BIF Camera

W

wooster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,171
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I'm idly considering an upgrade to my camera for Birds. I have a 7d and it's fine but I don't like the low light performance that much and feel given the UK weather a FF might be a better option. I did nearly buy a 5div recently but then lost my nerve. I wondered how the EOS R might look but it doesn't seem to be what I'm after so I'm back to contemplating the 5D mk iv again.

Mind you I know Sony A7III is well thought of in some circles and, though I have some reservations I'm wondering if anyone is using this for Birds and in particular if they have tried it with Canon lenses. I only have a 400mm f5.6 I recently bought and which I enjoy using though it exacerbates my low light problem. I can't afford a big white, don't want anything heavier, and so its the only one I intend to use. I hear it works well on a Sony but I don't now if it would work "BIF" well.

I suppose I'm asking for views between the A7III and 5Dmk iv for my purpose though I'm guessing the Canon is maybe the sensible decision.
 
Last edited:
Or 1dx? Not sure if the adapters would be any good for bif.
 
The 400mm 5.6 Canon lens suits me so a switch to anything would have to allow me to use that. Nikon don't have what I want but hence my passing thought of the Sony. It's unlikely to happen mind you. TBH I'm on holiday at the moment and have a lot of time for ideas. It's more curiosity if anyone had use a Sony with this lens and its one idea that's likely to pass.

I'm sort of interested in a 1DX though :)
 
Why a 5D4 and not a 5D3?
 
I believe the sensor has a bit more latitude for pushing the shadows and AF might be better on the mkiv as it uses the same as the 1Dx. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong though as there's a lot more used mk IIIs around
 
AF works better with some lenses on the 5D4, but not with the 400 f5.6 though. Download the manuals for both cameras and look at the lens/af matrix. Only pointing it out because if AF speed is major concern I dont think with your lens you'll get any improvement. I've used that lens with my 5D3 and a 100/400 IS mk 1 and a 300 f4 IS, I prefer the 100/400 for aircraft shots and the 300 for birds, although tbh I wasnt very succesful with my bird shots, even red kites seemed small in the frame, adding a 1.4 converter didnt help. I think a better option for you might be a 7D2 because I believe it has more focus points active with the 400 plus the crop factor.
Shadow detail - no idea, you're probably correct.
 
The only Sony I would consider for action photography is the A9, but only with the native lenses (500/4, 400/2.8). However I can't easily afford that move and it would have plusses/minuses. I can't really recommend a specific Canon as I primarily work with Nikons.
 
Last edited:
You have canon now so best upgrade would be 7d2. It’s a great camera for bif and I find it’s a very versatile for other uses
 
wooster said:
Hi all

I'm idly considering an upgrade to my camera for Birds. I have a 7d and it's fine but I don't like the low light performance that much and feel given the UK weather a FF might be a better option. I did nearly buy a 5div recently but then lost my nerve. I wondered how the EOS R might look but it doesn't seem to be what I'm after so I'm back to contemplating the 5D mk iv again.

Mind you I know Sony A7III is well thought of in some circles and, though I have some reservations I'm wondering if anyone is using this for Birds and in particular if they have tried it with Canon lenses. I only have a 400mm f5.6 I recently bought and which I enjoy using though it exacerbates my low light problem. I can't afford a big white, don't want anything heavier, and so its the only one I intend to use. I hear it works well on a Sony but I don't now if it would work "BIF" well.

I suppose I'm asking for views between the A7III and 5Dmk iv for my purpose though I'm guessing the Canon is maybe the sensible decision.
Click to expand...

Depending on budget I would suggest a 7D2 or, if you can stretch a bit then a 1DX.
The 7D2 is reasonably priced and very capable - the 1DX is just better - but more expensive:).
Earlier this year I let a fellow Tog play with my 800 F5.6 with the Green Heron that visited Pembrokshire. I had plenty of shots and he was struggling for reach, so we swapped for a few minutes and I was VERY pleasantly surprised at how well his 400 F5.6 worked on my 7D2! I already knew that it was a great lens on my 1DX, but didn't know what it could do on a 7D2 in good light.
Give a 7D2 a try before you decide - you might be pleasantly surprised............
 
