Nikon vs. Canon in the long run for bird photography

[D50birdshooter]

Hello, i have a nikon D50 and i am going to have to move up somtime and i was just asking, for in the long run for bird and nature photography, is canon or nikon better. I am also talking about the lenses with IS vs. VR. I have heard that canon has the better and or faster lenses. Please help me with this dissision. The 2 cameras i am looking into buying right now and these will probly be the last models i will buy a used Nikon D2X 12mp, or the Canon Mark 2 8mp. they are both around $1,700.00 as of now used. i do not want a full frame censor i like the crop factor to get the most out of my focol length. for the lenses i am looking at a $1,000-$2,000 prince range for the lenses. i would like to purchase a 600mm prime but that is not fitting to the budget. so if you have any insight then please help me decide.

[D50birdshooter]

Also i was looking into purchasing a sigma 50-500mm is this a good idea?? i have heard pretty good things about it. i am going to buy this befor o even look into buying a new body. would this be a good investment at all in the long run???

[Robert / Seattle]

Also i was looking into purchasing a sigma 50-500mm is this a good idea?? i have heard pretty good things about it. i am going to buy this befor o even look into buying a new body. would this be a good investment at all in the long run???



Hi D50,

It's a great lens!

But I'm fairly certain you will need to select your body (mount) before you buy the lens itself.

BTW - In addition to the Sigma, I have the Nikon D2x with the Nikkor 80-400 VR, and could not be more pleased.

Robert / Seattle

[Leif]

I am not sure the D2x offers you anything not already in the D300 (apart from integrated grip and more rugged build), and the D300 is in many respects better. There are reports on the net from people who own both.

[gasjkh2]

Why not save some money, buy the D200 for a bargain price currently (superb camera), and spend the saved cash on decent glass.

The Bigma 500 is a great lense.

I am pleased with this lense.

[postcardcv]

n the long run for bird and nature photography, is canon or nikon better? I am also talking about the lenses with IS vs. VR.

I honestly don't think that one is better than the other. For the last few years Canon have had an edge with the IS long lenses, but the new Nikon's look set to be as good. It seems to me that one of the companies will make a new development from time to time and 'take the lead', but the other will come back at them. The strong competition between Nikon and Canon is great for users of both systems as it pushes them to improve.

As you already have a Nikon camera I'd say stick with them. If you've got money to spend on gear get the best lens you can afford. A good lens will last you for many years, while new camera's seem to be release almost annually.

[tjsimonsen]

I agree 100% with Postcard! I have Canon and am very satisfied. But several of my friends have Nikon (either D80 or D200), and they are just as happy campers as I.
Before you buy the Bigma, you might take a look here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=106276

Thomas

[pe'rigin]

As with everything today, it all boils down to cost. I think that I would buy new, matching the cost of the used Nikon and Canon. Which brings you into D200, D300, 450D and 40D territory.

If you can get a deal reduction on the 40D with the 100-400mm IS Canon lens I would be tempted.

The D200 with a new Sigma OS 400mm could be worth looking at.

The D300 is £300 more that these two, which is a fair increase. You may reconsider spending the extra to get this camera.

I don’t think you can go far wrong with any of the models.

[D50birdshooter]

Thank you all, i was hoping for the bigma would to come out with OS that is great news. i will probly purchase that. but i didd'nt realy look at the new D300 i guess i should i like the D2x but i will have to read up on it.

[D50birdshooter]

Also would you reccomomend buying the camera or the lens first right now i only have a crappy 70-300mm the thing has horrible everything unless there are no cloudes and the sun is very bright, but it has given me some pretty impressive images so far so do you all think i should purchase the bigma or the Nikon D2x first. there would be a gap if i buy either one because i would have to save up again. Thanks again.

[Neil]

For camera bodies Nikon have caught up with Canon ( some even say the D3 is better ) and their new long lenses with VR should be very good too. For birds you will find the D300 and Nikon 300/f4 AFS a great combo and if you add a Nikon 1.4x tele you get very good reach. This would last you a long time. I've been using the Nikon 300/f4s for almost 10 years. The Sigma zoom is a nice lens for slow moving subjects but not for fast moving warblers or flight shots.
The D300 is better than the D2x for flight shots and fast action.
Neil.

