5D mk2 limitations for wildlife ?

[woollyback]

Hello all,

I am looking to upgrade my 400D I have mainly shot wildlife and nature but as my GCSE studies are taking me down the art type of photo route (abstracts, landscape/seascapes and fashion). I am finding the 400D is due for a change. I would like better iso for low light stuff and better AF performance. Video would be cool but not essential.

I think the 5D 11 would be better for my art stuff but how would it handle the wildlife. Any 5d wildlife shooters views - what are the limitations?.

I currently use a 100-400, 300f4 & 1.4TC, Tamron 90 macro and 50f1.8

I have some cash set by but my birthday is coming along so you never know, but it is a masive outlay for me (and father) so I want to make an informed choice.

Thanks for any views or comments

Bridie
(Age 14)

 

[dinners]

Depends on the wildlife but 3.9 f/ps is quite slow compared to say the 7D 8.0 f/ps

Being full frame will also loose you length.

 

[AndyElliott]

The 7D might be the answer - but don't expect to make full use of the 18MP sensor with the lenses you have.

 

[woollyback]

The 7D might be the answer - but don't expect to make full use of the 18MP sensor with the lenses you have.

Andy,
What do you mean by this - my lenses aren't good enough or I need something longer for wildlife?.

Thanks for taking the time to reply

 

[woof woof]

Hi Bridie,

I just wondered if you've got a decent tripod or if not if you've budgeted for one?

 

[woollyback]

Depends on the wildlife but 3.9 f/ps is quite slow compared to say the 7D 8.0 f/ps

Being full frame will also loose you length.

But would it still be better than the 400D ?

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

[woollyback]

Hi Bridie,

I just wondered if you've got a decent tripod or if not if you've budgeted for one?

I have a Manfrotto 055 with a 488 ballhead, but much prefer a beanbag or relying on the IS of my two longer lenses. I also have a stick (monopod) which I use (very rarely though).

Thanks for replying - this upgrade thingy is a nightmare

 

[desantnik]

The 5D's AF performance is a bits pants these days, and you did ask for better AF performance. Therefore the answer is either a 7D or a 1D - the only two Canon bodies with a half decent modern AF system.

 

[George]

100-400 with the 7D is excellent, I've used it for many shots of wildlife. OK the 300 2.8 is better, but you will find great results with the above.

 

[grumpybadger]

Until very recently, I used a 1DsII as my main camera for wildlife and the frames per second and resolution (16Mpx full frame) were fine.

the only thing you may struggle with is the auto focus for tracking birds in flight. But if you don't want to track birds in flight it should be fine.

 

[dinners]

But would it still be better than the 400D ?

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Yes it's better. It's also (despite being slow in terms of f/ps compared to 7D) faster than your 400.

I just thought for wildlife - if you were spending 5DII money then something like a 7D might be an alternative as you get twice the frames per sec and you wouldn't loose the length as you would with a full frame camera like the 5DII.

For me - I would take a 5DII over a 7D but that's because I'm more into my landscapes.

 

[chilliz]

The 7D might be the answer - but don't expect to make full use of the 18MP sensor with the lenses you have.

I think the lenses he has will make full use of the 7D or the 5DII without a problem, I don`t see what the issues are with his lenses at all. Like has been said with the 5DII you will lose the crop factor, but you will have a bit more cropping power and the AF is much slower, but I have never had a problem with the speed. If you do alot of wildlife the 7D will probably be the answer.

 

[woollyback]

Wow,

Thanks for all the replies - 1D can't afford and too heavy for me. Suppose I could afford a 2nd hand Mk3 but still heavy.

The 5D was mainly for my art type of stuff, but would still want to do wildlife as its my fave. I am rubbish at BIF so tend not to do too many, but do like to do animal portrait type of shots?

5D2 or 7D seem to be the main upgrades but they each have their strengths?.

Thanks again for the replies

 

[dinners]

Wow,

Thanks for all the replies - 1D can't afford and too heavy for me. Suppose I could afford a 2nd hand Mk3 but still heavy.

