Originally Posted by Rowdy
Dave, I'm shooting with the same Lexar 1000X as you are in the slot. I know the focus system is brilliant in comparison, so i'm hoping that makes up for the lost fps..
Essentially I'm trying to justify to myself that I 'need' the 1dx
when really, for what I shoot a mk3 would be adequate!
Do you use the in camera HDR or photo stacking in your 5d3?
IMO, the keeper rate improvement more than makes up for the lost 2-fps.
Only occasionally do I shoot a multi-shot HDR, but I do it several times per year when I'm shooting landscape, for instance, and the DR is too high for the camera. It works hunky dory. I only do "realistic" HDR, but 3-shot over/under burst are easy as pie.
I mostly shoot birds in flight and wildlife and find that bursts of 2 to 4 give me the most in-focus shots, with the best compositon. For a slow moving big bird, or a plane, I can hold the shutter down until the buffer fills, but I don't think that generally will give me a better result. Instead, I try to do my shorter bursts at the peaks of action, but that's just my style of shooting. If you like to hold the shutter down, then the 1DX would be the ultimate weapon. Also, it's high-ISO performance is exceptional. Still, with the price difference, you can buy some really nice L-series lenses.
If you have the lenses that you need and you could really use the 12-fps and other fast features of the 1DX, I don't think that you'd regret buying one. I've never regretted "investing" in my 500mm lens and I'm seriously considering doubling my investment to get into the new Series II 600mm. It's only money...