# 2 5d3's or 1d x



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 20, 2013)

I am getting my camera (5d3) replaced and have the opportunity to sell the replacement and get factory refurbed 1d x for $3900 or spend $1600 more to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup. Just not sure if I should jump on the 1d x since I have lived this long with 1 body or get the 2 5d3's. My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering. Just looking for people who have both to give some insight. I do like the smaller size, silent shutter, lower weight but want a tool thats best for the job. So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 20, 2013)

If a 5D3 does everything you need I'd go with a second one; Relying on one of something is asking for trouble.

Jim


----------



## dave (Sep 20, 2013)

The 1D X is a great camera. However, from your previous posts, I don't think it is worth the extra for what you are shooting.

I also think that you need to be less preoccupied with shuffling your gear around and keep improving your use of it. You seem to have been constantly changing or considering changing for ages now. There is absolutely no reason that you couldn't be a successful photographer with the gear you have. Yes, the 1D X is a better camera but unless you do sports or wildlife for a living is probably not going to help that much.

If you want to have a photography business, changing gear is not likely to make much of a contribution.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh but over the past year I get the impression that your mindset is focused too much on the gear and you think that if you keep changing you will eventually make it as a photographer.

If you are going to change your gear just make sure you do it for the right reasons. There is not some magic dust in the 1D X that makes you better just by holding it. if you don't believe me have a look at the 1D X and 5D3 image galleries on this forum. The image quality is basically equivalent. You may just find the subject matter in the 1D X gallery to be slightly different, but quality wise, hardly any difference.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 20, 2013)

I have both the 5DIII and 1DX. And the 1DX can do all the things a 5DIII can do, except HDR, and some. 

But! If you don't do fast sports, BIF etc. and you don't need the extra ruggedness of the body, you may as well stay with the 5DIII. It is cheaper, it is smaller, it is lighter, it has more pixles, it has a better silent mode, which I use a lot and it is very close in AF and high ISO performance. 

The $3900 price tag was mighty tempting though ...

A cheaper alternative could be a 5DIII/6D combo. Most photographers would envy you that too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup.



Do you do mission critical shootings all the time like weddings where you need a 1:1 instant backup, not once in a while where you could rent or borrow another eos camera? This type of gear isn't very prone to failure anyway, you know 



KKCFamilyman said:


> My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering.



Sure, seeing you enjoy juggling with gear and have the cashflow to back your preference, just get the 1dx!

You then will have the absolute top of the line gear which surely will be fun, I'd like to play around with it too. My point is: This will help you to realize what gear can do and cannot do, i.e. what you need to learn for yourself (unless you wait for the 1dx2 ) and might make you enjoy photography even more, even if someone shout ever put a 550d + 50/1.8 in your hand.



KKCFamilyman said:


> So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.



So what *didn't* you do :-> ?


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 20, 2013)

Please, do tell where the factory refurb 1DX for $3900.00 is available.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 20, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Please, do tell where the factory refurb 1DX for $3900.00 is available.



Its a canon factory refurb.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 20, 2013)

If you need EXTRA speed 1d X is the camera. Otherwise, shooting with x2 5D III is so much easier. I thought I mentioned this in your prev post.

I still don't understand your approach getting 24-70 f4, when you already have 24-70 II :-\ :-\ :-\


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 20, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> If you need EXTRA speed 1d X is the camera. Otherwise, shooting with x2 5D III is so much easier. I thought I mentioned this in your prev post.
> 
> I still don't understand your approach getting 24-70 f4, when you already have 24-70 II :-\ :-\ :-\



I got the 24-70 for $430 and need a video lens plus thought I could play with the macro to decide if I want a dedicated macro.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 20, 2013)

Unless your parachuting into warzones, marching through wet jungles, shooting Pro Sports or extremely clumsy, you don't need a 1Dx.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 20, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am getting my camera (5d3) replaced and have the opportunity to sell the replacement and get factory refurbed 1d x for $3900 or spend $1600 more to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup. Just not sure if I should jump on the 1d x since I have lived this long with 1 body or get the 2 5d3's. My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering. Just looking for people who have both to give some insight. I do like the smaller size, silent shutter, lower weight but want a tool thats best for the job. So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.



