Whose winning the battle for the best birding equipment for lens and bodies etc., Nikon or Canon

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
13,974
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
No
Now that we have 24, 36 and now 50 meg plus all the lens range that maybe needed

Long lenses are still heavy but are getting lighter, (and better???)

Lens prices are increasing - good bodies can be had for under £2k

Whose winning the battle for the best birding equipment for lens and bodies etc., Nikon or Canon
 
I don't think that either of them can claim to be the best for this particular aspect of photography.

Nikons sensors are better overall. Canons possibly have the edge with the choice of lenses like the 400 f5.6 and the MkII superteles.

For me the only bodies that qualify for this are the high FPS bodies and they are pretty limited in both camps. I've got a 1DX and see nothing in a D4S that would make me want one. And if I had a D4S vice versa.

In sure that others will disagree with my high frame body only viewpoint and others will just plain disagree.

Ultimately if you're getting the images you want with the kit you've got then you've got the best. For you.
 
Gaz J said:
I don't think that either of them can claim to be the best for this particular aspect of photography.

Nikons sensors are better overall. Canons possibly have the edge with the choice of lenses like the 400 f5.6 and the MkII superteles.

For me the only bodies that qualify for this are the high FPS bodies and they are pretty limited in both camps. I've got a 1DX and see nothing in a D4S that would make me want one. And if I had a D4S vice versa.

In sure that others will disagree with my high frame body only viewpoint and others will just plain disagree.

Ultimately if you're getting the images you want with the kit you've got then you've got the best. For you.
Click to expand...

Agree with you nikon has the edge on sensors and canon on the lenses although canon has just released the 7D2
I would have thought that was perfect for birding
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
I don't think that either of them can claim to be the best for this particular aspect of photography.

Nikons sensors are better overall. Canons possibly have the edge with the choice of lenses like the 400 f5.6 and the MkII superteles.

For me the only bodies that qualify for this are the high FPS bodies and they are pretty limited in both camps. I've got a 1DX and see nothing in a D4S that would make me want one. And if I had a D4S vice versa.

In sure that others will disagree with my high frame body only viewpoint and others will just plain disagree.

Ultimately if you're getting the images you want with the kit you've got then you've got the best. For you.
Click to expand...
:agree: and stunning wildlife images have been being captured for many years on what we these days would call lesser quality kit.
If you were to ask "what company is best at convincing you you need it" that's a different matter.
 
I still use my D300, D7100 and (now) also D700

but equipment is progressing and Canon and Nikon do not particularly aim their bodies at wildlife photographers and also as far as long lenses are concerned maybe sport and similar is a bigger or as big a market for these

The investment in equipment for bird/wildlife photography is expensive so once you are into Nikon or Canon most do not/cannot change
 
N said:
:agree: and stunning wildlife images have been being captured for many years on what we these days would call lesser quality kit.
If you were to ask "what company is best at convincing you you need it" that's a different matter.
Click to expand...


Agree with you there the kit is only part of it being in the right place at the right moment is still what matters
good kit helps tho:)
 
LCPete said:
Agree with you there the kit is only part of it being in the right place at the right moment is still what matters
good kit helps tho:)
Click to expand...

Your right Pete, i would also like a £ for the ones i meet that have just gone to Jessops and emptied their bank account but don't have a clue what to do with the "good kit" :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
Agree with you nikon has the edge on sensors and canon on the lenses although canon has just released the 7D2
I would have thought that was perfect for birding
Click to expand...

Yes it is a nice camera. I traded my 5D3 for one. 5D3 was great and I used it preference to my 1D MkIV but I did find the 6FPS a limiting factor in some instances. There are times when you just want to hit the button and get as many frames as you can in the bag. But a great all round camera. The Nikon D750 would seem to be the one to have as an all round body from Nikon.

Moving up to a 1DX/D4S the emphasis changes to a more specific role. The sensor resolution drops, I assume to allow the fast frame rates and write times to be achieved, but build quality, weather sealing etc improves.

As Gary points out, having "the best" kit doesn't guarantee the best images. I remember when I bought my 500, I headed for my local Motorsport track thinking "I'm going to get some great images now". I didn't have a clue about using a big heavy lens like that and my pic were, in general, rubbish.