I have 7D2, 5d4 and recently 1dx. If you are after a camera for BIF then the 1dx is the 'best' (unless you have a spare arm for 1DX2!). I would agree with Johnf3f comments. Igot the 1dx a few weeks ago and have been blown away by the improvement in focussing over the 5D4. If you are near me I am happy for you to try them,I will be selling my 7D2 in the not too distant future.
Good luck!
 
Cut it down the middle a 1Dmkiv is what I would go for
 
Sorry folks. I've made an error. I was reading the posts and wondering about the recommendations for the 7d mk II and then realised I had made a typo in my OP. I do own the 7DMkII but had omitted the "mkII" bit from my post. Sorry. :sorry:

To explain a bit better. I find that my lens performs better at f8, hence, I find myself shooting at 1600+ ISO to get that aperture along with a decent shutter speed, and with winter approaching I'm contemplating grey mornings and even higher ISO settings. While the 7DmkII seems to do really well in good or moderately good light I was of the opinion that FF might give me a good stop better exposure without loss of detail hence my post.

Anyway, after reading your comments, the 1DX is highly tempting.

I did try an extender with a 7Dmk1 and it was good. Mind you that was in the summer sunshine.
 
Last edited:
What you need is to rob a bank and then get the D5 and new 500mm f5.6 PF, which is crazy light for a 500mm prime ;) You’ll not lose too much in reach, you won’t need to stop down plus you’ll have the noise handling benefit of FF on top of the extra stop of light gathering due to not stopping down.

Joking aside, the trouble with going FF and sticking with your current lens is that you will lose effective reach requiring you to crop more, the more you crop the more it enhances noise. Depending whether you crop, and how much you crop the noise handling advantages of FF may be negated somewhat. The cost to ‘upgrade’ might not be worth it if you’re only going to see minor improvements.
 
Snerkler. I believe you speak true. I'm currently indulging my fantasise and spending money in my mind which is very easily done. The reality is that my current system is plenty good enough for my purposes and I'm imagining scenarios where it might not come up to standard and then fantasising about how I could resolve these imaginary situations. I have now concluded that my approach is not wise. My good wife, who is lying here next to me blissfully unaware of the nonsense going on in my head, usually just nods patiently and waits for the thoughts to pass when I go off on one of my ideas.

Seriously this thread has been helpful in making me realise my mistaken thought processes. Thank you one and all.
 
nc_killie said:
I have 7D2, 5d4 and recently 1dx. If you are after a camera for BIF then the 1dx is the 'best' (unless you have a spare arm for 1DX2!). I would agree with Johnf3f comments. Igot the 1dx a few weeks ago and have been blown away by the improvement in focussing over the 5D4. If you are near me I am happy for you to try them,I will be selling my 7D2 in the not too distant future.
Good luck!
Click to expand...


Thats a really nice offer. I am not really near you though and I will probably stick with my current gear for a bit yet ( see my above post )

I do appreciate it. Thank you.
 
wooster said:
Snerkler. I believe you speak true. I'm currently indulging my fantasise and spending money in my mind which is very easily done. The reality is that my current system is plenty good enough for my purposes and I'm imagining scenarios where it might not come up to standard and then fantasising about how I could resolve these imaginary situations. I have now concluded that my approach is not wise. My good wife, who is lying here next to me blissfully unaware of the nonsense going on in my head, usually just nods patiently and waits for the thoughts to pass when I go off on one of my ideas.

Seriously this thread has been helpful in making me realise my mistaken thought processes. Thank you one and all.
Click to expand...


Stupidest shot ever

Black bird, in shadow, light background, in flight, super high ISO, on a camera that can't do birds in flight.
Claws look sharp though!

