Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: davaglo on August 21, 2012, 03:59:11 pm
-
I am going to retire next year and I'm going to treat myself to an African photographic trip. Now I shoot with a Canon 40D w/ 17-40 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 IS and I also have a Canon Extender 1.4.
I want to print (or have printed) up to 20x30.
I'm looking at the 7D or the 5D mk II.
Will the 7D do the job? Also, should I be looking at an inbetween lens?
Thanks
Jerry
-
Get a 5D Mark III or the 7D. It makes no sense to buy a 5d Mark II these days.
-
Yes, a 5D mark III is an excellent allround camera for your purpose.
The improvements in focusing over the 5D mark II are substantial.
Perhaps you should also be looking at lenses as well.
The 70-200mm f2.8 is a great lens but consider something with a longer reach as well:
the 100-400mm f4.0 from Canon or the 120-300mm f2.8 from Sigma come to mind.
If bird photography is a passion then the Canon 500mm f4.0 would be my recommendation.
Obviously I don't know your budget and I fully appreciate that weight rapidly becomes a consideration when planning air travel.
Perhaps if you are travelling through South Africa consider hiring bigger lenses.
I have no idea what would be available in East African countries such as Kenya but others may have some information.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I don't think a 200/2.8 with 1.4x extender will be long enough for an African safari. The Canon 100-400, which is F5.6 fully extended, should provide better quality than a 200/2.8 with 2x extender which effectively makes it a lower quality 400/F5.6. However, I wouldn't recommend using the 100-400 with extender.
The additional pixel count of the 7D would be a worthwhile upgrade from the 40D, and better than the 5D3 for getting the longest reach from your existing lenses.
If I were you, I'd investigate the possibilities of the new Panasonic SuperZoom Bridge camera, the FZ200. The main advantage of this camera is that it provides a constant maximim aperture of F2.8 across its entire range of 25-600mm (35mm format equivalent).
Whilst its sensor is rather tiny, and image quality will not compare with a 400/2.8 on a 40D or 7D, it probably will compare very favourably with a 400/5.6 used on a 7D at ISO 400 or 800 in order to get the required fast shutter speed.
This Panasonic bridge camera also boasts a burst rate of 12 frames per second, at full resolution in RAW. This feature could be very useful for capuring the most interesting moments of fast-moving wildlife activity.
The 12mp of the FZ200 should be sufficient for a 20"x30" print, although 18mp would be better, all else being equal. However, the extra pixels will mean nothing if the image is not tack sharp in the fist instance as a result of the shutter speed not being fast enough.
I would suspect that the Leica lens on the FZ200 will not be sharpest at its maximum aperture of F2.8, but nor is the 70-200/F2.8 sharpest at F2.8, nor the 100-400 sharpest at F5.6 at 400mm.
It will be interesting to see comparisons when this camera becomes available, which I believe is next month.
-
rather than buy a super telephotos look into renting one. I have been happy with http://www.lensrentals.com if you don't have a rental agency in your hometown.
I have never been to Africa or on safari but a 400mm f/4L or 500mm f/4L on a Canon EOS 5D Mark III or 7D might be a good combination.
-
I would add two thoughts:
I used a 24-70 on a 5D MkII quite a bit, and found that for many situations the 70-200 on a 1D MkIII was all I needed. Most tours will take you right into the animals. Having said that, I also carried a 300 F2.8 w/ 2X extender and used it less than I thought I would.
Second, Africa is very dusty. You don't want to be switching lenses in the field. Use the 40D with a short lens all the time and gear up for greater reach. I like the 100-400 approach and will do that next time.
I should add that weight and space can be issues. On many tours there are six persons to a Land Cruiser, plus driver. My group was very patient with me and my large "kit"; I had far more gear than anyone and struggled at times with space. A "photographer's tour" may not present the same issues.
Bill McClure
-
from experience, i recommend the 5D3 and 100-400 as a single solution - but i wouldn't go on a trip like this without a backup camera and lens. the combination of a crop frame camera (i don't see much difference in IQ between the 40D and 7D and wouldn't print bigger than 13x19 from either although the 7D AF and few other features are nice) with 100-400 and FF with 70-200 gives you coverage for anything except the elephant 10 ft away (which does happen) and smaller birds and animals without changing lenses (dust is usually an issue) - and this is what i use most of the time the 5D3 will make 20x30 prints with any good quality lens. however in the early morning and late afternoon usually use the 5D3 and 100-400 for the higher ISO required
big glass can be a nuisance - particularly if you're not experienced with it, and almost impossible to use unless you pay extra for a private vehicle or go with a photo group which will arrange for 2 or 3 people per vehicle (either of which i highly recommend if you're serious about getting good images). i rented a 400DO from lensrentals.com (great service) but found it to be little better than the 100-400 and didn't like the 1.4xii (may be better with the iii) so if i really need more reach i use the 7D with 400 f5.6 and 1.4xiii on a tripod - but wouldn't recommend this for a first trip either
i would not recommend anything like a panasonic superzoom for lack of high ISO perfomance, poor AF for action, and inability to make quality large prints - probably fine as a backup - i would seriously dispute that the performance is in the same class as a 40D
-
I just came back from a three weeks photo safari in Kenya, Tanzania, and Namibia. I used Canon 5D 3 as my main camera and 5D 2 as the secondary camera. The 5D 3 is way better than the 5D 2 (operation) and the keep rate is much higher due to its sophisticated auto focusing performance and high burst rate. For the lens, I strongly recommend the 500 mm F4 plus 1.4 III converter. Most wildlife is far from the road and anything shorter than 500 mm is not that useful and the image quality is much reduced after the cropping. 80% of the images I shot is by the 500 mm F4 lens with or without the converter or by the Canon 70-300 L zoom lens which is a very good performer. I only used the Nikon 14-24 mm zoom lens when I shot the Red Sand Dunes in Namibia.
