Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 16 Jul 2019 (Tuesday) 02:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D upgrade or 100-400 upgrade for wildlife photography

 
Canonuser123
Senior Member
Avatar
682 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 786
Joined Dec 2014
Location: Southern California
     
Aug 15, 2019 16:32 |  #16

AlanU wrote in post #18910209 (external link)
It's understood that the 80D canon sensor is probably one of Canon's better aps-c sensors as far as dynamic range.

I'm doubtful Canon can match Sony's aps-c sensor. I'm hopeful they can match on their next version.

Mirrorless will not disappear. This is where Canon really has to improve to retain customers. I'd take the build of a 7dmk2 over a newer mirrorless Sony A6400 but the performance of the A6400 would surpass the 7dmk2.

This is really crazy times as far as hardware evolution is concerned.

The rumor is the new 90D or whatever Canon is going to call it will have a 32MP sensor, I am guessing that sensor size is so Canon can use it for 8K video in a higher end camera somewhere down the road, I just hope they won't be going backwards on noise and low light capability by stuffing so many pixels into an APS-C sensor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,483 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Aug 15, 2019 20:02 |  #17

If you're looking for better ISO performance/availabili​ty, the body is your better upgrade between those two.
For getting better, sharper images faster, though, I'd upgrade the lens; only to the MKII of your existing lens, however.
Changing the lens for one of the 150-600 lenses won't gain you anything really in focus speed, and they further limit your aperture such that ISO has to be higher to keep your shutter speeds up properly.

Those are fine bits of gear for the trip; I used them both for years before incrementally updating to the MkII of both. For this particular trip, I would personally lean toward updating the lens, though. It's got a much shorter MFD (for the critters that are invariably more "friendly" than folks expect, and it's focus speed is much faster.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,734 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3857
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Aug 15, 2019 20:11 |  #18

Snydremark wrote in post #18910860 (external link)
I would personally lean toward updating the lens ..... It's got a much shorter MFD (for the critters that are invariably more "friendly" than folks expect, and it's focus speed is much faster.

.
This is an especially important point that is often overlooked.

When photographing a myriad of critters such as lizards, butterflies, toads, turtles, frogs, spiders, snakes, etc, the reduced minimum focus distance of the v2 is extremely useful, and allows me to capture images that I couldn't with the v1.

By the way, I have recently seen several 100-400 v2 lenses for sale in various classifieds for just $1200. . Paying $1700 for a new one is insane, and I can see no viable reason not to pounce on the great bargains that are out there for used copies.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dangermoney
Member
130 posts
Likes: 551
Joined Mar 2019
     
Aug 15, 2019 20:21 |  #19

Since you've got more than one lens, getting a better body will improve all the pictures you take.

If you just get the lens, only the pictures you take with that lens will improve.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,127 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2394
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 15, 2019 20:42 |  #20

if you're looking to get better low-light shots, i don't see how getting a lens that has the same aperture you have now would help...i guess with better IS you could possibly shoot at slower shutter speeds...i'd think a body would be better...but i'd wait to see if canon does announce a 90D in 2 weeks as predicted


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,752 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 16, 2019 05:35 |  #21

Snydremark wrote in post #18910860 (external link)
If you're looking for better ISO performance/availabili​ty, the body is your better upgrade between those two.
For getting better, sharper images faster, though, I'd upgrade the lens; only to the MKII of your existing lens, however.
Changing the lens for one of the 150-600 lenses won't gain you anything really in focus speed, and they further limit your aperture such that ISO has to be higher to keep your shutter speeds up properly.

Where did you get that from? The 150-600 zooms are f/5.6 at 400mm, too, and the f/6.3 at 600mm is a larger entrance pupil, getting more subject light, or the same subject light with a faster shutter speed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,483 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Aug 16, 2019 11:46 |  #22

John Sheehy wrote in post #18911025 (external link)
Where did you get that from? The 150-600 zooms are f/5.6 at 400mm, too, and the f/6.3 at 600mm is a larger entrance pupil, getting more subject light, or the same subject light with a faster shutter speed.

f/6.3 is a smaller aperture than f/5.6


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,734 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3857
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 1 month ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Aug 16, 2019 13:32 |  #23

Snydremark wrote in post #18911182 (external link)
f/6.3 is a smaller aperture than f/5.6

But I think that John's point is that the 150-600mmm is variable aperture, and at 400mm it is f5.6 ..... so it isn't really slower than the 100-400mm at equal focal lengths.

