The Canon 1D X is usually considered as Canon's flagship camera, so is the latest iteration worth a purchase? This video is a hands-on review to help you decide.
Parker Walbeck is a full time videographer and so this video is primarily from the standpoint of the 1D X III's proficiency in that field, though there is enough overlap that it's interesting to all. Though the specs are always very strong, particularly for certain types of photographers — sports for instance — I've never fully entertained the idea of parting with my cash for one. It is a lot of cash and is encroaching on medium format territory, so if you're not benefiting from the camera's selling points (the incredible autofocus system and speed, 20 frames per second continuous shooting, etc.) then I'm not sure it's a sensible acquisition.
That said, what it does well, it appears to do very well indeed. There's a good reason why most sports and wildlife photographers gravitate towards the Canon flagship range. For videograpers like Walbeck, I'm torn. It doesn't seem the best option for your money, albeit not a bad one.
What are your thoughts on the 1D X Mark III?
Yeah. Nobody cares.