Preferred full-frame DSLR for Bird Photography......

Hello Everybody,
In am in a bit of confusion as to whether to move on to a FF body from my present Canon 70D.
Approximately 90% of the usage would be for Birds, (and most of them are restless, small and would not let anyone get close to them) Photography,60% of that under low-light, dull, cloudy and moist Himalayan conditions…….handheld.
In future …in all possibility ,I’ll be using either the Tamron 150-600mm,or the Sigma 150-600mm(S),or the new Canon 100-400 IS II+ 1.4X TC combo.
At present I have the Canon 70D+Tamron 150-600 combo. In more than 90% of the cases,the ISO is set to 1000,and the F-stop at f7.1 of f8 … 100% handheld.
Now I want to ask to the members here, which would be the best FF body either Canon or Nikon to suit my purpose. And why..??

The end results would be for posting in the web and sometimes to make prints of max size of 24inchX18inch.

My personal choice would be either Nikon D800 or D810 ..... simply due to huge MP factors, both at FX and DX modes, which would again give me enough freehand for subsequent cropping (as most of the time needed in photographing small birds) along with superb AF and low-light capabilities. Have not ruled out Nikon D750 and Canon 5DMkIII, but since they both lack that Xtra MP punch,even after high rate of cropping, have not just favoured them. Of late have been blown away by the details of Nikon D810.

Open to all suggestions and please correct me where might have gone wrong.

The ultra high-end like Canon 1DX and Nikon 4DS come only in my dreams,never in thoughts……

Looking forward to your views.

Cheers…!!

Pixphatic.

Heya,

Well, for one, you're not going to see a massive improvement in ISO, it's not going to even be a full stop, more like 2/3rds of a stop, at best, basically. So what you have to look forward to would be to increase resolution and to get a better AF system. The 5D3 makes sense here, if you need the AF system. But the resolution increase is not that much, 2~3MP?

So realistically, what you're looking for is basically a better, faster, AF system, and maybe faster FPS, in terms of getting anything from an upgrade.

Here's where I would basically look at the 5D3 and/or the 1d Mark IV, in these price ranges.

Personally, I don't think you're going to see the improvements you're wanting by swapping cameras. You'll get more improvement by changing lenses. The Tamron is great. But you're talking about small birds, not large birds, so this is where the 500 F4L with a 1.4x TC makes more sense, getting more reach, and being able to shoot wide open and gain a stop of light from that, plus more reach. Not to mention, fast focus speed. Still a lens that can be handheld. Alternatively, you could consider the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS with a 2.0x TC. Again, sharp wide open so you can gain a stop of light (F5.6) and the option to go to 300 F2.8 in really dim light.

Very best,

I like my 5D3 but, especially for small birds, suspect the 7D Mark II with its APS-C sensor would be a better choice for small birds. Some experienced bird shooters consider it the best thing going.

I shoot a 5D3 and a 7D2. For birds the 7D2 is clear winner and not only for the crop factor. The 5D3 lacks a lot of advanced AF configuration options that make it better suited to birding and wildlife in general. I shoot a lot with the 100-400 II and the 1.4x TC. I wouldn't consider a FF body if 90% of my photography was birding with that lens.

Small wild birds are tough to photograph because they move fast and are usually skittish. So you need mobility. I agree that the 7DII / 1.4X III / 100-400 II combo would be best for this. This combo gives excellent results and is easily hand-holdable.

If you are shooting captive birds or baiting them, it might be different, but your post suggests they are unrestrained and wild.

If you want to do FF, to match the pixel density and reach of the II-III-II combo, you would need an 800mm lens and a tripod to support it all.

Here is a Java sparrow taken with the II-III-II - wild but attracted by a feeder.

