Hi all
I am wanting to upgrade my camera body from a Canon 450D to either a Canon 7D or Canon 1D mk4 and looking for some advice from those who know or may have used one or the other or both. I currently use a 100-400mm zoom lens.
The cost difference is about $4,000 so basically need to know is it worth the extra money to the extent that you get much much better photos or would the jump from the 450D to 7D be enough.
Also how does the difference in photos between the 100-400mm lens compare to the 300mm F2.8 with 2 x converter or the 500mm F4 lens ?
As so many birders seem to use Canon’s ( cameras that is ! ) replying to the list may be useful for the archives.
Thanks in advance
Dick Jenkin
Lynn and Dick Jenkin
Tashkent Friesians
PO Box 92 Dungog NSW 2420
02 49921158
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Django-of-Cacharel/147336717447?ref=ts Djangos Facebook Page
http://tashkentfriesians.com/ Tashkent Friesians
logosmall
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Alot of excellent responses from great photographers that would listen to Dick. It really all comes down to how much you want to spend and how fit you are. If you are fit and have the money, then go and buy a 1DmkIV and a 500mmf4L lens – you will get awesome images and not need to upgrade for a long time – either body or lens. (this is what i currently shoot with). But as Chris Charles mentioned earlier it is a fairly heavy combo. The new version of the 500mm won’t be out for at least a few months but will likely be a bit lighter, better IS, but also a bit more expensive. It will be interesting to see how many 2nd hand lenses come onto the market when it comes out. If they drop a significant amount of weight from the 600mm f4L (as they did with the 400mm f2.8L) then i would take a serious look at that lens too. The only reason i went with the 500mm rather than the 600mm was the EXTRA 1.5kg! Personally if you already have a 100-400 i would lean to the longer focal length of the 500mm. You will find that you won’t often shoot at 300mm for birds unless on a pelagic where the 100-400 is perfect. I regularly shoot with a 1.4x teleconverter on the 500. (Personally i don’t think the 2x cuts the mustard on the 500 in terms of quality – i would rather crop more) I agree that the lens will make the biggest difference. i have 16″x24″ prints of birds taken with a 10D back in 2003 which look still look great because of a quality lens. Buying a 500mm was the best thing i ever did and whatever body i use it on i will get great sharp images. Yes there are stacks of other factors that the other Bob, Al and both Chris’ have all articulated better so read through all the repsonses and then view them through your own personal needs and circumstances. Cheers Dave Stowe
Some great answers, but I have a slightly different take to everyone else….
The big advantage of the pro bodies is handling. Better AF, more robust. Quite simply, you’ll get shots that you might miss with a consumer body. However, if you nail the shot on a consumer DSLR it looks just as good as anything taken on a pro body.
If you are using a 100-400, which is a nice lens, but really in the consumer (may “prosumer”) category, and have $4K to spend, you are MUCH better of spending it on a new lens. Seriously, I wouldn’t even be thinking about a new body until you’ve bought a better lens.
A new 500 f/4 can be had for around $7K now and a new 300 f/2.8 for under $5K. Keep your eye out for a second hand one of those. Both work very well with teleconverters.
Improving your lens from a 100-400 to the 500 or 300 will give results that are far more noticeable in your images than upgrading the body. They’ll allow you to get detail and contrast it’s just not possible to extract with the 100-400. And you’ll still be using the lens in 10 or 15 years, when even the most expensive body has been superseded many times over.
If you want, I can send you some photos taken with a 20D (not as good as your 450 sensor wise) and a 500 f/4. I know Dave Stowe also has some wonderful shots taken on the consumer bodies.
Do yourself a favour and get a better lens before you spend any money upgrading the body.
Alistair
href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ==============================
Hi Bob,
Please keep in mind that the following comments are my own personal opinions based on my own experiences and observations. Other people will have different opinions and I accept that. Many people will have quite different needs, methods and aspirations to those I have and I am not saying I am the only one who is right.
Major improvements in the 7D compared to the 40D (along with possibly some less major improvements): – brighter, larger optical viewfinder; – greater battery capacity (part of that that may be a result of more efficient electrics in the 7D system); in the 7D are a big improvement; example; reviewed on the camera monitor but they may not look quite so good on a computer monitor); – improved Live View function; the improved LCD screen helps here but also the overall functionality is improved (I don’t use the video recording function so I can’t comment on except to say it is good enough for the production of some TV soap-operas); – higher frame rates; use the 7D, obsess over perceived ‘noise’ in the 7D images but my experience is that careful processing with the latest non-Canon software deals with that to my satisfaction); – hugely improved and flexible wireless control of external flash units (no cables) by the built-in camera flash;
There are probably more improvements but that is all I can think of quickly.
