6D and BIF

[wsmith96]

I also agree that switching to a 7D MkII would be a great start. You may find the crop factor might keep your 70-200 relevant for what you are wanting to do. If not, then you can trade it out for the new 100-400.

Good luck!

 

[mnclayshooter]

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say anyone shoots birds at "night." I've shot some Night Herons "at night"...as in it was quite dark, late twilight, not post-sunset but "night":

Not in flight, though...that's pretty much a miserable failure at night regardless of the gear.

Birds are often quite active during crepuscular hours, where the light can be many orders of magnitude lower than during full daytime. Some of the most dramatic BIF shots I've seen come from these hours...so having a fast lens and good AF system that can handle it (if BIF is a primary goal...that's what we are talking about here, BIF as a primary form of photography, not something done occasionally) is very important.

In great light, just about any camera will do, and just about any f/5.6 lens will do as well. However, if you don't want to be fighting against the gear in non-ideal circumstances, I think you have to be realistic about what kind of equipment you need, vs. what kind of equipment you can get away with. I think you can get away with a 6D and 100-400mm, for sure. Even the 100-400mm Mk I. I cannot recommend that combination if you want to actually really DO bird in flight photography as a primary thing. If BIF is a primary form of photography for someone, I feel it is my responsibility to steer them away from the "get away with it" gear, and towards the "nail it every time" gear.

In all seriousness. No sarcasm here. (I guess I woke up on the right side of the bed...oh, right....I didn't wake up at all, guess that's one benefit of insomnia, no side of the bed to worry about, period! ???

Thanks Jrista. I hope you know I wasn't taking any intentional jabs at anyone in particular. Just that it seems that some cameras/lenses take what I think is an unfair blow on this site because they aren't the best of the best. Just sometimes frustrated with the notion/emotion on this site (and others) that if you don't have the very best of the best gear, you've wasted your money .

I agree, the 6D isn't for birding enthusiasts.

 

[meywd]

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say anyone shoots birds at "night." I've shot some Night Herons "at night"...as in it was quite dark, late twilight, not post-sunset but "night":

Not in flight, though...that's pretty much a miserable failure at night regardless of the gear.

Birds are often quite active during crepuscular hours, where the light can be many orders of magnitude lower than during full daytime. Some of the most dramatic BIF shots I've seen come from these hours...so having a fast lens and good AF system that can handle it (if BIF is a primary goal...that's what we are talking about here, BIF as a primary form of photography, not something done occasionally) is very important.

In great light, just about any camera will do, and just about any f/5.6 lens will do as well. However, if you don't want to be fighting against the gear in non-ideal circumstances, I think you have to be realistic about what kind of equipment you need, vs. what kind of equipment you can get away with. I think you can get away with a 6D and 100-400mm, for sure. Even the 100-400mm Mk I. I cannot recommend that combination if you want to actually really DO bird in flight photography as a primary thing. If BIF is a primary form of photography for someone, I feel it is my responsibility to steer them away from the "get away with it" gear, and towards the "nail it every time" gear.

In all seriousness. No sarcasm here. (I guess I woke up on the right side of the bed...oh, right....I didn't wake up at all, guess that's one benefit of insomnia, no side of the bed to worry about, period! ???

Great shot Jon, yeah i agree, a 600D can shot birds, and the 6D is not worse than the 600D, but tracking birds is really hard, and as with everything in life, if you have better skill you will not need the best gear to achieve your targets, but again the gear helps, or pros wont need the 1D X, or astros the 6D, btw if you need C# devs please do tell

 

[ftico]

Hi, my two cents:

- the large aperture definitely have a bonus for BIF (as it was said, they allow you to keep lower ISO, and thus have better IQ), but also make the focus more problematic. If the bird is fast moving, it is HARD to lock and maintain perfect focus on the eye or the body... if on top of that you have to crop (and you typically do), that will highlight the possible focus problems. Some pros suggest to use f7.1-8 when possible (That is definitely the case in full daylight).

- The ideal IQ of the camera lens combo is not the IQ you will get -- Again, AF matters most.

- AF speed and accuracy of the camera is part of the deal; AF speed of the lens is another; Good technique is paramount - especially compensating for the background light.