The 5D was mainly for my art type of stuff, but would still want to do wildlife as its my fave. I am rubbish at BIF so tend not to do too many, but do like to do animal portrait type of shots?

5D2 or 7D seem to be the main upgrades but they each have their strengths?.

Thanks again for the replies

It's a nice dilema to have. Enjoy - whichever you decide on

 

[woollyback]

I think the lenses he has will make full use of the 7D or the 5DII without a problem, I don`t see what the issues are with his lenses at all. Like has been said with the 5DII you will lose the crop factor, but you will have a bit more cropping power and the AF is much slower, but I have never had a problem with the speed. If you do alot of wildlife the 7D will probably be the answer.

Chilliz,

Thanks for the reply - have you experienced any issues with 5D2 and 100-400, or things you don't like about the combination?.

PS - I am a girl

 

[desantnik]

5D2 or 7D seem to be the main upgrades but they each have their strengths?.

You have a problem... the problem is that the 7D is all about action photography, the 5D is all about portrait/landscape photography.

Canon make two different cameras for two different purposes. You just have two different purposes you want to use it for.

Not wanting to start a punchup, but the combination of the two things is in the Nikon D700... full frame gorgeousness and a top end AF system.

 

[woof woof]

"this upgrade thingy is a nightmare"

Maybe it'd be an idea to make a list of the pro's and con's.

I'd imagine that the 5DII has the best absolute image quality and ISO performance and the possible benefits of a wider field of view but a relatively lower pictures per second speed and relatively poorer auto focus.

I'd imagine that the 7D would benefit in some situations from having a x1.6 crop effectively providing more reach, relatively better auto focus and more shots per second but would lose out on absolute image quality and ISO performance.

For me the big killer would be the 5DII's lack of an in built flash but few people seem to share my priorities.

 

[chilliz]

Chilliz,

Thanks for the reply - have you experienced any issues with 5D2 and 100-400, or things you don't like about the combination?.

PS - I am a girl

I love it, here`s an example shot at ISO 400 hand held.

 

[AndyElliott]

Andy,
What do you mean by this - my lenses aren't good enough or I need something longer for wildlife?.

Thanks for taking the time to reply

I've just talked about this in other threads. Basically, the lenses are designed for full frame and their lower pixel density. They have more than sufficient resolution to work well with full-frame cameras. Your APS-C 40D has the same pixel density as roughly a 25.6MP full-frame camera, so won't push the lenses and will work very well. However, the 18MP 7D will have a higher requirement on your lenses (it's like a 46.8MP full-frame) to get pixel-level sharpness. They aren't bad lenses - you just need to be aware of their limitations. Certainly what I've seen of a 300/4+1.4xTC on a 50D (15MP) doesn't stand pixel peeping - the image looks soft if cropped hard, but looks fine if you scale it back to the 40D 10MP level. The 100-400 will have similar but potentially worse issues as it isn't as sharp as the 300/4.

Discussed here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=206508

This is the reply I gave to TheNissanMan (apologies if this is pitched at too basic a level):

Originally Posted by TheNissanMan:

One thing that you do bring up in that post is APS-C & full frame... As a noob thats right over my head...

Your camera has an APS-C sensor - a so-called 'crop' sensor because it is smaller than the so-called 'full frame' 35mm sensor (which are about the size of an old 35mm film negative). The aspect ratio of the sensor (its width vs its height) 3:2 - this is the same for the full and APS-C sensors.

The crop factor is 1.6 for Canon APS-C cameras - so each side of the sensor rectangle is 1.6x smaller than the 35mm full-frame sensor. This means the area of the APS-C sensor is 1.6x1.6x smaller or 2.56x smaller.

...

So, a 10MP full-frame sensor has pixels that are 2.56x bigger than the pixels on a 10MP APS-C sensor. Or another way of thinking about it is, the pixels of the size they are on an APS-C 10MP sensor would fill a full-frame sensor with 25.6 million pixels.

