Have 100-400 IS / XTi body - so What's Next?

[Ken Nielsen]

The help here has been great. I'm getting used to a season of shooting with the 100-400 and can practically use it hand-held all the time. That's proof to me that you can grow into a lens. I still need another season of work with it for BIF and by then I should know the lens very well.

Here's what I'm thinking: A 1.4 teleconverter would add more reach to the lens and pay back with some increase in reach at a smaller investment. Problem is: the f-stop goes down. This is where I need help with thinking this through:

I'm wondering, what would be the next complete lens as a 'dream lens' for me to think about. I live in the Pacific NW where light is not good most of the year. Also, I like shooting in the early first morning light, so light may be good, but shutter speed needs to be slower to keep ISO down (like to keep it at 200 max) and I want to shoot at f8 if possible. I also like to keep the shutter speed between 1/200th to 1/800

So maybe I do not need a lens at all but a step up in camera body? Does a better sensor mean I can run at higher ISO with better resolution? I have the Canon XTi and have been able to pull fantastic shots with it, so I'm not in a bad place, I just want to know what is the wise direction to be thinking to make improvement for demanding Birds In Flight shots.

I have financial limits so don't want to break the bank. A new 7D body would be the max. 3k would be max for a lens.

Should it be body or lens? My vote is lens if that would fit the need. Lens is everything and I would want to get the best L series.

TIA,

Ken

[canonloader]

If you can afford the 7D, then get it and use the lenses you have.

Another option is, search around for a Canon 300/4 non-IS lens. They are older, but still fine lenses and a lot cheaper and more dependable and faster than a IS lens. And it will keep AF when using the 1.4x.

Your 100-400 IS lens is just marginal as a birding lens, especially BIF. I know, I know, lot's of people use them, but... The IS unit takes almost one full second to spin up and clunk into place before you can even fire a shot. Think of that the next time a small bird flutters past. One second is forever in bird shooting. And, you can't use IS on a tripod, so why pay for it. And, it will limit the lifespan of the lens, before Canon rips you a new rectum to replace the IS unit when it fails. Up to you, but I got rid of all my IS junk years ago and don't miss it at all.

[davebreal]

The problem is, Ken, that once you get a decent 400 or 500m zoom lens any lens upgrade is an EXTREME price hurdle. A teleconverter on the 100-400mm is going to kill the autofocus on anything but a full frame body as things stand.

I do a lot of macro work and some landscape shots while I'm wandering around the great outdoors. Might be sacrileligious to speak of this here, but I might recommend working on balancing out your camera kit as a whole.

[Ken Nielsen]

I'm listening.

[Ken Nielsen]

The IS unit takes almost one full second to spin up

I am learning that I'm getting best results by turning AF and IS off on this lens. Then, it's all up to me to hold the thing steady and focus in real-time as the bird takes off in flight. Quite a challenge yes, but these things can be learned by forcing one's self to participate in shooting by the seat of one's pants. I believe that another season of shooting this way will give me good command of the 100-400. This is the only way I will learn what I can do with this lens. I can't sit around and wait for auto-this and auto-that to do it for me.

This is all just my opinion at this point. Maybe I will fall flat on my face in failure too. I'm enthused enough with results from this lens so far to give it my best shot. I should at least walk away with better knowledge of how to shoot with any next lens I wind up working with.

[BradM]

... A teleconverter on the 100-400mm is going to kill the autofocus on anything but a full frame body as things stand...

This isn't quite right a 1DMk2, Mk2n or Mk3 will AF easily with the current lens and a 1.4x and none of these are a full frame rather a 1.3x.

The noise levels on the Xti is roughly the same as the first two models, on the latter it will blow just about everything else away. I will regularly shoot to ISO 2500 or 3200 like this morning at Ridgefield NWR with a Great Horned Owl or hummingbirds in the backyard, like this shot which was shot at using the 1D3 500mm f/4 & Canon 1.4x @ f/8 1/3200th, ISO 2500:


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/mayrufousmale2.jpg


For BIF there is no better AF system than that those bodies offer and the 100-400mm will keep up easily with good technique, which means picking the subject up early and tracking. Those situations where you "jump" a bird into flight even the best lenses and cameras have difficulty like my 1D3 and 500mm f/4.

The pricing on these run about $1500 for a used 2n to $3k for a refurbed 1D3. If it is a lens choice then Ken I would say save a bit longer and go for the 500mm f/4. You can't really do better, your body will shoot handle it very well, it will AF with a 1.4x for a 700mm f/5.6, not a bad combination to have at hand. Though plan an extra $1k above the lens price for a good head and tripod.

