Bloody Bird Photography is annoying

Llamaman said:
Shoot bird. Stuff bird. Nail it to a twig.

Job done.
Click to expand...

that would be "cheating" and none of us "cheat" where bird photography is concerned???

the local farm store are doing these jumbo packs of meal worms … OK they are dried, but
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
that would be "cheating" and none of us "cheat" where bird photography is concerned???

the local farm store are doing these jumbo packs of meal worms … OK they are dried, but
Click to expand...
You're cheating by using a tele lens! If you're doing it properly, you get kitted up like Rambo, crawl through the undergrowth and shoot it from <1m with a fisheye. BOOM! Prey's-eye view.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Master insect macros in an afternoon with the assistance of a tube of Araldite.
 
Swanseajack said:
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. It seems as if the 7Dii isn't better than what Bill has, apart from the FPS. Gaz has been using the camera for 8 months or so and is possibly going to change back to a 5D3 or 1D which he also owns. I think with 8 months or so use, Gaz has a good idea on what settings to use, and his photographs I have seen back that up. The 1D he has is a better camera in his opinion and the 5D3 for low light and ISO.

Out of interest how long have you been using the camera for?

I'm not saying the 7D2 is a bad camera, but I would be suprised if Bill would see much of a difference apart from the FPS to what he has. The D750 he has is a very capable camera. The current model of the 1D range would possibly be a different story.
Click to expand...

Firstly the originally topic Bill brought up was regarding a 1DIV for birds in flight with a lightweight setup. This is where I suggested a 7D Mark II to him, I never compared it to what his current gear is.

In regards to your question I have been using the 7D Mark II for about two months now I think it is, alongside with a 1Dx & 6D which I have been using on average 6days a week which has gave me more than ample time to form my own opinion on the 7D.
 
Joeturner11 said:
For wildlife mate if you are going to look at the 1DIV I would just go with a 7D Mark II instead as for wildlife it will be a better camera, better focusing unit and more modern with a new 20mp sensor.
Click to expand...

Joeturner11 said:
Firstly the originally topic Bill brought up was regarding a 1DIV for birds in flight with a lightweight setup. This is where I suggested a 7D Mark II to him, I never compared it to what his current gear is.

In regards to your question I have been using the 7D Mark II for about two months now I think it is, alongside with a 1Dx & 6D which I have been using on average 6days a week which has gave me more than ample time to form my own opinion on the 7D.
Click to expand...

Joe my response is to what you had written above which I have highlighted in bold. After me keeping an eye on the 7D2 thread from the begining, I then mentioned that Gaz was dumping his for the low light use and ISO performance. So I then made the point of saying, that Bill could then be possibly dissapointed with a 7D2 as apart from FPS it's not better than what he's got and will be worse in lower light and ISO. So IMO spending out say 3.5k on a 7D2 body and the 100-400mm maybe an expensive mistake as it would be no better than he's got apart from the FPS. 3.5k is a lot of money.

Looking at the EXIF of the bird picture you have posted it was taken on the 30.05.2015 which is just over a month or so ago, you then made comments that it was possibly down to user error "If you customise the AF settings and the rest correctly and know how to get the best out of it you can't go wrong" Which came across as a little condescending, as it was in response to my post regarding Gaz possibly dumping the 7D2 after 8 months use.

Just to make it clear, this is the last paragraph from my last post " I'm not saying the 7D2 is a bad camera, but I would be suprised if Bill would see much of a difference apart from the FPS to what he has. The D750 he has is a very capable camera. The current model of the 1D range would possibly be a different story".

As to your comments regarding the 1D series and D4s and 600mm lens I totally agree (see above), theres probably nothing in it and these cameras could be an improvement over what he's got, especially for the FPS.

Anyway, it's Bills money and he will spend it on what he thinks is suitable.(y)
 
Last edited:
It's also a "light hearted" thread - but the direct comments help it to be interesting - so take them favourably

I cannot see me changing from Nikon, unless I got a good dealt on a Canon cropped body and a Canon 400mm ……. as a "starter" and BIF walkabout job to take to S Africa

I think that I would upgrade my Nikon 600mm first ….. but technology is developing at a fast pace …….. just look at the D800, D810, D610 ……. and the D750 and how quick they came to market

but hopefully the Nikon 300mm PF with my TC's should sort my immediate GAS attack … Gary has got one and it looks as if he is making it work hand held with the x 2 TC …….. plus there are other good reports
 
Last edited:
Looking at your equipment, IMO, I would settle with D4 (or wait for new D5 which is coming soon), another body (options open) for another setup and sell others. As for lenses, I definitely sell 300mm f/4 and if f/2.8 is not important, I would sell it too for 200-400mm gives more flexibility.

