Best birding camera

[tareqphoto]

Hi all,

Let me make it simple and clear straight forward question like to start over

What is the best Canon cameras for birding [and wildlife]?

I prefer it to be a brand new and mirrorless rather than DSLR which is a thing of the past now.

Thanks

 

[candyman]

Hi all,

Let me make it simple and clear straight forward question like to start over

What is the best Canon cameras for birding [and wildlife]?

I prefer it to be a brand new and mirrorless rather than DSLR which is a thing of the past now.

Thanks

The best camera is personal preference. There are people who prefer the 45 megapixel r5 or r5 MKII because they can crop if the subject is too far away. These cameras have excellent AF. The R6, the R6 Mark II and of course the R3 and the R1 also have excellent AF.

The R1 and R5 Mark II have the pre-capture function that works better than in the R3 (and I believe also the R6 Mark II)

So, budget then plays a role. What are you willing to spend?

 

[john1970]

As previously mentioned, the first question I would ask is what is your budget?

Other points to consider:

1) Would you consider a APS-C size sensor rather than FF sensor?
2) Do you like to crop your photos a lot? Many bird photographers do.
3) What lenses do you plan to use with the camera? Do you already own lenses or plan to buy new?
4) What is the largest print size you produce?

If you are starting out new in bird photography you might also want to consider Nikon a viable option. The Nikon 600 mm f6.3 PF and 800 mm f6.3 PF lenses are excellent though do get pricey. The Nikon Z8 is popular among bird photographer that use Nikon products.

Good luck with your decision(s)!

 

[AlanF]

It's a choice between the R1 and the R5ii for the very, very best. I am a passionate birder, both for perched birds and in flight. I've gone for the R5ii because the smaller form and the higher Mpx are what I want. Others will argue for the R1. If I was shooting penguins at -40, I would take the R1. But for the rest of the time, it would be the R5ii. (I also use an R7 + RF 100-400 for lightness and am very happy with it, but if money is no object, the R5ii is a class act).

 

[AlanF]

As previously mentioned, the first question I would ask is what is your budget?

Other points to consider:

1) Would you consider a APS-C size sensor rather than FF sensor?
2) Do you like to crop your photos a lot? Many bird photographers do.
3) What lenses do you plan to use with the camera? Do you already own lenses or plan to buy new?
4) What is the largest print size you produce?

If you are starting out new in bird photography you might also want to consider Nikon a viable option. The Nikon 600 mm f6.3 PF and 800 mm f6.3 PF lenses are excellent though do get pricey. The Nikon Z8 is popular among bird photographer that use Nikon products.

Good luck with your decision(s)!

The Canon AF of the R5 is superior to Nikon's for locating the eyes of birds, and the R5ii is even better, plus even better tracking and very nice pre-capture. If you want to use primes that are lighter and cheaper than big whites, then that is Nikon's only real advantage. I prefer zooms, and the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm fulfil my needs nicely. I used to shoot with a Nikon D850 and PF 500/5.6, and found them superb, but then found the RF 100-500mm on the R5 nearly if not as equally as sharp and much more versatile.

 

[tareqphoto]

The best camera is personal preference. There are people who prefer the 45 megapixel r5 or r5 MKII because they can crop if the subject is too far away. These cameras have excellent AF. The R6, the R6 Mark II and of course the R3 and the R1 also have excellent AF.

The R1 and R5 Mark II have the pre-capture function that works better than in the R3 (and I believe also the R6 Mark II)

So, budget then plays a role. What are you willing to spend?

Sounds the latest cameras are more voted here, and i wanted to go with latest one rather than going with old one but still a gold, because as human nature we like to change gear whenever we can, i held on my old DSLRs for over a decade without changing/upgrading, but that time i bought the ones which were top of the line or latest, so i was thinking to do the same now, sounds R5II is overall good choice although a bit pricey, but it is still less pricey than R1 and i think it is also less than R3.

