# 2nd Body... 1D IV or another 5D III



## rmfagan (Oct 20, 2013)

Hello all-

I posted a few weeks back about my first experience shooting college football and it appears I'll be doing quite a bit more of that as well as basketball and general PJ work. As of right now, I'm shooting on a gripped 5D III, a 16-35 II, a 70-200 II, and a nifty fifty.

CPS loaned me a second 5D III as well as their 400 IS II to shoot that last game, but as you may or may not know, these are evaluation loans and as such you can only "borrow" each item 1-2 times, depending on your level of membership. As such, I've decided without a doubt that I need another camera. In truth, I would prefer to cover football with 3, but we'll worry about that in due time. With all of this, keep in mind I will also be buying EITHER a 300 2.8 IS II OR a 400 2.8 IS 1.

So, the question becomes which one? As I need to sort this out fairly soon, I don't have a ton of time to save. Yes, I know the answer to this question is 1DX, but I can't do it right now. I'm between another 5D III, maintaining battery and control compatibility, or a 1D IV.

I love the 5D III, no real complaints. It's great at what it does, and honestly, it's not a half bad sports camera. If I get a third camera later next year, it will be a 5D III more likely than not. I did notice some shots missed due to having "only" 6 fps. The tracking though was largely fine. IQ I was happy with. I did some cropping, but not a ton with the 400. If anything, I could use to back off a bit.

This leads me to consider the 1D IV. I can pick one up in good shape for roughly the same price as a refurb 5d III + grip. I could get the newer 300 2.8 IS II and get slightly less reach than 400, while gaining fps. I expect tracking to be fine, metering fine, etc. After all, this was THE sports camera before 1DX, it's not all the sudden bad.

I've got a 1DX (I'm gonna hate myself) and 300 2.8 IS II coming in for my next game, shooting Teddy Bridgewater against UConn early November so I should get a feel for both the speed of the 1D-series and the difference in reach, should I go 5D III on a second camera and stick with 300.

Your thoughts on 5D III / 1D IV and on 400 ver I / 300 v II would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a ton!


----------



## rmfagan (Oct 20, 2013)

Also, for anyone about to recommend it, I'm picking up a 24-70 II in December. I use my 16-35 at games, but it's a very particular shot. the 24-70 will be more useful more often I think, both for endzone work and for near-court in basketball. I'm still hanging on to the 16-35, however, as there are times when the shot just calls for wide I think.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 20, 2013)

I would suggest to get the used 1D Mark IV with the 300mm L Mark II first. 1D Mark IV will give you extra reach with the 300mm lens plus the higher frame rate. Later on you can still add another 5D Mark III as a third camera.

If you would purchase another 5D Mark III, you will probably keep running into missed shots due to the lower frame rate until you have convinced yourself to buy a 1D anyway, but will a reasonably priced 1D Mark IV be available at that time? Maybe not. You will then have to bite the bullet and purchase a 1D-X. Purchasing the 1D Mark IV now at least enables you to sell the same camera body later on to finance a new 1D-X.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 20, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> I would suggest to get the used 1D Mark IV with the 300mm L Mark II first. 1D Mark IV will give you extra reach with the 300mm lens plus the higher frame rate. Later on you can still add another 5D Mark III as a third camera.
> 
> If you would purchase another 5D Mark III, you will probably keep running into missed shots due to the lower frame rate until you have convinced yourself to buy a 1D anyway, but will a reasonably priced 1D Mark IV be available at that time? Maybe not. You will then have to bite the bullet and purchase a 1D-X. Purchasing the 1D Mark IV now at least enables you to sell the same camera body later on to finance a new 1D-X.



+1

1d4 and 300mm ii

Although, you could go with a 1dx and used 300mm 2.8. (there were only very small improvements made on the newer 300 2.8 anyway)


----------



## pedro (Oct 20, 2013)

Without reading I'd recommend another 5D3, because you are able to continue shooting without any adaptation to another body. And if reach is needed I'd go for the 1.4 converter. Cheaper solution, newer body. My two cents.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Oct 20, 2013)

I'd recommend the 1D Mark IV along with the 400mm 2.8L IS.... You'd already have the 300ish range covered with the 70-200 + 1.4x.... esp. for football....