Also you've listed so many gears, I hope you don't bring everything whilst out birding or to hides???
 
My £0.02 having owned and obviously shot with Canon 40D, 60D, 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 1D3, 1Ds2, 1Ds3, 2x7D and 2x7D2 bodies and lenses including 3x500f4ISL and 600f4ISL, I really like my Nikon bodies and 300PF for walkabout and would probably get a Nikon 500f4 as a hide lens if I was bothered about more FL. The grass is not always greener.....in fact shooting with a Canon with the lower DR it probably would not look nearly as green ? Only caveat is that I have not owned a 1Dx but I doubt that that is a game-changer over the D4s ?
 
Last edited:
robinsslee said:
Looking at your equipment, IMO, I would settle with D4 (or wait for new D5 which is coming soon), another body (options open) for another setup and sell others. As for lenses, I definitely sell 300mm f/4 and if f/2.8 is not important, I would sell it too for 200-400mm gives more flexibility.

Also you've listed so many gears, I hope you don't bring everything whilst out birding or to hides???
Click to expand...

Robin

As I keep saying it is a "light hearted" thread

The 600mm f4 …….. is a bind to take anywhere apart from the back garden and the usual formal "hides" - even then carrying it with a Wimberley and Gitzo is no fun……. but a really good lens ……. we have quite a large area of land in rural France, all types of habitat …... land is cheap ….. I have a portable hide ……I am retired … so have plenty of time to mess around

Similar comments to S Africa …. but the big 600mm f4 is far too big and heavy to take on the plane and it can screw the baggage allowance
The 600mm f4 is just Ok with the x 1.4 but the x 2 is just too much for it
so I take the 300mm f2.8 and the 300mm f4 with the x 1.4 and x 2 TC's … but the 300mm f2.8VR is still a heavy and big lens

Same considerations for any birding holiday

Moving from the D7100 DX to the D750, I have lost a little range

The 300mm f4 is one of my all time favourites …. but it only likes the TC14Ell and is non VR ……. so you need good light …… and even at 420mm with a DX it is a little too short

the 70 200mm f2.8VR is no good for birding

(my point was that the new Canon 600mm f4 is lighter and takes TC's better than Nikon)

but I'm just bouncing thoughts around … the future must be with a mirror less FX body …….SONY …… if their lens range was good … another thought
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Robin

As I keep saying it is a "light hearted" thread

The 600mm f4 …….. is a bind to take anywhere apart from the back garden and the usual formal "hides" - even then carrying it with a Wimberley and Gitzo is no fun……. but a really good lens ……. we have quite a large area of land in rural France, all types of habitat …... land is cheap ….. I have a portable hide ……I am retired … so have plenty of time to mess around

Similar comments to S Africa …. but the big 600mm f4 is far too big and heavy to take on the plane and it can screw the baggage allowance
The 600mm f4 is just Ok with the x 1.4 but the x 2 is just too much for it
so I take the 300mm f2.8 and the 300mm f4 with the x 1.4 and x 2 TC's … but the 300mm f2.8VR is still a heavy and big lens

Same considerations for any birding holiday

Moving from the D7100 DX to the D750, I have lost a little range

The 300mm f4 is one of my all time favourites …. but it only likes the TC14Ell and is non VR ……. so you need good light …… and even at 420mm with a DX it is a little too short

the 70 200mm f2.8VR is no good for birding

(my point was that the new Canon 600mm f4 is lighter and takes TC's better than Nikon)

but I'm just bouncing thoughts around … the future must be with a mirror less FX body …….SONY …… if their lens range was good … another thought
Click to expand...

Ok I would use 2 setups, 600mm would be your French soil on a hide setup... I would still opt for 200-400mm lens as an flexibility advantage being on safari or birding trip. I've seen people using buggy to carry their heavy stuffs I am guessing that is easy for your home in France? Just a thought, why 600mm but not 500mm?

How much weight saving you achieved comparing to Canon's 600mm II? Will the weight saving be added value to your travelling and lugging around with your heavy tripod and gimbal head?

There are compromise, if you want top notch quality, prime lens & pro body is the answer but it comes with weight and £££, if you want lighter variation, F/4 is good but you lose FL and it is an f/4 might not be as good in taking TC's ...