Most good photographers work on their photography. Experimenting with different settings in situations that are unimportant so that when the good opportunities arrive they can be as confident as they can be that they will get the best images possible.

So good kit is great to have but whoever you choose there's more to it that the latest and greatest.
 
This week, one of them might have a slight edge. Next week, the other may have crept ahead. The week after, one of the other players could possibly be the sector favourites.
 
Nod said:
This week, one of them might have a slight edge. Next week, the other may have crept ahead. The week after, one of the other players could possibly be the sector favourites.
Click to expand...

Maybe the grass is always greener, (all my kit is Nikon), but I have often though that the Canon 600mm and the Canon 400mm f5.6 are ahead of Nikon, OK Nikon don't do a 400mm f5.6, but that is quite a useful spec ……… I have always felt that the Canon lens range for birding is ahead of Nikon, although I have never use a Canon lens or body, (since the A1)

Obviously the skill of the man behind the setup is crucial, as is the light conditions, fieldcraft and indeed the opportunity to travel to find the subjects that you want to see …….. but those were not points that I was asking about
 
Gary Coyle said:
You need to factor the photographer into this as well, stick a muppet with no paitence behind a 1DX and 600mm f/4 and the guy next to him with good technique, an understanding of his subject and a modicum of paitence with a 7D and 300mm f/4 and we all know who will come out on top
Click to expand...

And IMO the pics at the linked thread prove your point Gary, that the photographer has a lot to do with it, yes he's using a nice lens but the body is D5100.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/taking-lunch-3-images.577759/
 
Last edited:
A further question on your original post Bill..................Does there come a time when the upgrades are not worth the cost of changing for the increase in FPS, ISO etc. When you have a good body like your D700 and your good pro glass, would you see much of a benefit of say changing to a D750 for taking photos of birds in daylight???? I could understand a sports photographer when using at night etc.........

Where is the cut-off point when enough is enough????
 
I don't think that the vast majority of users of either marque need anything better than they had 10 years ago. What they do need is to learn subjective and objective judgement of what is a good standard. How often has someone gone out for the afternoon, filled a 16Gb card and then announced that 90% of the shots are "keepers"!...that's probably more "keepers" from a single 2 second burst that a top wildlife photographer gets in a month.

"Good" is the new "poor", "great" is the new "average" and "stunning" is the new "good". Perhaps a period of consolidation where we "tell it as it is" will make people reassess their approach and then make some determined attempt to catch up with the technology at their finger tips.

Bob
 
I would have thought the focusing system of a camera to be most important for wildlife, everything else would seem worthless if it's out of focus unless you are an mf god? Lol
 
Swanseajack said:
A further question on your original post Bill..................Does there come a time when the upgrades are not worth the cost of changing for the increase in FPS, ISO etc. When you have a good body like your D700 and your good pro glass, would you see much of a benefit of say changing to a D750 for taking photos of birds in daylight???? I could understand a sports photographer when using at night etc.........

Where is the cut-off point when enough is enough????
Click to expand...

That's were I am at - happy with the D7100 and D700 … and I have taken some good shots with my D300

The skill of the photographer etc., is not the question that I am asking

What improvements I would like to see in really good high ISO quality, (maybe that is not technically possible), a semi/pro DX body, (will never happen) and lighter 300mm + up to 600mm lens ….. maybe a 400mm f4 would be good from Nikon
All improvements in glass with probably now suffer from extreme diminishing returns, (just look at the current new prices), but improvements in the convenience of use in longer lens, (this has started with Canon and now Nikon) will be a great aid in the field.

