I want a new drug

Dear Board,

I own a mishmash of used DSLR gear. Everything I own in DSLR gear was purchased used but none of it is failing or lacking in reliability.

On the Canon side I own an EOS1DMK2 and an EOS40D. Both cameras perform well for me and I am generally pleased with the results.

On the Nikon side I own a D300. It too provides good results given what I give it to work with as in lenses lacking OS/IS/VS,VC. etc.

I have film cameras for both brands, both AF and manual focus.

I'd like to consolidate, and stick to one brand.

To that end I am considering the Canon EOS 80D and 7DMK2. And on the Nikon side I am considering the D7200.

I enjoy shooting wildlife, birds, and landscapes. I never shoot videos, even with my P&S cameras except on rare occasions. This may be somewhere where I wish to branch out? I'm an old school, and rather poor photographer who always figured you either shoot stills, or movies?

Most of my photography is done early in the morning or in the fading light of the evening, before or after work. Because of that, and the fact that I cannot afford to upgrade lenses to f2.8 versions I am looking for a camera that will offer usable shots at ISO 3200 and maybe even ISO 6400?

I have no interest in switching formats to either M4/3's or any mirror less options. I don't have an extensive collection of lenses in either brand but the potential of rendering any of them useless to me is unappealing. I know if I choose one or the other some will need to go, but I don't want to have to get rid of all of them for some alternative system.

Does anyone care to offer any advice based on either their experience or that of others they know regardless of brand preference?

I won't be insulted or hurt by anything. I'm simply looking for a better way to enjoy my picture taking experience and get better results.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

What do you find lacking in your current cameras? What features do you wish you had?

I am sure many would recommend selling off the excess camera brand after you choose one, and buying lenses with the money from them (even Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a good option and can often be found in a $200 ish range or for a hundred or so more get a 85 1.8).

I went with Canon over Nikon when I moved to digital because I believed Canon had better lenses. That may or may not be true. So much more goes into a good photograph than the ability of any particular lens. Choose either Canon, or choose Nikon, and move on without looking back.

I've used the EF 28-105, 70-300 and 70-210 lenses you have. They are up to the task of producing good images. If you stay with Canon, I'd keep all 3, unless you have a specific need to upgrade.

The main differences between the 7D2 and 80D are: 7D2 has state-of-the-art auto-focus, 80D has state-of-the-art DSLR video capabilities. Both can AF in the dark (-3EV). Both can focus at f/8 (minimally). Both are amazingly useful at ISO 6400 & 12800. I own the 80D, it is hugely better than the 70D at those levels. Coming from the 40D, you will be astounded. Look around POTN, you can find examples of excellent high-ISO results from the 7D2, also. I believe the 80D has slightly more dynamic range, and the 7D2 has slightly less noise when pushed.

Forget upgrading to f/2.8 zooms. They are huge, heavy, and very expensive. If you want upgrade aperture (faster than your zooms), you can get faster than f/2.8 for a lot less money by going with consumer-grade primes. The 28 1.8, 50 1.8 (any), 35 2, 100 2, 135L, and 200 2.8L are all available used, for a lot less than any of the f/2.8 zooms.

If the gear you are selling off includes the Elan 7NE, I am interested. PM me when you are ready.

Dear Rae and Tom,

Thanks for the answers.

To be clear I would like better ISO performance in fading light than what I currently can get out of my 40D and 1DMK2.

I like to shoot wildlife and birds and most of that is done either in the early morning or evening. I find that even with my Sigma 15-500 OS that at ISO 1600 the best I can do during those times is 1/125 @ f8. That is pushing the limits of the OS on that lens and many shots at ISO 1600 are marginal at best. I'd like a camera that would allow the use of ISO 6400 at those times so I'm shooting 1/500 shutter speeds. That may be an unrealistic expectation so I am hoping someone who has been there and done it chimes in?

If I stay with Canon I have a 15-85 EFS-IS lens that covers the wide end for me and serves as a walk around lens. If I would move to Nikon I'd probably need to get an 18-140 VFS or something close to that to stay in the same focal length range for general purpose use. Most of my other lenses for either brand are left over from my film days which haven't officially ended yet. I would like to update my 150-500 to either a Sigma or Tamron 150-600 but only if I move to a camera that allows the use of ISO 6400 with reasonable results. I am OK at post processing, but not good. I don't want to have to fiddle with every picture to get something worthwhile.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

If you are happy with the 40D at 1600, you'll be happy with the 80D or 7D2 at 6400. To my tastes, you'll be pushing the limits at those levels if you want to use SOOC JPGs. If you have LR, or something similar, and a modicum of post-processing ability, you'll be fine.

I had a 50D, 60D, 70D, and now 80D. The 60D was usable at 3200, workable at 6400, and worthless at 12800. The 70D was a bit better. The 70D at 6400 was easier to work with in post, and 12,800 was just barely usable. The 80D is pretty big improvement over previous xxD bodies. I find 6400 is pretty good, and 12,800 is workable, if you get WB and use some ETTR. At these levels, you need some post-processing skills, but it is way more important to get it right in-camera.

