Bloody Bird Photography is annoying

Last edited:
gary43 said:
Hi Bill

Best value lens out there right now is this (not mine): https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-lens.586525/

If I was still with Canon I would have it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary, I've been looking at it - flagged it in my posting on prices … seems great value

I more concerned about the weight so that I can travel with it …… that's what I'm really after versus the Nikon kit that I have …….. the Canon 600mm is lighter than the Nikon ……. and also the Canon 400mm f4 at 2.1kg is a really compact lens and good with TC's
I have not got a good prime that I can use for BIF

even the Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR, (which i have) weighs almost 3kg
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill

I just sold the mk1 version of the Canon 400f4 and probably regret it. If the mkII version is even better, which on paper it is in every conceivable way, then I would regard it as the perfect travel lens.

Quite expensive but very, very useable handheld. The MTF charts indicate that the 400f4 mkII should be a killer lens even with TCs. These are available on the web and look really impressive.

If only Nikon made a 400PF and not just the 300PF ?
 
gary43 said:
Hi Bill

I just sold the mk1 version of the Canon 400f4 and probably regret it. If the mkII version is even better, which on paper it is in every conceivable way, then I would regard it as the perfect travel lens.

Quite expensive but very, very useable handheld. The MTF charts indicate that the 400f4 mkII should be a killer lens even with TCs. These are available on the web and look really impressive.

If only Nikon made a 400PF and not just the 300PF ?
Click to expand...

Yep - if you cannot get your camera and lens onto the bird …… no image

I use f8 as much as i can now and bump up the ISO ….. with the D750 I find that it just works

so 400mm f4 VR IS ll with a x 1.4 or x 2 on a Canon 7D, (1.6 crop) ………. will sort the range out and is maybe the way to go for bird photography hand held if needed
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill

The 400f4 is definitely a great way to go. The problem I would have in your position is camera selection.

I know many here are happy with their 7Ds but I have had 2x7D mkIs and 2x7D mkIIs and was not happy with any of these bodies for various reasons. Their crapness is why I moved to Nikon.Hope you have better luck than me with these bodies if you migrate into the Canon camp.
 
gary43 said:
Hi Bill

The 400f4 is definitely a great way to go. The problem I would have in your position is camera selection.

I know many here are happy with their 7Ds but I have had 2x7D mkIs and 2x7D mkIIs and was not happy with any of these bodies for various reasons. Their crapness is why I moved to Nikon.Hope you have better luck than me with these bodies if you migrate into the Canon camp.
Click to expand...

This is why Bird photography is "bloody annoying"

a good crop body is needed - (I was happy with my D300 - but of course even highish ISO was crap - the D7100 changed the UI - negative step I thought - and IMHO high ISO in most light was only a little better) - I love the D750 and it's high ISO ability, can even put up with the UI of the D610/D7100 ……. I have no idea about the D7200 ……. but I don't reckon that Nikon will have put it anywhere near the FX D750 in terms of high ISO performance.

People will say use the crop function on the D750 …… somehow I just don't feel that it is the same!!


so we reckon that Nikon have the best bodies, D750 and D810 and that Canon have the best lens range (for birders)
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill

I am finding the D7200 to AF better than (my copy of) the D7100. I have though not done a high iso comparison. I think D720 will be about a stop worse than the D750 though. I will do the test at the weekend.

I do fully agree with your last statement and I have had long teles (500f4s and 600f4s) in both systems to compare.
 
BillN_33 said:
This is why Bird photography is "bloody annoying"

a good crop body is needed - (I was happy with my D300 - but of course even highish ISO was crap - the D7100 changed the UI - negative step I thought - and IMHO high ISO in most light was only a little better) - I love the D750 and it's high ISO ability, can even put up with the UI of the D610/D7100 ……. I have no idea about the D7200 ……. but I don't reckon that Nikon will have put it anywhere near the FX D750 in terms of high ISO performance.

People will say use the crop function on the D750 …… somehow I just don't feel that it is the same!!


so we reckon that Nikon have the best bodies, D750 and D810 and that Canon have the best lens range (for birders)
Click to expand...

If I'm reading the info right it seems the new Sony A7Rii with 42.4 MP and with the largest number of AF points and can be used with Canon EF lenses when using a Metabones adapter. The camera also has IBIS which is also useful. It also states the AF is as quick as a Canon OVF AF body. Could be an interesting camera for some Canon shooters with all those MP and IBIS ??? The only downside with mirrorless can be the short battery life, 3rd party spares are cheap though.

Myself, after using a Fuji XT1 I prefer the EVF over an OVF and the focus peaking in the VF is as also good.

Could be something to keep an eye on Bill?

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/89...r-ii-has-42-4mp-on-full-frame-bsi-cmos-sensor
 
Surrey Sam said:
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
Click to expand...
I have to be honest and say I wish I had kept my 1Dmkiv. The 7Dmkii is back at Canon for the second time with focus issues and I'm not happy.
 
Icee said:
I have to be honest and say I wish I had kept my 1Dmkiv. The 7Dmkii is back at Canon for the second time with focus issues and I'm not happy.
Click to expand...
:agree:
A true example of "you get what you pay for" but some will blow like no tomorrow on how good the 7dmk2 is :rolleyes:
 
Icee said:
Thanks Neil, I just needed someone to agree with me to cheer me up. :)
Click to expand...

Can't really cheer you up as mine found a new home recently and I'm a little long faced about it :(

I wish for Canon to re-develop the APS-H sized sensor, I'd move straight back from a FF in a heartbeat.
 
when my 7d mkii comes back I might just change it for another 1Dmkiv.
 
Canon took the stronghold on sports/wildlife back when autofocus was first being introduced (they had a better system)... since then it's been "follow the leader."

The only "advantage" I see to the Canon line is the weight of some of their big lenses, and that's kind of a two sided sword.... less weight is not an advantage for "stability" in most situations. But it sure is nice when carrying or trying to handhold something that's pushing your limits.
But none of the Canon bodies have very good f/8 AF capabilities.... so the 400/4 +2x will be pretty limiting IMO.
 
Last edited:
Icee said:
I have to be honest and say I wish I had kept my 1Dmkiv. The 7Dmkii is back at Canon for the second time with focus issues and I'm not happy.
Click to expand...
i can't find a cheap good one anywhere ,they dropped in price when the 7d2 came out and have risen in price again like a phoenix ,luckily my old 1D3 keeps churning out the goodies for now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top