I was thinking about something like R5II and R6III if this one will be out, or R7II, R1 is like too much, and R3 is outdated, it is merely for sports more which is another question or situation i want to ask about, but i am thinking about having only two bodies that will serve me for sports and birding, anything else i am just using Sony [Landscape, portraits, still life, macro, cityscape,....etc.].

 

[tareqphoto]

As previously mentioned, the first question I would ask is what is your budget?

Other points to consider:

1) Would you consider a APS-C size sensor rather than FF sensor?
2) Do you like to crop your photos a lot? Many bird photographers do.
3) What lenses do you plan to use with the camera? Do you already own lenses or plan to buy new?
4) What is the largest print size you produce?

If you are starting out new in bird photography you might also want to consider Nikon a viable option. The Nikon 600 mm f6.3 PF and 800 mm f6.3 PF lenses are excellent though do get pricey. The Nikon Z8 is popular among bird photographer that use Nikon products.

Good luck with your decision(s)!

Thank you John for your answers.

1. Budget i don't know, not decided, it is open and limited at the same time, means i can go up to $4000-8000 but not up to $12k-20k, if i am very rush then $2000-3000 is what i can afford very soon, so i will take time and save to afford.
2. I don't mind APS-C as long it will deliver quality.
3. In sports i crop a lot, so i assume in birding i will crop even more, so cropping is a big option in my choice.
4. I do have old lenses that i can still use with adapter, but along the time and journey i might replace them one by one, and keep others that doesn't need to be changed, also depends on how often i will image.
5. No prints in my plan yet, mostly for birds it is maybe A4 maximum or A3 if i like, most galleries if i submit ask up to A3 too, magazines A4 or less according to press/media Corportation requesting my photos.

I am new to bird photography because i didn't do it since very long time, but i am an old photographer in sports and landscape and else, and for that i could use my skills for birding and learn new things, i am a Canon use, and added only one Sony mirrorless, that is decades ago, i started photography in 2006 i believe and kept buying until 2014 which i bought my last camera back then which is Sony A7R, then i stopped, now i want to be back, i want to go with Sony or Nikon fast cameras, but i already have Canon lenses, Sony is my resolution slow camera for landscapes and portraits or still photography, while i depends completely on Canon for action and moving subjects, so sports and birding i will stay with Canon or moving to Nikon if necessary and buy only 1-2 lenses, so i am still asking around about that.

 

[candyman]

Sounds the latest cameras are more voted here, and i wanted to go with latest one rather than going with old one but still a gold, because as human nature we like to change gear whenever we can, i held on my old DSLRs for over a decade without changing/upgrading, but that time i bought the ones which were top of the line or latest, so i was thinking to do the same now, sounds R5II is overall good choice although a bit pricey, but it is still less pricey than R1 and i think it is also less than R3.

I was thinking about something like R5II and R6III if this one will be out, or R7II, R1 is like too much, and R3 is outdated, it is merely for sports more which is another question or situation i want to ask about, but i am thinking about having only two bodies that will serve me for sports and birding, anything else i am just using Sony [Landscape, portraits, still life, macro, cityscape,....etc.].

The R3 and also the R6 & R6 Mark II are used for bird photography and wildlife photography. So, 24 megapixels is definitely an option. I had an R6. I used it for bird photography. I sold the camera because I wanted to make a good upgrade for the coming years. I can now buy the R5 Mark II or save up for the R1. The R6 Mark III is an option but I first want to see what is left out in that camera that is in the R5 Mark II or R1. Some features are decisive for me. In the meantime I use my R8 and it also works for bird photography and wildlife.

 

[tareqphoto]

It's a choice between the R1 and the R5ii for the very, very best. I am a passionate birder, both for perched birds and in flight. I've gone for the R5ii because the smaller form and the higher Mpx are what I want. Others will argue for the R1. If I was shooting penguins at -40, I would take the R1. But for the rest of the time, it would be the R5ii. (I also use an R7 + RF 100-400 for lightness and am very happy with it, but if money is no object, the R5ii is a class act).

