Looking for opinion from all you experienced birders out there.

I have always quietly said to myself 'what a goofy question, just make up your own mind', whenever I read a 'help me decide on gear' thread, guess what...

As I become more serious/interested in getting the shots I would like, I find myself struggling a bit with distance and noise (getting out more and more at dusk/dawn). Currently I use a 70d body, which I have no problems with expect that I am finding the noise of lower lights starting to creep into a number of my images. I also own both 400 5.6 and 100-400i, for the most part this is enough reach for me but to make life easier I am now starting to look at equipment that would provide more reach.

So..

The time is near that I would like to upgrade, and my dilemma is this; Do go with a new 7d mark ii (better performance in lower lights then my 70d), or do I go with something like a 300 2.8 with extenders (already have both the 1.4 and 2x) or even a 400 2.8 if I can luck out on price.

I do alot of walking/hiking with my current setup, but I dont think I would be too worried with additional weight of bigger glass. My max budget would be in and around the 4500/5000 dollar range.

Thanks for the read all

Leon

I think Jeff (Pondraider) shoots a lot with the 300 2.8, his shots are really outstanding!

I hike a bit with my 500 f4 IS V1, it is a little heavy after a few miles. Might find one around 5K.

Hey thanks very much for the feedback, I am really struggling with this one.

Thank you for the compliment Robert,

Leon For most of my images in the last years I have used the 7D and the 70-300L and Ive had some good success with the combo and I wouldn't call the 7D a wonderful low light camera, but its all in how you shoot the image that really gives you what your looking for. I found a way to shot slower at lower iso and capture something I could make the noise lessened in the processing. I must say I hated that 7D in the beginning but it sure made me a better photographer. The 7d with the 70-300L brought me to a place where I was ready to move up because I was being limited by the capability's of both the Camera and the lens

So on to the 7DmarkII,.. its is so much more than a markII,.. it is way better in the darker lights and so fast you will find yourself riding the brakes more than you think. I find it way better in the dim light than I do the bright sun at least right now with the snow on the ground.

As for 2.8 lenses, at this moment I feel I have no need for such a shallow depth of field so I know that I would be shooting a 2.8 at 6.3-7.1-or f8 ,..I just don't like the eyes in focus and the rest not so that leaves me with f4 and better on my lenses. in bad light a 70-200L is f4 is one smokin lens ,..it seems to have a contrast and detail that many lenses do not. the 70-300L is almost there but not quite as good but you can get away with it for sure.

Which brings me to the 100-400L markII its is the combination of both lenses and I see myself using it the most from now on. it works awesome with the 1.4III extender which makes me feel I am no longer out gunned 400mm x 1.4 x 1.6 = soooo good

If I were you I would get my hands on the 100-400L markII and give it a try first then go from there

Tough decisions, to be sure. I had a 70D along with the 70-300L and 400 f/5.6. I was doing OK but found I liked the shots with the 70-300L a bit better.

Last November, I got my 7D2.... it made a huge difference. That said, it wasn't until after I added the 100-400ii that things started to shine. That combination is amazing. I haven't used the 70D with the 100-400ii but I will say..... that lens is something else.

I don't know which I'd get first. That is the dilemma. Probably the lens, if I could only get one of them. The 70D is a fine camera.

Hey thanks very much for the input folks, very much appreciated.

Heya,

Glass is the way to go on this one.

Being able to shoot at F2.8, or 600mm F5.6 is a big deal. Way bigger a deal than having less than a stop of ISO performance difference, with a camera upgrade.

300 F2.8 or 400 F2.8 would be my choice. Or, if price is a problem, 500 F4.

Alternative, the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, with TC's.

I'd go any of those routes over camera changes if you really want to step it up.

Very best,

I would echo MalVeaux's comments.
My personal choices would be the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (probably why I bought one!) either Mk1 or Mk2 with both Mk3 extenders or the Canon 500 F4 L IS with a Canon 1.4 Mk2 or 3 extender.
The 300 F2.8 does loose some quality with the 2 x Mk3 but is still very usable and gives you a portable 600 F5.6. If the light is good then this combination can work well. Please see the attached (unedited or sharpened) image for reference - this was the 4th or 5th frame that I took with the 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 and 2 x Mk3 combination. This combination allows you to have 300, 420 and 600mm which gives great flexibility and would probably allow you to sell your existing lenses to help fund the purchase.
The 500 F4 is more of the same but you start at 500mm. To me this is not an issue as 5/600mm is the starting point for much of my photography. If there is anyway that you could afford the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 then I would seriously consider it. There is a local photographer who walks for miles with his 500 Mk2 + 1D4 on a shoulder strap. The lighter weight of the Mk2 allows him greater mobility (no tripod/monopod) to get him to where the birds are and he reports that it works exceptionally well with the Canon 1.4 Mk3 extender.
Both of these are very expensive toys but they will give excellent results.