[Ken Nielsen]

This isn't quite right a 1DMk2, Mk2n or Mk3 will AF easily with the current lens and a 1.4x and none of these are a full frame rather a 1.3x.

The noise levels on the Xti is roughly the same as the first two models, on the latter it will blow just about everything else away. I will regularly shoot to ISO 2500 or 3200 like this morning at Ridgefield NWR with a Great Horned Owl or hummingbirds in the backyard, like this shot which was shot at using the 1D3 500mm f/4 & Canon 1.4x @ f/8 1/3200th, ISO 2500:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/mayrufousmale2.jpg

Though plan an extra $1k above the lens price for a good head and tripod.

I'm blown away by that post. I really don't know Canon models that well. You are suggesting a Mk3 or 1D3, neither of which I know anything about. You have me going though because you say you can jump the ISO up to unimaginable numbers and you are still getting great definition. This has got to be the power of the CCD or whatever kind of sensor these cameras have. As you can tell, I'm wimp in the technical department.

This is what I was suspecting: I have a weak body now with the XTi and the 100-400 really would shine with a more powerful body. The ISO would do it for me as a big step forward.

Am I getting this right?

Ken

[canonloader]

You are suggesting a Mk3 or 1D3, neither of which I know anything about.
If you get an EXIF reader and install it, you can then right click an image and view the EXIF data, as long as the owner left it in during post processing. EXIF will show the camera model, lens length, and all the settings used when the shot was taken. As you go through the forums over time, check some of the best images you see and most of those will be taken by the 1D MkIII, and probably a 500/4 lens.

While most Canon bodies and lenses are very fine, for the price you pay, photography is one hobby where the more money you spend, the better the results will be, even for an amateur shooter. Now, check the prices. As I mentioned, more money spent equates to better quality images out. [To be specific, using the exact same settings, set up side by side in the same light and scene, the MkIII and 500/4 will produce a better quality image than an XTi and a 100-400, every time.]

When you think about it, the more expensive camera better take better quality images, or they couldn't sell them. Your XTi and 100-400 sells for what, $2000 or so, while the MkIII and 500/4 sells for about $9000. You just can not expect your equipment to take the same quality images as the equipment that cost more than 4 times as much.

[Ken Nielsen]

I am officially put in my place. More money is the key. My enthusiasm is the only thing without a price tag. The 1D MkIII sounds like the ticket. My next aim should be this camera body then. The proof is in the results, like you say cannonloader.

Thanks,

Ken

[Ken Nielsen]

My last question, is about the 7D, when it comes out, has over 18mp and high ISO capability also at under $1900.00 advertised early at B&H.

The D1 MkIII has under 11mp and is advertised in the $3700.00 range, but I still believe is the better camera because I believe what canonloader has said here as the voice of experience.

I still need to ask the question, because the 7D shows great promise and is half the price.

What makes the 1D MkIII worth more?

Ken

[BradM]

My last question, is about the 7D, when it comes out, has over 18mp and high ISO capability also at under $1900.00 advertised early at B&H.

The D1 MkIII has under 11mp and is advertised in the $3700.00 range, but I still believe is the better camera because I believe what canonloader has said here as the voice of experience.

I still need to ask the question, because the 7D shows great promise and is half the price.

What makes the 1D MkIII worth more?

Ken


On paper the 7D sounds like a very good bargain compared to the 1D3, however the 50D when it came out was also considered a 1D3 "lite": large number of pixels in comparison, very quick frame rate, and available ISO steps that went beyond what the 1D3 could offer. And it was a third of the price.

However in real life the 50D's "numbers" do not outperform the 1D3 in any circumstance. I have both bodies, I got the 50D as gift I didn't go out to buy it however I was quite chuffed to see what it could do. And I found it was clearly disappointing compared to the 1D3 and for my uses the 40D was still a better camera than the new and upgraded 50D.

For example, the noise level at similar ISO stops are significantly different, 3200 on the 1D3 is similar to the 50D at 800. Between the 50 and 40D's I found that I could get cleaner and better images from the 40D at least a full stop higher than the 50D could get.

Not to mention to the real difference in AF speed and tracking ability the 1D3 has over all of the other models. And the other features the 1D3 offers over the prosumer or consumer body lines just blow them away, it is a wonderful piece of kit worth the price to play with it.

The point is while the features listed for the 7D sound outstanding it is doubtful that it will outperform the 1D3 or possibly even the 40 or 50D's.

I live in the PNW (Western Wa) as well and because of this I am often shooting at ISO's that many people only use indoors, my friends in Florida rarely see 400 where that is where I start from.

