Getting into wildlife photography.

The23rdman

The23rdman

Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
I'm losing my love for photography and wish to fan the flames somewhat by getting into wildlife and birds.

I currently shoot Nikon, but cannot afford the lenses needed so have decided to switch back to canon for the 100-400 or 400 prime. My question is whether to go for a 7d or 5dii. I shoot kids and families for my job mostly with studio lights so don't result need the high ISO, but I do love the 5dii files. Do any of you guys use a 5dii or is it all crop formats here?
 
Martin (mpevo6) has both, Dean & and the 100-400. Might be worth sending a PM, he`s a nice guy, so won`t get upperty about it (y)
 
The IQ on the Sigma lenses isn't good enough and a 300 and tc is still not cost effective plus if I want longer the cost is prohibative.
 
sorry dean, but i disagree with you there my 50-500mm os is every bit as good as the canon 100-400mm and infact knocks the spots of my mates 100-400mm.
SJB_5011.jpg


SJB_4172b-1.jpg


SJB_7590.jpg


SJB_2530-1.jpg


SJB_8422.jpg


SJB_5934.jpg

and i have pleany more pics like this.
 
Last edited:
Then you got a good one, mate. I've had three Sigma lenses and they've all been a real letdown and I'm not sure I fancy going through the sell and buy rigmarole all over again. ;)

I also would quite like a bit more resolution that 12mp for cropping purposes.
 
Couldnt agree more with Scot my 50-500 is never off my camera the 100-400 is now sitting in the cupboard ever since I got the Sigma.

My son also has the old Sigma 50-500 for equestrian photography.
 
I would go for the 5D the picture quality at 100% is much better than the 7D. If you stick to centre point the 5Ds autofocus is pretty good. If you do shoot wildlife there are times when the high iso is very useful if you are shooting at first light or dusk.

The 7D's autofocus is much better especially if you go off centre point but having owned both it was the 7D I sold.

Re lenses quality control at Sigma does not seem to as good as Canons. A friend tried about 4 copies of their 85 before he gave up and went for the more expensive canon.

edit If you do go the sigma route if you go for a new one and not happy with it you can always take it back
 
Last edited:
TBH, I didn't even realise Sigma had updated the bigma. I'll look into it as, tbh, I do love my D700. The issue will be when I want to upgrade to primes (and I will because I always do!). Nikon's long primes are significantly more expensive.
 
Oh, and, Scott, those shots are great!
 
adrian5127 said:
I would go for the 5D the picture quality at 100% is much better than the 7D. If you stick to centre point the 5Ds autofocus is pretty good. If you do shoot wildlife there are times when the high iso is very useful if you are shooting at first light or dusk.

The 7D's autofocus is much better especially if you go off centre point but having owned both it was the 7D I sold.

Re lenses quality control at Sigma does not seem to as good as Canons. A friend tried about 4 copies of their 85 before he gave up and went for the more expensive canon.

edit If you do go the sigma route if you go for a new one and not happy with it you can always take it back
Click to expand...
sigma probaly sell alot more lenses than canon and nikon, they make them for sony,pentax,nikon,canon,olympus, so probably will hear about more duffs.

sigmas now come with a 3 year warrenty.
 
Scott, I'll be buying used. We're in the process of moving house and the new place needs about 10k doing on it so there'll be no new lenses for me! Plus I change my gear so often buying new isn't cost effective (as I've recently discovered).

Another great selection. I'm nearly sold!
 
The23rdman said:
Scott, I'll be buying used. We're in the process of moving house and the new place needs about 10k doing on it so there'll be no new lenses for me! Plus I change my gear so often buying new isn't cost effective (as I've recently discovered).

Another great selection. I'm nearly sold!
Click to expand...
fare enough dean, but you will find it very hard to find a 2nd hand 50-500mm os, and i know what you mean the 50-500mm os is £1250 new, so maybe look at a 150-500mm os 2nd hand about £550,
and heres some sport.
SJB_8422.jpg


SJB_8450.jpg



SJB_9664crop.jpg


SJB_9653crop.jpg


SJB_9663crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
fare enough dean, but you will find it very hard to find a 2nd hand 50-500mm os, and i know what you mean the 50-500mm os is £1250 new, so maybe look at a 150-500mm os 2nd hand about £550,
Click to expand...

Or do what I was originally going to do and buy a Canon. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
Or do what I was originally going to do and buy a Canon. ;)
Click to expand...
well there is that, if your happy to lose money, but both those cams have there + and - the 5d as said has an ok af performance but has great image quality and the 7d has great af performance but alot of people moan about low iso noise and from what i have i have seen iso 200-800 is over the top for me.
and the 100-400mm has a good rep, but the is is not that good imo,
 
Well, I don't have a grand to spend on a lens, mate, and the 150-500 doesn't look half as impressive.
 