-
Somewhat OT, but if space is critical, a look at Olympus E-M5 micro 4/3 camera might be warranted. I don't know about 20x30, but it will do 17x22s without breaking a sweat with the right lens. There are telephoto zooms going up to 30mm (600mm FF equivalent), but I don't know what the quality is like. (I confess I'm hooked on the sucker, its like carrying a Olympus OM or Nikon FM around)
-
i would not recommend anything like a panasonic superzoom for lack of high ISO perfomance, poor AF for action, and inability to make quality large prints - probably fine as a backup - i would seriously dispute that the performance is in the same class as a 40D
With all due respect, I think you might have missed the point here. There's no doubt that the 40D is in a different class than the FZ200 superzoom. For a start, you can't take a photo with the 40D. It's useless by itself. It needs a lens, and for an African Safari, as Neways has mentioned in his post above, you need at least a 500mm lens because most wildlife is far from the road. I imagine a 600mm lens would be better still.
The other issue, which you mentioned yourself, is the sheer inconvenience and nuisance of handling heavy equipment when you're part of a group tour. The FZ200 with 600/2.8 lens weighs a mere 600gms.
The quality issue is interesting, and may be quite surprising. I think most of us were a bit amazed when Michael, some time ago, compared his 40mp P45+ with a 10mp Canon G12 P&S, which has about the same size sensor as the FZ200, and found that at A3+ print size the image quality from both cameras was indistinguishable, apart from the shallower DoF of the P45+.
I can't help but speculate what the result of the comparison would have been had Michael not only equalised DoF, but also equalised shutter speed. Without getting into precise calculations, the comparison would have been something like, F3.5 at 1/250th sec and ISO 100, with the G12, and F22 at 1/250th sec and ISO 3200 with the P45+.
The P45+ doesn't even have an ISO 3200 setting, so it would be ISO 800 underexposed by 2 stops. Does anyone doubt that the image quality of the Canon G12 would have been noticeably better in such circumstances?
Now clearly for most landscapes, which are taken with a fairly wide lens, a high shutter speed is not required. For wildlife with a long telephoto, a fast shutter speed is mandatory, not only because of the effects of camera shake but because of subject movement.
There's no doubt in my mind that a a 40D used with a 5Kg, $10,000, Canon 400/2.8 IS lens would be capable of better image quality than the FZ200. But I'm doubtful that a 100-400/F5.6 zoom, or a 70-200/2.8 with 2x extender would produce better image quality when both lenses are fully extended. If you're not convinced, check out the DXOMark results comparing the FZ200's predecessor, the FZ150, with the Canon 7D.
I'll summarize them for you. At a real ISO 100 the SNR at 18% for the FZ150 is equial to the SNR of the 7D at ISO 635. The DR of the FZ150 at ISO 100 is equal to the DR of the 7D at ISO 500 (approximately). The Tonal Range of the FZ150 at ISO 100 is equal to that of the 7D at ISO 635, and the Color Sensitivity of the FZ150 is equal to that of the 7D at ISO 400 (approximately). All results at equal image/print size.
If one makes the reaonable assumption that the sensor in the new FZ200 will be at least marginally better than the sensor in the FZ150 which DXO have already tested, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that the FZ200 sensor at ISO 100 would produce similar quality to a 7D at ISO 400. Even if the 7D proves to be marginally better in some respects at ISO 400, we should all realise by now that marginal increases in noise which are only visible at 100% on screen, count for nothing on a print, unless it is an extremely large print, like 4ftx6ft.
In short, the FZ200 used at 600mm equivalent, F2,8 and ISO 100, might reasonably be able to produce image quality similar to that of a 40D with 400mm lens used at F5.6 and ISO 400. However, I'm not certain about this because of the unknown factor of lens quality. The FZ200 sports a modern Leica zoom lens, but the sample images I've seen so far from the FZ200, whilst appearing impressively sharp, are all downsized to approximately HD resolution or less.
-
there are different regulations in different countries. for example can't go off road in much of Tanzania. this does make a longer lens more useful.
Ray - have you ever photographed wildlife in Africa?
-
there are different regulations in different countries. for example can't go off road in much of Tanzania. this does make a longer lens more useful.
Ray - have you ever photographed wildlife in Africa?
No. But I've photographed wildlife in Australia on many occasions using my longest lens, the Canon 100-400/5.6, and I've found from experience that this lens is sharpest at F8, frequently requiring ISO settings of 800 or more in order to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed.
The 640mm equivalent on a 50D (of 400mm) is often the minimum focal length for much wildlife, I've found. Sometimes one can get closer and 300mm may be adequate. Sometimes a 1000mm focal length may be required.
The essential point about the FZ200 is that it's not just a small 12mp sensor with its inevitable limitations, but an amazing 600mm/F2.8 lens with all its advantaqes.
-
Gentlemen, I think the only way forward here is to allow Jerry (the OP) to provide us all with more information as to where he may go in Africa, what his real interests are, and whether he intends to repeat the experience more than once.
Budgetary constraints would also be useful.
Nearly all the suggestions are helpful in a particular context but none of us really know what the exact context is.
So Jerry, over to you...
Regards
Tony Jay
-
That's very nice of you Tony to be the mediator, but I doubt that the OP knows what he is likely to encounter in Africa.
The advice so far seems to be, if you want the best photos, take an individual tour which gives you room and flexibility to wield 5 & 10 kg, multi-thousand-dollar lenses.
If you take the standard group tour, heavy equipment is a problem. Everything is a compromise. The decisions one has to make, as always, represent a trade-off between image quality and convenience.
But always bear in mind that inconvenience can result in missing the shot.
-
Perhaps I should step in here. I havent as yet selected which area of Africa to visit. The decision to retire has just been made and this will be a once in a lifetime trip.
All of the information being presented here is being soaked up like a sponge with pleasure. I thank everyone for sharing their knowledge. There is nothing like experience to help guide decisions.
My thoughts on the 7D and the 5D mk2 were pixel count for printing large quality prints and the "reach" decision of the smaller sensor. Also spending $1500.00 more for a 5D mk3 for 2 megabites didn't seem justified. Again, experience will help me make a decision. The other 4/3 cameras I had not even considered because I did not have any real knowledge of them. I thank all of you for sharing this information and knowledge.
Jerry
-
Thanks Jerry.
Still hard to know exactly how to advise you.
7D has much the better focusing ability (useful for wildlife and bird photography) but the 5D II is, arguably, a better allround performer.