The 100-400mm is f5.6 at 400mm, and the 150-600 is also f5.6 at 400mm. . The only time it is slower is at focal lengths that the 100-400mm doesn't even have. . At least I think that's the point he was trying to make.

But, there is something more to consider:

The 100-400mm v2 is significantly sharper wide open than either of the 150-600mm lenses, and also significantly sharper than the 100-400mm v1. . So, if you want to capture the greatest amount of fine detail with a 100-400mm v1 or a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm, then you have to stop down to f8.

So practically speaking, these lenses are all much slower than the 100-400mm v2 when shooting for the best detail, because you can shoot the 100-400mm v2 at f5.6 and get even better detail resolution than the other lenses give you at f8 or f9.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,872 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5765
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. (3 edits in all)
     
Aug 16, 2019 14:40 |  #24

100% crop from center of the frame from the 100-400II and the Sigma 150-600 at 400mm f5.6.

The only thing that I have noticed having used both pretty extensively, is that the Sigma doesn't quite have the contrast that the 100-400, but they are very similar in IQ at 400mm, with the Canon rightfully holding just a slight edge on detail rendering. However, I never bought the Sigma to shoot at 400mm, I am at the 600mm probably 80% of the time I am at 400mm or longer.

EDIT: My findings here at 400mm have changed a bit with the help of Tom's observations, just a few replies down from here....


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,872 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5765
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. (4 edits in all)
     
Aug 16, 2019 14:51 |  #25

Here they are side by side at 100% pixel view where I use my Kenko 1.4x on the 100-400II, then I have to resize it up a bit because it isn't quite at 600mm with that combination next to the Sigma. Pretty darn close, but the Sigma does pretty darn well.

Here you can see focus is pretty close between them. I AFMA my Sigma at 600mm (and at 150mm) and the 5D4 does its linear progression for AFMA at intermediate focal lengths, like 400mm.

I think the Sigma has more versatility to it, because you can micro adjust focus at 16 different points, and you can configure the OS system and AF system speed a bit as well using the dock. Canon doesn't want us playing with settings on their lenses. The Canon is also a bit slower at f8 vs f6.3 too when using the 1.4x, something else to think about, but its AF speed is a bit quicker, with the Sigma being pretty darn good on its own.

Budget is probably the leading factor in deciding between these. A Sigma 150-600 or a 100-400 II with a TC... the price delta here is only about $300, if one stays in the used market.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,734 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3857
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 1 month ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Aug 16, 2019 14:58 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #26

.
REFERRING TO POT # 24:

The image on the left looks a whole lot better, in terms of how the detail of the grass is rendered - specifically, the dead grass under and to the left of the rock. . I mean, I can actually see a difference with my naked eyes, without even zooming in on my monitor. . And it is actual detail resolution that is better, not just the increased contrast making it falsely appear to be better resolved.

If I can actually see a difference with naked eyes at this small viewing size, I can only imagine how drastically better it would look when printed at 36" or 48" across.

I guess to some people a "huge" improvement and a minor improvement in resolution mean different things. If I can look at something and actually see a difference without examining the results for a long time, then that, to me, is a huge improvement.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,127 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2394
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 16, 2019 15:05 |  #27

i think this is a case where one person's "whole lot" is another's 'barely'


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,872 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5765
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. (5 edits in all)
     
Aug 16, 2019 15:05 |  #28

Finally, M50 with f13 AF that locked on, and the results are too large, I had to resize 2800 down to 1600 to fit POTN rules. This is the Sigma at 1200m on an APS-C with full AF. This is one of the powers of the mirrorless at work. This is why I keep the Sigma, I have the M50, and I bought the 2xIII. There just aren't too many ways one is shooting with AF at 1200mm for under $1500. :D The AF does suffer just a bit though, it gets sluggish here. So for wildlife shooters, this combo won't be great for moving wildlife, but great for that buck doing his lookout for the does, or a bird observing the world around them perched on a tree.

If somebody ever asks for how they can get the greatest reach for a decent budget, it is an M series with 2xIII with a Sigma 150-600, nothing else can touch it. I guess if you can afford an 600mm f4.5L and add the 2xIII on it with the M50/M100, but that would cost about 5x as much.