There are lots of threads here and elsewhere on this.

What I have found, of importance to me, is this:

At/below 1600 ISO, 5D3 = 1DX. Above 1600 ISO, 1DX > 5D3

Metering: 1DX > 5D3

f/2.8 AF Points: 1DX > 5D3

Viewfinder face detection: 1DX

Numerous comments about the superior quality of 1DX files and the ability to manipulate them in post.

At low ISO's, given a properly executed image, the 5D3 seems to have more detail due to more MP.

The quieter shutter (not even in silent mode) of the 5D3 should not be underestimated for things like weddings. This comes up again and again. 

Not an easy choice. It isn't just build quality.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 20, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am getting my camera (5d3) replaced and have the opportunity to sell the replacement and get factory refurbed 1d x for $3900 or spend $1600 more to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup. Just not sure if I should jump on the 1d x since I have lived this long with 1 body or get the 2 5d3's. My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering. Just looking for people who have both to give some insight. I do like the smaller size, silent shutter, lower weight but want a tool thats best for the job. So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.



A few questions: Best for what job? What do you shoot that would benefit from a stop better high ISO performance? Do the photos you take now suffer in some visible way from inaccurate metering? Also, while you say you have done macro, in a later post in this thread you say you bought a 24-70 f/4 (which I believe offers only 0.7 magnification) to find out if you need a "dedicated" macro lens; what sort of macro have you done, and in what way(s) would a 1dx help there?


----------



## curtisnull (Sep 20, 2013)

Unless you are shooting sports get a second 5D3. I would rather have two cameras than only one 1Dx.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 20, 2013)

What do you need a second 5D Mark III for?

If I were you, I would keep the one 5D Mark III and put that extra money in your pocket to a holiday (or two) to take pictures on, or possibly a lens you do not have.


----------



## dave (Sep 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Unless your parachuting into warzones, marching through wet jungles, shooting Pro Sports or extremely clumsy, you don't need a 1Dx.



Actually, if you are super clumsy get the 5d3. Drop a 1D X on concrete from a reasonable height and it still bites the dust. Then, no camera!


----------



## dave (Sep 20, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> What do you need a second 5D Mark III for?
> 
> If I were you, I would keep the one 5D Mark III and put that extra money in your pocket to a holiday (or two) to take pictures on, or possibly a lens you do not have.



With the lenses he has, the photo holiday sees like a top suggestion.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 20, 2013)

As much as it would be awesome to have a 1DX, I'd lean towards either:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Two 5DIIIs
[*]One 5DIII and one 6D
[*]One 5DIII and new lens
[/list]

The decision would hinge on which lenses I already had and what the gear would be used for. With option 2, you might even have some left over to still get another lens, depending on the lens. That would give you a great primary body, a capable backup AND another lens.

Either way, I like the idea of having a capable backup to a great camera should one camera fail (and if it does, it will be at the worst possible time). As is often said in my other "shooting" hobby, "Two is one, one is none." Redundancy is a good thing if you're earning your living with your gear.

Of course, if your gear isn't mission-critical, that 1DX would be awfully fun to play with!


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 20, 2013)

Unless you plan to constantly use the second body (i.e. as an event shooter), and just want a backup, I'd go for a cheapo Rebel or something. Many of us with 2 or more bodies rarely use the second body and it's crazy to tie up that kind of cash in a body you rarely use. Just give it some thought - $500 on a Rebel or $1000 on a 7D and the rest for a 1-2 week trip to some amazing place to get dream photos as others have suggested.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 20, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Unless you plan to constantly use the second body (i.e. as an event shooter), and just want a backup, I'd go for a cheapo Rebel or something. Many of us with 2 or more bodies rarely use the second body and it's crazy to tie up that kind of cash in a body you rarely use. Just give it some thought - $500 on a Rebel or $1000 on a 7D and the rest for a 1-2 week trip to some amazing place to get dream photos as others have suggested.



