Canon 1DX iii or Canon R5 for wildlife photography?

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,689
556
Davidson, NC
I don't know how I have ever managed to take a photo of a bird without eye-AF. I had better delete the lot and start all over again.
I'm curious about the appeal of pictures of birds where the eye(s) is/are in focus, but the rest of the bird is not. I bet that will be hard to do with the new f/11 lenses. I hope someone starts a new thread to post those pictures. I'm interested in the appeal. Maybe it works for birds better than on people.
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,086
6,462
I'm curious about the appeal of pictures of birds where the eye(s) is/are in focus, but the rest of the bird is not. I bet that will be hard to do with the new f/11 lenses. I hope someone starts a new thread to post those pictures. I'm interested in the appeal. Maybe it works for birds better than on people.
It's one of the tropes that if the eye is in focus then the image is OK. But, you need a lot more than that, a pose that has the beak in sharp focus and sufficient of the rest of the bird. If the eye isn't in focus, it usually detracts from the image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,193
613
Eastern Shore
This award winning picture, soon to be displayed in the British Museum of Natural History exhibit has the main focus point on the krill and not the eye. Taken with the 7DMII and EF 100-400 II.
CatherineView attachment 191422
So, did the photographer focus on the krill on purpose or was it pure luck? I’m guessing the latter. Maybe the photographer can chime in. Great shot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz and stevelee

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,086
6,462
This award winning picture, soon to be displayed in the British Museum of Natural History exhibit has the main focus point on the krill and not the eye. Taken with the 7DMII and EF 100-400 II.
CatherineView attachment 191422
Was that one of your European shots? Very, very nice indeed with krill. Here's a Farne one focussed on the eyes of the more usual sandeels (5DIV + 400mm DO II). Do you think eye AF would have picked them up? Wish I had your blue sky in the background.
2B4A9310-DxO_puffin+sandeels_flying_face_on_ss.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,086
6,462
So, did the photographer focus on the krill on purpose or was it pure luck? I’m guessing the latter. Maybe the photographer can chime in. Great shot!
The key point is that if the camera had focussed on the eye, the krill would have been out of focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,193
613
Eastern Shore
Like a DO f/11:). These puffins move so damn fast it's all you can do to keep up with them.
Exactly! I’m struggling just to keep passing shots, like these fast puffins, in the frame, let alone pick the exact focus point. A camera that could choose the eye to focus on would sure help me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

digigal

Traveling the world one step at a time.
CR Pro
Aug 26, 2014
210
381
So, did the photographer focus on the krill on purpose or was it pure luck? I’m guessing the latter. Maybe the photographer can chime in. Great shot!
I have a series of shots of the bird as it flew by and with all of them sharp in the sequence (that's essentially a full frame shot--just a sliver cropped off the top), I generally try to focus on a part of the bird that is in the same plane as the eye but in this frame the bird's head was slightly behind and the servo focus caught the beak and krill.
Catherine
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and stevelee

digigal

Traveling the world one step at a time.
CR Pro
Aug 26, 2014
210
381
Picture was taken at dusk at ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/500
 

digigal

Traveling the world one step at a time.
CR Pro
Aug 26, 2014
210
381
And Canon aren’t updating the 7D Series :rolleyes:
Lovely picture, as is Alans but the evening glow in yours is special.
I love Puffins !
Thanks so much but it's very noisy because I was really fighting the ISO vs speed because I'm am an ancient LOL and the 7D + 100-400 is the heaviest thing I can carry and still get where I'm going so I shoot all handheld. If I had to carry a tripod and heavier lens I'd never be able to schlep all the stuff to the birds/animals to photograph them. I'm just hoping that with the extra megapixels, the extender, and the better ISO I'll be able to eke out a little bit better pictures with the R5. I think I've about milked the 7DMkII as much as I can. I've been using the R for some birding and like it for larger bird scenes. I just had another one of my bird pictures come out in the Audubon Top 100 this week and so did a guy that posts here who shot his with an R (gorgeous tropic bird in flight) He's much more successful than I am with the R, but I think that it can be quite good for the first couple of shots. It's just the tracking that's difficult with the EVF. I do like it and if the R5 improves that (which all indications are that it does), it should be great for me.
Catherine
 

Click

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 29, 2012
13,335
1,603
Canada
This award winning picture, soon to be displayed in the British Museum of Natural History exhibit has the main focus point on the krill and not the eye. Taken with the 7DMII and EF 100-400 II.
Catherine

Beautiful shot. Well done, Catherine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
969
395
For those that have owned/used the 1D line, how much truth is there to the extra volts of the 1D line in providing a faster AF?

Also, I look at the shutter lag and the R5 is a nice 50 mS, but the 1DX is 28-50 mS.