----------



## pwp (Oct 20, 2013)

I shoot a lot of action. I also own a 5D3 and a 1D4. The 5D3 is a very competent camera but for shooting action the 1D4 operates in a different galaxy. No comparison. The 5D3 is not a sports action camera. The AF is fine, but frame rate, weaker ergonomics, less solid weather proofing, shutter life, and very importantly buffer depth are the factors that make the 5D3 a non-starter when compared to the 1D4. It does tick a lot of boxes, but sports action was never part of the 5D3 job description.

If your primary objective is a hot sports action camera and you're choosing between 5D3 and 1D4, don't even think about the 5D3. If the budget is there, stretch to the 1DX and be amazed...

-pw


----------



## rmfagan (Oct 20, 2013)

I certainly wish the budget was there for a 1DX, but as a college student (though at 28 years old its a bit better) it just isn't right now. I can't utilize the 70-200 w/ converter option bc I use that heavily as my second lens on a second body heavily for the near sideline work. The intent is to have one body for a long Tele (300 or 400) with the 70-200 on the second. Later, the 16-35 or a 24-70 will be on a third for wide shots in the end zone and of the crowd, etc.

This sports shooting (for the next few years at least) is just from fall to spring, so in summer I travel and shoot wildlife, travel stuff, etc. I may even apprentice with a wedding pro. Regardless, I see a lot of utility in the 300 for other stuff and think it should still suffice, at least on a 1d iv, for sports. So that's the direction I'm leaning. 

The older specs do bother me a bit about the 1D IV though. Anything in particular that I should be aware of?


----------



## Northstar (Oct 20, 2013)

pwp said:


> I shoot a lot of action. I also own a 5D3 and a 1D4. The 5D3 is a very competent camera but for shooting action the 1D4 operates in a different galaxy. No comparison. The 5D3 is not a sports action camera. The AF is fine, but frame rate, weaker ergonomics, less solid weather proofing, shutter life, and very importantly buffer depth are the factors that make the 5D3 a non-starter when compared to the 1D4. It does tick a lot of boxes, but sports action was never part of the 5D3 job description.
> 
> If your primary objective is a hot sports action camera and you're choosing between 5D3 and 1D4, don't even think about the 5D3. If the budget is there, stretch to the 1DX and be amazed...
> 
> -pw



+1

I have a 5d3 and 1dx (and have tried a 1d4) PW is spot on, the 5d3 is a capable sport camera, but for serious sports photography the 1d4 and 1dx are much better. I rarely use my 5d3 for sports now, only as a second body to the 1dx.

also...fyi - the 1DX was on the canon usa refubished website for sale at $5500 a few weeks ago...it's still listed, just out of stock

and 300 vs 400....decide whether you like using a monopod or not...with the 400, it's a must, but I can shoot a whole game with the 300 attached to a black rapid strap


----------



## stephan00 (Oct 20, 2013)

Wouldn't the newer AF of the 5D3 be better suited for action-photography even with the lower framerate?

I read that you can set the 1D-IV to use all 45 points and it should be able to track movement even if it leaves the initially chosen AF-point, but is this good enough or do you all stick to center point-AF with the surrounding points?

Also, what is the highest ISO you feel comfortable with at the 1D-IV? With the 5D3 I usually don't hesitate to use 12800 and might even go higher in extremely low light.


----------



## stephan00 (Oct 20, 2013)

p.s.: reason I'm asking is that I could get a used 1D-IV for just above 2000 € and am seriously tempted by this, as I suppose I would find it very useful as primary/second body with the 5D3 for the upcoming African safari


----------



## pwp (Oct 20, 2013)

stephan00 said:


> Wouldn't the newer AF of the 5D3 be better suited for action-photography even with the lower framerate?


Emphatically...no. 


stephan00 said:


> I read that you can set the 1D-IV to use all 45 points and it should be able to track movement even if it leaves the initially chosen AF-point, but is this good enough or do you all stick to center point-AF with the surrounding points?


That's the theory but in practice you'll have a disappointing keeper rate. On the 1D4 I tend to keep an expanded AF point on the action. This become second nature with a bit of practice. The 1DX with it's dedicated AF processor and higher available voltage hits the ball out of the park. 


stephan00 said:


> Also, what is the highest ISO you feel comfortable with at the 1D-IV? With the 5D3 I usually don't hesitate to use 12800 and might even go higher in extremely low light.