I am not a post-processing professional, and I just shoot for myself, but I am happy to use the 80D at 12,800 when it is necessary. If you look around POTN (search TeamSpeed's 'mini-review' for 'high-ISO'), you can find tips to make any camera sing at extreme ISO levels. His work with the 7D (same sensor as 60D) at 12800 is almost unbelievable.

With all that out of the way, if you really want/need to shoot at astronomical ISO, consider a 6D. Used copies are about the price of an 80D, and several hundred dollars less than the 7D2. You will lose the 1.6X crop factor. The trade-off may be worth it.

Dear Tom,

Thank you for the detailed answer. I should be fine with either the 80D or 7DMK2. I shoot raw + large jpeg with my DSLR's and I have Adobe CC and Corel raw converters along with Canon DPP at my disposal. I often use more than one of them before I save anything as a jpeg or tiff.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

Good luck with whichever direction you choose. Let me know if/when you are ready to part with the Elan 7NE.

Simply put I would opt for the 7DII. Now for the reasons if you want to read on

The customization of the menu and the controls on the 7DII are awesome! I use it for sports and wildlife - especially birds as you mentioned. It does a great job at higher ISOs and the files are easy to PP. The cases for AF work well, and you can fine tune them to your heart's desire. Also, the frame rate is amazing for BIF. The camera AF's very quickly - even with my Tamron 150-600. Great combo and will make your bird shots a bit easier to capture.

All in all it is a great choice. I had the 40D also, and the 7DII is well worth the upgrade.

If you have any specific questions about it please let me know.

Dear Board,

Thanks to everyone who responded. After some deliberation I went in another direction and bought a 1DMK3 from a member of this message board. It will represent a step up and I figure I can use it for a couple of years and then move on, most likely to a 1DMK4. I really do prefer the form factor and handling of the Canon 1D series.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

jtmiv wrote in post #18219231
. . . . . I am considering the Canon EOS 80D and 7DMK2.

I enjoy shooting wildlife, birds, and landscapes.

Most of my photography is done early in the morning or in the fading light of the evening, before or after work. Because of that, and the fact that I cannot afford to upgrade lenses to f2.8 versions I am looking for a camera that will offer usable shots at ISO 3200 and maybe even ISO 6400?

Does anyone care to offer any advice based on either their experience or that of others they know regardless of brand preference?

I know nothing about Nikon cameras, so my answer will be confined to Canon's DSLRs.

I shoot the same stuff you do, most often in the same conditions - dim light at dusk and dawn. I don't think there is any need to shoot at the super-high ISOs you mention, nor do I think there is any reason to shoot at such fast shutter speeds. Give yourself a break - it's not as difficult as you think!

Shutter speeds of under 1/100th of a second are usually plenty good enough with today's image stabilization, which is good for 4 full stops. Unless, of course, you are trying to freeze motion, such as with running deer or flying birds. But even then, you will be able to sufficiently freeze just about any motion you want to freeze at about 1/250th or 1/320th of a second, for mammals.

I am posting two photos here, to illustrate two aspects of shooting at dusk.

This photo (directly below) shows that for portrait-style images of a stationary animal, shutter speeds of under 1/100th of a second will work out just fine. The whitetail buck portrait I am posting was taken at 1/25th of a second, handheld, at 400mm. The 4-stop I.S. on Canon's new 100-400mm lens makes this possible.

jtmiv wrote in post #18219231
I won't be insulted or hurt by anything.

Good! I love it when people are that way! Since that is the case, I would recommend selling the Sigma 50-500mm lens you have and getting one of Canon's lenses that has the 4 stop Image Stabilization, such as the new 100-400 or the super-reasonable 55-250mm. Or you could also consider the 150-600mm offerings from Sigma and Tamron. They are really slow lenses at f6.3, but the modern stabilization really makes up for that.

The way I see it, if you keep using the 50-500mm in dusk and pre-dawn conditions, you'll really need to use a tripod for all of the low-light work you ever do........which is a huge pain in the butt and results in many missed opportunities, due to the time it takes to get the tripod into position and set it up. ISO 3200 and 6400 are just going to give you a grainy mess unless you shoot with a 1Dx or a 1Dx Mark 2. I know I am going to take some heat for that last comment, but it is true - especially if you look at the dark, out-of-focus areas in the frame.

jtmiv wrote in post #18219231
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

You're from PA.......cool! I was born and raised there. Spent a lot of time canoeing and fishing the Susquehanna between Duncannon and Dauphin, just north of you. I've photographed quite a bit of wildlife in PA.

Ever get up to the Ned Smith Center, about an hour upstream from you? Great place. Studying Ned's paintings and drawings has actually made me a better wildlife photographer!

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18225215
I know nothing about Nikon cameras, so my answer will be confined to Canon's DSLRs.

I shoot the same stuff you do, most often in the same conditions - dim light at dusk and dawn. I don't think there is any need to shoot at the super-high ISOs you mention, nor do I think there is any reason to shoot at such fast shutter speeds. Give yourself a break - it's not as difficult as you think!

