# How to spend $3000 now or keep saving?



## tiger82 (Dec 4, 2013)

My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. I would like a camera for low light stage events.


----------



## Dick (Dec 4, 2013)

Canon's sensors are embarrassing compared to Sony's. I can't think of one thing that is better if you get a Canon sensor. Why not get the A7R? I might sell my 5D3 to buy something like that. I guess focusing speed and fps are the main advantages of 5D3/1DX in this comparison. Maybe they focus better in the kind of events you mentioned.


----------



## RomainF (Dec 4, 2013)

Dick said:


> Canon's sensors are embarrassing compared to Sony's. I can't think *of one thing that is better if you get a Canon *sensor. Why not get the A7R? I might sell my 5D3 to buy something like that. I guess focusing speed and fps are the main advantages of 5D3/1DX in this comparison. Maybe they focus better in the kind of events you mentioned.



Focusing.....you can't even compare the AF on Canon pro-line and on the A7.
And ISO. It's not because you can shoot 25600 that you want to shoot 25600 with that camera. Definitely better on Canons.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 4, 2013)

I´m no expert on the Sony, but for low light stage events ... I would be surprised if the AF on the Sony is anywhere near the 5DIII/1DX. And what happens to DR and all the rest of it in high ISO territory ... 

I´m OK with people expressing their views in black and white, but to call the 5DIII/1DX sensors an embarrassment compared to Sony is to stretch the fact, especially in low light situations. If you add all the rest you need to make good images, I believe Sony is left in the dust.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 4, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. * I would like a camera for low light stage events.*



The part in bold in the quote above points to the 1Dx.

Low light performance of the 1Dx is better than the 5D3 or 1DIV.

Low light performance of the 6D apparently betters the 5D3, but gives up some AF performance parameters. There is a current thread on going from a 5D3 to a 6D here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18417.0

You can use an ISO 25600 file right out of a 1Dx. Can you do that with a Sony (serious question- I have no idea).


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Dec 4, 2013)

Dick said:


> I can't think of one thing that is better if you get a Canon sensor.


The available glass selection? The AF system? All the DR and megapixels in the world don't mean a thing if the light is out of focus and distorted.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 4, 2013)

The 1Dx is going to mop the floor with the competition when taking pictures of people jumping around a dark stage. I say shoot for one of those, it's appropriate for the job description.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 4, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000.  I would like a camera for low light stage events.



If compact body size is not important to you, then I would go for the BEST DSLR on the planet - 1D X


----------



## Niki (Dec 4, 2013)

while your saving up…try a canon film camera and fast lens for cheap…the 1dx will take a while to drop down in price


----------



## DaveMiko (Dec 4, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. I would like a camera for low light stage events.



Save up another 4K and get the mighty 1DX! 8)


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 4, 2013)

The optimum solution for "low light stage events" is the Leica M with the f0.95 noctilux - but you're only
$15,000 short if you plan to "keep saving". I'd suggest you buy now and enjoy the show - a 70D with the
85mm f1.2 will consume your camera fund and give you one hell of a low light solution. It's more about 
the glass than the camera - and you can use the lens long after the camera body has bit it's technological
end.


----------



## SwampYankee (Dec 4, 2013)

I'm a Canon guy with a 5DIII and a good investment in glass. I hate to say this but have you looked at the Nikon D800? Best sensor plus great glass. I love the Sony but the lenses are not there yet nor will they be for a long time. Can't go wrong with a Canon 5DIII though


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 4, 2013)

If you want the ultimate in low-light with high ISO & AF, 1DX, no question. This from a 5d3 shooter. The 5d3 is great, love it and wouldn't trade it, but every photo I've seen from the 1DX and what I know of it's AF/Metering system that's different from the 5d3 says it's even better. Especially with metering based on the AF selected, rather than just the standard modes that operate based off of the center of the VF. I'm so jealous of that.

If you just want to get shooting, and shoot a wide variety of subjects, the 5d3 is a great camera for that. No, not as good DR as a Sony sensor at low ISOs, but once you get up to the mid and high ISOs, it's as good or better. The AF system is outstanding as well, and the body handling & ergonomics are great. That said, if you think you can wait, the 1DX will be that much better for low light/concert photography.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 4, 2013)

Dick said:


> Canon's sensors are embarrassing compared to Sony's.



Got to be a bit of a dick to say such a thing. 

Embarrassing.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 4, 2013)

I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.