I started with a 70-300 and a T2i; I moved to a 400 5.6L and the T2i; now I use the 400 f5.6L and a 70D. The lens change was the most relevant to the increasing my success rate: the AF speed and accuracy was on another planet. The second most relevant thing was properly deciding the appropriate AF area vs. center point and the tuning of AI servo (in the 70D).

I almost always use f5.6, but sometimes I wish I used f8, especially for large birds or small birds that are very close. A slight movement of the bird or AF inaccuracy will more likely keep the target in decent focus.

Regarding my lens: optical quality and AF speed are great, especially with the limited 8.5m-infinity setting. It is NOT easy to learn to frame a fast bird on a 400mm on a crop! The stabilization would be useless for the typical 1/1000 minimal speed required, so I do not miss it that much, but it would be of some help in maintaining the bird in a good area of the frame (tried the 100-400 of a friend). I would definitely recommend either one for BIF.

Regarding the camera: I find that for BIF, Av, preselecting a good iso, center-weighed metering, exposure compensation +1, center zone AF gives me good results. Priority on focus and locking to the target.

Hope this helps!

(attached example -- AF correctly selected the closest bird; heavily cropped)

 

[jrista]

Hi, my two cents:

- the large aperture definitely have a bonus for BIF (as it was said, they allow you to keep lower ISO, and thus have better IQ), but also make the focus more problematic. If the bird is fast moving, it is HARD to lock and maintain perfect focus on the eye or the body... if on top of that you have to crop (and you typically do), that will highlight the possible focus problems. Some pros suggest to use f7.1-8 when possible (That is definitely the case in full daylight).

There is maximum aperture as used at AF time, and there is selected aperture as used at exposure time. These are not always the same. You want a fast lens for AF purposes when doing BIF...however, that does not mean you have to always SELECT the max aperture. You can stop down as necessary to get the kind of DOF and sharpness you want.


That does not negate the value of using a fast lens for BIF, though...AF is ALWAYS performed at maximum aperture. AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.) So, an f/2.8 lens is NOT a detractor when it comes to AF, and f/5.6 is NOT a benefit when it comes to AF. It is exactly the other way around.

 

[Marsu42]

AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.)

... speed: Are you sure this is valid with all lens/body combinations? I faintly remember reading that with some af variants, a slower lens results in at least on par af speed because the camera doesn't bother with reading only the f2.8 af lines in the first place. I don't want to built urban legends here (though it is a rumor site ), and I can be absolutely wrong remembering this.

... accuracy: I imagine this is valid for lower light situations, i.e. a faster lens results in more light to work with for the af system. But in bright daylight, why would a non-cross f5.6 line of my 6d be more accurate with my 100L (af @f2.8, shot @f4) than my 70-300L (shot & af @f4)?

 

[meywd]

AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.)

... speed: Are you sure this is valid with all lens/body combinations? I faintly remember reading that with some af variants, a slower lens results in at least on par af speed because the camera doesn't bother with reading only the f2.8 af lines in the first place. I don't want to built urban legends here (though it is a rumor site ), and I can be absolutely wrong remembering this.

... accuracy: I imagine this is valid for lower light situations, i.e. a faster lens results in more light to work with for the af system. But in bright daylight, why would a non-cross f5.6 line of my 6d be more accurate with my 100L (af @f2.8, shot @f4) than my 70-300L (shot & af @f4)?

wouldn't AF tracking be more accurate and faster @ f/2.8 simply because there are more active AF points, although i am not sure if that's what Jon meant.

 

[Marsu42]

wouldn't AF tracking be more accurate and faster @ f/2.8 simply because there are more active AF points, although i am not sure if that's what Jon meant.

I'm sure what he wrote is correct for a lot of camera/lens combination, I just wonder if it can be generalized for all of them. For example my 6d has only one (non-cross, thanks, Canon) f2.8 af point, the rest is f5.6 - so no can do select more af points

 

[jrista]

AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.)

... speed: Are you sure this is valid with all lens/body combinations? I faintly remember reading that with some af variants, a slower lens results in at least on par af speed because the camera doesn't bother with reading only the f2.8 af lines in the first place. I don't want to built urban legends here (though it is a rumor site ), and I can be absolutely wrong remembering this.