[Guidenet]

For camera bodies Nikon have caught up with Canon ( some even say the D3 is better ) and their new long lenses with VR should be very good too. For birds you will find the D300 and Nikon 300/f4 AFS a great combo and if you add a Nikon 1.4x tele you get very good reach. This would last you a long time. I've been using the Nikon 300/f4s for almost 10 years. The Sigma zoom is a nice lens for slow moving subjects but not for fast moving warblers or flight shots.
The D300 is better than the D2x for flight shots and fast action.
Neil.

Wow, I couldn't agree with you more. The D300 is about the same price as a used D2x and superior for birding, IMHO.

Moreover, the Nikkor 300 f4 with a Kirk collar and a 1.4 or 1.7 converter would be a better choice than the Bigma in my opinion. I purchased the Tamron 200-500 zoom to get to 500 and I think it's much sharper than the Bigma at 500 mm and that's what you buy it for, not the lower focal lengths. Sharper yet is the 300 Nikkor f4.

The D300 and 300 f4 with teleconverter will set you back slightly over $3000 and you'd have something you can live with for years to come, very sharp with high ISO preformance.

Just my opinion.

[bkrownd]

The D300 and 300 f4 with teleconverter will set you back slightly over $3000 and you'd have something you can live with for years to come, very sharp with high ISO preformance.

Nikon's 300mm f/4 doesn't have VR, so it would only be useful anchored to a tripod, which makes it useless for bird/wildlife photos IMO. It's the biggest hole in Nikon's lens lineup, and their worst point of comparison with Canon.

[rioja]

Nikon's 300mm f/4 doesn't have VR, so it would only be useful anchored to a tripod, which makes it useless for bird/wildlife photos IMO. It's the biggest hole in Nikon's lens lineup, and their worst point of comparison with Canon.

I have only been into bird photography for a year or two. After much consideration I purchased my first DSLR, a D200 and the Nikon 80-400mm. I think the camera is a great choice, but yes I wish I had the D300 now!
The lens is a good choice for going walkabout but there are two major problems as far as I am concerned. The first is that at F5.6 it is not sharp enough and the second is that at 400mm you always feel you need a bit more reach ( although I guess that will always be the case no matter how big your lens) Apparently you can use a 1.4 teleconverter with this lens but you loose autofocus which is a no go for me.
I have been advised for ages to get a tripod, and I recently bought a Manfrotto 055 plus a 222 ball head.(very manoeuvrable)I took this on holiday to the Gambia and surprised myself that I used it nearly all the time.I left the VR switched on most of the time even though you are supposed to switch it off.
The huge advantage in The Gambia is that there is good light most of the time and for some reason you seem to be able to get much closer to the birds. I got some very satisfying results.
So, depending on where you live and the average lighting conditions makes a huge difference.
I would buy the D300 , not the D2X. A friend has the latter and it doesn't give much better results than my D200 but the price difference is considerable.
For a lens I would look for a good second hand one and I would choose one that lets in lots of light, good for British style winters ( and summers) and one you can increase reach with a teleconverter in auto focus.
Obviously budget is of primary concern and you also need to know that you are committed long term to this addictive hobby before blowing a small fortune.Waiting for the next generation technology is not a good idea as it constantly improves, waiting for the right equipment at the right price makes good sense though.
Instead of spending nearly £1000 on a new 80-400 VR, I wish I had waited for a prime 400 or 500 second hand.It would have been an additional £1000 saving because I still need to buy one.

[rezMole]

If your lens budget is fairly low, it doesn't matter whether you go Canon or Nikon because you won't be able to afford the long prime lenses anyway!

I'm in the Nikon camp and use Tamron and Sigma lenses. If i'd bought a Canon body i would still be using the same lenses (with different fittings obviously).

As for bodies, it almost changes daily which to go with. When I bought my D70 it was the best at the price. Canon quickly started producing "better" budget models. Now with the Nikon D300, Nikon probably have the edge. But next month, who knows.

I will say that I struggled to get my Sigma 500mm prime in a Nikon fitting, secondhand. There are probably more Canon versions around in the secondhand market. So, Nikon fitting ones attract a higher price.

[Helios]

I have the D300 with the 300 f4 AFS and x1.4 converter setup, and would like to say that although its an AFS lens, the autofocus isn't particularly fast. Infact I would say that its not noticably faster than the Tamron 200-500 lens that I used to own, and that used a screw type focus mechanism! Canon certainly has better options with hand-holdable telephoto lenses, and I feel that any small advantages that the D300 has over the 40D is easily overcome with image stabilisation and a truely fast autofocus.