So, if you really do a lot of bird and wildlife anyway - get the 7D, otherwise if your tastes are much more omniverous perhaps, go for the 5D II. By the way suggestions about the 5D III reflect the fact that it is an excellent camera (far better in every way than the 5D II) but the pixel count difference is absolutely incidental here as regards the rationale for recommending it to you.
It is also possible that by the time you go other Canon offerings may be available that make this information redundant.
As for the lenses it is more than likely that the 70-200mm f.2.8 with or sans the 1.4 teleconverter will not really be enough for viable wildlife photography (I grew up in Africa so got a fair idea here) but again what your REAL interests are in this regard we don't know. Perhaps you like landscapes with wildlife (I really like this genre but it is difficult to make it happen).
Look forward to hearing from you Jerry.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
If you are seriously considering this, and can afford about $10k plus airfare, you can't go wrong with Joe McDonald's tours:
http://hoothollow.com/Foreign%20Photo%20Tours%20and%20Safari%20Brochures/Kenya%20Photo%20Safari%20Brochure.html
They will advise you very thoroughly about what to bring, which will definitely include a 500 or 600 lens, which you could consider renting.
You must be ready, though. Consider taking some wildlife photo workshops first, if you haven't already. You can learn a lot just from
the McDonalds' web site.
I have no business relationship with the McDonalds, other than taking workshops, including a safari trip with them in 2002.
My safari pictures, here, are mostly taken during the 2002 tour of Kenya, and are images using E100Vs film,
which I scanned and worked on using Photoshop. I used Minolta gear, brought 400, 600, and 80-200 lenses with teleconverters, and
three film bodies.
http://rosswarner.com/safari.shtml
I've taken four safari trips to East Africa -- Tanzania and Kenya.
-Ross
-
Impressive shots on your website, Ross. It makes complete sense to me that you'd want the longest telephoto lenses you can afford when going on a Safari in Africa. I imagine also one would not always have the luxury of time to change lenses, so zooms are likely to be more useful.
If cost and weight were not a problem, I think at this stage I'd favour a Nikon 200-400/F4 with the new 24mp Nikon D3200 body. The effective maximum focal length would be about 620mm, and if one were prepared to reduce file size to 12mp through cropping, one could increase that by 1.4x, ie. 868mm equivalent.
-
for a one time Africa experience, Botswana in Sept-Oct has the largest variety of accessible game (except rhinos) if your trip includes 2 or 3 different areas. only problem is that it's expensive
going to Tanzania or Kenya for the migration is problematic in terms of timing and many places you're confined to roads which can be crowded (unlike Botswana which limits the number of tourists)
have a look at Mark Nolting's Africa's Top Wildlife Countries
-
I know this gets away from the ideas you have mentioned, but have you considered a four-thirds system, specifically, the Panasonic G3? The greatly decreased weight and bulk over a full-sized DSLR kit make all your travels so much more pleasant, and you really don't give up any image quality (with the one exception of low light photography). You'll have 16 MP, Leica glass, image stabilization, and you'll be able to carry lenses from 14mm to 600 mm (35mm equiv) and 2 bodies in a modest-sized pack.
For IQ you can take a look at my web page (below). The Nicaragua images are all with the G3 and the Alaska images with the G2 (the 12 MP predecessor).
-
My thoughts on the 7D and the 5D mk2 were pixel count for printing large quality prints and the "reach" decision of the smaller sensor. Also spending $1500.00 more for a 5D mk3 for 2 megabites didn't seem justified.
Jerry
The improvements in the 5D Mark III have nothing to do with pixel count and everything to do with real world image quality. The autofocus in every way vastly superior to the 5D Mark II, Image quality at all ISO settings over 400 is likewise far better, and finally since this will be a once in a lifetime trip, the pair of CF and SD memory slots allow for
- making instant backups of those once in a lifetime images as you shoot
- or be able to keep shooting even if one card fills up.
- or store in camera produced JPEGS or video seperately from raw files on the other.
Unless Canon comes out with a newer big bodied camera which incorporates the features of the 1D X with significantly greater resolution , the 5D Mark III is the svery worthy replacement to both the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III.
-
The improvements in the 5D Mark III have nothing to do with pixel count and everything to do with real world image quality. The autofocus in every way vastly superior to the 5D Mark II, Image quality at all ISO settings over 400 is likewise far better, and finally since this will be a once in a lifetime trip, the pair of CF and SD memory slots allow for
- making instant backups of those once in a lifetime images as you shoot
- or be able to keep shooting even if one card fills up.
- or store in camera produced JPEGS or video seperately from raw files on the other.
Unless Canon comes out with a newer big bodied camera which incorporates the features of the 1D X with significantly greater resolution , the 5D Mark III is the svery worthy replacement to both the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III.
All true, Ellis. Except a 400mm lens on a 5D3 gives you only an 8mp 650mm image when 400mm is not long enough. The OP wants to make 20x30 prints.
-
Again, thanks so much for the input. I love the beauty of nature, wildlife, soft light and landscapes. If it touches me or gives me the opportunity, I'll take it.
Jerry
-
The effective maximum focal length would be about 620mm, and if one were prepared to reduce file size to 12mp through cropping, one could increase that by 1.4x, ie. 868mm equivalent.
Using in-camera cropping really only saves some space on the card, so it is better to use the full frame option all the time and do the digi-zooming in Lightroom or Photoshop. At least you retain some framing options and do not need to access menus to change between the crop sizes during the heat of the shooting. The end result will be the same in all cases (except the possible missed shots with the in-camera crop).
-
Regardless of what equipment you finally choose, I highly recommend that you choose and purchase it soon. Nothing loses more shots than unfamiliarity with your camera and lens. I also recommend that you find a wildlife or bird refuge near where you live, and spend much, much time there shooting with your new equipment. You probably don't really need to know where the how-to-make-toy-camera-pictures button is located (other than to assiduously avoid it), but you certainly need to know how to rapidly change your ISO, how to quickly switch from AF to MF and how to change lenses (and memory cards) quickly, safely and with minimum exposure to dust or moisture. You also need to find out what pitfalls your new equipment might present. Little did I know how inconveniently the video button was placed on my Sony a65 (it falls directly under my thumb) until I had almost filled up my memory card and exhausted my battery by filming my feet as I walked around town.