You're only intending to shoot wildlife in bright sunlight then? ;)

Seriously, I use a D300 and 300mm 2.8 (with converters when needed). Rarely do I get to use anything lower than ISO 800 (on bad days 1600), especially at this time of year. Unless, of course, you like animals that don't move at all :)
 
SuperAP said:
You're only intending to shoot wildlife in bright sunlight then? ;)

Seriously, I use a D300 and 300mm 2.8 (with converters when needed). Rarely do I get to use anything lower than ISO 800 (on bad days 1600), especially at this time of year. Unless, of course, you like animals that don't move at all :)
Click to expand...
who are you talking to.
 
SuperAP said:
You're only intending to shoot wildlife in bright sunlight then? ;)

Seriously, I use a D300 and 300mm 2.8 (with converters when needed). Rarely do I get to use anything lower than ISO 800 (on bad days 1600), especially at this time of year. Unless, of course, you like animals that don't move at all :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, who is this aimed at? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
Good luck with whichever way you decide to go Dean, but if it comes down to a choice between the 5DMK2 and the 7D it's a no brainer for wildlife.

The 5DMK2 all day long for landscape, portraits and weddings, but for wildlife the 7D has the pixel density and the crop factor to give you the all important reach you'll need for wildlife and the AF system to grab you those fleeting chances - it's what it exists for. ;)
 
CT said:
Good luck with whichever way you decide to go Dean, but if it comes down to a choice between the 5DMK2 and the 7D it's a no brainer for wildlife.

The 5DMK2 all day long for landscape, portraits and weddings, but for wildlife the 7D has the pixel density and the crop factor to give you the all important reach you'll need for wildlife and the AF system to grab you those fleeting chances - it's what it exists for. ;)
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking too, CT. In hoping to have a play with one too see if it'll work well enough for my day job. I have to remember this is a departure rather than my main use.

Wish I could justify a 1div!
 
The23rdman said:
That's what I'm thinking too, CT. In hoping to have a play with one too see if it'll work well enough for my day job. I have to remember this is a departure rather than my main use.

Wish I could justify a 1div!
Click to expand...

Well the 1D1V would be the better all rounder, but the 7D will still beat it for absolute reach which you need most of the time with wildlife. Don't under-estimate the 7D though - I've shot portraits and weddings with it and it's more than up to the job.
 
CT said:
Well the 1D1V would be the better all rounder, but the 7D will still beat it for absolute reach which you need most of the time with wildlife. Don't under-estimate the 7D though - I've shot portraits and weddings with it and it's more than up to the job.
Click to expand...

As long as I can get solid files up to ISO 800 with studio lights it'll do.
 
The23rdman said:
As long as I can get solid files up to ISO 800 with studio lights it'll do.
Click to expand...

Given our climate and the fact that I"m using long lenses, I find most of the time I'm at shooting at 800 ISO with no problem at all. I'll go to 1600 ISO without a care if need be, and 3200 at a push.
 
CT said:
Given our climate and the fact that I"m using long lenses, I find most of the time I'm at shooting at 800 ISO with no problem at all. I'll go to 1600 ISO without a care if need be, and 3200 at a push.
Click to expand...

Would you mind sending me a couple of raws at 1600?
 
You'll need to PM me your e-mail addy Dean..
 
Back to your original question, most will agree that the 7D is better than 5D2 for wildlife/sport but the 5D2 is king for everything else.

I've had both, and settled for a 60D/1DsIII combo.

IF you are budget limited, the 60D is a cracking little body. It does not AF as fast as the 7D but it is accurate and is good for perched birds if not necessarily BIF.

For static wildlife it is fine.

Personally, I prefer the smaller form, screen and (I think) better iso performance of the 60D over the 7D. You can get 60Ds used reasonably cheap, of course.

As for lenses, I think the Canon 100-400L takes some beating. That said, I have recently settled on a 70-200f2.8II as my walkabout with a x2TC attached and that is plenty sharp enough for me. Combined with the 60D this is a nice portable lightweight combination.

Just a thought.

Good luck with your selection(s).
 
Thanks Gary. I did consider a 60D, but I think it's too small for me. I just sold a D7000 for the same reason, but I will go have a play and see how it performs. I thought the sensor was the same as the 7D?
 
Hi, yes they are the same sensor. I have no idea how such thinks are tweaked by Canon in terms of sensitivity and response but on my monitor I would say that the 60D images are possibly a third of a stop cleaner on the 60D v 7D. Nothing quantiative and it might be my imagination ? Still, I'm happy with letting the 7D go and keeping the 60D which is what matters to me.

BTW, I have tried just about every (sensible) lens/body combo before getting to where I am now including dabbling with 600f4ISL, 500f4ISL, 300f2.8L, 300f4ISL plus the Sigma 150-500, 120-300f2.8os and some other lenses. Unless you are going to be a dedicated wildlife guy I can assure you the 100-400 takes some beating as a versatile walkabout. I do prefer the 70-200II plus TC really because it gives a great 400f5.6 with 4 stops of IS and possibly the world's best 70mmf2.8, 100f2.8 and 200f2.8 in the same lens as well ! It is not cheap but is WELL worth the cash.

BTW, I always reserve the right to be wrong !

Regards.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top