Definitely hard to argue with that! 

Maybe the other reason would be to have a zoom on one body and a prime on the other to have focal length flexibility without having to swap lenses, but I guess you could still do that with a crop backup. Taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip with a 5DIII and a good crop sounds really nice. I'd love to be in KKCFamilyman's predicament!


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Sep 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Unless your parachuting into warzones, marching through wet jungles, shooting Pro Sports or extremely clumsy, you don't need a 1Dx.


I walked through the Vietnamese highland djungle, in the rain, with my 5D3 and it did well shooting a long video take. No parachuting though.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2013)

dave said:


> Actually, if you are super clumsy get the 5d3. Drop a 1D X on concrete from a reasonable height and it still bites the dust. Then, no camera!



If sudden concrete contact is a reasonable future outlook, get a 60d or Rebel, the plastic bodies tend to bounce and get less damaged than heavy mag-alloy :->


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 20, 2013)

I was in the same conundrum so I decided on 8 Rebel T3's.


----------



## pedro (Sep 21, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting my camera (5d3) replaced and have the opportunity to sell the replacement and get factory refurbed 1d x for $3900 or spend $1600 more to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup. Just not sure if I should jump on the 1d x since I have lived this long with 1 body or get the 2 5d3's. My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering. Just looking for people who have both to give some insight. I do like the smaller size, silent shutter, lower weight but want a tool thats best for the job. So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.
> ...



The 1Dx sure is THE flag ship at the moment. But your high ISO assessment shows improvement potential. 

It depends on your idea of a clean image and it depends on your photographical preferencies as well.

So the ISO 1600 criteria seems a bit far fetched. 

In an article earlier this year http://www.uncagethesoul.com/night-photography/best-canon-night-camera/ 
Ben Canales stated: 

"Between the 1Dx and 5D3, it’s again difficult to find a winner here. In this scenario we’re not cranking the shadows to their breaking point, so at the “safe” level of ISO 3200 both seem to perform equally well. I think the 1Dx image catches the eye simply because of the Aurora colors in it. At this usage level, there’s not a big difference between the 1Dx and 5D3."
....

"The 5D3 was NOT usable at 8000, but I’ve heard 6400 is manageable and I believe it. But unfortunately, I didn’t have one shot at that ISO for testing, so it stopped at 5000. ... Amazingly, the 1Dx was controllable all the way up to 12,800! By controllable, I mean a night shot at this ISO- I felt confident in how I edited it that I would post it online as one of my professional portfolio night shots. That doesn’t mean I’d make a print out of it (digital display vs professional print are leap years apart in regards to ISO’s) but I am confident to show it online. To me, this is a big difference and another reason the 1Dx champions out front of the others."
...

"As I mentioned in the beginning, the price difference between the 1Dx and 5D3 is very large with the 1Dx costing TWICE as much as the 5D3. In regards to Night Photography alone, I don’t think the 1Dx’s abilities justifies that size price jump. In fact, bang for buck, I think the 5D2 is still the best “entry level choice” since used 5D2′s can be found on Craigslist for under $2k, as opposed to new 5D3′s at $3,500. However, if you want to be on the “front lines” of night shooting, an upgrade to the newer bodies is a must as it is evident their abilities to handle higher ISO’s has expanded considerably and is very exciting. If you have an older 5d2 and are considering a new camera- I think the 5D3 is a fantastic purchase if you are or want to be in Night Shooting. Get the 5D3 and save that other $3k for one or two L series lenses. However, if you do have the budget, and want the best, the 1Dx represents the cutting edge of Night Photography with a Canon camera."
...