Thank you Alan for the answer.

To be honest, i am very thinking about R5II as well, because it is latest now from Canon beside R1 and cheaper, to me i feel it has what i need without going very expensive but still pricey, it is kind of a camera that i can hold for really long time like i did with previous cameras for long time a decade or so, while R6II is old and R3 is old and R1/Z9/A9 all are so expensive i might not need that much to spend anyway, i might wait R6III or R7II as backups second camera after i decide on first one, but before i go with R5II i asked to see people opinions and suggestions first.

 

[tareqphoto]

The Canon AF of the R5 is superior to Nikon's for locating the eyes of birds, and the R5ii is even better, plus even better tracking and very nice pre-capture. If you want to use primes that are lighter and cheaper than big whites, then that is Nikon's only real advantage. I prefer zooms, and the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm fulfil my needs nicely. I used to shoot with a Nikon D850 and PF 500/5.6, and found them superb, but then found the RF 100-500mm on the R5 nearly if not as equally as sharp and much more versatile.

I am really deciding to stay with Canon or continue with Canon and not moving to another brand for action and fast cameras, and i was happy with Canon so far in the past, i didn't do bird photography yet except quick snapshots unprepared not perched birds, but i did sports for several years and few sports and i can understand about the moving subjects and speed, and for birds i also need patience, so i am sure any camera with enough AF can do that, but if i stay with Canon most likely i am saving with lenses, while if i move to Nikon then i need to re-buy collection of lenses necessary.

 

[tareqphoto]

The R3 and also the R6 & R6 Mark II are used for bird photography and wildlife photography. So, 24 megapixels is definitely an option. I had an R6. I used it for bird photography. I sold the camera because I wanted to make a good upgrade for the coming years. I can now buy the R5 Mark II or save up for the R1. The R6 Mark III is an option but I first want to see what is left out in that camera that is in the R5 Mark II or R1. Some features are decisive for me. In the meantime I use my R8 and it also works for bird photography and wildlife.

Selling and upgrade is exactly my problem, i like to upgrade but not often, if i buy R5II or R1 i won't upgrade within 3-4 years, while if i buy R3 or R6/II those will never last longer than 2 years, and if i buy say R5II and then another new camera coming later next year from Canon it will be most likely a long long lasting without upgrading, so i feel R5II and something like either R6III or R7II will be best combo for me for 5-8 years coming, while R7/R6/R3 are all old cameras that i will upgrade even next year if i bought them and i got another budget regardless their quality or performances.

 

[tareqphoto]

By the way, i am still an old user of DSLRs, i do have 1DX which was Canon flagship that time before mkii and mkiii to be out as upgrade, also i have 1DIII which was also sports and birds top of the line from Canon before 1D4 and X series to be out, i will sell them if possible so it can help me buying new cameras, but i won't wait long to sell them if i couldn't find good values, for me i can afford R6/R7, i can save little more to afford R5II next year within 2-3 months, but R1 it is still so expensive that i need to wait longer to save, but then what it can give me more over R5II or R6II beside body design and maybe AF performance.

 

[candyman]

Selling and upgrade is exactly my problem, i like to upgrade but not often, if i buy R5II or R1 i won't upgrade within 3-4 years, while if i buy R3 or R6/II those will never last longer than 2 years, and if i buy say R5II and then another new camera coming later next year from Canon it will be most likely a long long lasting without upgrading, so i feel R5II and something like either R6III or R7II will be best combo for me for 5-8 years coming, while R7/R6/R3 are all old cameras that i will upgrade even next year if i bought them and i got another budget regardless their quality or performances.

