PDA

View Full Version : 1d III vs 5d II for wildlife?


Remington
22nd of February 2010 (Mon), 12:22
I have the opportunity to buy a 1d III body from a friend of mine but am wondering if a 5d II would be better for wildlife... I understand the 1d III is much faster for birds but I mostly try and shoot deer, coyotes etc.

Is the body of the 1d much better for outdoor work?

Also is shooting video easy when using long tele's


Sorry for all the questions, Im finally making the "digital" transition, my wife bought me a 7d over christmas but I couldn't deal with the heavy 1.6 crop.

RikWriter
22nd of February 2010 (Mon), 15:46
The 1D MKIII would IMHO be better for wildlife. Whether you want the video that comes with the 5D or need the full frame is up to you, but the weather sealing and better autofocus on the MKIII made up my mind.

biswasg
23rd of February 2010 (Tue), 08:35
I have the opportunity to buy a 1d III body from a friend of mine but am wondering if a 5d II would be better for wildlife... I understand the 1d III is much faster for birds but I mostly try and shoot deer, coyotes etc.

Is the body of the 1d much better for outdoor work?

Also is shooting video easy when using long tele's


Sorry for all the questions, Im finally making the "digital" transition, my wife bought me a 7d over christmas but I couldn't deal with the heavy 1.6 crop.

Last August I spent a week in Masai Mara/Kenya for a photographic wildlife safari, mostly mammals. I had taken with me both my 1DIII and the new 5DII. After my return, I realised that I had created 75% of my images with the 1DIII and only 25% with the 5DII. The 1DIII had the 500mm f4 L IS most of the times, even though I had been swapping the 70-200mm f4 L IS between the two bodies when needed. Image quality was excellent from both bodies. Never went above ISO 800.

Did not try video with the 5DII in the safari.

BradM
27th of February 2010 (Sat), 08:28
The 1D3 will outperform the 5D2 in 99% of all cases when shooting wildlife regardless of the species. Fast accurate AF, quick frame rate and the best weather proofing offered by Canon makes capturing non-static subjects easier to accomplish.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/Feb10Coyote.jpg

I can have any camera I want to chase animals about with, a full frame body while great in a couple of venues I shoot like portraits or architectual, does not have a place in my wildlife gear.

Putting pixels on the subject is how you get detailed images, using a 1.3x gets ~ 30% more on the subject than a full frame when everything else is equal, or ~ 60% when using a 1.6x.

IMO to just disregard a body for "the heavy crop of a 1.6x" (whatever that might mean) can be just adding a handicap to ones images. I don't go out in the field without my 1.4x or 2x with the 500mm f/4, just like I don't head out without the "added reach" of a 1.6x body even though I have the 1D3 mounted.

mattinynp
2nd of March 2010 (Tue), 13:58
The burst rate of 10fps is great for wildlife. I tend to use the mark iii for wildlife and my 5d mark ii for landscapes.

Tom Reichner
3rd of March 2010 (Wed), 01:40
Hello, Remington

I can appreciate your question, for while I don't have the two bodies you mentioned, I do have the "poor man's version" of each - a 1Dmark2 and a 5D classic.

I have shot tens of thousands of images of wildlife with each body, so I do feel as though I can speak from personal experience.

Whenever possible I mount the 5D to my big lens. The reason is that IQ is simply better than it is with the 1D2. Better dynamic range, by a mile. And much better at handlng noise at 800ISO and above. Also, more detail is captured (hair detail in mammals and feather detail in birds) due to the greater amount of pixels. I believe that if you compared the 5D2 to the 1D3 the results would be similar to those that I have gotten when comparing the 5D classic to the 1D2.

I've taken my 5D out in absolutely terrible conditions - rain, snow, ice, hail, and dust. And I've never had any problem with it at all. Except that the batteries don't last nearly as long as they do with the 1D2. I would assume that the 5D2 has the same battery issues as the 5D classic in very cold weather.

There are times I prefer the 1D, such as for birds in flight where I have an opportunity to rip off 5 to 10 images before the bird is out of range. And when a mammal such as a deer is running it is good to have the 10fps. Also perhaps for Bighorn Sheep when they are butting heads. But for 95% of the opportunities you'll have with the mammals you mentioned, I think the 5D2 would not come with any real disadvantage compared to the 1D3.

The Native Floridian
3rd of March 2010 (Wed), 18:21
I love my 5D but I miss the 45pt AF of my EOS 1V HS.

http://www.thenativefloridian.com/dog-photography/dog-agility-fun-dog-photography

Feel free to take a look at my stills and video that I created from my 5D. I came away with some really great shots and some good video but I missed some pictures because I was not fast enough to follow the agility dogs manually and the AF could not keep up. I'm drooling over the new 1D Mark IV.

NaturePhoto
4th of March 2010 (Thu), 06:26
The 1D3 will outperform the 5D2 in 99% of all cases when shooting wildlife regardless of the species. Fast accurate AF, quick frame rate and the best weather proofing offered by Canon makes capturing non-static subjects easier to accomplish.

+1 ^

Methodical
24th of March 2010 (Wed), 09:26
I never shot with a 5d or 5dii but have seen some images of wildlife with it and they have blown me away. I think both can be used accordingly. I've seen where nature photographers have used the 5d, 5dii and 1DIIIs on their 500-800 lens and capture some beautiful images. I've contemplated getting a 5d (sell 50D to supplement the purchase sort of) for bird photography but ended up buying a 135l lens because I am happy with the images I can produce with the 1D3 and 50D; however, I plan to rent a 5dii one day and give it a try and see how I like it. I wish I knew someone in my area who had a 5d that I could borrow...