I do love the sharpness of the 300 prime, which I feel is a step ahead of the Tamron zoom, and its a shame that Nikon don't have a 300 f4 AFS VR in their current lineup. The two upcoming Sigma lenses could well be very import for Nikon users.

In the long run, its also worth noting that Canon's 500 f4 and 600 f4 image stabilised lenses are £1500 - 1000 cheaper than their Nikon's equivalents (here in the UK).

[Outboard]

The D300 and Nikon 300 AFS f4 combination both with and without the TC14E is an extremely good fast focussing combination and will be ideal for birding. Although I don't use this setup very often prefering my 200-400Vr I did try it out this evening after reading the previous post about how it is not good on a D300. I was able to acquire a focus lock very easily without problem in a dimly lit room.

[Guidenet]

Nikon's 300mm f/4 doesn't have VR, so it would only be useful anchored to a tripod, which makes it useless for bird/wildlife photos IMO. It's the biggest hole in Nikon's lens lineup, and their worst point of comparison with Canon.

Personally, I prefer using a tripod and find that my images are magnatudes better when doing so. I also own VR lenses and find, for me at least, not as much advantage as the hype. I'm sure others feel differently. I don't feel hampered using a tripod. Various ball heads and gimbal mounts make it fairly easy to track birds, IMHO. The Nikkor 300 f4 AFS is so darn sharp and nearly perfect in most respects, I don't think one needs apologize for it to Canon or anyone for the lack of VR. If it had VR, I'd probably buy it, but turn off the VR for the 90 percent of the time it was securely attached to my tripod with a Kirk collar.

[Outboard]

Personally, I prefer using a tripod and find that my images are magnatudes better when doing so. I also own VR lenses and find, for me at least, not as much advantage as the hype. I'm sure others feel differently. I don't feel hampered using a tripod. Various ball heads and gimbal mounts make it fairly easy to track birds, IMHO. The Nikkor 300 f4 AFS is so darn sharp and nearly perfect in most respects, I don't think one needs apologize for it to Canon or anyone for the lack of VR. If it had VR, I'd probably buy it, but turn off the VR for the 90 percent of the time it was securely attached to my tripod with a Kirk collar.

I agree entirely, some people think that having a lens with VR is essential to taking good photographs. Utter rubbish. A friend of mine Tim Zurowsky (http://www.timzphotography.com/) regularly takes shots like this Ruddy Turnstone (http://www.zuropak.com/photogallery/ruddy-turnstone/slides/Ruddy-Turnstone-(28).html) not only handheld but bobbing about in a kayak and also with a 300f4 and tc14e.

[Duke Leto]

yep I may be a staunch supporter of the AF-S 300 plus either a 1.4 or 1.7 but when panning I would find VR redundant, I shoot a lot of rugby and always turn of VR for these shots on my 70-200, it slows down the focusing process slightly and is an extra drain on the battery. Okay there are lots of times when I would love vr but there is a conflict as these times I would be either tripod or monopod mounted and again vr would be off or are Nikon now doing a tripod vr setting?
I have to say that imho the 300 plus a 1.4 is a perfect walkabout combo as it only needs a monopod if anything and this helps carry it around.

[Outboard]

Okay there are lots of times when I would love vr but there is a conflict as these times I would be either tripod or monopod mounted and again vr would be off or are Nikon now doing a tripod vr setting?

I believe it depends on the lens, some you should leave off and some you can leave on. I leave mine on and invariably shoot using a tripod.

[Helios]

I find that my 300 f4 AFS lens's autofocus speed isn't really an improvement over my old Tamron 200-500, and worryingly, sometimes the autofocus cuts out with the teleconverter on, usually when I need it most. I found this surprising as the Tamron doesn't have a high speed motor drive, and its minimum aperture is f6.3 at 500mm. The Nikon's much better without the teleconverter, but then it's a bit short. From the previous posts it sounds like I've got a duff copy of this lens, or perhaps the Tamron is a lot better than I thought. Can anyone confirm whether this lens's autofocus speed is comparable to, for example, the Nikon 200-400 VR or the Sigma 500 f4.5. I think I'll definitely try another copy when the opertunity arises.