A few downsides to upgrading from an earlier model Canon DSLR: compatibility of the Canon one; – larger capacity and faster media cards (Compact Flash) are usually required;
Although I don’t entirely agree with some of the things that Alistair said (or Chris Ross for that matter) but he has a good point about thinking seriously about the lenses you should be using, assuming that your intention is biased towards bird-photography. The Canon 100 – 400 mm L lens is definitely more than a ‘consumer’ lens. I won’t go into the details but a direct comparison of any of the Canon ‘L’ lenses and any of their ‘consumer’ lenses will quickly reveal why I say that. There have been questions about that lens in the past but all the evidence I have seen (many, many images taken with several copies of that lens) indicates that any problems with image quality have been solved in more recent production. It is an old design and the image stabilising system is a bit dated and it is not weather sealed; the ‘push-pull’ zoom system seems to be guilty of sucking dust into the camera but the latest cameras seem to cope well with that with their dust clearing systems. The 100 – 400 mm L lens is not as robust as either the 300 mm f/2.8 L or 500 mm f/4 lenses and it is not a good idea to use it at sea if the weather is not perfect. It is a very versatile lens but, ultimately, it is just a bit short in focal length for the sort of bird-photography I prefer. The longer focal length of the 500 mm f/4 lens (especially when fitted with a 1.4x Extender) enables shots to be taken from a distance that the subject is more likely to tolerate.
On a 7D the 300 mm f/2.8 auto-focuses with the 2x Extender fitted. This gives the equivalent of 600 mm which is a good focal length for most bird-photography. On a ‘crop’ camera (a camera with a sensor smaller in size to that of a 35 frame of film) the field of view is reduced to the equivalent of that of a longer focal length lens. This lens combination on the 7D produces a reduced field of view equivalent to that of a 960 mm lens. There is a great deal of ‘discussion’ surrounding this ‘crop’ factor subject and I don’t intend to go into it here. If anyone wants to argue with me about ‘the facts’ they will be disappointed – I will not argue about it on line but feel free to discuss it amongst yourselves.
Upgrading from a 100 – 400 mm L lens to a 300 mm f/2.8 L or 500 mm f/4 L lens will, no doubt, be an improvement and is a worthwhile thing to do if you can afford it or you can justify doing it even if you can’t afford it. There is no doubt that investment in a good lens is a good long term investment while investing in a good camera body is a good short term investment. One advantage in going for the 1 series Canon cameras in this respect is that the bodies are not replaced as often as the lesser bodies are so there is less temptation or reason to upgrade.
Very good quality images can be recorded using a Canon EOS 450D (or 40D) fitted with a 300 mm f/2.8 L or 500 mm f/4 L lens but the newer camera bodies will produce better quality images with those same lenses. Recording digital images involves sophisticated mathematics which improve with each new central processor fitted to each new camera body; new sensor and processor design produces better image detail/quality. But the latest digital SLRs are testing out even the best lenses so there will probably come a time when the 100 – 400 mm L zoom lens is not good enough but it will have gone out of production by then.
Whether you go for a better camera body or a better lens you will not regret either choice. If you have a Canon DSLR and you don’t have a Canon L grade supertelephoto lens then a better lens would be the better choice. If you do have a Canon L grade supertelephoto lens then an upgrade to your camera body would probably be the better choice.
Remember, those are simply the opinions of one person but someone who does have more than a bit of experience with the equipment that Dick Jenkins asked about.
Cheers
Bob Inglis Sandstone Point Qld Australia http://users.tpg.com.au/inglisrc/
Hi,
There is a lot of good quality debate about these camera’s and lenses on the Canon photographic section of ” Bird Forum ”
I am facing the same dilemma as Dick and the information being sent out on this forum is so helpful.
Regards from a damp and grey UK.
Mike Collard
Hi Bob
Just a question on your response. What major improvement(s) have you seen going from the 40D to 7D? Alistair’s comments are interesting! I am using a 50D with the 100-400 L lens and wonder whether he is right in saying that the greatest improvement would be to go to the higher quality 300mm or 500mm lens.
