D1x or s3 pro?

[Auto_Photo]

So I know with all the new technology out both of these cameras are a little outdated, however they are vastly better than my current Olympus e500. I cant decide which one to buy. I know the Nikon is faster, the s3 pro has higher dynamic range and more megapixels but I just cannot decide which one to go with.

Im leaning towards the D1x because it is a little cheaper, but was a much better camera for its time.

I am looking for your all's advice. My shooting style is mostly automotive and motorcycle track days, car shows (indoor and outdoor) and some small club concert photography.

Based on these details I am leaving my purchasing decision in your hands... Sorta, lol

 

[Garbz]

The 1Dx is 9 years old. 9. NINE! In terms of camera years, if it were a pet I would have put it down by now. If it were a person it would be beyond it's old age home and now hanging up the plaques you get from the government for living so long.

I say this without proper research but I doubt there's a new SLR camera on the market that will take worse pictures than a 9 year old digital camera.

To put it bluntly you're after a top of the line pro level camera but are not willing to spend anywhere near enough money. You would be much better served with most entry level DSLRs than a museum piece. The S3 Pro is better but is still 6 whole years old. My D200 is very dated and it's 4 years old, and I would quite gladly pick this noisy chunky thing over a D1x. To put it simply there must be a better and more suitable deal for you somewhere out there.

 

[gsgary]

Both will be bad for concert photography, if you just want one for motorsport get a Canon 1Dmk1

 

[djacobox372]

d200 would be a better budget chioce for pro build quality.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'd go for either a new Nikon D5000, or if you want pro-level build, a D200, even though the D5000 has better IQ.

the D1x, isn't that great anymore, and the S3, albeit has amazing skin tones, is about as bad of a camera.

 

[SrBiscuit]

i recently got a d1h for fun, and i actually like it a lot.
the d1x is the same body just higher MP.
the iso performance on these is pretty good, as is the build.

going rate of a d1x is what...like 350?
i got my d1h in very used condition for 150.
i might be alone here, but i like it, and dont regret it.

 

[Derrel]

I think some of the criticism of the D1x in this thread is unfounded,especially given the price of used D1x bodies. As far as being a good camera for concert photography, the newest cameras with the best High-ISO performance are going to be deliver the prettiest, least noise-free images with regular lenses.

What the D1x offered was a good AF system, really fast response, and a superb viewfinder, and robust build quality. The D1h was the same body, with the lower-MP 2.7 MP sensor. The D1h was actually a pretty good camera in poor light, due to its massive pixel size, and I actually kind of liked the D1h, which as srBiscuit notes, is available these days for under $200 many times. Battery performance on the D1 series demanded proper conditioning of the batteries, which would allow 350 full-sized NEF shots per battery with decent batteries that had been properly conditioned,more JPEGs.

The Fuji S3 Pro was a neat camera, with really good dynamic range, but it was a very slow-to-write camera in RAW mode, plus it was built upon a very humble Nikon N80 body and autofocus module. The S3 had a small buffer, but it also had the ability to create incredible SOC JPEG files--either those with really wide dynamic range somewhat flat and compressed and in need of post-processing saturation boost, OR brilliant,saturated film simulation mode JPEG images that were ready for use.

If you've got a limited budget, you might consider something newer than an S3 Pro or a D1x for concert photos. The D1x has a far superior AF system than an S3 Pro, and if you have some fast prime lenses like 50-1.4 and 85-1.4 and so on, you could still use a D1x in low light, and have a very affordable camera.