Stupidest shot ever by Pete Banks, on Flickr
 
wooster said:
Sorry folks. I've made an error. I was reading the posts and wondering about the recommendations for the 7d mk II and then realised I had made a typo in my OP. I do own the 7DMkII but had omitted the "mkII" bit from my post. Sorry. :sorry:

To explain a bit better. I find that my lens performs better at f8, hence, I find myself shooting at 1600+ ISO to get that aperture along with a decent shutter speed, and with winter approaching I'm contemplating grey mornings and even higher ISO settings. While the 7DmkII seems to do really well in good or moderately good light I was of the opinion that FF might give me a good stop better exposure without loss of detail hence my post.

Anyway, after reading your comments, the 1DX is highly tempting.

I did try an extender with a 7Dmk1 and it was good. Mind you that was in the summer sunshine.
Click to expand...

No worries!

If you are concerned with ISO performance then a 1DX is much better than the 7D2 - I own both. The AF is significantly better on the 1DX too. Of course this should be the case as, at introduction, the 1DX was a vastly more expensive camera. Naturally there is a perceived loss of reach with the 1DX, trust me it is not that much and is only relevant in good/very good light. In all other circumstances the 1DX is my preferred option of the two - especially where AF and ISO are concerned.

I would echo the offer made by "wooster", if you want to play with some toys then you are welcome. Don't know where you live but I am in South Wales - so if you get down this way let me know.
 
Have you not considered a nikon d500?
 
wooster said:
Sorry folks. I've made an error. I was reading the posts and wondering about the recommendations for the 7d mk II and then realised I had made a typo in my OP. I do own the 7DMkII but had omitted the "mkII" bit from my post. Sorry. :sorry:

To explain a bit better. I find that my lens performs better at f8, hence, I find myself shooting at 1600+ ISO to get that aperture along with a decent shutter speed, and with winter approaching I'm contemplating grey mornings and even higher ISO settings. While the 7DmkII seems to do really well in good or moderately good light I was of the opinion that FF might give me a good stop better exposure without loss of detail hence my post.

Anyway, after reading your comments, the 1DX is highly tempting.

I did try an extender with a 7Dmk1 and it was good. Mind you that was in the summer sunshine.
Click to expand...

Err. I have got to put a very big ???? ?? In here ,I have been shooting wildlife foe a very long time and during that time I have owned 3 of the 400mm f5.6 lenses , and on every single one of them they have been ultra sharp at f5.6 with the only improvements in stopping down to f8 is the depth of field on close birds . Therefore I would suggest before investing in another camera do get your lens checked out . They are the iconic canon lens but have been around for over twenty years so there’s a chance yours could have been abused if it’s a used lens !!!!
 
Thanks Black Fox. I wonder if there's operator error involved. I did give it a try out when I bought the lens and TBH I don't recall an issue with it wide open however, in use I have found f8 to be better for me. It's possibly a micro AF adjustment thing? Maybe even the DoF? I will try once again to make sure when I get home from holiday.

I haven't had it all that long so maybe I need to get used to it a bit more. Generally, I am very happy with the 400mm as it ticks all my requirements for IQ, weight, and build. I just assumed f8 was it's sweet spot. A closer look later in the month will tell :)
 
Last edited:
Never had a 7D2 but mine have been used on a myriad of bodies over the years , ultimately using a/v f5.6 wide open iso between 400 and 800 virtually never missed a shot , if you have auto iso that might help ? Single point a/f learn to track the bird with your focus point . Find any of my pics on here ,click on it ,go to my flickrstream , then do a search for the lens ,I have never withheld exit data
 
I originally posted this as a new topic but it was suggested I add it to this thread. So. here it is. I will leave the summary in to set the scene a bit.