I don't have many images at hand that I can show examples of the 100-400mm with the 1.4x mounted on the 1D3, I got some other glass since the 1D3 found a home here like the 500mm or the 400mm DO which I would reach to first but here is a couple shots that I used the 1D2 the 100-400mm and 1.4x but for me the quality captured was still excellent.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/dowitcher21b.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/goldfinchlatesummer.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/dowitcher21.jpg

[BradM]

I am officially put in my place. More money is the key. My enthusiasm is the only thing without a price tag. The 1D MkIII sounds like the ticket. My next aim should be this camera body then. The proof is in the results, like you say cannonloader.

Thanks,

Ken

There is one more thing I would like to comment to and that has to do with the dollar side of the equation.

While more money may get you better images in a few situations it cetainly isn't a given that the more you spend that the better the shots will be. Whether the glass might be a bit longer, a bit faster, a bit sharper or the body might be a bit faster or have better AF or even better build. None of these will bring a better shot home on it's own.

A few examples, I love this shot and it was taken with your same kit. The XTi and 100-400mm at 300mm, 1/400th, +1/3rd EC, ISO 400 @ f/8

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/redtail12.jpg


Or this image using the 30D and 100-400mm @ f/9, 1/400th, ISO 400

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/yellowhead2.jpg



Or this image using the 40D and 500mm, f/5.6 ISO 400, 1/3200th

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/bufflehead500.jpg



Or this image using the 50D and 500mm @ f/4.5, 1/1000th, ISO 400

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/heronandfish.jpg


Or the image of the hummer above using the 1D3, the point is just about any quality gear at very different pricing levels can still delivery quality images. What makes a good shot is the subject, the light and the ability to capture it... it certainly isn't the amount of dollars in one's pocket.

The real benefit from having the best gear is knowing that the owner has taken the gears lack of ability out of the equation and leaves only the photographer as the weak point in a getting a nice image. Cheers!

[Ken Nielsen]

See... I'm getting just good enough shots with the XTi to make me want more. More power in the ISO department would be enough for me, but something even greater is showing through with your images above, and that is more definition in the details. This shows the 'power' of the cameras you are using. The XTi goes to a point, like the image I'm posting a link to below, which is about as good as the XTi gets. Your images go waaaay beyond that for image quality. Thanks Brad. I'm focused on the 1D MkIII and will just start saving, because that is just a little more than I can spring for at this moment. I will start planning on that body and use the 100-400 on it for the time being. I gather that there will be other costs involved too for peripherals, which is just normal for anything new it seems.


www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/western_scrub_jay_three_6005.jpg

[Tom Reichner]

Hello, Ken!
I'm glad you posted here asking for advice. There are many excellent bird photographers here, and I cannot think of a better place in which to learn about equipment and technique for bird photography.

I'll put in my two cent's worth:
I think that you can dramatically upgrade your camera body for a very reasonable amount of money. Either the 40D or a 1D Mk2 would be a tremendous value. A used 40D can be had for around $600 or $700. A used 1D Mk2 can be found for around $900 to $1100.
Either body would be excellent for birding. For birds in flight you may find that the speed of the 1D Mk2 is advantageous at 8.6 frames per second. I use the 1D Mk2 for many of my BIF shots.
As far as lenses go, there is a huge gap in price between lenses that will do a very good job and the lenses you would really love to have ("dream lenses"). Of course the 500 f4 is a great lens for the money, but few of us can drop $5000 or more on a lens, so perhaps you should look for the best affordable choice.
I would not count on using a 1.4 or a 2x extender on a zoom lens like the 100-400. Sure, it might "work" when conditions are nearly ideal, but under most circumstances the image quality and AF will suffer noticeably.
One lens to consider is a 300 f4, as Mitch suggested. It can be very effective when used with a crop body and a 1.4 extender.
Under most situations the primes will be a bit sharper and clearer than the zooms.
One thing to consider seriously is a tripod and head. Get the sturdiest tripod you can afford, and a great head like a Wimberley or a Jobu, and your keeper rate will increase dramatically.
I think you can greatly improve your potential for excellent images while keeping within your budget. Then maybe someday in the future you can get a "dream lens" like a 500 f4, 600f4, or 800 f5.6

[canonloader]

While more money may get you better images in a few situations it cetainly isn't a given that the more you spend that the better the shots will be.
Set up your MkIII and 500/4 next to that XTI and 100-400 some day and shoot 100 shots from each of the same subject, in the same light at the same time. While your examples are great shots, they are examples, and I'm betting not what even you consistantly get from the lower priced equipment. Or, maybe you got lucky.