"f you allow me to rant further on- I do not think the 1Dx or 5D3 represent a “game changing” jump in night shooting. Years ago the 5D2 and Nikon D90 were literal game changers in their ability to controllably shoot much higher ISO’s than previously possible. Those cameras literally changed what was thought possible. The 1Dx and 5D3 provide substantial, exciting progress, but they won’t turn the world upside down. Looking to the future, if I could get my hands on the next camera advancement- having that NOW would probably blow my mind compared to the 5D2 and 1D4. Saying this, I realize how spoiled we have become with the rate of progress in our cameras. As mentioned, I discovered how to shoot stars on the very old Canon 30D body. With that camera, ISO 1600 was usually my limit and now the 1Dx is making ISO 12,800 possible?!? Our expanding ability to go out into the dark and bring back images is incredibly exciting and I have no doubt in 1-3 years I’ll enthusiastically be doing another test up on a mountain with new cameras and higher ISO’s."

BTW, this is my late cat, taken early this year at ISO 51k. ;-)




Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## eml58 (Sep 21, 2013)

I use both, 1Dx & 5DMKIII, and I have 2 Bodies of each so I have some experience with your dilemma, which Camera will be best for you ??, depends on what you shoot.

Looking at your previous Posts, I would suggest the 5DMKIII might be the Camera for you unless you start to get into shooting in extreme conditions.

There really isn't (in my opinion) any real difference in Image IQ between the 1Dx & 5DMKIII, but there is a world of difference in the Conditional capability of the two Bodies, the 1Dx you can pretty well treat like dirt in Rain, Snow, Dust (I have) & the Camera keeps working, the 5DMKIII isn't any where near as well protected in the same conditions.

The 1Dx has a few extra bells & whistles, but that's what they are, bells & whistles, may or may not be of any real use, although I do find the 12 fps is exactly what I need in my own wildlife shooting.

It's great having an extra body, myself I always have one 1Dx set up with the 200-400f/4, the other with 70-200f/2.8 II and a 5DMKIII with the 24-70f/2.8 II, but is it really necessary ?/ only you can make this determination.

Someone earlier suggested using the money for other uses, a holiday, lenses etc, might not be a bad idea, it's nice to have that extra Body, but you need to really think hard on priorities if owning that extra Body is stretching the finances, Photography needs to be something stress free and enjoyable, hard if every time you pick up that extra body you feel it's somewhat superfluous.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 21, 2013)

pedro said:


> BTW, this is my late cat, taken early this year at ISO 51k. ;-)



Cute cat.

What camera did you use to take the pictures?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 5, 2013)

Thanks again for the comments. Just wanted to give a status update.

My original 5d3 is being reoplaced by a new one ( something was offi in the mirror box. 

I have these few options.
Get another 5d3 for backup and be able to change lenses less.
Get the 16-35 and a 6d
Get the 16-35 and a 70d body and 100mm macro.

Leaning toward the 5d but unsure if there is a better way to spend $3k. I recently added a flash, got my 85mm 1.2 so really lens wise I only want a 16-35, 100l macro, 70-300l for trips and daylight shooting

Any suggestions.


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 5, 2013)

I have 2 5D3's and a 1DX... honestly I use the 5D3's the majority of the time. I think they are a little more versatile for the events I shoot, mainly weddings and charity events. I checked your SmugMug profile it looks as if you like portraiture... the 5D3 is an outstanding portrait body and having two with a 24-70II and 70-200II is just about perfect. Especially when you grab one or the other and don't have to think for a second which body is which.


----------



## emag (Oct 5, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, this is my late cat, taken early this year at ISO 51k. ;-)
> ...


Per the Flickr link......5D3


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> I have 2 5D3's and a 1DX... honestly I use the 5D3's the majority of the time. I think they are a little more versatile for the events I shoot, mainly weddings and charity events. I checked your SmugMug profile it looks as if you like portraiture... the 5D3 is an outstanding portrait body and having two with a 24-70II and 70-200II is just about perfect. Especially when you grab one or the other and don't have to think for a second which body is which.



+1...and when there is almost no light, 35mm Sigma + 85L is also a deadly combo


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> +1...and when there is almost no light, 35mm Sigma + 85L is also a deadly combo



Nice combo... I usually swap out the 24-70II for the 50L and go low profile with the 135L for a fast-ish tele. I love the AF on the 135 better than my 85L.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 5, 2013)

I have to say... This is one of the smartest discussions I've read on equipment in a while. God bless.... 

