Canon EOS 1Dx or the canon 500 f4 L II: I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was...

mlockhart

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

The 1DX is a great camera. Being a full frame camera, however it does not magnify distant images as well as a cropped frame camera does, but that would be true of the camera you are planning to replace. I do not have any Canon 500mm lens, either version I or version II. I do have the 400mm F2.8 IS I. It is a great lens that focuses rapidly and accurately, and gives superior images, even with a 2X expander attached. I would not replace it with version II unless some unexpected money fell my way. I bought the lens for $6,000, and Canon has almost doubled the price of its replacement. The same holds true for the 500mm lens. Choice is yours, but I would buy the 1DX. It is a camera so much better than the ones it replaces that it represents a radical leap, rather than an incremental step forward.

mlockhart

Thank you -- that is the way I've been leaning but really love the Mark IV too.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

Are you unhappy with the quality of the images your current combo now produces?
That camera and lens are more then capable of creating stunning images so if money is tight why the compulsion to step up?
You are already using better gear now then probably 95% of the people on this forum.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

What do you expect to gain with the new gear? No change in resolution or focal length. If you are having a severe attack of GAS ok but you won't get better results with the new gear. If you were to spend the 7 to 10 grand on a vacation for you and your spouse that just might get you much better results of a different kind ( if you get what I mean)

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I agree with Swamp Gator, why spend the money when you already have some of the best equipment money can buy. If you are an action photographer ,you simply can't beat the equip. you already own. In case you decide to buy one or the other I'm sure some one on here would take the old stuff off your hands in a heart beat.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

I have the same gear you have and I would not upgrade my glass unless it was to the new 600mm f/4 II. The new 600 weighs the same as my old 500mm f/4 lens and would be nice to have but I really don't think it is worth the investment. If I found a good used one in an estate sale for $5000 or something I'd go for it but I'm not going to drop $12k for a new lens that is 100mm more than what I have.

As for the 1DX, I'd upgrade my 1D MkIV to the 1DX before I'd upgrade my glass. But even that is a trade off because the 1.3 crop factor is nice to have on the MkIV but the focusing of the 1DX is fantastic along with the 10fps. I can live without the 10fps, but that focusing system on the DX is very tempting. Almost everyone that I know uses a 1.4x on their 1DX which slows the autofocus so I don't now if the extra investment is worth it either.

amehta Loc: Boston

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

Unless a high-end lens is a dud for some reason, the differences between different models is pretty small. The difference between camera models of the same level are also pretty small, but it's bigger than the lens differences.

The 1DX has two improvements over the 1DIV, a better autofocus system and the full frame sensor, which gives better high-ISO performance. If you shot for a week with the 1DX and 500mm f/4L and a second week with the 1DIV and 500mm f/4LII, the first week should give slightly better results.

Whether the difference is significant depends on your needs.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Swamp Gator wrote:

Are you unhappy with the quality of the images your current combo now produces?
That camera and lens are more then capable of creating stunning images so if money is tight why the compulsion to step up?
You are already using better gear now then probably 95% of the people on this forum.

Phil,

I 100% agree with you! I really don't understand the need to upgrade either but if I were to do one or the other it would be the camera.

I will strongly recommend one thing though. Buy it from someplace where you can return it with-in 30 days because I think that is what you will be doing.

Jim D

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

jeep_daddy wrote:

I have the same gear you have and I would not upgr... (show quote)

The 1DX fires at the rate of 12 frames per second, and 14 without constantly adjusted focus. The focus works very well with a 400mm F2.8 IS and a 2X expander.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

ML, I think you have two issues to consider.
1, one is how you would use the lens. Yes, the mkll has a tad better IQ, but it's not the reason I would get one.
If you are strictly a tripod shooter, you won't gain a lot.
BUT, if you have a need to handhold to get off fast shots, that's where the extra bucks are worth their weight in gold. For many shooters the mkll is hand-holdable. THAT to me is the important factor. If you are doing hand-holding with the mkl, the mkll may be a game changer for you.
If you are strictly on a pod, don't spend the money.
The 1dx is a far superior camera to the mklV. Again, unless you intend to handhold, the camera will far and above make a much bigger difference than the lens.
Canon even advices the 5dlll over the mklV, and the higher mp mitigates the crop factor, unless you have to have the frame rate.
With the lens, you actually wind up with the same set-up you have now.
I vote for the 1dx. Good luck with a tough choice. ;-)
SS

CA_CanonUser Loc: Friendswood, TX

I have the 500mm f/4 L ii lens and it is a great lens. The autofocus capabilities are improved over the original 500mm L lens, but as previously stated by someone, unless you are doing a lot of hand held shooting, you won't see much difference over the original 500mm. If you are carrying it around a lot, it is lighter, but still not a light weight.
I would opt for the 1Dx in 95% of the cases. You will be getting a full frame camera with improved sensor and autofocus capability -- that will be noticed when using all your lenses. And if you are like me (and probably most shooters), you do most of your photography with other lenses. In a few months, rent the 500mm L ii and check it out. You may inherit a load of money from that rich (unknown) uncle and decide you also need the new lens.

Haydon

I have the exact combination you have and even with the temptation of upgrading I'm sticking with this combination. With the few that have upgraded, usually they've been left with a reach issue on their lens when they've bought the 1Dx because of the 1.3x cropped 1D4.

Some have upgraded to the 600 to compensate but with considerable expense.

My 1D4 takes wonderful pictures still. It may lack a 1/2 stop to my 5D3. It's still my choice when I'm doing wildlife. The 1D4 raw files can be pushed harder in post than the 5D3.

In all respect SS, the 1D4 is more capable than you give it. I can say that with experience because I own both.

Grass may appear to be greener on the other side but it's not always justified with the results.

JustMissedItDon Loc: Carson City, Nevada

mlockhart wrote:

I currently have an EOS Mark IV and older version of 500 f4 L. Since I'm not independently wealthy and can't afford to buy both, I was wandering if anyone out there would suggest whether the 1DX or 500 F4 L II would be the better choice for replacing and grading up equipment for wildlife and sports photography?

I bought a 600mm f4 with the idea of keeping it and didn't get in synch (can't explain that) with it and returned it. I bought a 1DX with the idea of returning it after trying it and I can not let it go. I can't tell you what to do, but that is what happened to me. My understanding of the 500mm f4 upgrade is mainly weight saving.

CA_CanonUser Loc: Friendswood, TX

The idea that a crop factor camera gives you more reach or magnification is false. Your are simply using less of the image that the lens is providing to the sensor. It is like looking at an 8X10 picture and putting a 5X7 frame over it. You haven't suddenly magnified the photo, you have just cropped some around the edges. The latest full frame camera sensors, be it the 5D Mkiii or 1Dx (or the Nikons), have better sensors, so there is less noise at the higher ISO settings, etc.