PixelPusher wrote in post #17473386
I hike a bit with my 500 f4 IS V1, it is a little heavy after a few miles. Might find one around 5K.

This would be my advice, too. But the caveat is that you really need an excellent support system to get the most out of a true supertelephoto......an​d that is what pushes the budget a bit too far.

A lot of people think that they can skimp on the tripod and head that they buy, and maybe with short, light lenses like the 100-400 you can skimp. But with a lens like the 500 f4, you will get many more keepers if you use a quality tripod and head - such as an appropriately sized Gitzo CF with no column ($800 and up) and a Wimberley II ($600).

If you do get a big lens, then get a really good tripod/head combo, then learn how to use it by developing good long lens technique, you will be surprised at how much better you can do with sharpness in all of your shooting, and also at the fact that you'll be able to consistently get truly great bird photos at shutter speeds as slow as 1/50th of a second - and maybe even slower.

The good tripods and heads are really worth the money, and are just as important a part of your kit as the lens and body.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17476492
This would be my advice, too. But the caveat is that you really need an excellent support system to get the most out of a true supertelephoto......an​d that is what pushes the budget a bit too far.

A lot of people think that they can skimp on the tripod and head that they buy, and maybe with short, light lenses like the 100-400 you can skimp. But with a lens like the 500 f4, you will get many more keepers if you use a quality tripod and head - such as an appropriately sized Gitzo CF with no column ($800 and up) and a Wimberley II ($600).

If you do get a big lens, then get a really good tripod/head combo, then learn how to use it by developing good long lens technique, you will be surprised at how much better you can do with sharpness in all of your shooting, and also at the fact that you'll be able to consistently get truly great bird photos at shutter speeds as slow as 1/50th of a second - and maybe even slower.

The good tripods and heads are really worth the money, and are just as important a part of your kit as the lens and body.

Great advice! Honestly I really did not give the tripod/head a whole lot of thought, not sure why I did not but will certainly keep that in the budget planning.

Tom makes a good point. Whilst any current Canon lens can be hand held to good effect a good tripod and head can make life much easier.
It really boils down to what/where you are shooting. For example I was in a hide this afternoon and simply could not use my tripod as there is no room and the openings are too restrictive. I was using my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS so any assistance I could get would be welcome! In this case I used the bottom ledge of the opening in the hide to help support the lens. In other places I will use a tree, fence or whatever is handy! Though I have had quite a bit of success using my 800mm hand held or environment assisted it is really better with a tripod.
I mentioned the 300 F2.8 and the 500 F4 Mk2 as they are both FAR more hand hold-able, so the need for a tripod is greatly reduced giving you less to carry and therefore greater mobility. If you are not venturing too far then a good tripod and head are a definite advantage. Don't be tempted to get a cheap tripod they are a waste of money.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17476492
But the caveat is that you really need an excellent support system to get the most out of a true supertelephoto......an​d that is what pushes the budget a bit too far.

A lot of people think that they can skimp on the tripod and head that they buy, and maybe with short, light lenses like the 100-400 you can skimp. But with a lens like the 500 f4, you will get many more keepers if you use a quality tripod and head - such as an appropriately sized Gitzo CF with no column ($800 and up) and a Wimberley II ($600).

If you do get a big lens, then get a really good tripod/head combo, then learn how to use it by developing good long lens technique, you will be surprised at how much better you can do with sharpness in all of your shooting, and also at the fact that you'll be able to consistently get truly great bird photos at shutter speeds as slow as 1/50th of a second - and maybe even slower.

The good tripods and heads are really worth the money, and are just as important a part of your kit as the lens and body.

This is absolutely true.