----------



## retina (Dec 4, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> If you want the ultimate in low-light with high ISO & AF, 1DX, no question. This from a 5d3 shooter. The 5d3 is great, love it and wouldn't trade it, but every photo I've seen from the 1DX and what I know of it's AF/Metering system that's different from the 5d3 says it's even better. Especially with metering based on the AF selected, rather than just the standard modes that operate based off of the center of the VF. I'm so jealous of that.
> 
> If you just want to get shooting, and shoot a wide variety of subjects, the 5d3 is a great camera for that. No, not as good DR as a Sony sensor at low ISOs, but once you get up to the mid and high ISOs, it's as good or better. The AF system is outstanding as well, and the body handling & ergonomics are great. That said, if you think you can wait, the 1DX will be that much better for low light/concert photography.



My thoughts exactly.

Most people bragging about Sony's DR and trashing Canon's, don't realize that it's only better at low ISO values, with the highest difference being at base ISO.

If you are going to shoot events at mid/high ISO settings;
5DIII with it's superb sensor & amazing AF, paired with pro grade Canon glass, is a far better choice than anything Sony can offer at the moment.

I would rather get a 5DIII and invest in a couple of fast primes for the price of a 1DX, eventhough it's THE best body money can buy for low light event/action photography.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

Dick said:


> Canon's sensors are embarrassing compared to Sony's. I can't think of one thing that is better if you get a Canon sensor. Why not get the A7R? I might sell my 5D3 to buy something like that. I guess focusing speed and fps are the main advantages of 5D3/1DX in this comparison. Maybe they focus better in the kind of events you mentioned.



If the A7R uses the same sensor as the Nikon D600 or D610, then it is quite inferior to the 6D for low light exposures, between the ISO range of 1000 to 10,000 (at least at the pixel level at 100%). So is the 1DX, the D4, the D800, and every other camera on earth. Above this range, many of the others start to pull ahead...as well as below this range. But within this critical range, sorry but the 6D wins...for now.


----------



## alexturton (Dec 5, 2013)

There are only 5 currently planned native lenses for the a7r with only 2 available now. 

The native af speed is only on the native mount lenses. With an alpha mount adapter (to access sonys other lenses) the af is somewhat poorer. 

With only 5 lens options I would not buy the a7r. 

I would save further and buy a 5d3.


----------



## mwh1964 (Dec 5, 2013)

Sell your current bodies and you would almost be there for the 1Dx


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

No real lens selection in Sony land. You have canon glass already and the 5d3 is stellar low light performer.


----------



## sb in ak (Dec 13, 2013)

Another vote for the 5D3. Easy to get lost in the mess of numbers and graphs on the internet to the point of paralysis by analysis. The Exmor sensors are better at lower ISOs but you're going to have that baby cranked up for stage events. It's an excellent camera for those sorts of things and an extremely versatile piece of equipment in general. 

You could also look at the 6D. Slightly better ISO performance than the 5D3 and an amazing centerpoint for low light, though the rest of the AF points are weak and limited in their range.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 2, 2014)

5D3. The 1DX is better at the top-top end. But is it REALLY necessary? I can do low-light events with my 5D2. I struggle with it's ISO performance. The 5D3 is a whole other league. I've seen guys shoot at 100k ISO and images look fabulous.  I'm sure there is post involved. But I couldn't tell. Shows in which I need a flash, I see guys next to me with 5D3s without a flash. Jealous.

I shoot manual so AF doesn't matter all that much. But if I could score a 5D3 for about $2k, I'd seriously consider selling my 5D2.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 2, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.



This. I used to get mostly great photos of plays even with my relatively ancient XTi. In my experience, it isn't the camera that makes or breaks stage photos, but rather whether you shoot in RAW and whether you know how to use the camera in full manual mode so that your shots aren't consistently blown out by the automatic exposure thinking it needs to bring out the details of the black floor rather than the bright highlights that just happen to be people's faces. 

I think a 6D would do a stunning job, and I'd be surprised if the better autofocus of a 5Dmk3 or a 1DX would make much difference in such a controlled environment. Just my $0.02.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 2, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.
> ...



Great explanation. I've always shot RAW and with my first couple of shoots, also included JPG. But since, only RAW. And it makes a HUGE difference saving images in post processing.


----------



## MovingViolations (Jan 3, 2014)

My take is wait long enough to save enough for a 5D MIII with a Canon 50mm 1.4 and an 85 f1.8 to start if you are upfront of the auditoriums. Better yet rent this combo and see were it will take you before biting anyone's propaganda. Canon wins for me over any Sony offering. I don't see the Return on an investment with the 1DX or Nikon D4. Best possible sharp and fast to focus glass will cost the same on any camera that will perform in low light. I've used a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM for shooting from the back of a dark auditorium using a monopod and by keeping prints small got buy with it. For me monopods beat IS. The new 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM is showing much better DXOMark scores. So if you need to be in the back that might be the #1 choice. Only you can find out for sure by trying it out. That is a $5000 combo or there about. A fixed 200mm f2.0 is costly and not flexible like the new 70-200 is. If you are going to always be up front or in the back that simplifies lens selection. Be sure to do your home work on the focus speed of any lens. The 85mm f1.2 is a no no for fast focus requirements. Great for what it is intended for though. If you shoot from the back you will get better images due to the way the tele creates the image. Ears start to look much better in balance with the nose after 135 mm or so. The Canon 100mm f2.0 seems to be another possibility depending on distance and width of the stage. There is also a great 135mm L series fast lens for great image quality in low light. One day you might find yourself shooting two bodies with two primes. There are shoulder harnesses for such. There is a reason photo journalists have 2-3 bodies strapped to them. No time to change a lens. You have a lot of research, trial and error ahead of yourself to get it right. Best wishes and happy shooting.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 3, 2014)