Know how to clean your equipment! Disregarding for the moment, the life-saving aspects, this is the exact equivalent of a soldier learning to field-strip his weapon.
We are approaching the Autumn migration season, so that most refuges will have a large influx of birds. Imagine that you are already on safari and that the shots you get will be those once-in-a-lifetime images. If you can shoot birds well, I believe you are ready to shoot just about anything that might come your way on safari (although there are certain significant differences between evading a charging rhino and dodging an enraged red-wing blackbird).
-
7D has much the better focusing ability (useful for wildlife and bird photography) but the 5D II is, arguably, a better allround performer.
It's really not. The 5D Mk II does some stuff very well (primarily wide angle stuff), but struggles in a lot of situations.
The 7D does everything well.
-
everything except make images (particularly at higher ISO's) that can be printed 20x30 for critical viewing
-
Using in-camera cropping really only saves some space on the card, so it is better to use the full frame option all the time and do the digi-zooming in Lightroom or Photoshop. At least you retain some framing options and do not need to access menus to change between the crop sizes during the heat of the shooting. The end result will be the same in all cases (except the possible missed shots with the in-camera crop).
I wasn't referring to in-camera cropping. I'm not aware the D3200 has a a 12mp crop option. Just like you, I would always prefer to crop during post-processing because the cropping options are much greater.
It would be interesting if someone could show comparisons between a 12mp crop from the 24mp D3200 at ISO 400, using an affordable 400mm lens such as the Nikkor 80-400 VR zoom at its maximum aperture of F5.6, and the 12mp Panasonic FZ200 fully extended at 600mm equiv, used at F2.8 and ISO 100 but from a closer distance so the FoV is the same.
I've got a suspicion the FZ200 shot would be sharper and more detailed in the centre, but the edges and corners would favour the D3200, unless the shallower DoF in the D3200 shot were to adversely affect the edges. Certainly the DXOMark tests indicate that the D3200 pixel at an actual and real ISO of 400 has no better performance than the FZ150 pixel at its actual ISO 100.
-
oh, i also have this question~ see how solve it~
-
My experience after a dozen of Safaris in RSA, Tanzania and Kenya.
I shoot film, so I won't argue about cameras.
As for lenses, for 80% of the circumstances I used an old FD 200/2,8 with great satisfaction.
Only seldom I needed my cata 500/8, for the rest I used 28/2 and 135/2.8 mm.
Don't forget that Africa also offers wonderful chances for close/street photography and a fixed fast lens is very useful.
In RSA you can leave roads or tracks (if accompanied by a ranger) and I never found myself farther than 30 mt from the animals.
-
I was in Kenya last October, and Singita Reserve in South Africa in June, so I have some minor experience. I have been shooting wildlife an an amateur for years/
I strongly recommend you take two bodies, so that you will not be changing lenses in the vehicles if you can avoid it, Dust can be a concern. Take an empty bean bag with you.
I took a 7D and a 1DMk4, and used them almost interchangeably on both trips. I wanted the higher ISO ability of the 1DMk4.
If we could take all the f2.8 telephotos we want, things would be pretty easy, but with a weight restriction on camera bags of 30 pounds on our charter flights, we were not able to bring large aperture lenses.
Fast glass is important, because much of our shooting was before sunrise and after sunset. I shot the 7D a lot at ISO 1600, and even some at 3200. The lenses I used for wildlife in Kenya were my 400 f4 IS DO, and an EOS 70-300 f4-5.6 IS L. The 70-300 is very sharp, but the 5.6 aperture is a limiting factor after sunset, for autofocus quickness and accuracy. I thought a 70-200 f2.8 would be too short, and found I missed the faster aperture in the darker times, even though it was shorter.
I took the 400 DO IS L and a 70-200 f2.8 IS L II to South Africa with the same 7D and 1DMk4, and found I liked that combination better. I did take a 1.4 TC III and did use it some with the 400 DO, especially for birds, and game we could not get close too. The game drives were handled a bit differently in Singita than in Masai Mara and Amboseli.
I am returning to Kenya next February and I will take my new 1DX, as the use of ISO 3200 and 6400 will help significantly for those low light shots. I have not decided if I will take my 7D or my 1DMk4 as my second body for my return to Kenya. I will take a 24-105 IS L, and a 24 f1.4 as well. I may take my 85 f1.8 also. The 135 f2.0 L is tempting but heavy, and almost covered by the 70-200 f2.8 IS L
The Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 IS L works fairly well in sunlight, but in the early morning and after sundown in Africa, AF will be more challenged. I would really love to use a 300 f2.8 IS L and a 400 f2.8 IS L, but they were just too big and too heavy for me to schlepp to Africa. Canon's 300 f4 IS L is a pretty nice tool to use for wildlife, and is what my wife used for most of her shooting there.
I have a Panasonic GF1 and GH2, and the 45-200 and 100-300 lenses, and when I bought them, had hoped that they might be useful for wildlife, but my limited experience is that their autofocus mechanisms are just way to slow, and inaccurate to use for moving wildlife. I vastly prefer the speed and accuracy of a single, selected AF point in the 7D or the 1DM4. Even the GH2 is just too slow. I like the camera, and use it for snapshots, and panos in Alaska, but not for breaching whales or running lions. YMMV
The Nikon lads have an advantage with their 200-400 f4 VR lens. That one is very sweet, and I look forward to Canon's iteration of the 200-400 IS if and when it ever reaches this continent.
So I think the 7D is a very good choice. I doubt folks can look at my images and guess which camera was used for which shot, without peeking at the exif data.
As for glass, you can rent lenses like the 400 f4 DO IS, or the 500 f4 IS L, and series 1 bodies from Borrow Lenses - http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/canon - much more inexpensively than you can own them.
Some of my images from Singita Reserve are here - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Castleton-Singita-Reserve-S/23713177_7Sqp6Q#!i=1927683837&k=D4f3t6f
-
The original poster of this thread, pm'd me, and asked if I would be satisfied with the 7D if I only had one camera body for an African safari.
