Images and Specifications for the Canon EOS 2000D/EOS Rebel T7

[tron]

hopefully this time my point will sink in.

You got twice as close to the subject, congratulations on giving a completely irrelevant example. (Just like the bird shot with the 100f2.8 Macro.)

I’ll upload a RAW file in a few days when I have access to them again.

the 7DII is a whole helluva lot more functional than the T7.)

The functionality of the T7 is infinitely better as long as the 7D2 is left sitting on a shelf because it’s too big.
The SL2 with the internals of the 7D2 (or as close as they can get) would be the ultimate wildlife camera.

7D2 is not too big! And yes SL2 is a nice little camera but it does not have AFMA unfortunately.
In case you are interested I have made some focusing suggestions above that may - or may not - help to mitigate the lack of AFMA (at least for static subjects).

I vaguely remember experimenting with using single shot and continuous autofocus during that shooting session, I think my conclusion was continuous does a bad job of getting things steadily in focus, at least on this camera, which may be one of the valid criticisms of the 9 point AF system on a cheap body. Single Shot AF is solid though.

My suggestion is AF mode (One shot or servo) and Shooting mode (Single or continuous) independent. I suggest that you do a kind of focus bracketing by focusing in points near the bird, some just a little closer and some just a little behind in addition (of course) to exactly on the bird. OK all these assuming that the bird is static of course. In the best case you will get more/better keepers. In the worst you will just delete the extra shots afterwards.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Lol, so more MP will make a blurry image sharp?

Yes.

Oh, ok then. Buy a T7. It will make your bird pictures much, much better.

Belief >> reality.

I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

(EDIT: Ok I looked again, I can see the leaves in the background are sharper than the owls, I must have chosen this phtot for the pose over sharpness.

Yes, well...that was obvious from the start, which is why I blamed poor focusing for the blurry shot. Do you think more MP would have fixed the focus problem? The pigeon is even more OOF, by the way.

...you guys are doing a really bad job of dismantling my argument.

The one who's done the best job of dismantling your argument is...you. Your initial point was that the T3 is good for birds and works for birds in flight, too...and you supported that argument with blurry, mis-focused images.

As for the T7 vs. 7DII argumant, while the T7 may be a much better choice for bird photography for some people, for reasons of size or cost, the 7DII is quite clearly the better camera for that use case. Period.

 

[yjchua95]

Using a downsampled 18MP image is nothing like using a 12MP sensor, you guys are doing a really bad job of dismantling my argument.

However, I do see now that it’s OOF (leaves in the background are sharp), probably a rookie mistake, but as they say “Content is King”. There’s also another hundred or so shots I can pick from out of that batch so I’m sure I can find one that isn’t as bad.

Then can you try dismantling that image on 500px as to why that person could shoot so much sharper, on a similar lens? Granted, it's a 100-400, but shot at 400/5.6 and should be slightly worse given that it's not a prime.

Focus mate, focus. On your camera, you really should just use AI Servo and remap the exposure lock button for continuous AF. Back button focusing helps a lot. And just use the center AF point, that's the only point that is cross-type on your camera.

 

[9VIII]

Lol, so more MP will make a blurry image sharp?

Yes.

Oh, ok then. Buy a T7. It will make your bird pictures much, much better.

Belief >> reality.

I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

(EDIT: Ok I looked again, I can see the leaves in the background are sharper than the owls, I must have chosen this phtot for the pose over sharpness.

Yes, well...that was obvious from the start, which is why I blamed poor focusing for the blurry shot. Do you think more MP would have fixed the focus problem? The pigeon is even more OOF, by the way.

...you guys are doing a really bad job of dismantling my argument.

The one who's done the best job of dismantling your argument is...you. Your initial point was that the T3 is good for birds and works for birds in flight, too...and you supported that argument with blurry, mis-focused images.

As for the T7 vs. 7DII argumant, while the T7 may be a much better choice for bird photography for some people, for reasons of size or cost, the 7DII is quite clearly the better camera for that use case. Period.

Actually I can’t tell if the pigeon shot is front focused or back focused, it looks to me like the right wing is the sharpest thing in the frame. The right wingtips and left wing are blurrier than the center of the right wing. The eye of the animal isn’t in focus but at least part of the bird is in focus.
It certainly is a bird flying and the T3 can track it, which is something that few other systems in this price range can accomplish.

