# Decisions decisions...



## ForumMuppet (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm at a mental impass. Everything I have read and learned about photography is glass glass glass. Do not go for the latest and greatest bodies because with natural progression to move to another body down the road your glass can travel with your growth. Which leads me to my dilemma...

I am trying to decide which would be the better item for purchase between a 1DX and a 300 f/2.8 II. I'm mostly interested in shooting sports and wildlife. While I do not do this professionally, I would like to start doing small things locally and see how far I could take it. I currently shoot with a 5DIII and 7D. For glass I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, the 300 f/4, and the 100-400, along with both series III teleconverters. I would really like to get the 300 2.8, but most of the venues I go to (Angel Stadium, Candlestick Park) will not let me bring in that big of a lens without a press pass. Not to mention I would feel kinda weird sitting in the stands with a lens that is larger than most people's head. LoL This then sways the argument back to the 1DX. But the voice in my head, we'll call him Fred, keeps repeating glass glass glass.

Then I think about it all and part of me says it is ridiculous for someone like myself, who is not making money from this, is even considering spending that kinda cabbage on a damn camera or lens. I remember a year ago, when I first started getting interested in photography telling a coworker that I want to upgrade my Digital Rebel camera for something newer. I told him my budget was around $750. Well 6 months and $35,000 later... LoL

Any thoughts for me and Fred?


----------



## Eli (Aug 7, 2013)

Well ask yourself what you want from the 1dx that the 5d can't give you.
Don't worry too much about the glass vs body debate, buy for what you want today, at present.
Plus the 1dx is an amazing camera, it'll have many years left before you feel you've outgrown it, surely.

Also note all the advantages of the 1dx over the 5d, including better iso performance.
Would buying the new lens have more pros than all the features of the new body ?


----------



## rs (Aug 7, 2013)

Fred knows his stuff.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 7, 2013)

Yep. Enjoy your photography. Fred actually works for canon, of course he is going to tell you that.

I could do the whole massage your ego thing about having good kit already, but I'm not going to do that.
I haven't seen any of your work so I don't know what you need to improve, but I can 99.9% guarantee that gear alone is not the solution to your or freds dilemma.

And taking that gear into the stand... apart from me not having the balls to pith off everybody around me, and apart from the whole thing about being there to enjoy the game being different from being their to document the game, hot dogs, mustard, slippy stairs etc...

I would think about your approach. Do you want the best pics you can possibly get? You aren't going to get them from the stand. Is there any channel that would benefit from your work who could get you a press pass?
Local impoverished newspaper perhaps?

If you got a pass would you be able to guarantee results? It's different with pressure. Would you keep calm even if a ball trashed one of your lenses... you still need to deliver the shots...

I'm going to be very patronising here, and I speak from the lofty (ahem) heights of being a 7D user.

It's easy to get carried away, and it's your money. Think photo first, kit second. I'm not saying don't spend all your cash on your hobby. I'm not saying that a 1DX won't give you an extra couple of keepers.

I think you need to put the horse before the cart. You have some nice kit. If you aren't getting the shots you want then the problem lies elsewhere. Gear can be acquired quickly. Access and confidence and ability cannot.

Just a perspective.


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2013)

Glass, glass, glass ;D


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 7, 2013)

Thanks for the input and perspectives. As for what has me looking at these two items:

1DX over 5DIII:
FPS
ISO increase for shooting night games of HS football, to start getting my foot out there and see if I can shop my work around.
Face recognition autofocus
General better overall IQ

300 2.8 II:
Superb IQ
2.8 for night shooting under bad lighting
Autofocus speed
Taking advantage of series III teleconverters improved IQ and speed

One thing I would like to do is work on improving my portfolio with local HS games that I could shop to local schools and papers. Then work the fair trade angle of me shooting for them if they get me a press pass to gain access to the sidelines of bigger events. Then network form there in hopes of earning more press passes to larger games. It may be a pipe dream, but it keeps Fred occupied in thought so I can get some sleep.

I agree that it is hard to give insight without knowing what I like to shoot and if I should be working on more technique instead of expanding my kit. So, here is a link to my site: RedRingPhotos


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 7, 2013)

I agree with a lot of what Paul has said. A 5D iii is a very good camera, though not the best for high speed sports. I know some pros that use that as their secondary camera on the pitch. You already have a 7D which has a good fps, so between the two you should be able to get some excellent results to test how far you can push your sports photography etc. You already have sufficiently good enough gear to get your foot in the door and see where it takes you. Really, you do not need more. But....

The 1D X is the best camera in the world for sports. It is also an amazing camera, full stop. So if you can afford it, have no financial issues, then why not. Go get it. 

The 300 is an amazing lens, wow. And of course, it, and the 1D X go perfectly together. Plus it is not that expensive if you compare it to the 400 f/2.8 or 200-400 1.4x.



paul13walnut5 said:


> It's different with pressure. Would you keep calm even if a ball trashed one of your lenses...



Oh that very nearly happened to me twice in the same game, just recently. Once before the match (when they were training/warming up) and the ball missed my 400 f/2.8 by millimetres. I did not see it, but I knew by the guy's face next to me, just how close to the lens it must have been as he was nearly white, and even the crowd behind me raised some eyebrows when I turned round to them! The other later in the 2nd half but then it was by a couple of centimetres so I was not too worried!!


----------



## sdsr (Aug 7, 2013)

A few random thoughts:

1. Assuming you can afford the toys you want, and that you really want them, go for it. There's no reason why only professionals should have them. Are there any other hobbies where people keep saying, implicitly or explicitly, that you shouldn't get the best equipment unless you plan to make money from it? I would forget about that line of argument.