Canon seem to be ahead in high ISO quality and it the development of lighter, (in weight), glass

Nikon bodies, unfortunately there has been a couple of recent marketing disasters which have only be considered relevant to enthusiasts ……….
 
gman said:
I would have thought the focusing system of a camera to be most important for wildlife, everything else would seem worthless if it's out of focus unless you are an mf god? Lol
Click to expand...

most of the time I use spot - keeping still is the main factor - the focusing system on the modern bodies is OK to f8 ……which tends to be the max I go to with say my 300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4 and the TC's still keep the widest value under f8

BIF maybe different

If you look at the current new prices of lens 400mm f2.8 upwards …….. you can see what the limiting factor for many these days is ……… but they all tend to be the same … look at the Sony 500mm price …… and I'm not sure what would happen if mirror-less DSLRs take off
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
That's were I am at - happy with the D7100 and D700 … and I have taken some good shots with my D300

The skill of the photographer etc., is not the question that I am asking

What improvements I would like to see in really good high ISO quality, (maybe that is not technically possible), a semi/pro DX body, (will never happen) and lighter 300mm + up to 600mm lens ….. maybe a 400mm f4 would be good from Nikon
All improvements in glass with probably now suffer from extreme diminishing returns, (just look at the current new prices), but improvements in the convenience of use in longer lens, (this has started with Canon and now Nikon) will be a great aid in the field.

Canon seem to be ahead in high ISO quality and it the development of lighter, (in weight), glass

Nikon bodies, unfortunately there has been a couple of recent marketing disasters which have only be considered relevant to enthusiasts ……….
Click to expand...

It's wasnt the question I was asking either. When does your kit become enough?? Do people just buy for GAS??

Also, from what I see I disagree that Canon are ahead of Nikon in High ISO. Is the sony A7s the current best for mass market cameras, although not a wildlife camera.
 
My opinion is that Nikon still hold the high iso crown however Cannon now have a few cameras which out focus the best that Nikon have( not just my opinion but that also of a few of the worlds leading wildlife togs).For lenses they say the Cannon 300 f2.8 is the quickest but i see nothing between that and the Nikon 300 f2.8( both the news versions).The Cann 500/600 seems lighter and easier to handhold than the Nikon versions where the Nikons on average are a bit cheaper for the longer versions..So no clear answer.I have the 600 Nikon lens and the Nikon D700 but can still use an old D300 as well for the crop factor.Im about to buy the Nikon D810 for its quality and group focus abilities.For me at my level it suits my needs perfectly.
 
I did a experiment last week before investing in the new sigma 150-600 sport ,I went back over the pics I have taken over the last several years using various nikons and canon cameras all canon shots taken with the 400 mm f5.6 and 40/50/60/70d and 1d3 there is virtually no difference at all the main change I think has been in post processing skills .
So the answer to this question is PS6 or investing in the best glass you can get ,all the higher MP camera bodies are doing is letting you make poster sized photos if required
 
The D810 would be my next buy - along with a new iMac

But a good used D800E at £1,250 has got to be a bargain

I never take the 600mm off the tripod so I reckon that even the newer VR will not make any difference to the quality of my shots .. so that's me sorted at that end

I thinking about the new Nikon 300mm f4 PF because of it's portability to replace the 300mm f4, (which I reckon I will end up keeping)
Thought about the new 80 400mm but it's heavy

Anything over 600mm new I cannot justify the money ……… but I would like to have a go with a 400mm f2.8

£2.5k from a trip to Ethiopia

I reckon that I have all I need ……… and on the want front it is maybe a D800/D810 and the new 300mm PF …. I need a new iMac anyway

when the FX D700 "wears out" the logic to me say D8xx

Isn't the sigma heavy? but stellar value for money
 
Last edited:
I would have bought the d810 at christmas but the new iMac retina 5k came calling and i couldn't resist as my old pc was struggling. The Sigma i have is a light weight now as I'm used to the 600 Nikon.Im off on my travels the end of next week with the 600, 120-300, 70-200, 24-70 and 14-24 along with 2 camera all in my hand luggage-so wish me luck getting it on the plane and for my back to survive.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I would have thought the focusing system of a camera to be most important for wildlife, everything else would seem worthless if it's out of focus unless you are an mf god? Lol
Click to expand...

Your correct in terms of the focusing system needing to be up to the job. An out of focus image is an out of focus image regardless of the other features but they all contribute.

Decent high ISO performance: people talk about low light capability but often you need to shoot at higher ISO as standard to maintain the required shutter speed for the subject.

Frames per second: not 'machine gunning' but 10fps is a huge advantage over 3fps. When you've waited all day for a particular bird in flight and you get one chance for a couple of seconds. It's a choice of 20 images compared 6.