Just my 2p!
I am mainly a bird photographer and only use 1 camera - a 1DX (well I do occasionally use an EOS 3 and a 33V film cameras. All are full frame.
I don't have too much experience of the 7D2 but have used a couple and I have used/owned many/most of the Canon 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras as well as wringing out 3 FF Nikons.
Firstly there is a definite "reach" advantage with the smaller sensors, however I have found this to be much less than the crop factor would suggest. This is because (most) FF cameras crop much better than crops - but then they need to for birding! The other main (and most important) difference is that I can happily bang away at 12800 ISO and not worry about Noise Reduction where most, if not all, crop camera images are failing. If you only shoot in good light then the Canon Crop Cameras can and do produce excellent results but in lower light???
You mention the Nikon D800 and D810 - I have yet to use a D810. However I have used 2 D800E cameras (both on a Nikon 500 F4 VR) and they are lovely cameras - but for birds? Er no. They were just too slow and the ISO too limiting. I have also tried a D4 on a similar lens and that was very much better - but still not quite 1DX with a Canon lens.
I should say (note Archibald's comment) that I do use a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, but I also get breat results from my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS as well!
For info I have attached a couple of images (no editing/sharpening just scales RAW files) to show how much the Canon FF cameras can be cropped.

Here is a silly crop taken at about 1000 yds, I can clearly see that they are using a Canon 24-70 F2.8 Mk1 but I am not certain if it is a 5D Mk2 or Mk3!
Yes it was taken with my Canon 800mm.

johnf3f wrote in post #17512407
For info I have attached a couple of images (no editing/sharpening just scales RAW files) to show how much the Canon FF cameras can be cropped.

Just so that the OP doesn't under-estimate the crop-ability of the small 1.6 crop cameras, I am attaching an "extreme crop" from an image taken with a 50D.
First is the original image:

Nice image Tom! Certainly far better than I ever achieved with my 50D - I returned mine!
Has that image been processed in any way? Note I simply posted a scaled RAW file = no sharpening/processing, as I wanted to show what the camera does, not what I can do.
There is no doubt that any properly exposed image (from any modern DSLR) in good light can be cropped quite a bit and still hold up very well. The advantage of many FF cameras is that they will do the same (with a little less perceived reach) under a far wider range of conditions.
If I am only shooting in good light then a camera like the 7D2 would do me very nicely and would have saved me a lot of cash. Unfortunately I shoot in the real world and even the excellent ISO capabilities of my 1DX have limits.
I would be interested to see how un-edited images from you 50D would look at ISO 12800. I frequently have to use ISO values this high and no I don't bother with Noise Reduction.
What I am getting at is that the current (Canon) FF cameras offer a better overall package for bird photography at the expense of a small amount of reach in good light, but only in good light - otherwise in normal (for here) conditions the Canon FF offerings have distinct advantages.

johnf3f wrote in post #17513571
Nice image Tom! Certainly far better than I ever achieved with my 50D - I returned mine!
Has that image been processed in any way? Note I simply posted a scaled RAW file = no sharpening/processing, as I wanted to show what the camera does, not what I can do.

John,
The image I had posted had a few slight adjustments made in iPhoto (I don't use any fancy schmancey software like Photoshop or Lightroom). But no sharpening had been done whatsoever (it is a myth that you always have to sharpen RAW files). Below is a completely unedited file of that image - all I did was convert it RAW to jPeg so that I could post it here:

johnf3f wrote in post #17513571
I would be interested to see how un-edited images from you 50D would look at ISO 12800. I frequently have to use ISO values this high and no I don't bother with Noise Reduction.

I have never shot an image at such a high ISO with my 50D. Nor would I ever do so. In fact, my normal limit with the 50D was 400ISO. A few times I tried it at 800ISO when I absolutely had to, but those occasions were quite rare.

I do not use noise reduction, either. In fact, I have no noise reduction software, so I couldn't even use it if I wanted to. You're probably catching on to the fact that I am barely capable of doing any processing at all - just the few basics that iPhoto allows. I do not have the computer skills or the software to do any more than the standard minor adjustments.

johnf3f wrote in post #17513571
If I am only shooting in good light then a camera like the 7D2 would do me very nicely and would have saved me a lot of cash. Unfortunately I shoot in the real world and even the excellent ISO capabilities of my 1DX have limits.