2. Lenses vs bodies. It depends on what you have and what difference it would make to the sorts of photos you take. For instance, if you like taking photos in situations where high ISOs are unavoidable and your body has a crop sensor and you have some good lenses, it would make more sense to me to upgrade the body to FF rather than buy more lenses.

3. Following from 2, you have a marvelous camera body already, which may tilt the balance back to lenses. You seem to be in the US, in which case it's easy to rent photo equipment.  So why not rent a 1DX and find out for yourself whether "general overall IQ" is noticeably better, whether high ISO performance is noticeably better, whether face recognition really works, and whether higher FPS makes a difference to your life? 

4. If your interest in new toys is merely to improve how the photos you take look, or to enable you to take photos you can't take well with the equipment you have, rather than for the sheer fun of playing with new toys, take a look at your portfolio and ask yourself what you wish was different in your photos. They may well be features - composition, light, etc. - which won't be affected in any way by changing your equipment.


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 7, 2013)

If you get the 300 2.8, you'll be thinking about how much more performance you could get from it with a 1DX with its extra battery power and FPS.


----------



## markphoto (Aug 7, 2013)

I have the 300 2.8 II and I love this lens. I was in your dilemma awhile back a chose the lens over the 1dx. I still want the 1dx but I've been able to get by without it for the time being. Since you have the 5d mk III, 7d and both teleconverters, I think you would get more benefit from the 300 2.8. If you got the lens, you could run two bodies--one with the 300 (and a 1.4x converter) and one with the 70 - 200. This is a great set-up for shooting sports. Can't get into Candlestick with this set of kit? Join the club. You can't start at the top, shoot local sports with this very profession level gear. Sell the 300 f4 and the 100 - 400.


----------



## candyman (Aug 7, 2013)

markphoto said:


> I have the 300 2.8 II and I love this lens. I was in your dilemma awhile back a chose the lens over the 1dx. I still want the 1dx but I've been able to get by without it for the time being. Since you have the 5d mk III, 7d and both teleconverters, I think you would get more benefit from the 300 2.8. If you got the lens, you could run two bodies--one with the 300 (and a 1.4x converter) and one with the 70 - 200. This is a great set-up for shooting sports. Can't get into Candlestick with this set of kit? Join the club. You can't start at the top, shoot local sports with this very profession level gear. Sell the 300 f4 and the 100 - 400.




+1
That's my idea. I am saving for the 300 2.8 II (and already have the 1.4 III - that was easy)


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2013)

candyman said:


> markphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 300 2.8 II and I love this lens. I was in your dilemma awhile back a chose the lens over the 1dx. I still want the 1dx but I've been able to get by without it for the time being. Since you have the 5d mk III, 7d and both teleconverters, I think you would get more benefit from the 300 2.8. If you got the lens, you could run two bodies--one with the 300 (and a 1.4x converter) and one with the 70 - 200. This is a great set-up for shooting sports. Can't get into Candlestick with this set of kit? Join the club. You can't start at the top, shoot local sports with this very profession level gear. Sell the 300 f4 and the 100 - 400.
> ...


This is indeed the best scenario. 300 2.8L IS II is a lens that will serve someone for decades...


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 7, 2013)

All good thoughts to consider. Since I have not been in the market for either of these long enough to have watched trending I have to ask. Do these pro level bodies and lenses ever show up on rebates or price reductions around the holidays? Or is that pretty much reserved for the consumer level market gear? I got my 5DIII on a Black Friday deal last year and it was $500 off. I know I can look at used or refurb deals, but if I am going to be spending this much on a item I really want it to be new.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 7, 2013)

I have both the 5DIII and the 1DX. I don´t have the 300 f2.8 IS II, but I have the 400 f2.8L IS II. I combine the 400mm with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. 

For sports, there is no question which of is the King of Bodies, but I also get excellent results with the 5DIII. And there is no doubt that the 300mm f2.8 would be a great sports lens. But! In your case I would rather work for a press pass. The quality of your current combo should give you excellent results, but as someone previously in this thread said, you need to get away from a fixed stand position and be allowed to move around. That gives you the opportunity to get images you could sell and finance all the fancy equipment you need thereafter.

But a final take away from me; Glass outlives Bodies all the time ...

Good luck!


----------



## Skirball (Aug 7, 2013)

ForumMuppet said:


> Then I think about it all and part of me says it is ridiculous for someone like myself, who is not making money from this, is even considering spending that kinda cabbage on a damn camera or lens. I remember a year ago, when I first started getting interested in photography telling a coworker that I want to upgrade my Digital Rebel camera for something newer. I told him my budget was around $750. Well 6 months and $35,000 later... LoL



That's precious.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 8, 2013)

ForumMuppet said:


> Then I think about it all and part of me says it is ridiculous for someone like myself, who is not making money from this, is even considering spending that kinda cabbage on a damn camera or lens. I remember a year ago, when I first started getting interested in photography telling a coworker that I want to upgrade my Digital Rebel camera for something newer. I told him my budget was around $750. Well 6 months and $35,000 later... LoL
> 
> Any thoughts for me and Fred?



Yes unless you have an extra zero and misplaced comma give someone else the purse strings! ;D
A forty six fold increase in budget? Wow.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 8, 2013)

Nope, no typos there. $35k which has again went up since I just purchased the 300 f/2.8 from B&H. LoL


----------