The T3/T5/T6/T7/4000D are all a huge improvement over any cellphone or point and shoot camera, that’s the point.
Only a few P&S Superzooms could have matched the owl shot, and I would wager even the best compact Zuperzoom would not have got anything close to the pigeon shot.

Going from zero capability to “some” capability is always the best investment you can make, everything from there is diminishing returns.

 

[9VIII]

Here's some RAW files and JPEGs.

https://ln.sync.com/dl/1012f2ad0/tnxvhime-u4iuxtng-vvjvr7ra-ug7pvbe7
Password: bird

4858 is the original file I posted, it's not "as" sharp as 4859, but very nearly so, and 4859 is effectively equal to 4917, which looks to be the sharpest photo in that batch.
Even if having more resolution couldn't possibly make 4858 any sharper, the 12MP I have isn't enough to significantly differentiate the shots that are in focus from the ones that are slightly off.
4897 is there to show that my AF was wandering between front focus and back focus, probably half the shots out of the 100+ that I took are as sharp as 4858, which "for this camera" is "acceptably sharp", and about 20% are sharper than 4858.

For demonstration, 4863 is actually as back focused as everyone is "saying" 4858 is.
Clearly Neuro and everyone else saying 4858 is OOF have either forgotten or never experienced how bad 12MP really is.

 

[tron]

Here's some RAW files and JPEGs.

https://ln.sync.com/dl/1012f2ad0/tnxvhime-u4iuxtng-vvjvr7ra-ug7pvbe7
Password: bird

4858 is the original file I posted, it's not "as" sharp as 4859, but very nearly so, and 4859 is effectively equal to 4917, which looks to be the sharpest photo in that batch.
Even if having more resolution couldn't possibly make 4858 any sharper, the 12MP I have isn't enough to significantly differentiate the shots that are in focus from the ones that are slightly off.
4897 is there to show that my AF was wandering between front focus and back focus, probably half the shots out of the 100+ that I took are as sharp as 4858, which "for this camera" is "acceptably sharp", and about 20% are sharper than 4858.

For demonstration, 4863 is actually as back focused as everyone is "saying" 4858 is.
Clearly Neuro and everyone else saying 4858 is OOF have either forgotten or never experienced how bad 12MP really is.

I saw 4859 and it is sharp. Which proves that 12MP with 400mm can be fine. The issue with 4858 is the focus and not the 12Mp. You just need a camera that can AFMA. I think 80D has that capability and it must be smaller and lighter than 7D2. On the plus side it is a 24Mp camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Which proves that 12MP with 400mm can be fine. The issue with 4858 is the focus and not the 12Mp.

+1

@9VIII – Not sure why you can't just fully admit it's OOF and move on, after all, you eventually acknowledged that, but then backfocused on it, and now you're waffling around like the focus on your images.

In another thread, I recently posted some images from a 4 MP camera, and they were sharp. Your 12 MP seems to be giving you some sort of inferiority complex, and has you thinking that some male pixel enhancement will fix your problem. It's not the size of your megapixel, it's how you use it that matters.

Incidentally, it's worth mentioning (as I've said many times) that the actual phase detect AF points are larger than the little boxes that represent them in the viewfinder. So, you may put the little box on the subject and ensure that the branch in the foreground/background isn't touching the little box, but that branch may still be within the actual area covered by the AF point, and if the branch has higher contrast or a better orientation (which is often the case), the AF point will lock onto the branch instead of the subject you've chosen. The camera can't read your mind, so it doesn't know you want the bird and not the branch as your subject, all it can do is lock onto the highest contrast feature in the selected area (which is larger than it appears to be). Getting the branch not the bird in focus is a common problem with birds in trees, but you can mitigate it somewhat by understanding how the AF system works.

 

[9VIII]

Which proves that 12MP with 400mm can be fine. The issue with 4858 is the focus and not the 12Mp.

+1

@9VIII – Not sure why you can't just fully admit it's OOF and move on, after all, you eventually acknowledged that, but then backfocused on it, and now you're waffling around like the focus on your images.

There’s barely any difference between “sharp” and your definition of “OOF”.
You’re in denial about how little differentiation there is between the best AF in the world and the AF system on the cheapest body.