The impact this has on lenses is... If your lens has just enough resolution (has been engineered in such a way) as to be able to show a detail that covers just one pixel on the full-frame, it implies that if you have a full-frame sensor with more pixels, your lens will be the limiting feature here and you won't be able to see any more detail in your pictures. The lens is designed with a target resolution in mind - to make it 'sharper' - i.e. so it can resolve smaller details, would make the lens more expensive, possibly bigger too and require the use of specialised glass.

If you then put the same lens on your APS-C sensor camera with the same number of pixels as your full-frame sensor, the smallest detail the lens can 'see' will be spread over 2.56 pixels of your APS-C sensor. To make use of your smaller sensor, you need a lens capable of 'seeing' these much smaller details. This is a bit simplified as there are other factors such as fill-factor, diffraction limits, AA filters etc., but it is broadly correct.

The reality is that most lenses that work on full-frame and APS-C body cameras have more detail-resolving capability than the current full-frame sensors and less than the current APS-C sensor cameras (You may notice that the number of pixels in a full-frame body is usually a lot less than 2.56x more than the APS-C bodies).

This is why in controlled tests (see DPReview as an example), they will do two tests, one with an APS-C body and one with a full-frame body. You will notice the same lens appears to be much 'sharper' on the full frame body than on the APS-C body for the same aperture and focal length value. This is no surprise given the lower demands on the 'smallest level of detail' that the lens must resolve on the full-frame body rather than the APS-C body. If you add in a teleconverter, the demands on the lens sharpness are even more acute.

Canon do have EF-S lenses, designed to be APS-C-only lenses. These are designed to only focus light over the smaller APS-C sensor (this circle of projected light is known as the image circle) and can be made smaller and use less glass. They can also be designed to cram more detail into the smaller image circle without making the costs go astronomic.

Unfortunately, Canon want you to have your APS-C camera then move onto the full-frame cameras in time (for very understandable commercial reasons). As such, they have not made the effort to produce many top-notch APS-C only lenses - they would prefer just to make the full-frame L-series lenses. They don't work as well on the APS-C cameras as the full-frame - they were designed for full frame. To design a full-frame lens with the resolving power for the highest resolution APS-C cameras would be 'wasted' if it was used on the current full frame cameras and would make the lenses prohibitively large, heavy and expensive.

I hope that goes some way to explain the full-frame vs APS-C and what relevance it has to your lens choice...

Andy

 

[AndyElliott]

I think the lenses he has will make full use of the 7D or the 5DII without a problem, I don`t see what the issues are with his lenses at all. Like has been said with the 5DII you will lose the crop factor, but you will have a bit more cropping power and the AF is much slower, but I have never had a problem with the speed. If you do alot of wildlife the 7D will probably be the answer.

I disagree about the 'full use' on the 7D - and independent lens tests back that up. That said, it doesn't mean it is the wrong answer - just don't expect the same level of sharpness if you are going to crop heavily or do larger prints.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm not saying that all of the EF (not EF-S) glass will have an issue - some of the glass is plenty sharp enough for the 7D - I'm not convinced the 100-400 will be, the 300 on its own will be good, if not stellar, but the 300+1.4x TC will be a step too far. The Tamron macro should be fine as it has lots in reserve. If you aren't cropping hard (which for small birds, you often have to), the 100-400 and 300 will be fine.

 

[chilliz]

For me the big killer would be the 5DII's lack of an in built flash but few people seem to share my priorities.

I know what you mean, I wouldn`t say it`s a killer, but I do miss a built in flash.

 

[chilliz]

Whatever you upgrade to, I wish I had a similar decision to make at the age of 14.

 

[AndyElliott]

Whatever you upgrade to, I wish I had a similar decision to make at the age of 14.

Indeed!

 

[woollyback]

Whatever you upgrade to, I wish I had a similar decision to make at the age of 14.

Too get there I need to use all my savings (some of which would go on a new WA if went full frame), plus birthday and stop buying clolthes and shoes

This is why I am trying to get the right choice as it will have to last me the next 5yrs or until I can get enough money of my own again to change if required.