I cannot answer that with a simple, succinct answer for several reasons. First of all, the lenses are more important than the body used, so start with first rate glass. If you cannot afford good prime L super telephotos, then rent them. Do not do without good glass. The body is of lesser importance than the glass, but the speed of AF and the high ISO noise levels are determined by the bodies, and this will matter quite a bit.
Is a 7D much preferable to the OP's 40D? Absolutely!! But if all I had was a 40D could I get some good images with good glass? Absolutely!
But not as many, or as good, as I would with a 7D. As I said earlier, you really do want two bodies at a minimum. As for 20 x 30 inch prints, one can do that easily with good, sharp properly exposed files from a 40D. I have several 16x 24 in prints from a 40D sensor.
Like with great lenses, if you cannot afford a first rate body, rent one from Borrow Lenses or one of the other vendors. Get it a week before you leave, and practice shooting birds in flight, so that you know how to optimally use the Autofocus, with a single AF point. Do not be offended if I am stating the obvious to you, but lots of folks really seem to think autofocus is up to the camera and let the camera choose the AF points ( this won't work out very well with running wildlife ) , and not a user skill. When you can keep a single AF point on a bird in flight diving for fish, then you can be sure you can follow a lion hunting with a single AF point. - (http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Petersburg-Alaska-on-the-MV/i-QPvmhxQ/0/L/eaglefeeding-3920-L.jpg)
The Autofocus system on the 7D is orders of magnitude better than the 40D's AF, but the AF of the 7D takes a bit of learning to use most effectively. This is even more true with a1DMk4 or a 1Dx.
So yes, if I only had one body, I could get by with a 7D. Would it be my first choice, no, it is now 2-3 years past its prime). I am not being snide here, I still use my 7D for a great deal of my images, despite owning "better" ( superior technically ) cameras like a 1DMk4, because a 7D is very capable, smaller, lighter, handles easily, and I know it like my own skin. The high ISO files are noisier than a 1Dmk4 or a 5DMk2, but so what, at 100 or 200 ISO who can tell the difference. I stated in my previous post about my images, most viewers cannot distinguish them on the basis of the camera body they they were shot with.
One other big factor in your images will be the quality of your drivers and your guides. Will you have a driver who will get you close to your quarry, and will they do it so the lighting is where you prefer it? Or will they just drive up so you can see the critter, but you have to look over the heads of those in front of you in the Land Rover? Will you be allowed to get out of the vehicle and shoot from the ground. Getting low down on the ground can really improve your shots, but being afoot in lion country is something one wants to have good guides along for advice and awareness. - (http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Kenya-October-2011/i-v3krnLX/0/L/Lion-in-repose-4532-2-L.jpg)
Will your outfitter get you out before sunrise, and will they stay after sunset, or will they only shoot between 9am and 5 pm?? The big cats do a lot of their hunting in those hours when the sun is below the horizon. Shooting sunrise shots in the dark afoot, with lions roaring in the background will keep you awake and on your toes... Skip breakfast in the morning, eat brunch after shooting, snack and sleep mid day, and go back out for the evening and come back after dark and have supper.
Have fun, and there will be times when you cannot get great images, so just put your camera down, and smell the grass and the animal dung, and feel the sun on your skin, and realize your dream really has come true.
I thought if I was very, very lucky after I retired, I would only go to Africa one time in my life.
But I found that one time is not nearly enough. Not nearly.
The 5DMkIII could be rented, and do very nicely in Africa, even though the reach is less than the 7D's. You do NOT want a 5DMk2 for wildlife in Africa. It is a fine studio camera, but the AF is not up to wildlife in my hands, anyway.
This frame is from a 7D
(http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Castleton-Singita-Reserve-S/i-CwmKbGF/0/L/untitled-6334-L.jpg)
-
Pathfinder, thank you for your reply. She ain't gonna like what I'm about to do, 5D mkIII.
Jerry
-
no, one time is not nearly enough (and my wife would be the first to agree)
although i also had a tough time with the price of the 5D3, it is a fantastic all-round camera with incredible autofocus (which takes some study and practice to fully utilize) and high ISO performance that is extremely useful when you most need it for wildlife and allows use of smaller, slower lenses with very good results. pairing this with a 40D you should be in good shape.
be sure to set up your camera to separate the shutter button for autofocus (which is assigned to the * button under your thumb) - not only far superior for action but extremely useful for focusing and re-composing
pathfinder mentioned the 70-300 which i found not particularly nice handling and not enough sharper than the 100-400 to justify it (and not as sharp as the 70-200) so i like the combination of 70-200 and 100-400 as lenses that will cover most situations. perhaps i should re-visit the 400 DO and see if it is happier with the 1.4xiii.
lensrentals.com has great service and makes much more sense than investing in big glass - particularly until you have the experience and frequency of use to justify big $
-
That is interesting Steve, I have owned my 100-400 for 8 years, and used it extensively, but once I got the 70-300 L I felt it was sharper and focused much faster. Maybe there is that much difference between individual lenses of the same model.
I used my 100-400 for two workshops in Alaska, but when I went to Africa, I chose my newer, much more solid feeling 70-300 IS L. They are the same aperture at the long end, f5.6, but I always stop down at least 1/2 stop for a sharper image.
They are both good lenses, but I never developed any affection for that trombone action sliding focus, and I always thought it would introduce more dust inside the lens and the camera body. The new 70-300 L is better sealed - I think.
Some folks do manage to use a 1.4 TC with the 100-400 by taping pins, but a 1.4 TC will not mount on the 70-300 IS L. I prefer to limit my TC use to prime lenses, although they seem to work fairly well with the 70-200 f2.8 IS Ls
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Steve, we are so very lucky, you and I, both our spouses wanted to return to Africa more than just once. We are lucky fellows, indeed.
Jerry, your significant other may not like the 5DMK3, but I bet you will! :)
With the full frame camera, you might prefer the 100-400 to the 70-300 IS L. Maybe...