Resolution: depending on your subject then you may need to crop heavily.

They all play are part and it's a case of which camera offers the best combination of the above to suit what you do.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
......focusing system needing to be up to the job.
......decent high ISO performance.
......maintain the required shutter speed for the subject.
......resolution: depending on your subject then you may need to crop heavily.
Click to expand...
My knee jerk reaction is to agree with all the points that you made, Phil. Then I think back a while (okay, a fair while).

Focusing system.....manual.
High iso performance.....400 ASA was the norm.
Shutter speed......whatever you could get away with.
Resolution.....fixed (give or take).

So how was it done?

Shooting at f/11 with a 500/5.6 gave enough latitude to cover any errors in focus and mask the odd aberration whilst nowadays using a 600/4 at f/8 seems to be sacrilege (myself included). 400 was high iso and any resolution was based on the quality of paper you could afford. Browse through a 1970's birding book and you'll be surprised how little the new technology has moved us on in all practical terms.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
My knee jerk reaction is to agree with all the points that you made, Phil. Then I think back a while (okay, a fair while).

Focusing system.....manual.
High iso performance.....400 ASA was the norm.
Shutter speed......whatever you could get away with.
Resolution.....fixed (give or take).

So how was it done?

Shooting at f/11 with a 500/5.6 gave enough latitude to cover any errors in focus and mask the odd aberration whilst nowadays using a 600/4 at f/8 seems to be sacrilege (myself included). 400 was high iso and any resolution was based on the quality of paper you could afford. Browse through a 1970's birding book and you'll be surprised how little the new technology has moved us on in all practical terms.

Bob
Click to expand...

I agree with you Bob. You don't 'need' the advantages that a modern DSLR offers as many older birding images prove however, going back to the OPs question, these are the features available today that manufacturers are offering and consumers have to weigh up when choosing their kit.
 
dinners said:
I agree with you Bob. You don't 'need' the advantages that a modern DSLR offers as many older birding images prove however, going back to the OPs question, these are the features available today that manufacturers are offering and consumers have to weigh up when choosing their kit.
Click to expand...
...and 99% of consumers would be equally as good (or bad) with either choice. Nikon and Canon's battle is in the marketing department and not in the tech office.
 
I don't think that Canon have any lead at all in ISO noise control certainly not at lower ISO. What Canon bodies seem to do is to claw back some of the deficit at higher ISO. Having said that a D4S is probably a 1/3 stop better than a 1DX overall, which given it has less resolution, you could argue that it should be. Is it worth a change, most definitely not.

I would argue that 16-18 MP is plenty for any wildlife photographer and what we need to see is not this constant drive for resolution but more improvement in noise and dynamic range, if possible.

However the cost of long prime lenses is prohibitive to many and then having a high resolution sensor that allows them to crop into the image allow the use of shorter, more affordable lenses. But, as ever, the high res sensor comes with a price to pay in that they usually have a lower frame speed.

As photographers we have never had it so good in terms of choice of camera bodies and lenses, yet we never seem to be satisfied. Or is it that the manufacturers tell us that we aren't satisfied with the very best from last year and the latest sensor with .25 of a stop dynamic range suddenly renders all that has gone before obsolete?
 
Canon Bob said:
...and 99% of consumers would be equally as good (or bad) with either choice. Nikon and Canon's battle is in the marketing department and not in the tech office.
Click to expand...

Definitely although there are certain items or qualities that will draw somebody to one system or another.

I reckon most people swithering over Canon or Nikon will be doing so at the entry / consumer gear stage.

By the time they're considering something like a 1DX or D4S then I suspect the majority would have already made a fair investment in their system and would go with the same brand.
 
It has plenty of nice features :) I think this is the one I would find most useful:

"Never before has it been so easy to get premium-grade wildlife photos. Canon understands that wildlife photography is time consuming. To allow photographers to capture photos while attending to other demands such as work, family and sleep, the Canon MT-1 Motion Trigger is being introduced. Featuring trail cam technology, the hot shoe-mounted MT-1 will trigger the EOS-1D W when wildlife motion is detected within a selected angle of view and focus distance. The MT-1 provides its own hot shoe to support simultaneous flash use."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top