I mentioned the R3, the R6 & R6 Mark II in relation to 24 megapixels. Precisely to indicate that 24 megapixels are valid for bird photography and wildlife photography. But I totally understand what you mean. You want to make an investment for a product that will last longer in terms of features and performance. It makes sense to choose the latest product. The R5 Mark II will certainly give you a lot of fun. The R1 has a cross-type sensor and in combination with the expansion of the metering zones for autoexposure, I suspect that the camera will perform better with differences in contrasts (light/dark), especially if they are close together on the subject. Think of birds that sit on bushes/branches and move between places with sun and places with shade. Of course, this is a specific use case. But perhaps the difference with the R5 Mark II is not that bad and then the R5 Mark II is the logical choice.

 

[docsmith]

Agree with pretty much everything said here.

For the latest/greatest it would be between the R1 and R5II. We are still learning about the R1 but -40 (ha), continuous shooting/buffer, and likely low light/high ISO are where it prevails. R5II, more resolution and I consider size/weight to be pros as well.

Both are remarkable, IMO. If I were to only buy one, it would probably be the R5II for size/weight. But I have a friend who I suspect will be upgrading from R5/1Dx3 to R1 mostly for buffer/continuous shooting. It does get specific as to your needs.

Dropping down shockingly little, the R5 is a great camera. You lose 30 fps, control over fps in ES mode, precapture, and some readout speed. But I’ve shot the R5 since it came out. Remarkable camera. I shoot it almost exclusively in ECFS mode, I don’t often want more than 12 fps, and the AF is very very good.

The the R6 2. I haven’t shot it but see little reason why it would not be great. I haven’t shot the R3, but suspect it is even closer to the top tier than the R5, but all of those are getting pretty bunched up at the top.

Which is my segue to glass. What lenses do you have?

 

[Zach J]

Hi all,

Let me make it simple and clear straight forward question like to start over

What is the best Canon cameras for birding [and wildlife]?

I prefer it to be a brand new and mirrorless rather than DSLR which is a thing of the past now.

Thanks

I'm not a birder, but several friends of mine are pro birders. I use almost the same equipment for sports photography.

You will see a lot of what I respectfully refer to as "gear snobs" recommending the most expensive bodies Canon has to offer. They mean well, and those cameras are certainly awesome. Who wouldn't want an R1?

But, it's my understanding that an APS-C ("crop sensor") camera body is best for birding and wildlife in general strictly because of their reach. So you don't disturb the birds you're hoping to photograph, it's probably best to be as far away as possible while still producing tack-sharp prints.

For example, if you're using a 300mm full-frame lens on a full-frame camera, you're only going to have 300mm of focal length. But, if you put that same 300mm lens on an APS-C body, you're extending the reach of that lens by about 1.5x. So, instead of 300mm, with an APS-C body and the same lens, you can now reach 450mm without losing clarity.

That being said, from what I understand, the best APS-C camera from Canon is the EOS R7, which is expected to receive an upgrade to the EOS R7 Mkii in 2025. This camera's crop sensor, high shutter speeds, in-body Image Stabilizing and moisture-sealed body help make the R7 the perfect birder without breaking the bank. I currently shoot all my sports photography on an R7 primarily because of the crop sensor, and I love it.

I hope this helps.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For me, the most important factor is ergonomics and I personally have a strong preference for integrated-grip bodies. 'Long' ago, I had the 5DII and 7D (both with battery grips) and replaced them with the 1D X that remained my primary camera until the R3. I'm just starting to get the R1 going, still using the R3 in the meantime. I prefer the comfort of the larger body, especially since with my primary camera I'm often using heavy lenses (28-70/2, 24-105/2.8, 100-300/2.8 for example). I do have an R8 that I use for travel.

The reality is that any of the bodies mentioned above can be used very effectively for birding. I'd suggest a camera with pre-capture as that's likely to be one thing that makes a significant difference in results.