Most of my photography is from hides, where I can get close to the birds, and here in the UK with our overcast skies I'm often shooting at ISO800 from 1/250 down to 1/50s. So I believe VR could be benificial to my style, but I wouldn't want to comprimise the sharpness I get from the 300 prime, so I have to admit I'm more than slightly envious of Canon's lineup. The 300 f2.8 VR is too expensive for the moment, and quite bulky. I'm hoping that Nikon or Sigma will make a 300 f4 VR or 400 f5.6 VR in the near future, but I'm not holding my breath.

[bkrownd]

I agree entirely, some people think that having a lens with VR is essential to taking good photographs. Utter rubbish. A friend of mine Tim Zurowsky (http://www.timzphotography.com/) regularly takes shots like this Ruddy Turnstone (http://www.zuropak.com/photogallery/ruddy-turnstone/slides/Ruddy-Turnstone-(28).html) not only handheld but bobbing about in a kayak and also with a 300f4 and tc14e.

That would be the exception, not the rule. If 1/640 sec was a fairly normal shutter speed image stabilization systems would never have been invented. 1/10 to 1/250 sec is the typical shutter speed range I get when taking photos of birds.

[Outboard]

VR, IS, OS whatever you want to call it is not a substitute for good long lens technique. Have a good long look at Tim's website Tim Zurowsky (http://www.timzphotography.com/) all of these shots are taken without the use of image stabilisation. He uses a 300f4 and a Sigma 500 f4.5. Heres another site for you just to make you sick Alan Murphy (http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/index.html) Alan uses a D2X and a other NON VR lenses. This is good technique people, if you think that VR is going to get you great sharp shots you are deluding yourselves.

[Duke Leto]

I find that my 300 f4 AFS lens's autofocus speed isn't really an improvement over my old Tamron 200-500, and worryingly, sometimes the autofocus cuts out with the teleconverter on, usually when I need it most.

Helios, get it serviced, my 300 failed last year and the symptoms were slow / sticky af, its very fast now and is unaffected by a 1.4 and relatively unaffected with a 1.7.
What body are you using as this lens is slower to af on my d70 than my d200 and is quick on my daughters F100 slr

[Helios]

I'm using a D300 and a D80 as a backup. I'd say the autofocus speed is about the same on both bodies. Did you send it back to Nikon, Steve, and what sort of turnaround did you get? When I took my Nikon D80 in to be repaired last year, they took 3 months so I didn't have a DSLR for my holiday in Mallorca. I'm planning a holiday soon to the Scottish hightlands, and I really don't want to be without my only lens suitable for nature photography. Kind of wished I hadn't sold the Tamron now as it would have been a great backup lens.

Back on topic, I'd like to say that I can get usable images down to about 1/50s were most are blurred but I usually get a few keepers. Beyond that it's hopeless. Many of the hides I use are surrounded by trees, and with the winter light we get in the UK, I'm forced to really push up the ISO setting, and consequently the noise. I hear that with certain VR lenses, keepers can be shot at up to 1/10sec, and if this is true then a VR lens would be a real benifit to my style of photography. Almost all of my DSLR gallery shots are handheld, so I would never say you can't get sharp shots without VR; I'm just suggesting that in certain poor light situations you may get a usable shot with VR that overwise wouldn't be possible.

[Duke Leto]

sounds like a tripod wouldn't go amiss or at least a monopod, I never use the 300 plus a 1.4 on there own, always have a support of some sort.
Nikon were a tad slow @ 3 weeks from start to finish and had to negotiate on price which to be fair to Nikon they did. I would probably use fixationuk again as I was extremely pleased the 1st time I used them as they repaired and serviced the D70s in under a week.

[bkrownd]

Back on topic, I'd like to say that I can get usable images down to about 1/50s were most are blurred but I usually get a few keepers. Beyond that it's hopeless.

The satisfaction level with VR will depend a lot on what one considers a "keeper". My primary purpose for taking photos is to get IDs, check for unusual features like disease and bands, and have a photographic record of my sightings - any amount of VR improvement is a big help, not just what produces 'perfection'. Pretty pictures are a distant secondary consideration - they'll come randomly with time. Any amount of VR assistance is going to help for my purposes at typical shutter speeds where I go. People who are mostly interested first and foremost in pretty pictures or technically excellent photos or something that they can sell are going to have a completely different threshold of satisfaction.