Dick, 

I think that your statement is a bit over-reaching. Better don some asbestos. I always want more/better for less, but I can't agree with your statement.

I am sure others will put it more strongly.

Scott



Dick said:


> Canon's sensors are embarrassing compared to Sony's. I can't think of one thing that is better if you get a Canon sensor. Why not get the A7R? I might sell my 5D3 to buy something like that. I guess focusing speed and fps are the main advantages of 5D3/1DX in this comparison. Maybe they focus better in the kind of events you mentioned.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 3, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I'd travel and shoot with whatever working camera I had.



+1


----------



## JohnUSA (Jan 3, 2014)

My vote... 5D3... the most versatile all around camera. Focus has been super accurate in lowlight situations ( wedding receptions/cocktail hour ) for me.

Buy a refurbished 5D3 via Canon's site and take 10% off if trading-in a broken P&S Canon. That's what I did and my 5D3 only had a shutter count of 5. It's been rock solid through 10,000+ images so far.


----------



## Zen (Jan 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I´m no expert on the Sony, but for low light stage events ... I would be surprised if the AF on the Sony is anywhere near the 5DIII/1DX. And what happens to DR and all the rest of it in high ISO territory ...
> 
> I´m OK with people expressing their views in black and white, but to call the 5DIII/1DX sensors an embarrassment compared to Sony is to stretch the fact, especially in low light situations. If you add all the rest you need to make good images, I believe Sony is left in the dust.





Me too! I'd put my 5D3 against any Sony product any time. It's not only the sensor that makes an image. The glass and the processor have something to do with it too.

Zen


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Jan 3, 2014)

tiger82 said:



> My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. *I would like a camera for low light stage events.*



Based on your tagline "1D3 with 70-200 IS f/2.8L, 5D2 with 24-70 f/2.8L" I assume you do not own/use other lenses at the moment. I use to shoot with a 5Dmk2 and now with a 5dmk3. In my opinion the mk3 is about 1 - 1.5 stops better in high iso noise and dynamic range vs the mk2 in low light situations. The mk3's AF is drastically better for every scenario…but since your fastest lens is f2.8, I would actually recommend buying a few fast primes and just use the center AF point on your mk2 for focusing. The 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, and 50 f1.2 work wonders in low light scenarios. Also, don't forget that a canon speedlite can help with your AF issues in lowlight.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 3, 2014)

I'd say jump into the pool. Gear devalues over time, bodies more so than lenses... but if you get a 6d for 1500 now and a 50 f1.2, that would go a long way in getting you close to where you want to be. Then when the time comes, sell the 6d, decide on the lens... it can be cheaper than a rental.

When I got my Canon xs, I paid about 400 plus two lenses. Two years later I sold all of the great for what I originally paid. Fast forward to my 60d and after two years I lost 150-200 in value... still pretty cheap for a two year rental.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 3, 2014)

Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.


----------



## rs (Jan 3, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.


+1

If 135mm is a regularly required focal length and a wide spread of AF points isn't needed, the 6D/135L system would be hard to beat in low light.


----------



## sama (Jan 4, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> My new camera fund has reached $3000, barely enough for a used 1D4 or a new 5D3. Looking around, I can also get a Sony A7R with 36MP, ISO 25600 and a 24-70 f/4 FF lens. Or do I keep going and hope to get a lower priced or refurb 1DX for another $5000. I would like a camera for low light stage events.



Canon 5D3 now selling US$2,549 on EBay - bigvalueinc


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 4, 2014)

rs said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus. There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.
> ...



The 1DX is a great body, but you can achieve comparable results at a fraction of the price. Another guy mentioned it before, but I thought it was interesting. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJqHPHLExo

pictures of herons catching fish? Sometimes you don't need the best to capture mundane...


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



That's a funny clip! Reminds me of some people on here, only they aren't funny ...


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 11, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jan 12, 2014)

I would go for the fast glass(es) first.
One up to two stops faster.
You will need them anyway for low light.
Then you can decide, if you need/want a newer body too.


----------