The 5D3 will outperform the 1D4 at higher iso but not by as much as you might think. 

-pw


----------



## Northstar (Oct 21, 2013)

pwp said:


> stephan00 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't the newer AF of the 5D3 be better suited for action-photography even with the lower framerate?
> ...



+1 again....pw giving spot on advice.


----------



## stephan00 (Oct 21, 2013)

Stupid me, why do I keep asking?  About every time I do, I end up having to slaughter another one of my piggy banks


----------



## rmfagan (Oct 21, 2013)

I see them as pretty equal price-wise... A good 1D IV seems to fetch around $3k on the used market, maybe less if you wait a bit and search, while you can pick up a refurb 5D3 for roughly $2500 through CLP. Add $275 for the grip and you're at 2775. In the scheme of things, pretty close.


----------



## Grumbaki (Oct 21, 2013)

The killer feature for action sport IMHO (actually the only one I personally miss on the 5d3) is the spot metering on AF point. Rocks in general but must works wonders shooting fast action, focusing on composition and the moment.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 21, 2013)

My job issued me a 1Dmk3, then progressed to a mk4 and eventually to a 1Dx. I also have a 5Dmk3 as a backup camera (or whenever I feel the 1Dx would be overkill).

Since you're shooting sports I would highly recommend the 1Dmk4 because of the 1.3 crop factor (without losing a stop), the superb AF, and the fast fps. In fact, I miss the 1Dmk4 because of the crop factor. Pair this with the 300mm v2 and you'll fall in love with its performance (don't forget to use a monopod because this piece of kit is heavy).

In addition to the reasons I stated above, the overall build quality of a 1D body is superior to a 5Dmk3 and will prove useful when shooting outdoor games in rain, snow, or super hot temperatures.


----------



## pwp (Oct 22, 2013)

David_in_Seattle said:


> Since you're shooting sports I would highly recommend the 1Dmk4 because of the 1.3 crop factor
> Pair this with the 300mm v2 and you'll fall in love with its performance.
> 
> In addition to the reasons I stated above, the overall build quality of a 1D body is superior to a 5Dmk3 and will prove useful when shooting outdoor games in rain, snow, or super hot temperatures.


+1 good points. 
The FF 1DX may end up costing me the price of a 400 f/2.8. 
300mm x 1.3 = 390mm with the Mk4. On FF of course 300mm=300mm! 
If the x1.6 APS-C crop 7D2 ends up being the spiritual successor to the 1D4 in terms of FPS, AF and buffer-depth performance, I'd get one for the crop factor alone.

But OP, I think you've got the message by now, start looking for a good 1D4. Don't worry too much about getting one with ultra-low shutter actuations, these things generally run for several hundred thousand clicks or often over a million before hitting shutter troubles. The stated 300,000 shutter life is _very _conservative. 

-pw


----------



## rmfagan (Oct 22, 2013)

That's the direction I was leaning. Seems this is as close as it gets to a consensus on CR. I'm pretty impressed. I expected more dissenters, or at least more noise for the 400 on FF as opposed to 300 on 1.3. How much of a difference in amount of bokeh should I expect?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2013)

pwp said:


> David_in_Seattle said:
> 
> 
> > Since you're shooting sports I would highly recommend the 1Dmk4 because of the 1.3 crop factor
> ...



The crop factor is for field of view. The pixel density is what counts for extra reach. As the sensor on the 1D IV has fewer megapixels than the 5DIII, the effective increase in telephoto length is only 1.1 times rather than 1.3 (pixels of 5.7 vs 6.25 microns).


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2013)

Not another pixel density fallacy thread!

All pixels are not equal, the numbers theory does not translate to actual images as has been demonstrated in various threads here and many other places.


----------



## pwp (Oct 22, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The crop factor is for field of view. The pixel density is what counts for extra reach. As the sensor on the 1D IV has fewer megapixels than the 5DIII, the effective increase in telephoto length is only 1.1 times rather than 1.3 (pixels of 5.7 vs 6.25 microns).


Errrm...._what_?

-pw


----------



## rmfagan (Oct 22, 2013)

I'm officially confused


----------



## Halfrack (Oct 22, 2013)

rmfagan said:


> I'm officially confused



Ignore the previous few posts - a side track you don't want to get involved in. At least you haven't requested the 200-400/f4/1.4x and have to send it back.

