Best possible upgrade ......

Hi All,
Thought of posting this topic as I wish to ‘upgrade’, if that is the word I could use.
Better to put it this way…. using Canon 70D + Tamron 150-600mm SP Di VC combo for the last 18-20 months and my subjects are generally small and fidgety birds and even more challenging is most of the time the light is not so conducive for ‘long tele’ shooting .Hence facing problems balancing the budget and best possible equipment and my own technique. I shoot handheld all the time and like to get as close as possible to the subjects.
Within my budget (max 2300$), Canon 70D + Tamron 150-600mm SP Di VC is a fairly good combo. I like the reach (mainly using it around 540-550mm range) and the VC along with the superb AF capabilities of the 70D …..but….....

1. The Tammy has to be stopped down to f8 to get the desired sharpness. Its so-so at f 7.1
2. ISO needs to be bumped up at around 800-1000 range to get a good shutter speed, hence generating low-light/high-ISO noise.
3. Less OOF/ bokeh effect as using f8-f7.1.
4. More effort in PP to get the desired final effect.
5. Sometimes AF let down. Esp for contrasty BGs and BIFs.

Do not want to miss out the f5.6 factor, but at the same time want min reach of 500mm,a good IS/VR/VC/OS and a more consistent AF with a better low-light capable set-up.

I have thought of the following probable combinations within a budget of around 2300$-2400$ (camera body and lens combo).….

1. Used 1D MkIII with Sigma 150-600 Sports --- Will be a heavy combo for carrying and hand holding ---- missing f5.6 again.
2. Keeping 70D and getting the new 100-400 MkII + 1.4X TC –again missing f5.6
3. Switching to Nikon with D7200 + 200-500 f5.6 combo – sacrificing abt 50mm – which I am ready to .Since not willing to use a 1.4X TC thereby adding up more glasses, better option is to use the 1.3X feature when such a need arises,still having a 14mp f5.6 image.
4. Switching to Nikon with an used D750 + 200-500 f5.6 combo. Same options with D7200.Even better low-light performance,but lesser reach due to FF,although more croppable image.

So what would be the best ‘upgrade’ for me ..??

Thanks.

Personally I'd keep the 70D and get a 150-600 sport.
Or better still, save some more money (or finance) and get a 500f4.
I was going to get the 150-600 sport but took out a loan and got the 500f4.... Best decision I ever made...superb image quality and 700mm with 1.4x on full frame.

don1163 wrote in post #17807994
Personally I'd keep the 70D and get a 150-600 sport.
Or better still, save some more money (or finance) and get a 500f4.
I was going to get the 150-600 sport but took out a loan and got the 500f4.... Best decision I ever made...superb image quality and 700mm with 1.4x on full frame.

......thanks.

Yes, Sigma 150-600mm Sports is an option but here too I'll be loosing the f5.6.Also the weight is a matter of concern.
Canon 500mmIS II,(if that is what you meant) is a great birding (and my dream) combo,with or without the 1.4X TC.On FF or crop-sensor.BUT other than it's weight on the wallet,the physical weight is too much to be carried all day as I need to walk a lot.In the Himalayas,barring a few spots,'studio-type' birding opportunities are really very limited. Myself being an sub-average weighted person,do not think to hand-hold it throughout the day.Using a tripod/monopod does not suit me,although I tried a bit. Rather a bean-bag is a better option I feel.

So when Nikon came out with a very viable 200-500mm f5.6-hand-holdable option.....I'am just thinking abt it pretty seriously.....
But I need to confirm the AF speed first.

Thnx again.

I'm not sure that f5.6 vs f6.3 is really a big deal. It's only 1/3 of a stop.

You should look at the Sigma non-sport lens. From what I read it is just as sharp and quite a bit lighter and easier to use hand-held.

I don't know much about the Nikon stuff but that 200-500 lens is tempting. I see pretty good reviews about it.

It seems to me that a sharp lens and a body that does goor work at higher ISO are both important to your work. I'd be sure any body you upgrade to is good at ISO 3200. If it is it will be quite nice at 800 or 10000.