99.999% of people would be just peachy with the sharpness of the image I posted, you jumped the gun assuming the shot was from less than 50 feet away.
The old 9 point system is performing quite admirably, and for anyone shooting at f5.6 there isn’t much point in getting a better AF system.

Fact is the 7D2 or 1DX AF would not have performed significantly differently.
If I had an f4 or f2.8 lens, then a high end AF system would be able to give better results, but everything here is limited by the f5.6 aperture, again there is almost no difference in sharpness between the back focused image and the “in focus” image.

I also know it would have done better in single shot AF instead of Servo, but it’s hard to say that anything would have improved the keeper rate, challenging conditions don’t suddenly become easy just because you throw more mony at the AF system.
The T3’s sensor noise is also horrific, I was shooting at 1/500th because ISO 400 looks so much better than ISO 800, the new sensors are about twice as good and I would have been able to shoot ISO 800 and 1/1000th with better overall results on just about any newer body.
Even the 4000D would be a significant upgrade.

There’s no point in paying more for a better AF system, but at least with more resolution the 20% of shots that are in focus would look better than from the rest.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Which proves that 12MP with 400mm can be fine. The issue with 4858 is the focus and not the 12Mp.

+1

@9VIII – Not sure why you can't just fully admit it's OOF and move on, after all, you eventually acknowledged that, but then backfocused on it, and now you're waffling around like the focus on your images.

There’s barely any difference between “sharp” and your definition of “OOF”.
You’re in denial about how little differentiation there is between the best AF in the world and the AF system on the cheapest body.

99.999% of people would be just peachy with the sharpness of the image I posted...

I'm not in denial about anything, other than denying that your posted images are sharp. In fact, I pointed out that the 9-pt AF system is actually more capable than your soft images would suggest.

I know it's hard to hear that an image you posted isn't sharp. But it's not, it's OOF. Look over the comments, it's abundantly clear I'm far from alone in that assessment. Seems I've struck a nerve with you, and you feel the need to go on the defensive.

As I said earlier, if you are happy with the sharpness of the shots, good for you. You don't speak for me, nor for 99.999% of people. Just yourself. But I guarantee you that if you submitted either of those images (owlets, pigeon) to a photo competition, you'd be judged harshly for the shots being unsharp and OOF.

Previously, you stated:

I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

(EDIT: Ok I looked again, I can see the leaves in the background are sharper than the owls, I must have chosen this phtot for the pose over sharpness.

First the owlets were sharp. Then they weren't. Now, you're back to claiming they're acceptably sharp. Whatever. If you're going to change your story again and again, there's no point in further discussion. Waffle around with your focus and your opinions on your own time.

 

[9VIII]

Which proves that 12MP with 400mm can be fine. The issue with 4858 is the focus and not the 12Mp.

+1

@9VIII – Not sure why you can't just fully admit it's OOF and move on, after all, you eventually acknowledged that, but then backfocused on it, and now you're waffling around like the focus on your images.

There’s barely any difference between “sharp” and your definition of “OOF”.
You’re in denial about how little differentiation there is between the best AF in the world and the AF system on the cheapest body.

99.999% of people would be just peachy with the sharpness of the image I posted...

I'm not in denial about anything, other than denying that your posted images are sharp. In fact, I pointed out that the 9-pt AF system is actually more capable than your soft images would suggest.

I know it's hard to hear that an image you posted isn't sharp. But it's not, it's OOF. Look over the comments, it's abundantly clear I'm far from alone in that assessment. Seems I've struck a nerve with you, and you feel the need to go on the defensive.

As I said earlier, if you are happy with the sharpness of the shots, good for you. You don't speak for me, nor for 99.999% of people. Just yourself. But I guarantee you that if you submitted either of those images (owlets, pigeon) to a photo competition, you'd be judged harshly for the shots being unsharp and OOF.

Previously, you stated:

I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

(EDIT: Ok I looked again, I can see the leaves in the background are sharper than the owls, I must have chosen this phtot for the pose over sharpness.

First the owlets were sharp. Then they weren't. Now, you're back to claiming they're acceptably sharp. Whatever. If you're going to change your story again and again, there's no point in further discussion. Waffle around with your focus and your opinions on your own time.

In this conversation you are in denial on two points.
1. That more MP would have made the shot better.
2. That a more expensive AF system would not have given a better image.