Shutter speeds of under 1/100th of a second are usually plenty good enough with today's image stabilization, which is good for 4 full stops. Unless, of course, you are trying to freeze motion, such as with running deer or flying birds. But even then, you will be able to sufficiently freeze just about any motion you want to freeze at about 1/250th or 1/320th of a second, for mammals.

I am posting two photos here, to illustrate two aspects of shooting at dusk.

This photo (directly below) shows that for portrait-style images of a stationary animal, shutter speeds of under 1/100th of a second will work out just fine. The whitetail buck portrait I am posting was taken at 1/25th of a second, handheld, at 400mm. The 4-stop I.S. on Canon's new 100-400mm lens makes this possible.

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=182​25215&i=i264150621
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

I am posting this next photo to show that you don't need anything as fast as 1/500th, even to freeze motion. This running / leaping Whitetail Buck was pretty much frozen sharp at just 1/320th of a second, at 1600 ISO, at 400mm. I believe it wouldn't been just fine at even 1/250th of a second. And this is a scared deer on an all-out run!

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=182​25215&i=i49492285
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Both images were taken with my Canon 1D Mark 4, which produces good results at ISO 1600, provided you over-expose about 2/3 of a stop more than what the meter says to do. I would not take photos with this camera at 3200 ISO - even though many other photographers think that it is "great" at 3200 or 6400, you will get some grain, especially in the dark, out-of-focus areas of the frame, and that is completely unacceptable to me. You can get a nice used Mark 4 for about $1200 bucks these days.......maybe even less. I think a 7D Mark 2 will produce the same results at about the same ISO settings.

For birds, well, shooting birds in flight is never really going to work out too well at dusk or pre-dawn, unless you are going for some artistically rendered type of look (motion blur, slhouette, etc) instead of a realistic look. And, for any bird images other than full flight, well, what I said and posted about deer works the same way with grounded or perched birds.

Good! I love it when people are that way! Since that is the case, I would recommend selling the Sigma 50-500mm lens you have and getting one of Canon's lenses that has the 4 stop Image Stabilization, such as the new 100-400 or the super-reasonable 55-250mm. Or you could also consider the 150-600mm offerings from Sigma and Tamron. They are really slow lenses at f6.3, but the modern stabilization really makes up for that.

The way I see it, if you keep using the 50-500mm in dusk and pre-dawn conditions, you'll really need to use a tripod for all of the low-light work you ever do........which is a huge pain in the butt and results in many missed opportunities, due to the time it takes to get the tripod into position and set it up. ISO 3200 and 6400 are just going to give you a grainy mess unless you shoot with a 1Dx or a 1Dx Mark 2. I know I am going to take some heat for that last comment, but it is true - especially if you look at the dark, out-of-focus areas in the frame.

You're from PA.......cool! I was born and raised there. Spent a lot of time canoeing and fishing the Susquehanna between Duncannon and Dauphin, just north of you. I've photographed quite a bit of wildlife in PA.

Ever get up to the Ned Smith Center, about an hour upstream from you? Great place. Studying Ned's paintings and drawings has actually made me a better wildlife photographer!

.

Dear Tom,

Thanks for posting, I've seen many of your shots and I have been impressed.

I think we actually are on the same page here. When I considered that I was willing to spend $ 1200.00 or so for a better camera I decided the camera I bought here from the board will be plenty good enough. For what I paid for the 1DMK3 I purchased and what I can get for my 40D and Sigma 150-500 OS I will have enough money to buy a newer, and maybe even brand new 150-600 from Sigma or Tamron. I might be able to swing a used 100-400 II if everything works out just right but a Sigma or Tamron is well within my reach.

My 150-500 produces excellent results when the light is right and I can keep the shutter speed at 1/250 or higher, and the ISO at 800 or lower, but in reality it has about 2 stops of OS, IS, VR, or whatever the maker wants to call it. The newer lenses approach 4 stops like you said, and that should make 1/125 at ISO 1600 usable for me, an ISO level that is well within the capability of the 1DMK3.

I'm just some guy that likes to take a walk in the woods from time to time and see what I can see. I have no illusions of ever being more than that, I just want to do the best I can with the gear I can afford. If I hit the Powerball I'll call B&H and drop $ 30,000 on a proper camera outfit. But since that ain't gonna happen I'll be content to buy a 1DMK4 for $ 500.00 in a couple of years. In the meantime I'll work on technique and start using the monopod I own more often.

I like to fish Shermans Creek well upstream from Duncannon. It has good numbers of decent fish and very little company except for eagles and ospreys and the occasional mink.

Take care Tom and thanks for your input. I see what you can do and it gives me something to shoot for, literally!

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

"Needing a new drug" shouldn't be about gear, especially about system swaps.

I haven't seen your work, but I have doubts that your system is holding you back— some of your lenses may be though. So, maybe get a new, amazing lens, but I'd suggest maybe just try to shoot something unique and try for satisfaction by making some art, not just documenting nature.

"I enjoy shooting wildlife, birds, and landscapes." — Do you? Or is it your subject matter that's not fulfilling? Just asking...