Thanks everyone for the replies so far

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I upgraded from a 50D to a 5D MK2 and I've not noticed any focus issues, as long as you don't machine gun birds in flight you should be OK with the 5D, one thing you will notice is the crop factor 17mm suddenly becomes very wide and 500mm not as long as it was ! - it will depend on what wildlife you want to shoot on how much it will affect you - The IQ from the 5D2 is just stunning..........

 

[chilliz]

Too get there I need to use all my savings (some of which would go on a new WA if went full frame), plus birthday and stop buying clolthes and shoes

This is why I am trying to get the right choice as it will have to last me the next 5yrs or until I can get enough money of my own again to change if required.

Thanks everyone for the replies so far

Well I think that`s very commendable, and it`s nice to see a younger person with an interest such as photography. Well done.

 

[HoppyUK]

You're going to have to compromise, but either way you're looking at some fine choices At your age I had a Zenith 3M, and that was all my paper round money for about a year

And your lenses are very good. I don't hold with Andy E's theory; he has a point re short focal lengths but for longer lenses it doesn't really work out in practise. I know where he's coming from but neither Nikon nor Canon makes longer crop-specific lenses for that reason, and your L's are pretty damn good.

7D is a great all-rounder, and a star at action and long lens work.

But a 5D2 beats it hands down for image quality at everything else. Also, and this is the compromise, if you enlarge the 5D2 image to the same level as your crop format 400D, you will still have 8mp which is pretty similar to what you've got now, which aint bad.

The choice is basically long lens action capability, or ultimate image quality with shorter focal lengths on stuff that doesn't move too quick!

 

[Trixster]

Great thread, wish I was so focused when I was 14!

 

[malla1962]

For wildlife go for the 7d, nothing wrong with your lenses they will produce superb results on the 7 and 5d bodies.

 

[AndyElliott]

For wildlife go for the 7d, nothing wrong with your lenses they will produce superb results on the 7 and 5d bodies.

It depends what your definition is of superb. You will get very good results on the 7D - but I wouldn't be entering any competitions with an image that has been heavily cropped! If you print something from the whole frame at about A4 to A3 - it'll look excellent. I'm talking a relative thing. It would not be fair to lead people into thinking otherwise.

Andy

 

[malla1962]

It depends what your definition is of superb. You will get very good results on the 7D - but I wouldn't be entering any competitions with an image that has been heavily cropped! If you print something from the whole frame at about A4 to A3 - it'll look excellent. I'm talking a relative thing. It would not be fair to lead people into thinking otherwise.

Andy

My statement still stands, The results from the 7d are superb.

 

[tdodd]

I posted this on another thread, but here is a wildlife shot from my 5D2 and 100-400 at 400mm....

100% crop....

 

[AndyElliott]

I posted this on another thread, but here is a wildlife shot from my 5D2 and 100-400 at 400mm....

100% crop....

Tim - my point was that the 100-400 on full-frame would be excellent, even at 100% crop - your pic shows that. As to showing a 100% crop on the 7D - I don't think so... If your 5D was a 47MP camera, the comparison would be more valid (same pixel size)!

Andy

 

[malla1962]

Tim - my point was that the 100-400 on full-frame would be excellent, even at 100% crop - your pic shows that. As to showing a 100% crop on the 7D - I don't think so... If your 5D was a 47MP camera, the comparison would be more valid (same pixel size)!

Andy

And what use is a 100% crop? unless your a pixel peeper I never seem to print 100% crops I got big lenses to avoid that one.

 

[tdodd]

Tim - my point was that the 100-400 on full-frame would be excellent, even at 100% crop - your pic shows that. As to showing a 100% crop on the 7D - I don't think so... If your 5D was a 47MP camera, the comparison would be more valid (same pixel size)!

Andy

Andy, I was not responding to your point. I was providing an example of the 5D2's capabilities to Bridie. There are plenty of people in this thread airing opinions, but few providing examples. It's not easy to fake good results if the camera is not up to the task. A picture paints a thousand words.