First, you already know that "Sharpness" is the combination of both sensor resolution and lens resolution, the equation is equally dependent on both parts of the system and it's just a fact that a higher resolution sensor will always increase sharpness.
"Practically Speaking" if your lens is blurry enough it may not be a perceivable increase and you would be wasting your time to use more resolution.
In this specific case, the focal plane is just a few inches off and more resolution would have produced a significantly perceivable improvement in sharpness.
(Especially going from 12MP sensor with a heavy AA filter, just about the worst thing for focal length limited shooting, to a 24MP sensor with little to no AA filter.)

Second, as you're so good at pointing out, this is a complex scene and anyone using any AF system would have had a hard time, the constant assertion made by people in this thread that a better AF system would have produced better results is almost absolutely false. I will give concessions that "maybe some AF Micro adjustment would help" but given that I did produce a selection of tack sharp images I can't be certain of that. I am reasonably certain that an f2.8 or f4 lens with an f2.8 accuracy AF center point would have done wonders, but if you stick the 400f5.6 lens on either the 7D2 or 4000D you'll get exactly the same keeper rate.


The only other images being posted for comparison are probably twice as close as what I was shooting that day, no-one else has a similar comparison of how good their system is in similar conditions.
All the criticism is useless because the only comparisons anyone else has is about as relevant as saying that you can run 20MPH faster than anyone climbing a mountain.

...If those shots were the best a 9-pt AF could do (particularly with a lens like the 400/5.6L), then that camera would go in the trash bin along with those images.

The real hypocrisy of this situation is that what you're calling "OOF" is still about as sharp as the sharpest pictures that a 20MP Full Frame camera can possibly take with the same amount of cropping.
By your standards, your entire library of your best images is full of trash and all your cameras are trash (except if you have a 5DS) because they're practically no better than what I posted here.

 

[bwud]

So, you may put the little box on the subject and ensure that the branch in the foreground/background isn't touching the little box, but that branch may still be within the actual area covered by the AF point, and if the branch has higher contrast or a better orientation (which is often the case), the AF point will lock onto the branch instead of the subject you've chosen. The camera can't read your mind, so it doesn't know you want the bird and not the branch as your subject, all it can do is lock onto the highest contrast feature in the selected area (which is larger than it appears to be). Getting the branch not the bird in focus is a common problem with birds in trees, but you can mitigate it somewhat by understanding how the AF system works.

To that end, I’ll jump in with a question.

How does contrast come into play? Orientation compatible with the AF sensors associated to the selected AF point I get. But contrast? I thought that for PDAF the camera was just looking for convergence (and evaluating the distance between paired light rays to determine which direction to adjust focus and by how far).

I assumed that the camera would use the light hitting the sensors first, hence the propensity to focus on the closest correctly oriented object within an indicated AF point’s coverage.

How do PDAF sensors also address contrast? Is it merely a case of there needing to be enough to register? Or is it actually making a “this is higher than that” decision?

Thanks!

 

[neuroanatomist]

How does contrast come into play? Orientation compatible with the AF sensors associated to the selected AF point I get. But contrast? I thought that for PDAF the camera was just looking for convergence (and evaluating the distance between paired light rays to determine which direction to adjust focus and by how far).

I assumed that the camera would use the light hitting the sensors first, hence the propensity to focus on the closest correctly oriented object within an indicated AF point’s coverage.

How do PDAF sensors also address contrast? Is it merely a case of there needing to be enough to register? Or is it actually making a “this is higher than that” decision?

The PDAF system is not technically differentiating based on contrast, but higher contrast makes a particular feature easier to detect. That's why the targets used for AFMA are black on white, rather than gray on lighter gray.

Given two features of different contrast at different distances, the system will generally lock on to the future with higher contrast. Given two features of equal contrast at different distances, I have actually seen (anecdotally) the system alternate between the two on successive shots. I'm not sure if that's a programmed behavior, or was just random chance during that series of shots.

 

[bwud]

How does contrast come into play? Orientation compatible with the AF sensors associated to the selected AF point I get. But contrast? I thought that for PDAF the camera was just looking for convergence (and evaluating the distance between paired light rays to determine which direction to adjust focus and by how far).

I assumed that the camera would use the light hitting the sensors first, hence the propensity to focus on the closest correctly oriented object within an indicated AF point’s coverage.