On the other hand, I have been here just long enough and spend enough time in here, to witness photographers who can already produce some very fine images, go out and buy the better gear and I do not even have to look at their EXIF to know they are using the new stuff. Expensive gear does not make a better photographer, it does make better images though, in their hands. That can't be denied. :)

[Tom Reichner]

A side note here:

Brad, I just have to ask you something about this Bufflehead image that you posted. Was a flash used? I only ask because Buffleheads are one of the most difficult ducks to expose properly, and this looks perfect. I've never seen a Bufflehead image look so perfect throughout both the highlights and dark areas with only natural ambient light being used. That is why I ask if you used a flash. If you didn't, then you certainly had some very, very special light to work with when you took that shot. Great image!

Tom

[BradM]

A side note here:

Brad, I just have to ask you something about this Bufflehead image that you posted. Was a flash used? I only ask because Buffleheads are one of the most difficult ducks to expose properly, and this looks perfect. I've never seen a Bufflehead image look so perfect throughout both the highlights and dark areas with only natural ambient light being used. That is why I ask if you used a flash. If you didn't, then you certainly had some very, very special light to work with when you took that shot. Great image!

Tom

Nope , no flash used the exif should be intact and indicate that. This bird was captured up at Reifel Bird Sanctuary near Delta BC last Thanksgiving weekend in the mid morning.

Light was certainly pretty good, and I made sure I was in the right place for the direction of the light and let the bird work into me but I still went plus 2/3rd's on exposure compensation to help pull up the colors, I did have a concern that I would blow out the whites and did do so in a few local areas but it turned out well IMO.

The only thing I wish about this shot though was that I could have gotten a bit lower and shoot more in line with the water level, but that type of thing is one of the great pieces of fun about shooting these subjects.

There are so many little pieces that have to come to together to make a great image it is almost impossible to do so. The constant differing challenges makes it all that much more fun doesn't it? Thanks for the nice words Tom!

[BradM]

Set up your MkIII and 500/4 next to that XTI and 100-400 some day and shoot 100 shots from each of the same subject, in the same light at the same time. While your examples are great shots, they are examples, and I'm betting not what even you consistantly get from the lower priced equipment. Or, maybe you got lucky.

On the other hand, I have been here just long enough and spend enough time in here, to witness photographers who can already produce some very fine images, go out and buy the better gear and I do not even have to look at their EXIF to know they are using the new stuff. Expensive gear does not make a better photographer, it does make better images though, in their hands. That can't be denied. :)

Mitch, look to my zenfolio and see if those examples are flukes for the gear used and in comparison of the other gear I have owned. All but a very few of the shots have exif intact and show I have shot from the Rebel XT, XTi, 30D, 40D, 50D, 1D2 (& N) along with the 1D3 and glass from the 100-400mm, 400mm f/5.6 or DO, and the 500mm f/4.

I think you will see the same level of detail, color and anything else that can be directly compared except a setup of a test images. I never felt the need to do somethinhg like that as if I could capture fine detail in a subject I was happy with the image.

The closest thing I might have is these two images, both shot with the same glass at the same distance. The main differences is the two bodies and ISO levels. One is the 1D3, the other 50D, one at ISO 800 the other at 1600. Exif is intact.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/rufousfemale10.jpg


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/hummerflt25.jpg


But the real reason I went through so many different bodies in the 6 years or so I have been shooting digital is that I found limitations in the bodies, not that the IQ was limited by the lower end gear. Whether it was noise levels or AF ability or weatherproofing all of these led me to improve my kit, which lead me to being able to capturing images in more challenging conditions. Which in and of itself may make for better images.

But back to the OP, Ken if you are looking for the best camera for higher ISO's and capturing BIF then it is the 1D Mk3, nothing beats it except for maybe the mythical Mk4. ;)

[Ken Nielsen]

I think you guys have me focused where I should be focused. The 1D MkIII is the goal. I'll have to live with what else I have already for a while unless I win the lottery.

Thanks guys, I feel I have a narrow focus now and that is a lot better than being a scatterbrain.

: )


Outstanding work here in each shot. Truly inspiring. Birds are where it's at as far as I am concerned also. So many things come into play to get a good shot. It makes quite a sport out of photography. All I have found is this season, the only time I've been so focused on shooting birds, and with help from you guys here, the camera I have has been improving (my use of it, every day) and the results have been markedly improved over the time I have really been paying attention and following advice here. I have no doubt, that if I had nothing else to work with than what I have, I would still be improving and showing up with remarkable shots. I know I'm going to get new remarkable shots next season, starting in the spring, so having improved equipment will only take advantage of me, being out there, looking and waiting, searching and being ready to fire that shutter, focus, having all else in line where it should be under the conditions planned ahead for possible circumstances... do you know what I'm saying? That fleeting moment that something happens right in front of you and you are ready, and to walk a way with a prize shot is like nothing else you can think of.

It's simply great sport.

Ken