I’ve had a bit of time my hands this last week while on holiday in sunny climes, and I’ve been toying with various camera ideas. It all started with an urge to move to FF for BIF and the idea of buying a 5Dmkiv to go with my only BIF lens - the 400mmf5.6. Anyway at this point the EOS R appeared and so did Nikon’s offerings and the general hoo-hah about full-frame caught my attention. All the while I’ve been happily playing with my Fuji XT-1 and in the light over here it’s looking great, but I’m wondering if I’m missing out by not using FF sensors.

For birds, I’m using a 7DmkII and I will probably end up with some sort of FF for closer work ( from a hide ) in lower light with higher shutter speeds, so I can see the noise advantage there.

Most of my photography is people and travel, either in good light or by controlling the light with the addition of flash which will probably mean just about any sensor would produce great results and my Fuji does this admirably. I’m starting to wonder how much sense it makes having a Fuji system on the one hand and a Canon ( or - perish the thought - even a Sony system ) on the other.

Anyway I’m curious about the differences. Here's my thoughts.

I know the argument that FF is better for landscape due to DR and noise performance and I get that to some extent, however, the Fuji is not a noisy camera, and anyway, I’m able to control noise for landscapes by use of a tripod and low ISO and so I am dismissing that as an issue for me.

So that leaves DR. As to that, I’d say no matter how great and wonderful a FF sensor you’re using there will never be enough DR to accommodate every scene so you're never going to be satisfied with FF either. Also, could I not just use HDR from multiple mages if need be?

Finally, here’s my questions. How much difference in DR would there be between, for example, a 5Div and Fuji XT2 ( even less with the XT3 I imagine ) and would this really be significant?

I’m coming to the notion that a FF camera might help my birds but wouldn’t offer such great advantages as is often said, for landscape.

I know a lot of highly experienced photographers will disagree with this so I’m guessing I’m missing something. I would be happy to know what it is.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
wooster said:
I originally posted this as a new topic but it was suggested I add it to this thread. So. here it is. I will leave the summary in to set the scene a bit.

I’ve had a bit of time my hands this last week while on holiday in sunny climes, and I’ve been toying with various camera ideas. It all started with an urge to move to FF for BIF and the idea of buying a 5Dmkiv to go with my only BIF lens - the 400mmf5.6. Anyway at this point the EOS R appeared and so did Nikon’s offerings and the general hoo-hah about full-frame caught my attention. All the while I’ve been happily playing with my Fuji XT-1 and in the light over here it’s looking great, but I’m wondering if I’m missing out by not using FF sensors.

For birds, I’m using a 7DmkII and I will probably end up with some sort of FF for closer work ( from a hide ) in lower light with higher shutter speeds, so I can see the noise advantage there.

Most of my photography is people and travel, either in good light or by controlling the light with the addition of flash which will probably mean just about any sensor would produce great results and my Fuji does this admirably. I’m starting to wonder how much sense it makes having a Fuji system on the one hand and a Canon ( or - perish the thought - even a Sony system ) on the other.

Anyway I’m curious about the differences. Here's my thoughts.

I know the argument that FF is better for landscape due to DR and noise performance and I get that to some extent, however, the Fuji is not a noisy camera, and anyway, I’m able to control noise for landscapes by use of a tripod and low ISO and so I am dismissing that as an issue for me.

So that leaves DR. As to that, I’d say no matter how great and wonderful a FF sensor you’re using there will never be enough DR to accommodate every scene so you're never going to be satisfied with FF either. Also, could I not just use HDR from multiple mages if need be?

Finally, here’s my questions. How much difference in DR would there be between, for example, a 5Div and Fuji XT2 ( even less with the XT3 I imagine ) and would this really be significant?

I’m coming to the notion that a FF camera might help my birds but wouldn’t offer such great advantages as is often said, for landscape.