Bob Cook
I should also add that 95% of my shots with the Canon 500 f/4 are handheld. It’s a big bugger for travelling, but I find it beautifully balanced for handholding. Much more so than my Nikkor 200-400 f/4 for instance, which is a smaller lens, but doesn’t feel as balanced as the 500 f/4 to me.
Al
href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Some great answers, but I have a slightly different take to everyone else….
The big advantage of the pro bodies is handling. Better AF, more robust. Quite simply, you’ll get shots that you might miss with a consumer body. However, if you nail the shot on a consumer DSLR it looks just as good as anything taken on a pro body.
If you are using a 100-400, which is a nice lens, but really in the consumer (may “prosumer”) category, and have $4K to spend, you are MUCH better of spending it on a new lens. Seriously, I wouldn’t even be thinking about a new body until you’ve bought a better lens.
A new 500 f/4 can be had for around $7K now and a new 300 f/2.8 for under $5K. Keep your eye out for a second hand one of those. Both work very well with teleconverters.
Improving your lens from a 100-400 to the 500 or 300 will give results that are far more noticeable in your images than upgrading the body. They’ll allow you to get detail and contrast it’s just not possible to extract with the 100-400. And you’ll still be using the lens in 10 or 15 years, when even the most expensive body has been superseded many times over.
If you want, I can send you some photos taken with a 20D (not as good as your 450 sensor wise) and a 500 f/4. I know Dave Stowe also has some wonderful shots taken on the consumer bodies.
Do yourself a favour and get a better lens before you spend any money upgrading the body.
Alistair
href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Dick, I cant quantify the difference in image quality between 7D & 1Dmk4 because I have not used the latter. However with most of these things there is a log scale effect where the extra $ buys you less & less. You just need to locate yourself on that curve. But even then the technology advances & yesterdays $5000 camera output is surpassed by a $2000 camera in a few years time.
I can say though that you will notice a serious advance from the 450D to the 7D. The megapixel count difference from 12.2 to 18.0 will be a real visible difference. (This will be true for the 450D to 7D as the sensor size is the same – but will not be a valid comparison for the 1DMk4 as the sensor is larger.)
As for the 100-400 L IS vs 500 F4L IS, the same applies ( I use both). The additional $s buys a little more range, a little more image quality, & a lot more weight. I love the 500 but still use the 100-400 for night shooting & often for travel, situations where it can be too difficult to look after the heavy bulky 500. There is not the same Moores law working with lenses & ones investment lasts longer. The weight of the 500 will need support & you will likely want to upgrade monopod, tripod, gimbal head, etc. And the weight will reduce the ground covered in a session as it slows you down. It will make your 100-400 feel like a featherweight. Beautiful images…..but did I mention the weight? Chris
Chris Charles 0412 911 184 licole@ozemail.com.au 33deg 47’30″S 151deg10’09″E
href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Richard and Peter
I’m sure there are others more qualified to answer these questions but I will advance my 2¢ in the mean time.
A very good online resource with comprehensive reviews of both models is http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/
There is a page comparing the output of both models here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page28.asp
This site details almost everything about the cameras. In a nutshell they are quite closely matched in terms of performance and both would be an excellent choice for bird photography. The 1D Mk 4 is very much a flagship camera with better water sealing, durability etc. but is heavier and the configuration options (customisability) may be daunting to less experienced users – DP Review makes this point very well.
In my opinion the 7D offers the best value for money, unless you are planning on working professionally. It also means you have more money left over to spend on the one thing that makes the biggest difference to the quality of the photo – the lens you’re using.
The 300 mm and 500 mm are both excellent choices if you can afford them, and with the field of view crop you get with a 7D (1.6x) you are essentially using a 510 mm prime lens when you put a 300mm on the front (1D Mk 4 has a slightly smaller crop factor at 1.3x, i.e. 390mm). You then have the flexibility of adding the 1.4x or 2x teleconverters if you need even more magnfication.
Cheers,
Stewart Ford
href=”mailto:birding-aus-bounces@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-bounces@vicnet.net.au href=”mailto:birding-aus@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus@vicnet.net.au href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ==============================
I’d also be interested to hear what sort of difference there is between the 450D and either of those more expensive cameras.
Peter Shute
href=”mailto:birding-aus-bounces@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-bounces@vicnet.net.au href=”mailto:birding-aus@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus@vicnet.net.au To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) href=”mailto:birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au”>birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ==============================