The center point on the 7D II is an f/2.8 sensitive dual cross type. Even though all the points are f/5.6 cross type, you only get the high precision benefit of that center point if your using an f/2.8 or faster lens.

... accuracy: I imagine this is valid for lower light situations, i.e. a faster lens results in more light to work with for the af system. But in bright daylight, why would a non-cross f5.6 line of my 6d be more accurate with my 100L (af @f2.8, shot @f4) than my 70-300L (shot & af @f4)?

It should be faster. The firmware should know when you are using an f/2.8 lens, and it should give you the optimal performance for that faster aperture. My 100mm f/2.8 focuses faster than my 600 f/4 L II on the 5D III.

 

[ftico]

There is maximum aperture as used at AF time, and there is selected aperture as used at exposure time. These are not always the same. You want a fast lens for AF purposes when doing BIF...however, that does not mean you have to always SELECT the max aperture. You can stop down as necessary to get the kind of DOF and sharpness you want.


That does not negate the value of using a fast lens for BIF, though...AF is ALWAYS performed at maximum aperture. AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.) So, an f/2.8 lens is NOT a detractor when it comes to AF, and f/5.6 is NOT a benefit when it comes to AF. It is exactly the other way around.

Thanks for the remark... I totally agree. I guess care should have been more careful about discussing maximum aperture and aperture used for the exposure (relevant I guess for your second point regarding IQ).

Yet, for the sake of discussion, I would like to add a couple of extra thoughts:

- for narrower maximum aperture lenses, the focal lenght/weight ratio is going to be higher, making it easier to handhold (well, at least for long period of times). And, at least for me, a BIF lens is typically handheld;

- same, of course, goes for the focal lenght/cost ratio: you may be able to get both a longer lens and a better AF system camera with your budget. You would lose the extra reported advantage on the 2.8 cross points (I have never tried a 2.8 supertele, but I trust the pros), but get a more balanced combo.

- with the exclusion of the 400 2.8 (which I would not call handholdable), I do not think any 2.8 lens is long enough for typical BIF, even on a crop (unless you shoot herons, or have a great spot with a suitable blind, etc).
So maybe the potential 2.8 advantage would be diminished by forcing use to use teleconverters;

- of course, other conditions being the same, a brighter lens will allow you to shoot earlier in the morning and later in the evening... and usually those are really good times.

So if you can afford it and hold it, definitely go for the fastest tele you can have (possibly at least 400mm)!!!

 

[chrysoberyl]

This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again! The 7D II is the next body for me. The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.

Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.

 

[Marsu42]

This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again! The 7D II is the next body for me. The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.

Reasonable decision, I hope it works out - but this excellent gear surely will be a lot of fun to shoot with.

Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.

I wouldn't say this is "bif", even though there are flying birds in it. You don't need any tracking at all for this and can simply focus, recompose and snap away with high speed drive. For *this* a 6d does indeed work ok.

 

[jrista]

This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again! The 7D II is the next body for me. The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.

Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.

I think the 7D II + 70-200/2.8 II is a good choice. I think you should add the 1.4x and 2x TC III as well if you do not already have them...you will want 400mm reach at times, and that is still f/5.6, which is decent (not to mention 280mm f/4, which is going to be excellent.)

 

[jthomson]

Thanks to all! Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF. Clearly my next step is a 7D II. After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever). And practice. Thanks again.

BIF is not easy. Not by a long shot. I've been doing bird photography for a few years now, and BIF is definitely my weak spot. I've kind of stopped practicing, as I just don't have the lenses for it. A FAST lens is a big plus, so I really think the 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be a good lens to have, with or without a 1.4x TC. If you have the money, the 300 f/2.8 is great. I am not sure about the 500/4 on a 7D II (that's an effective ~810mm focal length...that's really long, makes for a pretty narrow FoV...I have a hard enough time with BIF at 600mm on the FF, let alone 800mm+). I think a 500/4 on a FF would be ok...it still seems a little long to me, especially if you do not already have good BIF skills (if you had good BIF skills, I think it would be excellent, you'll get a lot more detail...but learning on it would be tough, just keeping the bird in the frame would be tough with a 7D II.)