I've got a 7D and a 1D3, as well as the 5D2. The 5D2 has more reach than the 1D3, through higher pixel density, and better IQ than either of them if you can fill the frame. If I was shooting wildlife I'd be happy to use any of them. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but all are fine cameras and very capable. If I had to choose only one of them as my only camera it would be a very tough choice to make.

p.s. I do have other BIF examples from the 5D2, but I don't want to bore anybody.

 

[grumpybadger]

It depends what your definition is of superb. You will get very good results on the 7D - but I wouldn't be entering any competitions with an image that has been heavily cropped! If you print something from the whole frame at about A4 to A3 - it'll look excellent. I'm talking a relative thing. It would not be fair to lead people into thinking otherwise.

Andy

Again, it depends how you define heavy crop. I've got several images from the 7D of the order of 8-9 Mpx crops (i.e. 45-50% frame area) that have made successful A3 prints.

Surely user experience is better to help people make the right choice than spec sheets and abstract tests - that typically only report on a single sample?

 

[AndyElliott]

Aside from what I've seen from the 40D and 50D with the 100-400, check out: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1 for something more quantitative.

That test was done on an 8MP 30D. At best, the results for it at the long end (which one would assume is where it will stay a good deal of the time for wildlife) are best at around f8, and then only 'very good'.

Unfortunately, they haven't tested it on the 50D (very close to the 7D in terms of resolving power).

However, they have tested the 70-200 f4 - a very highly regarded lens.

It achieves higher MTFs than the 100-400 - getting into the excellent category on the 30D at f5.6. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

Now look at how it copes on the 50D... The quote from Photozone.de:

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS showed a breathtaking performance in our initial test (@ 8mp). However, the 15mp sensor used in the EOS 50D is a different caliber and it shows. The provided quality is still very impressive - also regarding the uniformity across the range - but the lens does not play rock'n roll with the sensor anymore. The center performance is generally very good with a few peaks into excellent territory. The border quality remains very good at all tested settings.

So, you expect the 50D with the 100-400 to be in the 'superb' category? Or the 7D with the 100-400?

Very good, maybe, but not superb. Again, we are probably talking about semantics here, but I don't think it is fair to raise expectations through the roof.

Andy

 

[AndyElliott]

Again, it depends how you define heavy crop. I've got several images from the 7D of the order of 8-9 Mpx crops (i.e. 45-50% frame area) that have made successful A3 prints.

Surely user experience is better to help people make the right choice than spec sheets and abstract tests - that typically only report on a single sample?

I would definitely agree there about trying it for yourself. If you made 45-50% crops with your 500/4, I'm sure they're brilliant and will go to A3 fine. I'm not making a comment about the 7D per se - just what happens when you combine it with 100-400. Also, heavy crop would mean more like about 30% linearly, so more like 10% of the area. Photozone tested two samples in their test.

Andy

 

[grumpybadger]

If I had to choose only one of them as my only camera it would be a very tough choice to make.

That the best post on this thread Tim. Either a 7D or a 5DII will do a very competent job. For me the only decision is AF performance (then again, until a couple of weeks ago, I shot most of my wildlife on full frame!)

 

[grumpybadger]

I would definitely agree there about trying it for yourself. If you made 45-50% crops with your 500/4, I'm sure they're brilliant and will go to A3 fine. I'm not making a comment about the 7D per se - just what happens when you combine it with 100-400.

Andy

It wasn't with my 500/4 - it was with the 400/4 DO a lens that the internet experts will have you believe is rubbish and no better than the 100-400!

I think personally that any of the bodies will give excellent results and agree that 100% sharpness in the 7D is not always achievable. However, I tend to view it as a 10 Mpx camera with decent AF. It is the first Canon crop sensor to fundamentally change AF systems since the 20D. You can get too hung up on pixel count and not think about the other features.

It is always good practice to try and fill the frame as much as possible (through technique and appropriate lenses) with any camera. If you do that, then the ultimate resolution is not as important.

Cropping is a tool in the kit but should always be used with caution.