I know a lot of highly experienced photographers will disagree with this so I’m guessing I’m missing something. I would be happy to know what it is.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Click to expand...
It’s very difficult to compare Fuji to others as their sensors are different and as such it’s hard to do direct comparison scores. However, DR is not just a FF vs crop sensor thing, DR will also depend on manufacturer and tech. For example the crop sensor Nikon has more DR than every (I think) Canon FF mirrorless, a full stop more than the 5D4 and nearly 3 stops more than the 6D2
 
Last edited:
Yes. From what I can make out, at ISO 200 the Fuji XT-2 has around 12.7 EV, the 5Div has about 13.4 and the Nikons have around 14 at 200 ISO (though up to around 14.9 at lower ISOs )

I don't shoot Nikon so realistically the comparison I'd be interested in would be between the XT3 ( which should have better DR than the XT-2 by all accounts ) and the 5Div ( or maybe the old IDX) In these comparisons they shouldn't be very far apart at all at base ISO and almost certainly not as much as half a stop.

I'm still interested in my argument about noise and DR differences between the APS-C and FF being not very relevant.
 
Last edited:
wooster said:
Yes, From what I can make out, at ISO 200 the Fuji XT-2 has around 12.7 EV, the 5Div has about 13.4 and the Nikons have around 14 at 200 ISO (though up to around 14.9 at lower ISOs )

I don't shoot Nikon so realistically the comparison I'd be interested in would be between the XT3 ( which should have better DR than the XT-2 by all accounts ) and the 5Div ( or maybe the old IDX) In these comparisons they shouldn't be very far apart at all at base ISO and almost certainly not as much as half a stop.

I'm still interested in my argument about noise and DR differences between the APS-C and FF being not very relevant.
Click to expand...
As I said, there aren’t DR differences between FF and APS-C anymore, at least at base ISO, some APS-C match or even beat FF.

Noise differences will also depend on body and manufacturer. For a similar age body of the same manufacturer and similar MP sensor generally speaking you will get around 2/3 stop to a stop better noise handling with FF. However, that in itself doesn’t tell the whole story as some display a finer grain which some find more pleasing and less distracting.

I know Fuji used to apply noise reduction to RAW files which is how they seemed to stand up so well, but obviously this brings in ‘smearing’. I don’t know if Fuji still do this with their RAWs?
 
Looking at the information section under your profile, you have or had a 5D iii and a 5D ii and a 100-400. Did you never use these combinations for BIF or something similar?
 
snerkler said:
It’s very difficult to compare Fuji to others as their sensors are different and as such it’s hard to do direct comparison scores. However, DR is not just a FF vs crop sensor thing, DR will also depend on manufacturer and tech. For example the crop sensor Nikon has more DR than every (I think) Canon FF mirrorless, a full stop more than the 5D4 and nearly 3 stops more than the 6D2
Click to expand...
Even the budget d3400 beats it for DR and matches CD
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Nikon-D3400___1106_1105
 
So I'm taking from this that the idea that FF is somehow superior to APS-C for eg landscape is incorrect?
 
Last edited:
User.82148 said:
Looking at the information section under your profile, you have or had a 5D iii and a 5D ii and a 100-400. Did you never use these combinations for BIF or something similar?
Click to expand...

I didn't. BIF is only a recent interest.I am using APS-C as that was what I was advised to get for the subject. I had the impression it would give me "reach" which I'm less sure of now. In the past I mainly shot portraits. I didn't use the 100-400 much or for long.

I've kind of deviated from my original question on this thread as I got interested in the idea that seems to abound that FF is necessary (or even desirable) for landscape because it is something that doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe I should have kept it in a separate thread after all as it's confusing the question.
 
Last edited:
There are advantages and disadvantages to both FF and APSC.

Great photos can be taken with both types
 
Birds in flight is not that easy , and in all honesty you do not need a camera with a high D.R. , what you need is something that focuses fast , has a good burst rate speed and that you can easily change the exposure compensation .
 
wooster said:
So I'm taking from this that the idea that FF is somehow superior to APS-C for eg landscape is incorrect?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. If pixel peeping, all things considered equal FF should yield sharper results due to the fact that you are enlarging the image less to view it, therefore FF cameras are less demanding on lenses. Of course it's not quite as simple as that but it starts to get very complicated, such as whether a camera has an AA filter or not, pixel density etc etc.