How do PDAF sensors also address contrast? Is it merely a case of there needing to be enough to register? Or is it actually making a “this is higher than that” decision?

The PDAF system is not technically differentiating based on contrast, but higher contrast makes a particular feature easier to detect. That's why the targets used for AFMA are black on white, rather than gray on lighter gray.

Given two features of different contrast at different distances, the system will generally lock on to the future with higher contrast. Given two features of equal contrast at different distances, I have actually seen (anecdotally) the system alternate between the two on successive shots. I'm not sure if that's a programmed behavior, or was just random chance during that series of shots.

That makes sense. There is probably some sort of false positive logic in the algorithm which may explain the alternation.

 

[Talys]

2. That a more expensive AF system would not have given a better image.

I think that we can all agree that the two owl shots aren't going to get printed in National Geographic. But I don't mean that as a criticism of you, 9VIII, or of the gear, or of people who are happy taking/getting a shot like that. I have plenty of shots that I've kept that are not particularly awesomely focused or are too far away to get a good shot, but which I keep and am happy with because they are just neat shots. Like an eagle building a nest, or a hawk swooping down.

The real question is that if you set the camera onto a tripod and gave it a remote shutter release, turned off autofocus, and manually focused on magnified liveview, and waited for the tripod to settle -- or stepped focusing taking a photo every tiny focus increment -- would a better image be possible?

If the answer is yes, a better or different AF system (not necessarily more expensive) might improve the shot.

If the answer is no, then the limiting factor is either the optics or sensor (or both).

I've used a 5D Mark IV, mostly to evaluate iTTR and expanding AF points and to see whether I could justify buying one for the autofocus (for birds in flight). After nearly 6 hours with it, I decided my best results were still just with the center point, so go figure.

Of course, we can just go the other route and pay Art at birdsasart $10 for the secret to setting up AF perfectly that he discovered moments before getting rid of all of his Canon gear. 8)

 

[9VIII]

2. That a more expensive AF system would not have given a better image.

I think that we can all agree that the two owl shots aren't going to get printed in National Geographic. But I don't mean that as a criticism of you, 9VIII, or of the gear, or of people who are happy taking/getting a shot like that. I have plenty of shots that I've kept that are not particularly awesomely focused or are too far away to get a good shot, but which I keep and am happy with because they are just neat shots. Like an eagle building a nest, or a hawk swooping down.

The real question is that if you set the camera onto a tripod and gave it a remote shutter release, turned off autofocus, and manually focused on magnified liveview, and waited for the tripod to settle -- or stepped focusing taking a photo every tiny focus increment -- would a better image be possible?

If the answer is yes, a better or different AF system (not necessarily more expensive) might improve the shot.

If the answer is no, then the limiting factor is either the optics or sensor (or both).

I've used a 5D Mark IV, mostly to evaluate iTTR and expanding AF points and to see whether I could justify buying one for the autofocus (for birds in flight). After nearly 6 hours with it, I decided my best results were still just with the center point, so go figure.

Of course, we can just go the other route and pay Art at birdsasart $10 for the secret to setting up AF perfectly that he discovered moments before getting rid of all of his Canon gear. 8)

National Geographic would print whatever they can get as long as there’s no alternative, this just isn’t a “full page spread”, but at a quarter page no-one would be able to tell the difference, and the shots that are in focus still aren’t sharp enough to change that.

I didn’t use the sharpest image in the batch, but the response from this forum wouldn’t have been any different if I had.
This is a forum of gear junkies and that’s how the game is played.

The first examples I gave aren’t even half as detailed as the “OOF” image and yet Tron could hardly believe anything as lowly as the 1300D, let alone the 1100D, was capable of anything like these kinds of results.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg663105#msg663105

The first one which is sharper (or better focused) than the others is really very nice! But I do not believe you shot them with a 1300D like camera, did you?

This is the worst EOS body Canon has made in the last decade (even the 4000D is functionally superior), and yet this sort of output is clearly impressive on some level. Just not on the level of someone shooting with $20,000 worth of lens and body.

All of these entry level crop bodies represent the best value in photography, bar none, but it’s heresy to say that on an enthusiast forum.