The 70-200 f2.8 is a lousy lens for BIF. It is way too short. Same with the bare 300mm f2.8. The 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x will work but it is starting to get heavy.
The premiere lens for learning BIF is the 400 mm f5.6L. It is has the needed reach, especially on a crop camera, is fast focusing and is light weight. Once you have practiced you can move up to the heavier 500mm f4L or the 600mm f4L that you see the serious bird photographers shooting handheld.
Funny thing, I've never heard a bird photographer claim that a lens was too long, too heavy or to long a MFD, yes, but otherwise the longer the better.

 

[lux]

I have used 6D with 300 2.8 on monopod for BIF and done "ok" though it felt like my lack of practice was a larger factor than the gear. That being said I am upgrading my back up camera from 2ti to a 70D (will give me some more reach, better AF and much better video than what I have now) I will be interested to see what I'll be able to do with the 70D 2xiii and 300 2.8. The eagles haven't landed here yet but they are coming.

 

[jrista]

Thanks to all! Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF. Clearly my next step is a 7D II. After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever). And practice. Thanks again.

BIF is not easy. Not by a long shot. I've been doing bird photography for a few years now, and BIF is definitely my weak spot. I've kind of stopped practicing, as I just don't have the lenses for it. A FAST lens is a big plus, so I really think the 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be a good lens to have, with or without a 1.4x TC. If you have the money, the 300 f/2.8 is great. I am not sure about the 500/4 on a 7D II (that's an effective ~810mm focal length...that's really long, makes for a pretty narrow FoV...I have a hard enough time with BIF at 600mm on the FF, let alone 800mm+). I think a 500/4 on a FF would be ok...it still seems a little long to me, especially if you do not already have good BIF skills (if you had good BIF skills, I think it would be excellent, you'll get a lot more detail...but learning on it would be tough, just keeping the bird in the frame would be tough with a 7D II.)

The 70-200 f2.8 is a lousy lens for BIF. It is way too short. Same with the bare 300mm f2.8. The 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x will work but it is starting to get heavy.
The premiere lens for learning BIF is the 400 mm f5.6L. It is has the needed reach, especially on a crop camera, is fast focusing and is light weight. Once you have practiced you can move up to the heavier 500mm f4L or the 600mm f4L that you see the serious bird photographers shooting handheld.
Funny thing, I've never heard a bird photographer claim that a lens was too long, too heavy or to long a MFD, yes, but otherwise the longer the better.

The 70-200 f/2.8 can be used with the 1.4x and 2x TCs for longer reach (although the 2x might cost you some AF speed). As for the longer the better, for still birds, I agree. For birds in flight, I think 400mm is probably about as long as you want to go as a novice, unless you have some serious tracking skill, and the ability to hand-hold a large, heavy lens for a long time. Most of the pros that I know of use the 200-400 L lens these days for BIF, as it's an ideal combination of weight, speed, and focal length. I don't know many who use the 600...you can really magnify the bird, but keeping it in frame can be tough. At greater distances where the bird is small enough to keep in the frame with such a narrow FoV, you very frequently pick up atmospheric effects...pros often recommend AGAINST the 600 for BIF for that reason.

 

[jeffa4444]

If you can afford a second body then buy the Canon 7d MKII but I would retain the Canon 6d. I take alot of Landscape photographs and the 6d is perfect lighter than the 5d MKIII (while being almost as well built) and better iQ than my 7d. I also find the GPS and wi-fi very useful in the Canon line-up I think the 6d is the best landscape camera.

 

[Sabaki]

Birds in flight is one of my favourite genres, even though I can't say I'm great at it.

I have seen some SUPERB BIF images and for handheld, the 300 f/2.8 mkii, 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 are the lenses usually partnered with a 7D classic, 70D or the 7Dii now.

Yes, birders with the 200-400 or big whites do shoot handheld but I find that they "beanbag" or use a tripod more.

Birds in flight has a few criteria for me: sharpness, frame fill and intimacy.

Sharpness is self explanatory but intimacy with your subject is important as if you don't fill a sufficient portion of your frame with the bird, it lacks that WOWS factor.

7Dii and a 400 f/5.6 or better still, 300mm f/2.8 with x2 TC would be my recommendations. Start with bigger birds, learn to track and then move onto slower ones