And it's not just for supertelephotos, it's for all long physical focal lengths I think. I hand held exclusively for a long time. But shooting 600mm on APS-C & APS-H, I find I get much more sharper images, even at very low shutters (1/100s for me in low light with a lot of ISO), thanks to a good support system.

I don't use carbon fiber and the latest greatest gimbal, but I use a big sturdy aluminum tripod and a less expensive gimbal and it makes a massive difference for me. I can only imagine using something that weighs 3 times as much as my setup weighs (my lens is just over 3lbs, maybe 5lbs total for the setup with camera(s)), using a 9lb lens, 2~3lb camera setup, etc, going to 12~15lbs total maybe with all the accessories, having a quality gimbal makes a big difference, along with a sturdy tripod.

I skimped on support systems early on while learning, and did the crawl where you buy 2~3 tripods, 2~3 heads, and realize all along that someone early on said "Trust me, get an excellent support system, it costs a lot, but lasts your lifetime and you will not be re-buying anything later unless you physically destroy it or lose it." I should have listened. By the time I crawled through several systems trying to skimp out, I could have bought something twice as good as I have now.

Very best,

Martin,

I couldn't agree more. When I first joined POTN, I read a lot of advice about tripods, etc., as well as more general advice on photograph. I didn't have any trouble following the advice on cameras, lenses, techinque, etc., etc., etc. I just couldn't manage to justify to myself the need to spend a decent amount of money on a tripod and head. I had a very inexpensive tripod I was using for a point and shoot when I stumbled across POTN. I now have 2 additional semi-expensive tripods w/heads gathering dust and one very nice one I should have purchased from the beginning..... and would have if I could have pursuaded myself to listen to seasoned veterans.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17477159
Martin,

I couldn't agree more. When I first joined POTN, I read a lot of advice about tripods, etc., as well as more general advice on photograph. I didn't have any trouble following the advice on cameras, lenses, techinque, etc., etc., etc. I just couldn't manage to justify to myself the need to spend a decent amount of money on a tripod and head. I had a very inexpensive tripod I was using for a point and shoot when I stumbled across POTN. I now have 2 additional semi-expensive tripods w/heads gathering dust and one very nice one I should have purchased from the beginning..... and would have if I could have pursuaded myself to listen to seasoned veterans.

Heya,

That's what I did. I now give away my first tripods/heads to friends/family who are getting into photography to help them ease into the overwhelming cost of it all. At least that way they're not buying 3 tripods the way I did.

Even now, I don't have a super duper support setup. But compared to my old stuff, it's way more stable. Right now, I'm using a Benro 2970, it's big, heavy and made of aluminum. Holds my 600mm like a feather on my GH1 gimbal, which too is entry level compared to the fancy stuff, but it too holds my stuff like a feather and butter smooth. For my ballhead, I use a Smith Victor BH8 because it's overkill for the weight of my stuff, big huge ball, and arca style, while being inexpensive. So I even argue to myself now that this is my 3rd "skimp" setup, even though it's leagues ahead of the junk I bought at first. For now this works because my gear is light. If I ever have a super telephoto with F2.8 or F4, then I'll likely get a new support system along with it. For now, this setup (Benro 2970 & Obteka GH1) holds my 1D2 + 150-600 like it's nothing and is smooth, so I'm ok for now. Eventually though, I know it's coming, I'll move on. Though I'll probably get a used old Gitzo and a Jobu gimbal or something sensible, also second hand. I'm happy to pick up hold heavy metal stuff while people swap to nicer CF things, heh.

I still hand hold a lot with my 600, because it's light. But may being on a support setup like a sturdy tripod & gimbal is so easy, and it does result in much smooth operation, easier focus, and allows for lower shutter speed which for me means less ISO usage for a cleaner image. I wish I had listened early on. So many opportunities missed due to skimping!

By the way, I'll be in Cedar Key today if you're around, look for a weirdo with a big black 600mm lens walking around the West side of the main key. Hopefully some of the Pelicans & Terns are flying about, but mainly going to see if I can capture the Osprey dive bombing the mullet. A few have chicks so they're feeding every day heavily. Quite the show.

Very best,

I work weekends and Mondays but we will definitely have to meet up sometime. The osprey chicks should be hatching in a couple weeks. I don't know Cedar Key well enough to know where I can find them fishing. I have been going to St Augustine for the rookery action at the Alligator Farm, but I'll definitely be heading back to Cedar Key soon.