The 100-400 w/2x at 800mm resized up to 1200mm doesn't really compare any longer, so I didn't even bother with the 100-400 with 2x, resized up. The 100-400 with 2x natively with nothing resized works wonderfully though, but again AF is sluggish. I used it for rugby one game and ended up with about 30% keeper rate.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,872 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5765
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. (5 edits in all)
     
Aug 16, 2019 15:07 |  #29

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18911270 (external link)
.
REFERRING TO POT # 24:

The image on the left looks a whole lot better, in terms of how the detail of the grass is rendered - specifically, the dead grass under and to the left of the rock. . I mean, I can actually see a difference with my naked eyes, without even zooming in on my monitor. . And it is actual detail resolution that is better, not just the increased contrast making it falsely appear to be better resolved.

If I can actually see a difference with naked eyes at this small viewing size, I can only imagine how drastically better it would look when printed at 36" or 48" across.

I guess to some people a "huge" improvement and a minor improvement in resolution mean different things. If I can look at something and actually see a difference without examining the results for a long time, then that, to me, is a huge improvement.

.

Point 1:
That is a 100% crop, nobody is printing a 100% crop that large. Full images or slightly cropped ones simply do not show that "whole lot" difference.

Point 2:
I hardly EVER use the Sigma at 400mm. That isn't the purpose of the lens.

Point 3 (and the most important):
There is a focus difference between the two shots. The Sigma focused back a bit, the grass behind the rocks right at the edge are clearly more defined than the Canon. I would have to load up the dock and tweak the AFMA on the lens to change this, I cannot do this with the 5D4. I don't care to do this, refer to point 2. If I had bothered though, the distinctions I made would still be true. The Canon is ever so slightly better in the center (didn't do an edge comparison), and has better micro contrast to help define that detail.

POST - EDIT - EDIT:

So now Tom bugged me with his observation, so I redid the 400 vs 400 again, this time bringing the focus of the Sigma up a bit. It didn't improve the grass detail despite focus covering more of the front and main part of the rock. The Sigma is just generally a bit more muddy across the frame at 400mm at 100%, some areas get a bit better but not the same as the Canon. So yes, if you are going to shoot in the 300-400mm range, get the Canon. If you want more reach, and even beyond that with a 1.4x or 2x with a mirrorless, get the Sigma. I couldn't decide, so I ended up with both. :(


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,734 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3857
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Aug 16, 2019 16:00 |  #30

Cary,

You seem to be making comparisons and making points as if we are focal length challenged. . I do not recall the OP saying anything about being focal length challenged, or needing the greatest amount of reach. . Nor do I recall him saying anything about needing to crop the photos that he takes with his 100-400mm lens.

Do you recall the OP saying anything about needing more reach than the 100-400mm gives him?

Many wildlife and bird photographers get as close as they need to to fill the frame the way they want with normal gear - hence no need to compromise image quality by using 2x extenders on zoom lenses.

I have photographed a great variety of wildlife and birds around the continent over the past two years, and I can't recall using an extender at all - not even once - during that time. . No problem filling the frame the way I want to. . That is the reality of wildlife and bird photography.
.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18911278 (external link)
Point 1:
That is a 100% crop, nobody is printing a 100% crop that large. Full images or slightly cropped ones simply do not show that "whole lot" difference.

But when one prints at 36" or 48" at a resolution of 300 dots per inch, then that is printing at 100% - actually even much greater than 100%. . And it is common to print at these sizes. . Those are the sizes that designers order for their interior projects. . So yes, we do see the same detail rendition - or lack of it - in prints that we will see on our computer screens at 100% views.
.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18911278 (external link)
Point 2:
I hardly EVER use the Sigma at 400mm. That isn't the purpose of the lens.

400mm actually falls right into the very purpose of a 150mm to 600mm zoom .... which is to shoot images between 150mm and 600mm.

Isn't the point of a zoom lens to use the zoom's range? . With a 150-600mm, one would think that 150mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, and all points in between are just as important as 600mm. . Right? . If someone is practically always shooting at 600mm, they should be using a 600mm prime lens.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,078 views & 20 likes for this thread
7D upgrade or 100-400 upgrade for wildlife photography
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 7DMalinois
1251 guests, 289 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.