« on: Today at 03:00:24 PM »
When I got into Wildlife photography I had a 20D and a 100-400, now I use a 1DX with either an 800 F5.6 or a 300 F2.8. I think you can guess what my vote was!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Premium = the current additional cost for additional features. 1D4 = $1500, 1Dx = $6799
I'm sorry, we must use current values for value tradeoff analysis
I have shot the 1Dx and know what it can do but it's not worth the premium IMO especially when I scored a 24K actuation 1D4 for $1500. Maybe if the 1Dx had 24MP+ or priced around $3500, but not now.
It looks like I can get a 1D4, 7D2, and 5D3 for less than the price of a 1Dx and sell off my 5D2 and 70D. So if the 7D2 can do that, I will get one then sell my 5D2 and 70D to get the 5D3 or whatever is coming down the line
Why haven't you left canon?
For my uses there are only 2 systems - Canon and Nikon.
Played with the Nikon D800E recently, as well as the 500 F4 VR - very nice too. Pity the owner was so pissed off when he tried my Canon gear!
Why was he pissed I wonder? Just curious...
More pixels on the bird. That is what I get with crop camera. Pixel density. If I were shooting stuffed birds I would use full frame and the 180 mm macro lens. In real life, it is hard to get enough pixels on the bird.
+1As I wildlife photographer I don't see too much use for a 7D2 in less than perfect light
That's the problem with describing the newer crop cameras as "wildlife" cameras. The newer, high MP Canon crop sensors only work well in the best of light.
Reach doesn't matter much if fur and feather detail is obliterated by noise. I think we're at the point now that unless you shoot tiny birds, FF is the way to go for all applications.
From what I have read the 7D2 is nearly there.
Not in the reach department - even the very best APSC sensors offer very little reach advantage and bring along a number of disadvantages such as ISO performance etc, etc.
Canon could have mitigated this by dropping the MP count about 6mp from the 7D - but instead they increased it by 2mp! As I wildlife photographer I don't see too much use for a 7D2 in less than perfect light - but, to be fair, I will give one a go.
Hmm I have to disagree. After I sold my 7D and 5D2 to get a 5D3 I did miss the 7D reach at times. So I'm not sayng that as a 7D owner trying to defend it. I simply got more detail on birds when I used the 7D a majority of, although not all, the time.
If they cut 6MP off it and made it 12MP the high iso performance would probably only improve by maybe 1/4 stop, being generous, at print view. Does it matter if the 100% view noise is worse? 100% view is not a fair comparison.
If it were only 12MP the reach advantage over the 5D3 would be a lot less and at that point, other than for the fps (of course 10fps vs 6fps is a big difference granted), why not get the 5D3? But what about a used 1D3 or 1D4 at that point? OK, I guess those are bulky.
But I don't see the point in giving up the reach just to, maybe, maybe, get 1/4 stop better SNR. And don't forget the tighter the 'grain' the less objectionable it looks and the more room you have to apply advanced NR techniques (as opposed to the simple filtering of high frequency noise from less MP).
You gain reach when the noise is not a problem and only get a tiny bit more noise, tiny bit, when the noise is a problem.
Go for 300MkI. I tried both, and there is quite a bit extra IQ from the Canon. The difference is even more pronounced with 1.4x extender...
Thanks for the reply and suggestion. I will go for the Canon model.