I shoot in the real world, too - and I have never had to use an ISO anywhere near as high as 12,800. I don't even understand anyone having to use such a setting for top-notch wildlife imagery. I find it is much better to keep ISO down in the no-noise zone, and learn proper technique so that you are able to get sharp results with slower shutter speeds. 1/30th of a second, 1/50th of a second, 1/60th of a second........those are shutter speeds that we should be able to shoot with confidence, even when using focal lengths in the 500mm to 1000mm range. Obviously, with these settings, there is very little light, or "poor" light - which is as "real world" as it gets.

For more explanation on this issue, I recommend that you go to:
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17027115
and see POST #17, where I discuss the use of high ISO vs. low ISO, as it applies to wildlife and birds, in greater detail.

johnf3f wrote in post #17513571
What I am getting at is that the current (Canon) FF cameras offer a better overall package for bird photography at the expense of a small amount of reach in good light, but only in good light - otherwise in normal (for here) conditions the Canon FF offerings have distinct advantages.

I think that most people define "reach" as "pixel density", or as "pixels on target", and I find that this is an accurate way to define the term. And as far as pixel density is concerned, the difference between 1.6 crop cameras (like the 50D, 60D, 70D, 7D, 7D2) and the 1Dx is far greater than a "small amount of reach". The reach, in terms of pixels on target, is astounding - in the neighborhood of 2:1 to 3:1 when compared to a 1Dx. That's right - two to three times more pixels on the subject with a 1.6 crop than with a 1Dx.

Of course, the 1Dx is an incredible camera - for birds or for whatever else. But let's not marginalize the one factor in which the little crop bodies actually do have a decided advantage. The "reach advantage" is far from small, and it is effective in both low light situations as well as when the light is optimal.

Wow Tom, that was a pretty comprehensive reply! I will try and answer some of you point, but I am sure I will miss a few!

Real world - I live in South Wales, strong light is a rarity! We do get some wonderful light for landscapes but it is usually more challenging for wildlife - in between the rain!

ISO - like you, and all other photographers, I use the lowest ISO possible, unfortunately I have found that the subject (eg small birds) tend to demand reasonably high shutter speeds so there must be a compromise on the Aperture or the ISO. The reason I mentioned ISO 12800 is that a few weeks ago I was shooting some Long Tailed Tits in glorious light (we do get it occasionally!) at my normal 1/1000 + F8 and low ISO. In the middle of shooting a Water Rail turned up at about 8 yards (you rarely see them anything like that close), as my camera is set to Auto ISO, I merely had to swing onto it and shoot. The result was the largest (in the frame) shots of this bird that I have yet seen - but the ISO had changed from around 400 to 10,000 to 12,800 - the subjects were only feet apart! A slower shutter speed would have helped, I could have got away with 1/500 or 1/320, but there was simply no time to adjust anything. The flexibility of the camera's ISO performance got me shots that would have been unobtainable/not worth keeping with the crop cameras that I have tried/used including 1.3 crop.

Pixel density - The 1DX is a "Pixel Desert" compared to current Canon crop cameras! This point concerned me before I bought one. My previous camera was a Canon 1D4 (16mp 1.3 crop) and Canon claim that the 1DX will equal it's IQ when cropped - well they are wrong as it exceeds it! I had the two alongside for three months and the only aspect of the 1D4 that out did the 1DX was battery life. On exactly the same lens the 1DX can equal or out reach the the 1D4. Before the 1D4 I had a 50D (the AF on mine was a lemon but the sensor was good) and on my (then) Canon 400 F2.8 (non IS) the 50D did out reach the 1D4 - but not by very much. I should say that I do not do huge prints, normally A3 or A3+ sizes.

Interesting thread that you linked to and you made some good points there. For large subjects like a Turkey, I agree, high shutter speeds are not necessary however many of my subjects simply do not stop moving and any attempt to make them pause simply makes them fly off! Whilst I use tripods whenever possible ( I use a Gitzo + Wimberley 2) much of my shooting has to be done hand held due to the restrictions of where I am shooting and some reserves over here do not even allow tripods/mono pods!