The 1DX is a damn fine camera. But for you purposes, it's just not necessary. It's like having a Ferrari as a daily driver. Sure it's great. But wouldn't a small SUV be 10x better except for the bing-quality?

And for a second body... Unless you're shooting lots of paid gigs. It's just not necessary. And when you do a paid gig, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to rent for a few days than have an expensive 2nd body sitting around for a year or two. Even for $1500, you can rent a camera for THREE months at least. So figure that... If your rental fees are approaching the cost of owning, then buying is probably a better deal. That's what I do with lenses...

And if you must buy something, then maybe a lens? At least you won't lose money on a quality lens over the short term.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 5, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > +1...and when there is almost no light, 35mm Sigma + 85L is also a deadly combo
> ...



I had the 135 and if it had IS would have kept it but felt my 70-200 was a better option. I really hope canon or sigma launch one soon.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 5, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Get the 16-35 and a 6d



I wouldn't suggest this option for two reasons: the 6d...

* ...has a different usability than your 5d, so blind switching will be difficult (other than 60d & 6d)
* ... af isn't designed for the f2.8 of the 16-35L - esp. with ultra-wide focus & recompose is difficult, and the outer points or the 6d are disappointing even with the 17-40L.


----------



## And-Rew (Oct 5, 2013)

For me, the option was always the same from the outset.

As much as i love the 1Dx - i would always go with the 2 x 5D III bodies and my reason is simple... 

Things can go wrong, and often do at the most inconvenient of times. For me it was a fashion shoot up London with my trusty 5D2 - 29 exposures in the A/F screen lost a lug and fell off. As much as i enjoy the art of working manually - i was unable to perfect the art of using the 5D2 as a pinhole camera for a whole day. :'(

The AF screen cost £20 to replace - needless to say i bought 2 of them - a short while later when i could afford it, i bought a second 5D2 body. At the time i could have traded the first 5D2 in for a 1D4 or 1Ds3 for not much more than the cost of the 2nd 5D2's but that redundancy is just toooo important to forego.

For me that is the important thing with photography - redundancy. you've paid all that money for lovely kit, you've learned to use it to extremity and perfected your style. You have a day off work and undertake a shoot - which often costs money - and the whole shoot falls apart 30 minutes in do to a failure of kit - often costing not a lot as well


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 5, 2013)

If you want a backup body, and you can afford it, I always suggest the SAME body as your main one. This way you have one system, and can switch seamlessly. I used to have 1Dx/1D4 combo, but the systems were different enough that I saved up, sold the 1D4, and got another 1Dx. It was well worth it because now I can just switch cameras instantly and start shooting. 

For your question, I suggest another 5D3 if you need a 2nd body. If you don't need the second body really, then I wouldn't spend your hard-earned money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> For your question, I suggest another 5D3 if you need a 2nd body. If you don't need the second body really, then I wouldn't spend your hard-earned money.



+1 - if you're shooting paid gigs, you require a backup body. If you plan to shoot with two bodies at once, obviously you need two. Else, one may be just fine, buy lenses instead.


----------



## pedro (Oct 5, 2013)

+1. A 5D3 and a nice lens for your second body.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Oct 5, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am getting my camera (5d3) replaced and have the opportunity to sell the replacement and get factory refurbed 1d x for $3900 or spend $1600 more to have 2 5d3's so I will have a backup. Just not sure if I should jump on the 1d x since I have lived this long with 1 body or get the 2 5d3's. My main want is stop better iso performance, customizable ae adjustments, more accurate metering. Just looking for people who have both to give some insight. I do like the smaller size, silent shutter, lower weight but want a tool thats best for the job. So far events and portraits are all I have done. Also landscapes and macro.



Coming from a two body camera owner....A second body is a second camera...."Backup" helps justify a second though...


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 6, 2013)

Thanks for all the advice. I was out this weekend and had to rush for some portraits and wished i could just grab another body with say a prime and have been shooting with a standard zoom. Its not an always need but would have been nice. This was not a paid gig. Though lenses woukd be nice I feel like you can are limited with just one body. Does that sound crazy. I really don't need any of my gear but as an enthusiast exploring paid gigs I would like to build up either a second camera or more lenses.