I think you will want a 400 that you can put a TC on for shots in the distance also. The 400 f2.8 is large and heavy, which is why I took the 400 f4 DO. The 400 f5.6 is too slow for my taste. I know there are folks who deride the 400 DO lens, but mine has served me quite well for over 7 years, out West, and in Africa. I will take it back again in February. I have several shots with the 400 DO + !.4 TC III that seem acceptable to my eye.
If your spouse is not shooting, things are easier, because you can have her carry one large aperture telephoto like the 400 f2.8 and an extra body maybe. I could not do that because my wife was shooting also and only carries her own gear....all 30 pounds of it.
-
Great information, thanks Gentleman. My wife does not understand or appreciate photography. She has a photographic memory and thus has little patience with the craft of setting upthe shot (not saying that I am a craftsman).
I however am hooked and enjoy the creativity both shooting and developing in Lightroom.
The lenses I will rent for budgetary reasons. The road and process of selection is as important to me as the end selection, it is a journey. The older I get the more deliberate my actions for the journey.
-
i'll have to admit it's my second (tested and selected) 100-400 with acceptable - but not optimum performance wide open (i think later production lenses are more consistent). my experience and tests indicate that the 100-400 delivers disproportionally better IQ on full frame cameras (crop frame cameras demand better lenses for the small pixels) but i still find it very convenient for hand-held birds flight on the 40D and now 7D
some argue that the 100-400 +1.4x with taped pins (or using CDAF on a tripod) is better than an equivalent crop - possibly, but neither one is good enough for me to print. i agree about extenders and primes with the exception of the 70-200s
the 400 5.6 is extremely sharp but limited both by its speed and lack of IS and requires good light or a tripod. IQ is good with the 1.4x but requires a tripod and use of magnified manual liveview or liveview CDAF - only useful for subjects in a plane of focus and/or stationary. this is a special situation lens for me instead of carrying really big glass that i wouldn't use very often either - but that depends on where you're going and what you're looking for
i should probably try the 400DO with the 1.4xiii which is a noticeable improvement over the ii. however, with a crop frame backup 640 equiv is as much as you need in most place (unless you're concentrating on birds and small animals)
your wife may not like the price of the 5D3 (and i don't either), but she'll like what you hang on the wall
-
The problem with the 5D3 is the effective maximum reach with whatever lens is attached. The Canon 100-400 is a good compromise, has a useful range, is reasonable quality and not excessively heavy. However, it's still a 400mm full-frame lens which may often not be long enough for wildlife.
In my experience, using this zoom lens with a 1.4x extender serves little resolution benefit compared with cropping and interpolating the 400mm shot. Any slight resolution benefit is offset by the need for a higher ISO to achieve the same shutter speed and the loss of autofocus.
If you check out the results at DXOMark, you will see that the 5D3 pixel is hardly better than the old 20D pixel. This means, if you need to crop the 5D3 image to get the same FoV as a cropped-format camera, such as the 20D, effectively turning the 400mm lens into a 640mm lens, the results may be hardly better than using the old 8mp 20D with the same lens.
The 7D with more than twice the pixel count of the 20D should produce a noticeably better and more detailed result than the 5D3 when attempting to get a 640mm reach with a 400mm lens. In fact, if you were prepared to crop the 18mp 7D image to the 8mp of the 20D (or the 8mp of the cropped 5D3 image) in order to extend the effective focal length even further, you would get an 8mp, 960mm image.
Of course, the 7D pixel is significantly smaller than the 20D and 5D3 pixel, and is therefore noisier, but bear in mind that using a teleconverter will most often result in increased noise due to the increased ISO setting required for a fast shutter speed at the reduced aperture size.
It would be interesting to compare a 22mp image from a 5D3 used with 400mm lens and 2x extender at say ISO 1600, and the same lens used with a 7D at ISO 400, cropped to 8mp.
If the 400mm lens were a good quality prime, we'd be comparing an 8mp crop from the centre of a sharp lens with an equivalent focal length of 960mm, as opposed to a 22mp image from a mediocre and rather unsharp 800mm lens, because this is what a teleconverter does to a lens. It turns a first rate lens into a second rate lens of longer focal length, and a second rate lens into a third rate lens of longer focal length.
-
Of course, the 7D pixel is significantly smaller than the 20D and 5D3 pixel, and is therefore noisier
Aaah, come on Ray - that utterly disproven Internet meme again?
If large pixels are inherently less noisy than small pixels, why does my 7D knock my 40D, 30D, Nikon D200 and Nikon D70 into the middle of next week? And how is it significantly better than the 1D Mk IIn I used to use? And indeed, at the image level, how does it compare so well against the 1D Mk III I side-by-side tested the 7D against before choosing the 7D over it?
I'll put my 7D up against a 5D any day, too, as I will against any of Canon's earlier full frame 1Ds models.
You might want to compare the noise from a Nikon D7000 against that of a D300, too.
Small pixels do not make for noisier cameras - not in any sense that matters to the image.
-
Aaah, come on Ray - that utterly disproven Internet meme again?
If large pixels are inherently less noisy than small pixels, why does my 7D knock my 40D, 30D, Nikon D200 and Nikon D70 into the middle of next week? And how is it significantly better than the 1D Mk IIn I used to use? And indeed, at the image level, how does it compare so well against the 1D Mk III I side-by-side tested the 7D against before choosing the 7D over it?
I'll put my 7D up against a 5D any day, too, as I will against any of Canon's earlier full frame 1Ds models.
You might want to compare the noise from a Nikon D7000 against that of a D300, too.
Small pixels do not make for noisier cameras - not in any sense that matters to the image.
Ah! I see you have confused overall image quality with individual pixel quality. ;D When I say that the 7D pixel is noisier than the 5D3 pixel, or the much older 20D pixel, I'm comparing one pixel with another pixel. This is what DXOMark is expert at doing. When you compare sensors at their website, they give you the option of comparing overall image quality, by clicking on 'print', top left of the 'measurements' window, which compares equal size images involving the downsizing of at least one of the images, or 'screen', which compares pixel with pixel.
If you want to compare the 1D3 pixel with the 7D pixel in 'real-world' shots, you should crop the 18mp 7D image to 10mp after taking a shot of the same scene with an appropriately wider lens or from a further distance than the 1D3 shot.