The R5 is coming in better than I expected. There are some obvious advantages (Animal Eye AF, MPs, etc). But I am wondering if the 1D line still holds distinct advantages. I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on what those may be in addition to what I've listed.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,626
1,996
Alberta, Canada
For those that have owned/used the 1D line, how much truth is there to the extra volts of the 1D line in providing a faster AF?

Also, I look at the shutter lag and the R5 is a nice 50 mS, but the 1DX is 28-50 mS.

The R5 is coming in better than I expected. There are some obvious advantages (Animal Eye AF, MPs, etc). But I am wondering if the 1D line still holds distinct advantages. I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on what those may be in addition to what I've listed.
I can only say from my experience moving from the 6D to 1D4 and then 1DX2 that there was better AF drive with the extenders but I have no idea what the R5 will be capable of. I'm waiting just like you to hear.

Jack
 

bernie_king

EOS M50
Jun 30, 2014
34
27
I am a 1DX II wildlife shooter and have ordered an R5. Luckily, I don't have to sell my 1DX II to fund the R5 so I will do a comparison to see which does the job better. I ordered it because I rarely can get by without cropping my images (even with a 600f4 with extenders) and the extra resolution would be absolutely make a huge difference. Now, the question is if it will track fast moving animals and birds and drive the 600 properly. I don't know. I'm sure it'll do a great job on static objects and will handle as much inclement weather as I am willing to withstand so no worries there. I'm looking forward to testing them both together. If the R5 does a better job, I'll likely sell the 1DX II and pick up either a 2nd R5 or an R6 for low light. As exciting as an R1 sounds it's not likely to be a high resolution monster and I think you need at least one of those for wildlife so long as it can keep up with the animals.

Keep in mind that the 1 series, while coveted by wildlife shooters, is really designed for professional sports photographers. That's a whole different level of speed and work.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,626
1,996
Alberta, Canada
I am a 1DX II wildlife shooter and have ordered an R5. Luckily, I don't have to sell my 1DX II to fund the R5 so I will do a comparison to see which does the job better. I ordered it because I rarely can get by without cropping my images (even with a 600f4 with extenders) and the extra resolution would be absolutely make a huge difference. Now, the question is if it will track fast moving animals and birds and drive the 600 properly. I don't know. I'm sure it'll do a great job on static objects and will handle as much inclement weather as I am willing to withstand so no worries there. I'm looking forward to testing them both together. If the R5 does a better job, I'll likely sell the 1DX II and pick up either a 2nd R5 or an R6 for low light. As exciting as an R1 sounds it's not likely to be a high resolution monster and I think you need at least one of those for wildlife so long as it can keep up with the animals.

Keep in mind that the 1 series, while coveted by wildlife shooters, is really designed for professional sports photographers. That's a whole different level of speed and work.
Please keep your promise in a timely fashion. ;)

Jack
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
618
439
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
I've loved me a few 1D bodies over the years. They were brutes that excelled above the others through the heyday of the 5d3. Critically back then, they also had similar resolution as those bodies they lorded over.

About the time the 5d4 came around, things weren't so clear. It depended on what you shot. Sports photographers and PJs naturally stayed with the 1D series. Resolution above 20mp is somewhat of a nuisance for them it seems. Wildlife people did all sorts of things, again, depending on what they shot. Reach limited guys sometimes used the 5DsR of all things. Some used the 5D4 (I moved to that for the 1.5x resolution and improved sensor). Some went to the A9 (I did that too, eventually, to complement an A7r4 that was dripped with vinegar from 60 megapickles).

So here we all meet up again smoking cigars in the nursery ward of the Canon R5, asking ourselves which would be better: the 1DX3 or the R5; a question that dates us all to the times when people took pictures and didn't care about video and heat whatever the heck vlogging is or was. It appears from what you read on the web that it's only we who care to answer this.

While we can't know for sure, we can surely see that there's very little the R5 can't do that the 1DX3 does, and there's quite a lot it does the 1DX3 can't. Canon being Canon, I wouldn't be surprised if a 1 series in the R format might not do a lot more than give a different form factor. Add some girth to seem girthy, like the outwardly bowed panels on a Ram truck, hiding the small production bits dwelling inside. Slap on the ethernet and other connecting parts that <1/100th of 1 percent of the buyers will ever use. Come to think of it, that could be a good description of the A9II's "upgrade."

To the original person who asked the question, I find myself coming down this way: The 1 series isn't the future. Don't sweat the status implied by slumming with a 5 series, when it beats the pants off the 1 series, at least for now. But do cancel your pre-order for the R5 because I got to watching the vapid Canon video when they were releasing it, and I only pre-ordered 10 minutes in, so there are a bunch of jerks like you in line ahead of me.