As @docsmith suggests, lens choice matters in terms of pairing. I do a lot of birding and for my needs, 24 MP is plenty but in large part that's because my primary lens is 840mm f/5.6 (EF 600/4 II + 1.4xIII). If I was using a shorter lens, I'd probably want more MP.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I knew it wouldn't be long before some chimed in with the magical focal length extension ability of smaller sensors.

 

[tareqphoto]

I mentioned the R3, the R6 & R6 Mark II in relation to 24 megapixels. Precisely to indicate that 24 megapixels are valid for bird photography and wildlife photography. But I totally understand what you mean. You want to make an investment for a product that will last longer in terms of features and performance. It makes sense to choose the latest product. The R5 Mark II will certainly give you a lot of fun. The R1 has a cross-type sensor and in combination with the expansion of the metering zones for autoexposure, I suspect that the camera will perform better with differences in contrasts (light/dark), especially if they are close together on the subject. Think of birds that sit on bushes/branches and move between places with sun and places with shade. Of course, this is a specific use case. But perhaps the difference with the R5 Mark II is not that bad and then the R5 Mark II is the logical choice.

Yes, R5 MarkII is a camera to hold on now if someone can afford it, I mean it is somewhere between high end pro camera and med level, I won't say entry level, and the size is nice, but I get used to Canon 1 series already, I will save for it, and while I am waiting and saving we might see new cameras out.

 

[tareqphoto]

Agree with pretty much everything said here.

For the latest/greatest it would be between the R1 and R5II. We are still learning about the R1 but -40 (ha), continuous shooting/buffer, and likely low light/high ISO are where it prevails. R5II, more resolution and I consider size/weight to be pros as well.

Both are remarkable, IMO. If I were to only buy one, it would probably be the R5II for size/weight. But I have a friend who I suspect will be upgrading from R5/1Dx3 to R1 mostly for buffer/continuous shooting. It does get specific as to your needs.

Dropping down shockingly little, the R5 is a great camera. You lose 30 fps, control over fps in ES mode, precapture, and some readout speed. But I’ve shot the R5 since it came out. Remarkable camera. I shoot it almost exclusively in ECFS mode, I don’t often want more than 12 fps, and the AF is very very good.

The the R6 2. I haven’t shot it but see little reason why it would not be great. I haven’t shot the R3, but suspect it is even closer to the top tier than the R5, but all of those are getting pretty bunched up at the top.

Which is my segue to glass. What lenses do you have?

Nice to read from you, logic and valid points.

I still have 1DX and it was my real horse in sports and I didn't upgrade that time and stopped photography, so now if I am getting into Canon mirrorless I will choose something that continue what I did before, but this time I want to add birds photography next to sports.

As lenses it is a long list, but for sports I mainly use EF 300mm f2.8L IS mk1 and 70-200mm f2.8L IS mkii, I had 24-70mm mk1 before but it is gone, I will hold on that 300 and 70-200 a bit longer, will use an adapter to mount on RF, I will sell 100-400mm mk1 later when possible, so I am thinking about a new lens RF mount but not prime long FL because so expensive, and I have another hobby expensive too I fund.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As lenses it is a long list, but for sports I mainly use EF 300mm f2.8L IS mk1 and 70-200mm f2.8L IS mkii, I had 24-70mm mk1 before but it is gone, I will hold on that 300 and 70-200 a bit longer, will use an adapter to mount on RF, I will sell 100-400mm mk1 later when possible, so I am thinking about a new lens RF mount but not prime long FL because so expensive, and I have another hobby expensive too I fund.

If you’re planning to shoot birds with a 300mm lens, you’ll probably want an extender and perhaps more MP, i.e., the 5-series.

You can certainly use your 300/2.8, it pairs well with the 2x TC and is (relatively) small and light. Many years ago, I ran into Lillian Stokes (birding field guide author) on a New Hampshire mountain top shooting kettling hawks, and she told me her primary birding set up was a 1-series body (it was a 1DIV at that point) and the 300/2.8 with a 2x extender.