[Robert / Seattle]

Back to topic (Nikon vs. Canon):

Maybe it's the photographer and not the camera. Is the practitioner as good as the capabilities of his/her equipment? My guess is that the skills of the "shooter" are not inhibited by the limitations of either camera system.

Disagree? Then wait a mere 6 months for the next D-whatever and have this debate all over again.

Robert / Seattle

[Neil]

Nikon's 300mm f/4 doesn't have VR, so it would only be useful anchored to a tripod, which makes it useless for bird/wildlife photos IMO. It's the biggest hole in Nikon's lens lineup, and their worst point of comparison with Canon.

This maybe was true in the old days, before the D3 and D300. I've been using the Nikon 300/4 AFS plus Nikon 1.4x on my D3 almost exclusively for the last couple of months (the 300/2.8 is too heavy to carry around ) and I've been hand holding 50 % of the time. I've found that at 1/2000th second and f8 I'm very happy with the sharpness of the shots I'm getting. I vary the iso from 400 - 3200 as I'm more interested in sharpness than noise. ISO 1600 on the D3 is similar to ISO 400 on the D2x. Neil.

[bkrownd]

I've found that at 1/2000th second and f8 I'm very happy with the sharpness of the shots I'm getting.

Well, when they invent a camera that can produce those shutter speeds under canopy on a misty overcast afternoon, I'm sold. :t: Perhaps the D900x will render VR obsolete in 2036. :-O

[Neil]

Well, when they invent a camera that can produce those shutter speeds under canopy on a misty overcast afternoon, I'm sold. :t: Perhaps the D900x will render VR obsolete in 2036. :-O

I'm having difficulty with your assertions if your saying that the 300/f4 is useless for nature/bird photography without VR then I have to disagree and point you to my galleryhttp://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/1568
All the photos on this page were taken in poor light (I've only seen the sun twice in 5 weeks ) and hand held .
I notice that some of your images are taken at iso 800 with the D80. With the D3/D300 you should be able to use at least iso 3200 for the same result. It may not get you 1/2000 of a second but it will give you a better result than the 80 -400 zoom ( I have that lens too ) which is not as sharp a lens as the 300/f4.
If you were implying that VR is desirable for photographing in misty/cloudy conditions then I would agree. The 300/f4 plus VR would be a wonderful lens.
Neil.

[Duke Leto]

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/172926/ppuser/35693

handheld, under a tree in overcast conditions with a noisy D200 at 400iso

[rioja]

This argument has gone round in circles without giving much advice to the original poster !
As a novice though, perhaps someone might explain why you would spend considerable amounts on an F2.8 lens then shoot at F8? I thought the whole point of a prime lens was the sharpness of the image at maximum aperture.
My 80-400 is , on the other hand, much sharper at F8.

[postcardcv]

As a novice though, perhaps someone might explain why you would spend considerable amounts on an F2.8 lens then shoot at F8? I thought the whole point of a prime lens was the sharpness of the image at maximum aperture.

These big fast prime lenses are sharp wide open, however at f2.8 or f4 the depth of field is very shallow, so stopping down will help keep the whole subject in focus. A fast lens will allow you more control over the shot, they also tend to be fast focusing.

[Neil]

This argument has gone round in circles without giving much advice to the original poster !
As a novice though, perhaps someone might explain why you would spend considerable amounts on an F2.8 lens then shoot at F8? I thought the whole point of a prime lens was the sharpness of the image at maximum aperture.
My 80-400 is , on the other hand, much sharper at F8.

I have the 1.4x on the 300/f4 most of the time. Rule of thumb is stop down one for the 1.4 and 2 for the 2x . I read this somewhere a long time ago . So f4 plus 1.4x tele is 5.6, add one gives me f8. This is not the main reason I do it though. As mentioned the DOF is very shallow at f4 and often the AF will lock onto the wing tip and not the head. As I use this lens for action shots (most of the time) on birds from ducks to herons , and multiple birds in the frame I need the DOF. Neil.

[rioja]

Thanks for the explanations !

[bkrownd]

A fast lens will allow you more control over the shot, they also tend to be fast focusing.

Better autofocus with less hunting is a big one. Faster shutter speeds. Also a brighter viewfinder image. Perhaps better perception of focus quality in the viewfinder, as well? So many advantages... :t: