what body would you pic

[athena]

i would like feedback on what people here would do. which body would they pick. for bird shots. mostly flight. but not all.

i am not interested in any video aspects that the bodies may or may not offer. lets pretend all the cameras are free. i dont want opinion based on price. i want to know what you would choose and why. the why is super important to me. or even other suggestion perhaps.

these are the options.
5D Mark III
5DS R
7D Mark II
5DS DSLR
1D X DSLR

thank you.

 

[TeT]

7D II.

crop for the reach superior AF & #of programmable points. I am not much of a bird shooter so may be missing something.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If price is no object, 1DX is the answer.
However, for small birds you will need long, heavy lenses as 500mm for example.

If you do not like the idea of dragging a monstrous lens, so 7D Mark II allows you similar result with a 300mm lens. Obviously 7D Mark II will not have images as clean as 1DX at high ISO.

 

[bholliman]

1Dx if cost doesn't matter. Excellent AF and frames per second.

 

[Click]

I agree with ajfotofilmagem and bholliman. I use a 1DX with a 500 f4L or a 600 f4L for birds.

 

[dak723]

7D II. Crop for the reach and the ability to use smaller lenses.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Money, size and weight no object? Then I'd say 1Dx w/600 L or preferably the new 600 DO L and someone to carry it for you! Of course, you could go with 7DII w/400L and a nice used car for the same investment. Some are trying the 5Ds(R) with shorter lenses (i.e. 300-400 mm) and cropping deeper into the image. Not enough data yet to tell if that is any better than just using 7DII. Of course, having the 5Ds(R) has advantages for other uses beside BIF if huge prints are needed. I'm not helping am I.

 

[privatebydesign]

1Dx if cost doesn't matter. Excellent AF and frames per second.

Ditto, there is a very good reason most Canon shooting wildlife pros use the 1DX, often now augmented with a 5DS/R, but the moneymaker is the 1DX and it's AF and frame rate.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd certainly go with a 1DX. The 7D MK II is a nice camera, but its no 1 series.

 

[Hillsilly]

If cost doesn't matter, then I'd probably have all the lenses I'd want, too. Therefore the 1Dx.

But with my current lenses, I might get better results from the "extra reach" of the 7D2 or the greater cropping potential of the 5DS R. Both cameras would also allow me to get by with smaller lenses, which might be a benefit in some situations - especially when hiking longer distances.

 

[expatinasia]

1D X because it is the best camera that Canon produces.

The only other option in my eyes may the be 5DSR but I really do prefer the 1D X body. In fact if they ever produce a 1DXSR or whatever, then I would most likely buy that to complement my 1D X.

The 1D X is very well balanced with all lenses, but especially so with big whites. It has excellent ergonomics, settings, output and fps. It really is an incredible camera.

 

[timmy_650]

I might say 7D II, I would say the 1dx is the better choice but it is hard to say buy it when it is old Bc there is a fair chance that the 5D or 1D are being replaced and I am guessing, that is the camera i would choose (I Hate saying that). The 7D II will probably hold its resell value better too for the next few years. I know you said not to think about money but I always do.
Another big factor is weight 1d vs 7d, there is a larger weight difference. If you are just shooting from a car or a blind weight doesn't matter much but if you are hiking around those extra few pounds make a difference. I am also thinking about the weight of the lens, the 1d will need a heavier lens shot. (that can be debated)

 

[Ozarker]

1D X because it is the best camera that Canon produces.

The only other option in my eyes may the be 5DSR but I really do prefer the 1D X body. In fact if they ever produce a 1DXSR or whatever, then I would most likely buy that to complement my 1D X.

The 1D X is very well balanced with all lenses, but especially so with big whites. It has excellent ergonomics, settings, output and fps. It really is an incredible camera.

I agree re the 1Dx.

 

[tomscott]

The 1 series battery is an advantage too also so is the exposure compensation mode in M. 14fps is also amazing.

But for me the smaller cameras are an advantage. I like the form factor of the 5D & 7D, with these cheaper lenses now available which are still great performers you can get a 150-600mm which is about the same size and weight as a 70-200mm F2.8. The IQ is obviously not as good as the big whites and its a stop or two slower but means you can carry that weight without killing yourself. Getting to these places is usually the issue and looking after yourself is something people often overlook.

Most wildlife photographers once they get into their 40s and 50s have back issues to the point where it stops them shooting as they usually would. Arthur Morris is a good example of this.

Add other essentials out in the field like water tripod etc your pack gets pretty heavy.

 

[athena]

i really thank everyone for their comments. I appreciate it very much. would like to ask a follow up question.

so we have two front runners. 7d and 1d. both are older. and revamps should happen relatively soon. somewhat soon.

My current theory is this, I have a 100-400 right now which makes ideal sense to place on a 7d. and then just sit and wait to see what's happens in the next two years?

unless someone thinks 100-400 in the 1d somehow makes sense. I thinks it the better body out of the two for sure. but then I have to get a larger lens to carry around. hmmmmm

 

[old-pr-pix]

Yep, top choices are 7DII and 1DX. Unlikely 7DII will see refresh anytime soon, but 1DXII is due and will likely see a MP bump. You didn't indicate whether the 100-400 you had was Mark I or II. Put a 100-400L II on a 7DII and you should be good for more than a couple years. Then you can buy the 1DXII as soon as it's released, add a 1.4 extender to the 100-400L II and you're good to go for several more years. Obviously not the best for real low light, but it avoids investing in lenses that cost 5 digits rather than four.

 

[ksgal]

^^^ this.

There are those that have both 7DII and 1Dx out there and while they all say the 1DX AF is better, the trade off is only loosing a few frames in focus for an advantage plus way more pixels on the target with a much cheaper (big white) lens on the 7DII. Everyone I've seen post about the 7DII and the new 100-400L 2 love the combo, and I would think that is the way to go, and wait for the 1DxII to come out, and save for that and have the 7DII as back up.

the 5Ds is also getting praise, but the investment in not only larger lenses but also more computer power is significant, and I think it depends on your bird shooting style. JMHO.. splitting not much more than hairs differences, all you listed can be successful birding cameras.

 

[FTb-n]

First choice, 1Dx with the 100-400 mark II. This is a great combo and I'm impressed with both focus tracking and focus locking speed on the first shot -- not mention the sharp detail.

Typically, FF is sharper than crop. With the 70-200 f2.8L II, I've had better results cropping a 5D3 image than using the entire frame of the original 7D -- especially with ISO above 1600. However, I recently did a comparison with the 100-400 II on the 1Dx vs. the 7D in daylight (ISO below 800). Cropping the 1Dx image to match the 7D image resulted in two very comparable photos. It appears that the 100-400 II is very good at resolving to the small pixel size of the crop bodies. I don't shoot birds in flight, but when light is plentiful, I would expect the 7D2/100-400 II combo to be an excellent option for birds.

 

[expatinasia]

i really thank everyone for their comments. I appreciate it very much. would like to ask a follow up question.

so we have two front runners. 7d and 1d. both are older. and revamps should happen relatively soon. somewhat soon.

My current theory is this, I have a 100-400 right now which makes ideal sense to place on a 7d. and then just sit and wait to see what's happens in the next two years?

unless someone thinks 100-400 in the 1d somehow makes sense. I thinks it the better body out of the two for sure. but then I have to get a larger lens to carry around. hmmmmm

Seriously?! Why do I feel this thread is not serious!

You're wondering whether to get a 7D or a 1D X and money is no object!! lol

 

[veng]

If price is no object, the 100-400 is a silly choice as you should take the 200-400L over it easily, though the 600L ii could dethrone it easily. I think the 7dii wins out over the 1DX as you'll have more pixels on the target when the target doesn't fill the frame. I think it's really going to come down to portability though, as if money is truly no object, the obvious lens is the 1200L with a 1DX AND a 7Dii and you can switch between bodies as the need arises.