Not to add to your confusion but how about a 7DII with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary? You could buy both new for about your budget. If you go used you would be under budget.

bpalermini wrote in post #17808181
I'm not sure that f5.6 vs f6.3 is really a big deal. It's only 1/3 of a stop.

You should look at the Sigma non-sport lens. From what I read it is just as sharp and quite a bit lighter and easier to use hand-held.

I don't know much about the Nikon stuff but that 200-500 lens is tempting. I see pretty good reviews about it.

It seems to me that a sharp lens and a body that does goor work at higher ISO are both important to your work. I'd be sure any body you upgrade to is good at ISO 3200. If it is it will be quite nice at 800 or 10000.

Not to add to your confusion but how about a 7DII with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary? You could buy both new for about your budget. If you go used you would be under budget.

.......Since I have the Tamron 150-600,I intentionally ignored the Sigma 150-600 contemporary lens,as I believe it cannot be better than the Tamron's centre sharpness. AF wise it might be a tad better,esp if customized via the USB dock.
Now f5.6 against f6.3 is indeed no big deal ONLY if that f6.3 is as sharp as the other one at f5.6.Now as I said my Tamron needs to be stopped down at f8 to get the level of sharpness I want. Then it becomes a question of 3 stops,which is I think not desirable.
Yes a body giving lesser noise at ISO 1600/3200 is what I am looking for,so that I might have greater freedom in tweaking the other parameters.

Thanks Bob for your reply,really appreciate that.

Sorry I did not think about needing to stop down. I shoot sports and 99% of the time I shoot wide open on lenses that are good wide open.

PIXPHATIC wrote in post #17808147
......thanks.

Yes, Sigma 150-600mm Sports is an option but here too I'll be loosing the f5.6.Also the weight is a matter of concern.
Canon 500mmIS II,(if that is what you meant) is a great birding (and my dream) combo,with or without the 1.4X TC.On FF or crop-sensor.BUT other than it's weight on the wallet,the physical weight is too much to be carried all day as I need to walk a lot.In the Himalayas,barring a few spots,'studio-type' birding opportunities are really very limited. Myself being an sub-average weighted person,do not think to hand-hold it throughout the day.Using a tripod/monopod does not suit me,although I tried a bit. Rather a bean-bag is a better option I feel.

So when Nikon came out with a very viable 200-500mm f5.6-hand-holdable option.....I'am just thinking abt it pretty seriously.....
But I need to confirm the AF speed first.

Thnx again.

I was referring to the EF 500 f4 IS version 1 which can be had for less than half the price of the version 2...
If ,as you say, it is your dream combo....then put the money you have towards it and save a bit more... Sure it is a heavy lens to carry all day but if you want the photos that is what you have to do......photography is not always about what is easiest..

I don't think any of the options you mention will make that much of a difference. A game changer would be if you could increase you budget and get the 500mm F4 IS v1. They go for $4,000 to $5,000 but they will give you much increased quality on small bird shots.

If at all possible, I would try the Nikon set up you suggest.

None of us are sure how Nikon managed to make a 500mm f/5.6 so affordable and so light, but it is certainly one of the most intriguing long zooms of the bunch, and we've had a lot in the last two years.

No, it won't be a 500mm f/4, but your interest in it makes sense as the closest to what you are looking for.

PIXPHATIC wrote in post #17807985
Hi All,
Thought of posting this topic as I wish to ‘upgrade’, if that is the word I could use.
Better to put it this way…. using Canon 70D + Tamron 150-600mm SP Di VC combo for the last 18-20 months and my subjects are generally small and fidgety birds and even more challenging is most of the time the light is not so conducive for ‘long tele’ shooting .Hence facing problems balancing the budget and best possible equipment and my own technique. I shoot handheld all the time and like to get as close as possible to the subjects.
Within my budget (max 2300$), Canon 70D + Tamron 150-600mm SP Di VC is a fairly good combo. I like the reach (mainly using it around 540-550mm range) and the VC along with the superb AF capabilities of the 70D …..but….....

1. The Tammy has to be stopped down to f8 to get the desired sharpness. Its so-so at f 7.1
2. ISO needs to be bumped up at around 800-1000 range to get a good shutter speed, hence generating low-light/high-ISO noise.
3. Less OOF/ bokeh effect as using f8-f7.1.
4. More effort in PP to get the desired final effect.
5. Sometimes AF let down. Esp for contrasty BGs and BIFs.

Do not want to miss out the f5.6 factor, but at the same time want min reach of 500mm,a good IS/VR/VC/OS and a more consistent AF with a better low-light capable set-up.

I have thought of the following probable combinations within a budget of around 2300$-2400$ (camera body and lens combo).….

1. Used 1D MkIII with Sigma 150-600 Sports --- Will be a heavy combo for carrying and hand holding ---- missing f5.6 again.
2. Keeping 70D and getting the new 100-400 MkII + 1.4X TC –again missing f5.6
3. Switching to Nikon with D7200 + 200-500 f5.6 combo – sacrificing abt 50mm – which I am ready to .Since not willing to use a 1.4X TC thereby adding up more glasses, better option is to use the 1.3X feature when such a need arises,still having a 14mp f5.6 image.
4. Switching to Nikon with an used D750 + 200-500 f5.6 combo. Same options with D7200.Even better low-light performance,but lesser reach due to FF,although more croppable image.

So what would be the best ‘upgrade’ for me ..??

Thanks.

I think that the best upgrade would be realized by changing the way you photograph birds, rather than by changing the gear you use to photograph them with.

Overall, if you would shoot more intentionally, I think you would see a great improvement in your work.

If you get a really good, stable tripod and a really good, name-brand head, and used them, you would get better, sharper photos than what you get by handholding. It is very difficult to be very exacting and precise, with respect to composition, when handholding lenses that are somewhat large and heavy.

If you put the time and effort into creating set-ups, or if you put time and effort into using electronic playback calls, or into using blinds, you could, to a large degree, pre-determine your backgrounds, your perches, the light (direction), the subject-to-camera distance, and the subject-to-background distance. Exercising more control over these factors will have a huge positive impact on the bird photographs you take.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17809550
I think that the best upgrade would be realized by changing the way you photograph birds, rather than by changing the gear you use to photograph them with.

Overall, if you would shoot more intentionally, I think you would see a great improvement in your work.

If you get a really good, stable tripod and a really good, name-brand head, and used them, you would get better, sharper photos than what you get by handholding. It is very difficult to be very exacting and precise, with respect to composition, when handholding lenses that are somewhat large and heavy.

If you put the time and effort into creating set-ups, or if you put time and effort into using electronic playback calls, or into using blinds, you could, to a large degree, pre-determine your backgrounds, your perches, the light (direction), the subject-to-camera distance, and the subject-to-background distance. Exercising more control over these factors will have a huge positive impact on the bird photographs you take.

.....thanks Tom,points taken and some of them surely would be tried out.
As I shoot mainly small birds in wild Himalayan forests,without any kind of baits,hides,set-ups,in places not suitable for tripods (although I have a Slik Pro DX 700 + Manfrotto 494RC2 ).I did have a monopod ,but found out to be uncomfortable,although many of my friends use them.My favourite is bean bag support.I like to lurk in bushes,which is why I like handheld.There are 'studio like' spots,but those I intentionally avoid.
I use tripods for waders and shore birds,which gives the freedom for low-angle shots.But they are very less.
There are also restrictions in playing bird-calls in national parks and sanctuaries here.
Nonetheless technique plays a vital role in the final outcome,but better equipments always help you to get there.

thanks again.

Heya,

I agree with the commentary about changing how you approach getting to your subjects and photographing them. We all inevitably want longer, faster glass, and better cameras for going into tight, dark places and shooting something small and fleeting. Even with a $20,000 super tele setup with the latest tech, you'll be challenged to do this. You could keep throwing money at the problem as a solution but it will not result in what you think it will directly. What will change your results right now, however, is how you approach getting the shot in the first place.

You say you don't use a hide or anything, but why not? You can get easy dog-house style pop-up blinds for $50 that fold down into a disc basically. I use one of these as my mobile hide and I get within 8~9 feet of song birds with my 600mm. In really low light, hand holding is going to cost you a fortune, while a simple set of legs & gimbal will free up your shutter speed and ISO ceiling quite a bit. I get as low as 1/50s on a good stable setup, at 600mm on APS-C and APS-H, while still using ISO's as high as 800~1600, it's that dark! So I can appreciate what you're trying to shoot in. A mobile hide and a light weight mount setup will give you so much more in wildlife photography than simply getting faster but shorter glass, or a faster, lower resolution, lower ISO performing camera (1D3).