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 6, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks for all the advice. I was out this weekend and had to rush for some portraits and wished i could just grab another body with say a prime and have been shooting with a standard zoom. Its not an always need but would have been nice. This was not a paid gig. Though lenses woukd be nice I feel like you can are limited with just one body. Does that sound crazy. I really don't need any of my gear but as an enthusiast exploring paid gigs I would like to build up either a second camera or more lenses.



Even as a hobbyist it can make sense. I use my gear mainly for weddings and events but when not on the job, say at the beach... I'd rather switch to a second body with another lens that risk a lens swap with blowing sand.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 6, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all the advice. I was out this weekend and had to rush for some portraits and wished i could just grab another body with say a prime and have been shooting with a standard zoom. Its not an always need but would have been nice. This was not a paid gig. Though lenses woukd be nice I feel like you can are limited with just one body. Does that sound crazy. I really don't need any of my gear but as an enthusiast exploring paid gigs I would like to build up either a second camera or more lenses.
> ...



Yeah that was my point half the time i am changing lenses its a huge risk I could get dust in my camera or drop a lens. I would use my primes more if I could leave my 35/85 attached. The question still is 5d3 or 6d and 16-35


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 6, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



Still think two of the same bodies is the absolute best... if you can afford it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> chilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



For wedding and normal event, the 24-70 II will take care the wide end. 16-35 is more for landscape. I rather take 14mm prime for this kind of shots. Stay away from 16-35 II for now. Let see what Canon has to offer for UWA zoom :


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 7, 2013)

1 more thought. Any suggestions on a dual body backpack? I use a lowepro 350aw but the pouch on top would just let the 2nd body and lens roll around.


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 7, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> 1 more thought. Any suggestions on a dual body backpack? I use a lowepro 350aw but the pouch on top would just let the 2nd body and lens roll around.



I use the Lowepro Harness and belt rigged for two bodies. Found it to be a perfect fit for my frame ( 6'4" 240). You can go crazy customizing it.

http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Technical-Harness-Photographer/dp/B0043D2L9S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381102479&sr=8-2&keywords=lowepro+harness


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 7, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > 1 more thought. Any suggestions on a dual body backpack? I use a lowepro 350aw but the pouch on top would just let the 2nd body and lens roll around.
> ...



Thanks but i mean a backpack to get on location. I need a side entry for quick access.


----------



## iron-t (Oct 8, 2013)

Me personally? I'd rather have a second camera with different capabilities. I shoot with a 5D3 and my next body is likely to be a 7D2 or 70D. That would give you extra reach if you wanted it, pop-up flash if you needed impromptu outdoor fill and a more than capable backup if your 5D3 happened to fail. Carrying two bodies allows you to be far more versatile at any given moment, too.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 9, 2013)

I had a 1D MkIV and a 5D MkIII. I used the 5D for most things and the 1D For my main commercial activity, shooting bodybuilding shows. I had used this approach thru previous generations (1D MkII, 1D MkIII, 5D MkII). It worked well for me. 

I need screaming speed for bodybuilding shows. I liked the resolution for most other photography such as burlesque shows, live band performances, and the odd model shoot. 

I got a 1Dx and sold the 1DMkIV. I found that I no longer carry the 5D for anything. I only shoot the 1Dx. 

So I am looking to sell my 5D MkIII. 

Once I realized the low ISO capabilities of the 1Dx the 5D MkIII became the rarely used backup camera. The 5D is a great camera. The MkII was too. But as the 5D MkIII is much better than the MkII the 1Dx is honestly that much better than the 5D MkIII.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 10, 2013)

Thanks everyone. I did get a brand new 5d 3 from canon today. They sent me a center pinch cap for my 24-70 ii which was a nice bonus. I did sell enough gear to get a 5d3 2nd camera but am still on the fence since the 6d seems nice for a backup and gives some lens money but unsure since all the canon gear seems at fuul price or near. Any suggestions on who has deals?


----------