Since the 7D sensor is a more modern sensor than the 1D3 sensor, there will be some improvements that result in the smaller pixel of the 7D being almost on a par with the larger pixel of the 1D3. Dynamic range is a quality which has been much improved in recent DSLRs, especially Nikon models. Canon is lagging behind in this respect, but they have nevertheless made some slight improvements in DR in recent years. The DR of the 7D pixel at base ISO is only 1/4th of a stop worse than the DR of the larger 1D3 pixel. That's of little significance.
However, SNR at 18% grey is more than a whole stop worse. Color sensitivity of the 7D pixel is 2.1 bits worse. One bit is considered the threshold which is noticeable, so 2.1 bits of additional color sensitivity should be significant.
On the other hand, if you are a DXOMark denier, you probably won't believe these results. ;D
-
using Imatest target and software, it appears that a crop from the 5D2 and 100-400 (at 400mm) is of equal resolution to the 7D and 100-400 at between 500 and 550mm
-
using Imatest target and software, it appears that a crop from the 5D2 and 100-400 (at 400mm) is of equal resolution to the 7D and 100-400 at between 500 and 550mm
That sounds about right if I've understood what you mean. Do you mean that an 8mp crop from the 5D2 at 400mm, which matches the same FoV that the 18mp 7D sensor would produce with a 400mm lens, that is 640mm equivalent, would be equal in resolution to the 7D used at an actual 312-340mm, instead of 400mm, producing an effective focal length of 500-550mm?
In other words, using a 7D instead of a 5D2 would allow one to extend the reach of, say, a 328mm lens to 400mm whilst maintaining the same level of resolution, and therefore, proportionally, would allow one to extend a 400mm lens to effectively a 488mm lens.
If this is what you mean, I wouldn't disagree because image resolution is always a combination of sensor resolution and lens resolution. If one doubles the pixel count of a sensor, as the 7D is approximately double the pixel count of a 5D3 cropped to the 7D's field of view, then the resolution of the sensor will increase by the sq rt of 2, ie 1.4x.
However, in order to get that full increase in resolution of 1.4x, that the increased pixel density of the 7D provides, one would have to proportionally increase the quality of the lens. If one uses the same lens, such as the 100-400, one might expect that increase to be halved; instead of 1.4x one might expect a 1.2x increase in resolution. 640/525= 1.22.
-
i think we agree, the practical focal length multiplier for equivalent resolution between the 7D and 5D2 (or 3) is about 1.2, not 1.6.
with better lenses, e.g. 100 macro, 400 f5.6, 300 f2.8 the multiplier (at equivalent resolution) may be more like 1.3-1.4 (but never gets to 1.6)
the practical result for me is that with decent technique i can get images from the 5D2 or 3 with the 100-400 (and most other Canon lenses) that will print to 17x25 at most focal lengths with reasonable technique (and larger with better primes). then i can crop 30% and print 13 x19 (or more with good primes) for a focal length multiplier.
that's why i don't use the 7D so much -- what we need is a 7D that will autofocus at f8 (my EOS 3 will autofocus at F8, what's the big deal) and a 400 f5.6 IS and 500 f5.6 IS
-
Well, I'd agree that the multiplier for the Field of View is not the same as that for resolution.
The multipliers of 1.6x for Canon and 1.5x for Nikon, have always applied to the FoV and equivalent F stop when using the same lens from the same position with full-frame as opposed to cropped format. Changes in resolution when the same lens is attached to different cameras is largely dependent on the pixel density of the sensor in whatever camera is used, and to some lesser extent on the strength of the AA filter.
As a consequence, the old 20D and 30D are basically redundant for owners of a 5D2 or 5D3 because the pixel density is about the same on all 4 sensors. Likewise, my Nikon D7000 is redundant now that I have a D800E which has very close to the same pixel density as the D7000. I get effectively 2 cameras for the price of one.
However the pixel density of the 7D is much greater than the pixel density of the 5D3. A 1.2x increase in resolution from the same lens is not trivial. My Canon 100-400 at 400mm is sharpest at F8. The Photozone tests of this lens with the Canon 8mp 350D (same pixel density as the 5D2) show that centre resolution at F8 is 1.07x the centre resolution at F5.6.
Supposing Canon were to produce an updated model of this lens which was 1.2x sharper at F5.6 than the current lens is at F8. I think it would be a huge success.
Out of curiosity I compared the resolution of some cheap zooms with expensive primes at Photozone, on the same camera body, either the 8mp 350D or the 15mp 50D. The results were quite revealing. It was rare to find differences greater than 1.2x in centre resolution at the sharpest aperture of each lens compared. Most differences were in the region of 1.1x, comparing primes with cheap zooms of the same focal length.
With lenses that were tested by Photozone up to F16, such as the 100/F2.8 macro, I was surprised to find that often the resolution at the sharpest aperture, such as F4 in a good prime, was little more than 1.2x the resolution at F16, and less than 1.2x the resolution at F11.
I'd say, if any owner of a 5D3 can get 1.2x more resolution from a lens by using a 7D when a longer reach is required, go for it. ;D
-
agree - however thinking about the same number of pixels on subject as a 20D with the 5D3 cropped to APSC size - and lower per pixel noise, the 100-400 at 400 will make images printable to 13x19 as did and does the 20D (although, as with the 20D desirably be stopped down to f8)
this useful discussion has clarified my decision to pretty much leave the 100-400 on the 5D3 and the 400 5.6 and 1.4x on the 7D for the occasional long shot
i'm leaving for Madagascar and Namibia next week
p.s. i tried the Tamron 70-300 and Canon 70-300 along with the 70-300L and 70-200 f4 and found that although the center resolution isn't down to much for the "cheap" zooms, they're not very good (to be polite) away from center - usually with severe loss of resolution on one side or the other from de-centering. this may be okay if you're going to do a "center focus" crop, but if you want the full frame and the main subject is off center you may be in trouble. Similarly, they're not much good for "landscape with wildlife".
-
I can see the problem here. I remember years ago investigating the Canon 400/F5.6 prime after hearing reports it was sharper than the 100-400 zoom at 400mm. The copy I bought turned out not to sharper than my 100-400. In fact, at 100% on screen it appeared less sharp, so I returned the lens for a refund.