The gap has bridged now and the difference between FF and APS-C is minimal a lot of the time. As I said, there are exceptions to these rules as previously discussed but at pixel level FF should be sharper, FF maintains a better DR as the ISO increases, FF will have better noise handling, you can get shallower DOF with FF. However, how much you can see any of this is debatable. I recently posted two images of the same shot, one taken with the latest greatest FF camera (the D850) and one taken with a relatively old m4/3 camera (Olympus EM1) which has an even smaller sensor than APS-C. Some knew which was which, some didn't and some thought the m4/3 was the FF one. I posted the same shots on AVForums and 80% thought that the m4/3 shot was the FF one. The point I'm making is that, depending on viewing size, subject, light, exposure settings etc etc there can be little to choose between the different formats.
 
I think that this chain has become more academic, rather than practical. I believe that you should try with the equipment that you have and see what is missing and not getting you the shots that you want - you shoudl also ask yourself teh honest question is it your equioment or you. I am not being judgemental but I found that the main reason for not getting the shot is nothing to do with my equipment but all to do with me. It is easy to get caught up in the latest and greatest equipment but look at the pictures some people have been able to get great pictures with teh 'lesser equipment' noted.
Good luck!
 
Thank you all for your responses.

Yes the thread has become a speculation on theoretical possibilities and that is my fault. I changed from wondering about the practical upgrade path I had in mind for my BIF photographs to questioning what I have picked up on various sources, the received wisdom of the superiority of FF for a particular case - ie landscape photography.

I came across repeated assertions of this as I researched camera bodies in an idle way unrelated to my original BIF question decided to ask opinions on here. I did this in a new thread until it was suggested I amalgamate that thread with this one and I did. I suspect this was a mistake as it has only confused the thread.

My position is this. While I realise the theoretical benefits of less noise and greater DR for landscapers I was actually arguing that they were both practically irrelevant or at least unimportant for landscape photography as noise is obviated by use of a tripod and low ISO and DR will either not matter or never be enough and can be combatted with HDR techniques.
 
I only photograph wildlife and own Canon 7D-2 and 1DX-2 bodies and have owned a 70D and 5D-4. What the 1DX-2 doesn't have in reach is more than compensated for by its image quality, as you would expect. I hardly use my 7D-2 now.

For BIF, high frames-per-second rate is very important and the 5D-4 can be too slow - You need to capture the best shapes within a flight pattern and not covering the target's eyes.

Fast and accurate AF tracking is also very important but at least you can also manually focus.

The Canon 100-400mm L II is a great lens for BIF shots as you can locate them more easily and you also have the zoom flexibility. It also takes the 1.4x III (must be III) very well although it slightly slows the AF.
 
Last edited:
wooster said:
Thank you all for your responses.

Yes the thread has become a speculation on theoretical possibilities and that is my fault. I changed from wondering about the practical upgrade path I had in mind for my BIF photographs to questioning what I have picked up on various sources, the received wisdom of the superiority of FF for a particular case - ie landscape photography.

I came across repeated assertions of this as I researched camera bodies in an idle way unrelated to my original BIF question decided to ask opinions on here. I did this in a new thread until it was suggested I amalgamate that thread with this one and I did. I suspect this was a mistake as it has only confused the thread.

My position is this. While I realise the theoretical benefits of less noise and greater DR for landscapers I was actually arguing that they were both practically irrelevant or at least unimportant for landscape photography as noise is obviated by use of a tripod and low ISO and DR will either not matter or never be enough and can be combatted with HDR techniques.
Click to expand...
Yes for landscapes ISO handling between FF and crop is pretty irrelevant if sticking to base ISO. DR can matter, depending on how you shoot and how much recovery you want, HDR is not always optimal, especially if the 'landscape' is changing or you're doing long exposures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top