Question on Sony is, how long it will take before they can match both Nikon/Canon offerings on lenses?

I know a friend of mine who are a Nikon user, his setup is D4 + 500mm and D810 + 200-400mm or 300mm 2.8. He doesn't carry all of them, but normally 2 bodies and 2 lenses, 500mm for portrait shots and 200-400mm/300mm for BiF ... he sometimes has the same dilemma (weight and lenses variation) wanted to move to Canon but I always ask him to stick with Nikon and don't be silly :P. Oh he is going to Masai Mara migration soon let me ask him what gear he will bring with him.
 
Thanks Robin, another Nikon lens that I have considered is the new 80 400mm …. supposed, by some, to be almost as good as the 200 400mm ….. but much lighter …… and the new version is much better than the old
 
Steve-T said:
The 500mm is considerably lighter than the 600 maybe you should consider a swap it is certainly more practical for lugging around,
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve … I know …… and did consider that ……

I'm planning to get a 4 x 4 motorised wheel chair with off road tyres …… they can go anywhere apparently …… so that may help




(it's a joke before Brash come in with a sympathy act)
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Steve … I know …… and did consider that ……

I'm planning to get a 4 x 4 motorised wheel chair with off road tyres …… they can go anywhere apparently …… so that may help




(it's a joke before Brash come in with a sympathy act)
Click to expand...

How about one of these, only have to push it around :naughty:

wheelchair-camera.jpg
 
Llamaman said:
Shoot bird. Stuff bird. Nail it to a twig.

Job done.
Click to expand...

thinking about it - that is quite a cost effective solution …. and no problems with the background ………… but I am a bird lover!!
 
I think Joe is using his MkII more than I am and I will be interested in reading his thoughts on it when he publishes his review. One point I would make is that if modifying AF cases is the way forward then Canon havent got the original settings right. I dont feel the need to customize the 1DX cases.

Yes Im getting peed off with the MkII because its not consistent enough. But im comparing it with a very good camera in the subject matter that i like to shoot.

If Bill was thinking about changing for a lighter set up or because he thinks that Canons big teles are better then, if money isnt a factor, the 1DX is the best camera. And no amount of customizing, changing settings etc on a MkII will change that.

I keep very little of what I shoot, less than 10%. Like most I have an expectation on image quality and as I have already said I only use the MkII in good light because I feel that is its forte.

I, like others, put a lot of effort into learning about my cameras and the settings available and one AF setting isnt going to be the absolute definitve setting for BIF for example. And its really movement that we are talking about here. Taking images of static subjects presents very little challenge to a modern camera and lens.

Right light and right conditions nothing wrong with the image quality.

Dunnock

I could take that with a 1000D. Its when the opportunity comes suddenly that you need the confidence that the camera will do it.

I will keep persevering, but I've been spoilt already in the performance stakes.

Yes Joe, dont be so condescending. I'm an old man and very sensitive to such things :)
 
Last edited:
Not owning either a 7D2 nor a 1DX but applying some basic economics I would totally expect the more expensive camera to offer some significant advantages. Could you imagine the cries of pain if it didn't ? However is it really a question of once you've been spoilt by the better offering then the lower price camera appears worse but in isolation and it's actually a good offering ?

A bit like owning a high end car and then going back to say a Ford Focus, Astra (other makes are available.......) will seem a backwards step. However on their own they do what the vast majority of owners need.

I have read some of the focus issues on the net and my own take is that some cameras do have a problem but also there appears to be an awful lot that could possibly be down to user error.

With regard to the differences in higher iso quality isn't that one of the things your extra cash buys ? If you NEED the ultimate quality regularly in difficult light then there's the answer. I think a lot of this is down to managing personal expectation and thinking what should I expect for the cash I'm splashing out.

OK rant over
 
taxboy said:
Not owning either a 7D2 nor a 1DX but applying some basic economics I would totally expect the more expensive camera to offer some significant advantages. Could you imagine the cries of pain if it didn't ? However is it really a question of once you've been spoilt by the better offering then the lower price camera appears worse but in isolation and it's actually a good offering ?

A bit like owning a high end car and then going back to say a Ford Focus, Astra (other makes are available.......) will seem a backwards step. However on their own they do what the vast majority of owners need.

I have read some of the focus issues on the net and my own take is that some cameras do have a problem but also there appears to be an awful lot that could possibly be down to user error.