I notice that the copy of this lens that Photozone tested on the Canon 350D is also very marginally less sharp than the 100-400 at 400mm, but to a degree that's not significant in relation to the other disadvantages of a prime without image stabilization.
In retrospect, I'm rather glad that the copy of the 400 prime I tested wasn't as sharp. If it had been just marginally sharper I might have kept the lens but now suspect I would probably have rarely used it because any benefit from that marginal increase in sharpness would probably have been lost due to the frequent need for a higher ISO because the lens has no IS.
The lack of autofocus and autofocus tracking with 1.4x extender attached, plus the disadvantage of that inherent inflexibility of not being able to use, say, 350mm when that suits the composition better, are all serious disadvantages in my opinion.
I generally find that a shutter speed equal to "1/effective FL" (ie.1/640th) is required for a sharp image, when I use the 100-400 with my 50D. Using a slower shutter speed, sometimes as slow as 1/250th, can sometimes produce acceptable results, but is not reliable. If there's any significant movement of the subject, a shutter speed faster than 1/FL is required of course..
If one accepts that the IS on the 100-400 provides a 2 stop advantage, and that a reliably sharp image without IS would therefore require a shutter speed of 1/4FL, I can't see how that 400/F5.6 prime with 1.4x extender is going to provide much benefit, unless you intend using a tripod or at least a monopod, and even then I would be doubtful. The 640mm FL equivalent becomes a 900mm equivalent. With IS in place that would require a shutter speed of 1/800th or 1/1000th. Without IS, we're looking at 1/3200 or 1/4000th.
To attain such a shutter speed, it would appear to me one would probably need to frequently use ISO 3200, and sometimes ISO 6400. But maybe I'm exaggerating. It's your equipment.
Are you able to provide any comparison images showing, for example, the 5D3 with 100-400 plus 1.4 converter used at ISO 800, the 7D with 400 prime plus 1.4x converter used at ISO 3200 to compensate for its lack of IS, and the 7D with 100-400 without converter, used at ISO 400. It would be interesting to see the differences comparing equal size and equal FoV crops. However, if you're leaving for Madagascar next week, I will understand if you haven't got the time.
Best of luck on your trip.
-
sorry, think i mentioned in an earlier post that the 400 f5.6+ 1.4xiii is tripod only for subjects that remain in the same plane. without the extender, it's sharp wide open - shutter speed is an issue early in the morning and late afternoon (and it's pretty useless in jungle) - but a reasonable long backup if something happens to the 100-400 (my short backup is the 70-200 +1.4x) with the high ISO capability of the 5D3
the 400 f5.6 is sharper with better contrast than the 400DO (and without the terrible sensitivity to flare) - much lighter, more compact (particulary considering the terribly heavy but essential lens hood on the DO, and cheaper -- but without IS it's seriously limited. It's the best alternative i've found to getting longer (with good IQ) than the 100-400 at reasonable size and weight.
Ray, i'm not sure where your 1/4fl comes from. 1/fl for a long hand-held lens without IS may be a bit optimistic, but with a sequence of multiple images there's a pretty good probability of some keepers. the shutter speed required for action has nothing to do with the focal length - only the speed of motion of the subject which for wildlife is 1/500 to 1/1000 at most (except some small birds and amimals, and of course hummingbirds). in reasonable light, the problem of handholding the 400 + extender is more about getting focus on the subject than shutter speed and ISO
the 100-400, 400 5.6 and over-priced 400 DO are overdue for up-grade - maybe because Nikon still has no equivalent for any of these lenses
-
Ray, i'm not sure where your 1/4fl comes from. 1/fl for a long hand-held lens without IS may be a bit optimistic, but with a sequence of multiple images there's a pretty good probability of some keepers. the shutter speed required for action has nothing to do with the focal length - only the speed of motion of the subject which for wildlife is 1/500 to 1/1000 at most (except some small birds and amimals, and of course hummingbirds). in reasonable light, the problem of handholding the 400 + extender is more about getting focus on the subject than shutter speed and ISO
Steve,
The issue was raised recently in the review of the Nikon D800. The claim was made by Michael, and supported by others, that in order to benefit from the unusually high pixel density of such a camera, one may need to use a faster shutter than one is used to using with lower resolution cameras.
1/FL even with VR was considered to be inadequate to get that extra resolution the D800 is capable of. I claimed that it wasn't inadequate, and took a number of test shots, hand-held, using my D7000 with 24-120/F4 zoom to demonstrate my point. But I admit the test was flawed because I used a zoom lens instead of a first rate prime. I don't have any Nikkor primes.
No-one mentioned this, not even Slobodan. A bit slack really. ;D
The pixel density of the 7D is equivalent to that of a 46mp full-frame sensor, a bit higher than that of the D800, so such reasoning would be even more relevant to the 7D.
Whilst it's true that there is always a certain degree of variability in the sharpness of results, due to the variability of camera shake, a shutter speed of 1/FL with the older versions of VR and IS, seemed about right to ensure a sharp image most of the time. With the newer versions of image stabilization, such as VRII, that claim up to a 3 stop advantage, one may get away with a shutter speed of 2/FL. I don't know. I haven't got any such lenses.
However, I agree that taking multiple shots in continuous mode will increase your chances of getting a sharp image, whatever the shutter speed.
As regards subject movement versus camera movement, I haven't carried out any tests. One might assume if the shutter speed required to freeze subject movement is faster than 1/FL then that will also take care of any camera shake, if the lens has IS or VR.
If the lens doesn't have IS, it may be a different kettle of fish. We have two competing sources of movement. If such movements are in opposite directions at the precise time the exposure is taken, we may get a blurred shot.
the 100-400, 400 5.6 and over-priced 400 DO are overdue for up-grade - maybe because Nikon still has no equivalent for any of these lenses
Absolutely! I would like Nikon to take the plunge and design a first-rate 200-400/F5.6 which is significantly sharper at F5.6 than at F8 and costs no more, or little more, than its 80-400/F5.6 which is a bit behind the Canon 100-400/F5.6.