in what way it's limiting you from getting shots like this.

So, this Jay shot was taken at low ISO in nice lighting, bird on a clean perch with no distracting elements to interfere with AF... now, put that Jay in the woods, in shaded low light, with branches and leaves around. It's situations like that where the extra performance features of the 1-series camera will give you a better chance of coming away with the shot, and have more latitude to edit the files in post. Or perhaps you're shooting BIF against challenging backgrounds, where the AF on the 90D may lag behind what the 1DX can provide.

These may be fringe cases that may not apply to your use case, so again, are you finding your current gear not able to get the shots you need?

That's a nice capture of the Blue Jay. I think there are times where we obsess over shooting in RAW that we forget that a properly exposed JPEG is going to give quality results. I'm not saying you should not shoot in RAW because I typically shoot in RAW and JPEG for everything. If you're able to find extra performance by shooting only JPEG, by all means do it.

Another consideration if you go the 1DX2 route is the change in FOV which I'm sure you have already thought about since you also shoot with the 6D2 and 5D. You may have to add extenders if you have not done so. Also, consider the decrease in pixel density going from the 80D and 90D to the 1DX2.

I'm also another proponent in looking at longer glass.

Wow, just finished reading up on that bad boy.

I say go for it. You only live once.

Mike

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #18985482
I will try renting both a Mk II and when it comes out a Mk III

just for the heck of it I decided to grab one of my Bluejays at random from yesterday, overcast and very low light. I was waiting for squirrels to jump to my feeder so didn't change the camera settings on the 90D
shot at 1/1000 f/4.5 ISO 640 auto WB
processed real quick (10 seconds) in Lightroom no sharpening just hit it with a preset

actually I don't know how much extra the raw image would get me especially it I took some time with it.

I really think I will try some JPGs and then look for a 1D mkII, even then I am suddenly wondering do I need it.

It was the 90D that I used but it is still not in the database.... so I put 80D

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=189​85482&i=i224192785
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Beautiful capture here!!!!

dangermoney wrote in post #18985487
Jeff,
Have you tried using the fastest memory cards available? While you are filling up the buffer on the input side part of the problem may be draining it on the output side. It's also a lot cheaper than a new/used body.

I second Chet's suggestion of renting a body before buying.

Who is Chet that made this suggestion?