I just bought a $100 manual focus 500f6.3 lens that (when I get around to testing it) I’m betting will at least equal the Canon 400f5.6 at 1/10th the price, but I guarantee people will mock the results no matter what they look like, and people might even be right to be disappointed with the results compared to everything else you see around here, but that’s because the 12MP sensor of the 1100D just looks like crap compared to any modern sensor.
Low resolution and a strong AA filter are bad things for cropping ability, but no-one can say that out loud because anyone still using a ~20MP Full Frame body is actually getting worse cropping performance than I am and to blaspheme the cropping ability of the 1DX (and therefor the suitability for shooting wildlife) is punishable by death (or at least a severe taunting).

And then the implication that the 5DS is the best sports and wildlife body on the market (maybe just next to the D850) would mean that people would start asking for a 10FPS 50MP body, and then a 100MP 10FPS body, and then you’d need to spend five times as much on memory cards as you do now and for whatever reason that’s some sort of unforgivable crime to make people buy better memory cards.

This whole situation stems from the “Resolution Deniers” who refuse to accept the fact that there is a long way to go before we’ve hit the limits of practically useful resolution.
Even the most tack sharp images you could possibly get off the 1100D are still blurry, and it’s the sensor’s faut.
Just watch the attitude of this forum shift as soon as Canon makes a D850 competitor, as soon as the high end “sports body” has the same cropping ability as a the average Rebel then people won’t feel threatened by the cropping ability of modern entry level bodies.

 

[Talys]

National Geographic would print whatever they can get as long as there’s no alternative, this just isn’t a “full page spread”, but at a quarter page no-one would be able to tell the difference, and the shots that are in focus still aren’t sharp enough to change that.

I didn’t use the sharpest image in the batch, but the response from this forum wouldn’t have been any different if I had.
This is a forum of gear junkies and that’s how the game is played.

The first examples I gave aren’t even half as detailed as the “OOF” image and yet Tron could hardly believe anything as lowly as the 1300D, let alone the 1100D, was capable of anything like these kinds of results.

We're talking about the same photos, right? The ones from this series:

Here’s some better samples.



Yes, the Canon T3 (1100D) shoots BIF.

Now, please, indulge me. I'm going to try to be critical as a fellow birder; please don't take what I say personally. It isn't meant as an attack on you.

1. I think that your JPEG is an unflattering rendering of the RAW. Using your CR2 (your link and password you posted), I recropped 700x700 pixels, and it looks SIGNIFICANTLY sharper. With your permission, I'd be happy to post it.

2. Based on the re-crop 1:1, I believe that you're right: a lot of casual folks would happily accept "the subjects" as being in-focus. But there is a major caveat, #3.

3. When judging focus on birds, the criteria for being in-focus is usually that at least one eye is perfectly in focus. I think that critical focus is achieved on the tailfeathers of the nearest owlet, whose head is tucked in. The second owlet, is slightly, but detectably, out of focus. It's perfectly fine to argue that at f/5.6, both of them can't be in focus at the same time. But being critical, it's much more important to for the owlet that's looking at you to be in focus than the one that's turned away; this is why it looks out of focus, in my opinion (the eyes are slightly soft).

Aside from the issue of focus -- Now, I'm being critical, but not trying to diminish the great moment that you caught, not trying to make this a personal attack or be a jackass. I apologize about the NG comment, as it was more flip than I intended. I'm happy that you got this great shot, and I would have been excited to get it too. However, I do NOT think that this is an amazing photograph, for the following reasons:

4. Most importantly, because it's missing a critical element - light. The sun is behind the owlets, casting a shadow on the subject facing you. You can't get an amazing photo of birds this way, whether you have a 30 year old film camera or a 1DXII, whether you're using a free kit lens or a 600DOII on a tripod. Since you can't go to the other side of the nest (leaves obstruct view) the only two solutions are to come back and shoot it at a different time of day, or to try to improve the shot with a flash or strobe.

5. Secondly, the photo does not achieve great composition, because you have two potential subjects that are competing for attention. The near owlet is actually in a pretty interesting pose, and where it by itself, that would make for an interesting moment. But because the second, further, smaller subject is engaged with the camera and its head is brighter, it draws more attention. But it's partly obscured, not in a particularly storytelling way, and (in my opinion) slightly out of focus.

In my opinion, it is the sort of situation where if you're very patient, and come when the light is right, and get lucky, you might capture an AMAZING moment.