" But let's not marginalize the one factor in which the little crop bodies actually do have a decided advantage" I am in no way trying to marginalise or decry APSC cameras and do not deny that they have an advantage in reach/pixel density I am merely stating that (to date) I have found that the reach advantage is rather less than the crop factor would suggest and the ISO performance is limiting. For example my friends 600 F4IS + 1D4 is significantly out ranged by my 800 and 1DX yet we have almost identical fields of view and he has about 1.5 times the pixel density. The same as was the case of my 1D4 vs 1DX on my 800 and 300 mm lenses.

If you do not find this to be the case then that's fine I respect your opinion and experience - I just don't want readers to think that a smaller sensor is a magic bullet in the reach stakes - it is not, it helps but not by a huge amount from the cameras that I have used/owned.

That went on a bit longer than I had intended!

Hi All,
Sorry for not being able to visit my thread......since had been to the Himalayas on birding trails......yes once again...
My sincere thanks to all the contributors here and noted the points discussed.Would try to make a gist of individual points with a reply or rather what I think.

To MalVeauX's points:Not really looking for better AF-speed wise,rather better AF under low-light.FPS of 70D is fine for me..so no need to worry about that aspect.The upgrade I am proposing is pure on the better low light performance front.Both AF wise and low-noise wise.
Maybe .....just maybe on better dynamic range under higher ISO wise too.

To AZGeorge,nqjudo & Archibald :Yes 7DII is a great body with excellent AF performance,but lower noise in higher ISO wise I doubt it is a great upgrade from my 70D. Also 100-400mm+1.4 X TC would be great under bright to normal light @ f8,but under below normal lighting condition......@ f8.....I am yet to get convinced.
Since 100% of my subjects are wild and have to approach them with great caution and also from distance under low to extreme low light....I think 7D MkII+100-400mm MkII+1.4X TC combo would hardly work for me.......although open to discussions and image posts/links on this combo.Personally I like the combo to a great extent,but my subjects deter me from going for this.

I'll give you all 2 examples of how awefull the light was.......

1. Got Koklass Pheasant (around 55-56 cm),nearly 45-50 ft away in the Himalayas at around 7.15 pm under almost no-light.Sources of light was the dim twilight residuals and the head light of our vehicle.Boosted the ISO to 5000, kept the ISO to 6.3...then had some shots.
2. Although the Slaty-bellied Tesia (about 9 cm) was about 9-10 feet away...under the cover of the bushes and twigs,under very low light, watched it for more than 15-20 minutes...moving constantly in most skittish manner......never got a single shot. Even the fastest focusing lens would not be fast enough to freeze it's movement.Would have been better to record a video of it.

To johnf3f & Tom Reichner : What I found is the crop-ability of the crop sensors are fine upto a limit... when the subject is within a certain distance and also depending upon the light.But once the subjects are a bit far off,under lowlight,the crop sensors' capabilities are somewhat restricted...and here comes the advantage of the FF bodies.Not to mention the better low-noise under high ISO performance of the FF bodies.

Since I am on a tight budget (......as always.... ),400-f2.8/500-f4/600/800 are beyond my reach,thinking of upgrading to an used FF body and Sigma 150-600 sports as I feel that the better performance (as read) of the Sigma @ wide open even @ 600mm,combined with better low-light performance of a FF body would allow me somewhat more freedom i.r.o. better AF and lesser noise under low-light situations.Haven't finalized yet as to which body to go for.

Also interested to get any lead on how much difference would it make --- image wise--- to crop a FF image 1.6X and compare the same with an image from a crop sensor.

Looking forward to more discussions and once again thank all of you for your suggestions and replies.

Happy Clicking.

If you must have Full Frame, and are using for it birds, in the Canon camp I would certainly recommend the 5D3.

It has 1D series AF capability, a nice low noise 22MP FF sensor and it gets the job done just fine indeed.

Thanks CyberDyneSystems.....
I am leaving that option open...only problem might be not enough pixels to work with after a large crop.....and a 2012 AF system.
Although worth a try.

The way I look at it, no matter which bodies you "upgrade" to, your limiting factor is still light.

I'd suggest you save up for a fast 500/600mm Canon lens.

Here's one of my favourite photographer Rathika Ramasamy from India. I think she uses a Nikon D4/s with a 600mm F4.

http://www.rathikarama​samy.com/