With regard to the differences in higher iso quality isn't that one of the things your extra cash buys ? If you NEED the ultimate quality regularly in difficult light then there's the answer. I think a lot of this is down to managing personal expectation and thinking what should I expect for the cash I'm splashing out.

OK rant over
Click to expand...

Yes you should expect a better camera for more money and you get it.

Better build quality, better noise control, better handling, etc

I have already said that in isolation the MkII acquits itself pretty well.

I'm sure that there are lots of folk on here with more knowledge of photography than myself but I do have a pretty good idea about what makes a MkII & a 1DX tick. Just because some people are happy with theirs doesn't mean that everyone has to be. Anyone jumping on the 'user error' and implying that people don't know how to use the camera and set it up is a pretty patronising attitude.

Its not about price. The MkII was touted as a 1DX killer when it was launched with some well known photographers shouting its brilliance from the tree tops. Be interesting to see how much of those photographers work is actually done with a MKII
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
Yes you should expect a better camera for more money and you get it.

Better build quality, better noise control, better handling, etc

I have already said that in isolation the MkII acquits itself pretty well.

I'm sure that there are lots of folk on here with more knowledge of photography than myself but I do have a pretty good idea about what makes a MkII & a 1DX tick. Just because some people are happy with theirs doesn't mean that everyone has to be. Anyone jumping on the 'user error' and implying that people don't know how to use the camera and set it up is a pretty patronising attitude.

Its not about price. The MkII was touted as a 1DX killer when it was launched with some well known photographers shouting its brilliance from the tree tops. Be interesting to see how much of those photographers work is actually done with a MKII
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. Can I ask given you owned the 1DX the factors for choosing the 7D2? Please note I'm not being sarcastic or provocative with my question.
 
taxboy said:
Thanks for your response. Can I ask given you owned the 1DX the factors for choosing the 7D2? Please note I'm not being sarcastic or provocative with my question.
Click to expand...


I owned a 5D3 and a 1D MkIV and found that I wasn't using the MkIV much due to the better AF and noise on the 5D3 and the 1DX. When Canonn offered an extra £400 trade in against the 1DX i decided to trade my MkIV in.

However I then ended up with 2 FF bodies.

I tended to use the 5D3 for landscape work but I'm not a prolific landscape photographer and the 1DX can cater for my needs in that department. I felt that having 2 FF was a bit of a waste so when the MKII came out with what is effectively the same AF system I thought the crop sensor would be a good pairing with the 1DX. So I bought one.

Mine has never had AF issues and in the first back to back test that I did with it against the 1DX on a rally I was perfectly happy with the results. Same lens, same AF settings, same subject shot in the same conditions. Not quite as many keepers, and the 1DX had faster focus acquisition in those particular circumstances but if the MkII was the only camera I had I would have been more than happy with the results. Was shooting up at ISO 2000-2500 and the images were cleaning up well.

However since then I have used it more on my normal subjects and after a lot of testing have decided that it is a good light camera, certainly if wildlife is the subject.
I dont think that the noise is as smooth as the 1DX but I will happily admit that I had forgotten what the limitations re noise a crop sensor has.

I've used it on BIF and got some stuff i'm happy with

Red Kite

Red Kite

But,whatever the differences in the AF system compared to the 1DX it doesn't seem to be as consistent.

I will try Joe's suggestion of sticking to 5 and 9 point next time out and see where that goes.

I want it to be good and I will persevere with it for a while longer.
 
Gas .. Like those shots, particularly the second one.. I agree that if you pay big bucks, it should be better! I don't have either the 1dx or 7d2 .... Traded my 5d2 and 7d for a 5d3 which has worked well for my current project which is not BIF. It has been an interesting read this thread.
 
Oops that should say GAZ and it won't let me edit it for some reason. Sorry!
 
I use the d7100 and tamron 70-300 vc, been very impressed with the results when I get it right, it's a great lens for the price, sharp at 300 is better than I expected.Depends where and how often you can do these things. For my local bird life what I use is sufficient. I try not.to get caught up in gear envy :-)
 
Last edited:
7Dmk2 is a great camera at the price point, that's why Canon made it.

However when chasing that extra percentage from your images, then there are better alternatives. I own a 1D mkIV which has now been upgraded to a 1Dx, I always felt the 7dmk2 was a backwards step and the 5d mk3 a sideways one when trying them out as viable options for replacing the 1D mkIV.