The 1D line is known for doubling as a blunt object for dealing with rioters, and such. It will take more abuse or 'shooting in challenging conditions' than the 5D mk3. Do consider a used 300 mk1, but if you go for the 400mm, know that the mk1 is 3.5lbs heavier than the mk2.


----------



## rmfagan (Oct 22, 2013)

I'm concerned as part of my reasoning in wanting to buy a 1D IV is the ability to make use of the significantly cheaper 300 vs buying the 400.

Is it incorrect then that the 300 becomes effectively a 390 on a 1D IV?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2013)

rmfagan said:


> I'm concerned as part of my reasoning in wanting to buy a 1D IV is the ability to make use of the significantly cheaper 300 vs buying the 400.
> 
> Is it incorrect then that the 300 becomes effectively a 390 on a 1D IV?


In terms of what you see in the image, the field of view, a 300 on a 1D IV will be the same as a 390 on a 5DIII.

In terms of the detail you will be able to resolve, a 300 on a 1D IV will be the same as a 330 on a 5DIII.

Let me give a simple example to make this clear. Suppose you have a FF with a 20 megapixel sensor, and a 1.6x crop camera with a sensor which is the same sensor as the FF but with a mask around the outside to make it 1.6x narrower and 1.6x shorter. As the crop sensor is 1.6x1.6 = 2.56 times smaller in area, it will have about 8 megapixels. If you stand the same distance away from the image with a 300mm lens on each camera, the image on the crop will be 1.6x smaller in height and length. So it will cover the same field of view as a 480mm lens. But, the cropped image that it does have will be of identical quality to that on the FF. So, in terms of resolving power, it is only as good as a 300mm lens. So, an 8 megapixel 1.6x crop APS-C has the same resolving power as a 20 megapixel FF, but the field of view is 1.6x narrower.

The ID 1V is a 1.3x crop so its field of view is 1.3x smaller than FF. But, because it has fewer megapixels than the 5DIII, it has only 1.1x better resolving power.


----------



## pwp (Oct 22, 2013)

rmfagan said:


> I'm concerned as part of my reasoning in wanting to buy a 1D IV is the ability to make use of the significantly cheaper 300 vs buying the 400.
> 
> Is it incorrect then that the 300 becomes effectively a 390 on a 1D IV?


Get the calculator and do it yourself.
300 x 0 (FF sensor on 5D3 & 1DX) = 300
300 x 1.3 (APS-H sensor on 1D4) =390
300 x 1.6 (APS-C sensor on 7D) =480

-pw


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2013)

I went through the same debate as I had the opportunity of picking up a hardly used 1D IV. The 1D IV is built like a tank and has great frame rate. But, set against that is its AF and iso performance are worse than the 5DIII, and its lower pixel density meant the effective extra reach is only 10% more, not 30%. So, I decided against. But, that is my personal choice.


----------



## Kernuak (Oct 22, 2013)

As a little perspective. If you cropped the 5DMkIII 1.3x, you would end up with roughly a 13 MP image, compared to the 16 MP image of a 1D MkIV.
I was also considering a used 1D MkIV for wildlife to replace my 7D which gets limited use now I have the MkIII (until funds were diverted elsewhere ). The frame rate isn't often needed, but when it is, there is no substitute. Also, I was told by the UK CPS rep, that while the MKIII AF is more accurate, the 1D MkIV AF is faster, because of the batteries driving the motor. That may also be an important factor, although I don't know how big the difference is.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2013)

Kernuak said:


> As a little perspective. If you cropped the 5DMkIII 1.3x, you would end up with roughly a 13 MP image, compared to the 16 MP image of a 1D MkIV.



That is perfectly consistent with what I wrote about the 1D IV having a factor of 1.1x more reach, not 1.3x. The 5DIII 22.3 megapixels cropped 1.3x in both height and width does reduce it to a 13.2 MP image, as you wrote. If you use a lens with 1.1x more reach (ie 1.1x longer) than that added to the 1D IV, then it magnifies the image by 1.1x in width and 1.1x in height. So the image is magnified by 1.21x, and 1.21x13.2 = 16 MP. In other words, using a 1.1x longer lens with the 5DIII expands the 13.2 MP area to 16 MP.


----------