I think that there's nothing at all wrong the T3, taking the shot, as the T3 takes perfectly fine shots at ISO 400. I do think that the focal length of the lens is too short, because the resulting photograph is only about half a megapixel (around 750x750), if you crop out the framing leaves.

I cannot speak for other people, but broadly speaking, even though I really like camera gear, I truly do not think that it's necessary to have a super fancy camera body to take amazing photography of birds or anything else. I have some razor sharp, amazing photos taking from my oldest Canon digital camera, a t2i.

Since you were talking about birds in flight, I do think that at a minimum a camera needs to be able to take at least 1/2000, or preferably 1/2500 shutter speeds to reliably sharp BIFs, especially if they're faster moving. You don't need a long telephoto lens, but it certainly helps. But if you do, then a full frame camera can probably really help the slower aperture, especially if you don't have enough light. Hence, why birding can get so damned expensive.

But you don't need it. I took perfectly good songbird and hummingbird photos -- where I started birding -- with a t2i and a kit lens, and would be happy to share some of them to make that point, but I don't want to dilute this post.

 

[9VIII]

Talys you're welcome to post an edit of the photo yourself but I'm pretty sure the reason it's softer than the RAW file is Imgur probably compresses everything. I need a better file host (which is something I finally got around to signing up for thanks to this thread).

On the point of critical focus, I'm probably not going to particularly care about that for a long time, mostly for a lack of skill for now but I certainly don't have any affinity for orthodox methods.
I'll try to keep the points of "critical focus" in mind if I ever find myself face to face with a Bald Eagle (apparently there are a few living in my area).

Absolutely the lighting is the worst part of the image. I noticed that as soon as the lighting got better the pictures "look" much sharper, the JPEG of image 4917 to me looks much clearer than 4859, when both of them actually have the bird in focus.
The biggest difference between my amateur photography and the "professional" is probably that a pro would have gone out and shot that location every day for a week to get the right conditions. I did come back the next week but the trees had grown in completely by then. Hopefully the same pair of Owls will come back and nest there again this year.

Composition is whatever the birds make it. Is there some form of sign language between wildlife photographers and animals that I am not privy to?

On resolution, again, the T2i has 50% more resolution than the T3, I really think everyone looking at these has lost touch of what a truly low resolution camera looks like.
Look at this: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=760&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=458&CameraComp=460&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
Even the 2008 XSi with the same resolution looks sharper than the T3. The T3's sensor is just gimped.

The argument about Full Frame helping in low light only applies if you can get more of the subject in frame than will fit on an APS-C sensor, otherwise the higher density crop sensor is almost always going to be an advantage.
The only case where lower density would be better is if you're actually shooting at something like ISO 3200 where the image is noise limited, but even then we've seen that, on average, downsizing a noisy high resolution image is almost as good as shooting at lower resolution to begin with.

Birds in Flight with the T3 is specifically difficult due to the shutter speed requirements forcing high ISO, but from what I've seen the new bodies are so much better in all aspects you can get both better high ISO and more resolution.

 

[Talys]

@9VIII - Here you go. All I did was import the CR2 into Photoshop and crop out 700x700 (because the forum's display is a column at 700 pixels wide), and attach it here.

Composition for birding basically comes down to field skills, patience, and perseverance. Individually for each bird, we can also improve our photography by learning the cues (like sounds or small motions) that telegraph them doing something interesting. There's also baiting though that's something that I don't consider for myself.

I can't even count how many times I've gone back to the same spot at a different time to get better light, and how many times I've waited an hour plus for a bird to move (to catch it taking off, for example), because I think its flight vector would make a great BIF. It's one reason I can't seriously consider an EVF for birding. I mean, I could blow a battery waiting for a couple of sets of shots

 

[9VIII]

I can't say it doesn't look sharper, but I think I prefer the OOF look.

 

[mistaspeedy]

Anyway... even though many like to bash the 2000D and 4000D... we have gone forward compared to the 1300D.

The 1300D had a 18 megapixel sensor. Now we have a 24 megapixel sensor in the 2000D (which is the 1300D successor). Nobody has a higher resolution APSC sensor than this (if we forget Samsung's 28 mpx sensor).
Or we can have the same 18 megapixel sensor in an even cheaper package than before... the 4000D.

Of course there is room for improvement... that's what next year's model will be