Even with glass some would turn their nose up at (100-400 mk1) it focuses and shoots well at high ISO. I did in the end move onto a super telephoto lens to start extracting a bit more detail from the files.

1D MKIV & 100-400 mk1
400mm 1/800sec F7.1 ISO 2000

7528358394_ebfe3dbfcc_o.jpg

7528358034_1bc84f9408_o.jpg
 
MkIV is a lovely camera Sam. I just didnt use it much.

There is just something about the 1 series cameras that just feels right and no body and grip combo feels the same handling wise.

I just think the 1DX is a lovely camera and even cropping into the image to the same size as a 1.6 still gives a nice image.
 
I have looked at lots of images (admittedly only on the web at web resolution, say up to 500k), on quite a few sites and "pro" sites over the last couple of weeks - the images with the latest IS ll Canon 400mm, 500mm and 600mm primes look sharper, quite often noticeably sharper and generally "cleaner", than those taken with the Nikon comparable lenses

I think that Nikon are one step behind Canon and maybe there next generation will bring them in line

I reckon that the most flexible set up for bird shots and one that is reasonably portable is as follows

D750 + Nikon 300mm f4E PF + x 1.4 and x 2 TC's …… generally carry around and handheld plus tripod

Latest Canon crop body + 400mm or 500mm IS ll with x 1.4 and x 2 TC's ….. generally tripod and maybe hand held for BIF

I've never used either combination, so just IMHO from reading all the stuff available on the internet
 
Last edited:
I have read most of this thread with interest and I think everyone is missing the point your equipment is not the problem it's your breakfast, shredded wheat, prunes and tea !! really !!.
Any wildlife photographer worth his salt would be eating rice crispys, toast and jam (strawberry) and lots of strong coffee.
Hope this helps
Regards Bob.
 
old bloke said:
I have read most of this thread with interest and I think everyone is missing the point your equipment is not the problem it's your breakfast, shredded wheat, prunes and tea !! really !!.
Any wildlife photographer worth his salt would be eating rice crispys, toast and jam (strawberry) and lots of strong coffee.
Hope this helps
Regards Bob.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob

I think I need a lot more than that to re-energise my photography …… too much time on my hands is the problem …… get out and shoot will maybe be said ……… but I fancy a bit of the "exotic"
 
Your only here once Bill, go for it. Scratch that itch.
 
Swanseajack said:
Your only here once Bill, go for it. Scratch that itch.
Click to expand...

I'm probably OK with what I have now BUT I really fancy a 12 day trip to Ecuador ……. kids and wife have promised this to get me out of the way for a week or two ….. really good value …….. I could not take my 600mm Nikon so the best that I could do would be a 300mm f2.8 and TC's ……. the 300mm f2.8 VR is not good hand held

hand held and range would be a problem …… so I reckon that I would miss lots of opportunities unless I really took the most suitable gear

and then our next trip to S Africa will be in Jan/Feb

That's why I'm going through this soul searching
 
Last edited:
I really don't like the tone of this thread... After impressing my wife with the results of my Canon 300mm f4 & 1.4 EX I was "allowed to purchase the Sigma 150-600. I now think replacing my 7D Mk1 with a Mk2 is in order. Anyone need a kidney ?


At the end of the day, the biggest issue I have is patience, well if truth be known, it's time. Due to the lack of time I tend to be impatient. I'm hoping to spend a day watching and photographing eagles while on holiday, at least they're big enough to see in the viewfinder !! :)
 
Just been looking at UK lens prices, (WEX) ….. of the newest versions, new

Nikon 400mm f2.8 - £10,399 3.8kgs - 358mm ……… first of new "generation" lens with fluorite ……. followed by the 300 f4 PF
Canon 400mm f2.8 - £7,698 3.85kgs - 343mm ……….. mint used one on here for £4,800!!

Nikon 600mm f4 £6,899 - 5kgs - 445mm
Canon 600mm f4 £8,895 - 3.92kgs - 448mm

Nikon 500mm f4 £5,849 - 3.8kgs - 394mm
Canon 500mm f4 £6,899 - 3.19kgs - 383mm

Canon 400mm f4 - £6,999 2.1kgs - 233mm

Canon TC's seem to have a better reputation than Nikon TC's for IQ

If Nikon increase the prices of their new (fluorite) versions of 500mm and 600mm lenses, to the extent that they did with the 400mm f2.8 ….. they are going to be megga money
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top