Glass wise, you're good where you are. The only way to make a big difference on that Canon mount, is to get a significantly larger aperture. F5.6 and F6.3 are next to no different. Not even worth comparing. F4 would be the only starting point frankly. This is where a 500 F4L (mkI, early version, no IS) comes into play around $2k. You don't need IS as much if you're using a mount--which you should at this point probably. Other options, include a 300 F2.8L (non IS, MKI) around $1800~2k. You put a 1.4x TC on there, and you have a very good super tele. And you have a great BIF lens while you're at it. Or, bare at 300 F2.8 on APS-C is great too. Use that 20MP resolution to your advantage and get into some really low light with F2.8 and drag the shutter using a tripod. And finally there is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS (non-SPORT) around $2k as well. Takes TC's as well. These solutions all get you F2.8 or F4, or both, and can get up to 600mm. These would be the glass solutions in that budget range that I'd consider. Moving from a Tamron 150/600 to a Sigma 150/600 will change virtually nothing for how and what you're shooting.

But even with those as options, I really don't think it will change things as drastically as simply changing how you approach your subjects.

A mobile hide & a tripod can fit to a backpack, and weigh less than a super tele lens does.

Study your subjects.
Go to that location before they're active.
Setup shop. Get your shots.

The Tamron 150-600 has lovely bokeh. I can get totally blown out backgrounds with buttery bokeh, at F7.1 or F8 no problem with the same exact lens you're using, take a look below. I'm using significantly inferior cameras compared to a 70D too. The difference is, I get closer and I use a tripod in pretty dark low light. The other difference, is I over-expose my subjects in this kind of light by over 1 and 1/3rd stops and bring it down in post. It makes a big difference. That's all! Tom guided me through this process, so I can show you my results just from listening to someone who does this for a living.

Here's the blind I use (link). It folds into a disc, just like photography lighting reflectors do. It has no bottom. Just the 4 walls and each side can be opened to look out and point a lens. I sit inside with a little travel stool, like this one (link).

For laying-on-the-ground approaches, a drape works instead (like at fresh water holes, shoreline, etc).

Lastly, if the light is lower than what I shoot in, you can add flash for fill.

Here's an ancient 1D2 at ISO 640, shutter 1/320s at 600mm and F7.1 from the same lens you're using.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rg8B​Ab

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rqFn​Et

MalVeauX wrote in post #17811580
........ What will change your results right now, however, is how you approach getting the shot in the first place.

You say you don't use a hide or anything, but why not? You can get easy dog-house style pop-up blinds for $50 that fold down into a disc basically. I use one of these as my mobile hide and I get within 8~9 feet of song birds with my 600mm. In really low light, hand holding is going to cost you a fortune, while a simple set of legs & gimbal will free up your shutter speed and ISO ceiling quite a bit. I get as low as 1/50s on a good stable setup, at 600mm on APS-C and APS-H, while still using ISO's as high as 800~1600, it's that dark! So I can appreciate what you're trying to shoot in. A mobile hide and a light weight mount setup will give you so much more in wildlife photography than simply getting faster but shorter glass, or a faster, lower resolution, lower ISO performing camera (1D3).

.........

A mobile hide & a tripod can fit to a backpack, and weigh less than a super tele lens does.

Study your subjects.
Go to that location before they're active.
Setup shop. Get your shots.

Just get closer and use a hide & mount. You can get amazing bokeh and great light in low light no problem with lesser setups with that same lens!

This is most excellent advice. Oftentimes, we need to be willing to change the way we do things if we want to get better results.

This might help....

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=TawKGClbECU

Thanks all.....those shots are really lovely.The BG is clean and buttery.
Excellent points discussed....
.....btw 'The other difference, is I over-expose my subjects in this kind of light by over 1 and 1/3rd stops and bring it down in post. It makes a big difference. '.....is it (over-exposing the subjects) same the ETR or expose to the right.....??

Thanx again.....