20d - vs. - 1d mark2 N (1 Viewer)

birder · Oct 5, 2005

Hi all. Please can I have the benefit of your opinions. I am currently a Nikon D100 user, with 80-400mm VR lens as my 'bird photo' lens. This set up is fine for many situations, but rather too frequently, I have felt I could have had a longer lens for the more distant birds. As a result I have decided to buy the Canon 500 IS L f4 lens, as I have concluded that it is a better lens than the Nikon equivalent and just as importantly, Canon DSLR bodies are 'quicker', for want of a better expression.

This is where I need your help. I have narrowed the field down, as far as bodies are concerned, to the EOS 20d and the EOS 1D MARK 2 N. I hope to be submitting some of my work for publication / agencies in the future.

Please can you advise me which body you would opt for with this lens, and why. On the one hand, the larger 'magnification factor' of the EOS 20d appeals, but the 1D MARK 2 N has other attributes. Many thanks in advance.

Kevin

compa · Oct 5, 2005

birder said:
I am currently a Nikon D100 user, with 80-400mm VR lens as my 'bird photo' lens. I have decided to buy the Canon 500 IS L f4 lens,

I have narrowed the field down, as far as bodies are concerned, to the EOS 20d and the EOS 1D MARK 2 N. I hope to be submitting some of my work for publication / agencies in the future.

Please can you advise me which body you would opt for with this lens, and why. On the one hand, the larger 'magnification factor' of the EOS 20d appeals, but the 1D MARK 2 N has other attributes.

Kevin

Hummmmmm

What makes a good birding setup? Always, a long, fast lens. The 500mm is a good selection. But even that is a compromise. It is heavy! Don't expect to handhold it and get a sharp photo - ever. That said ... the body:

You want a long lens and the 20D's crop factor makes that 500mm into an 800mm lens. As far as using telephoto lenses, the body selection is a no brainer - the 20D!

But ... if you will ever want to do a wide angle or will be working in very low light or expect to really need the weatherproofing or just have a ton of money to burn then you can consider the 1D.

As far as the bit about you hoping to submit work to agencies in the future ... don't let that influence you now. You will likely be replacing whatever body you buy within 2-3 years for one with all the new bells and whistles.

I say buy the 20D and invest the money saved in 'L' series glass!

Steve G · Oct 5, 2005

If light levels are good & with practice a 500mm lens can be handheld (esp. an IS lens ) yielding perfectly good results.
I have had a number of good flight shots using a 500mm IS lens + 1.4x convertor handheld.

compa · Oct 5, 2005

Steve G said:
If light levels are good & with practice a 500mm lens can be handheld (esp. an IS lens ) yielding perfectly good results.
I have had a number of good flight shots using a 500mm IS lens + 1.4x convertor handheld.

You missed the key word: "Don't expect to handhold it and get a sharp photo"

You can get an occasional sharp one handheld with a 500mm with IS on even a cloudy day. But it sure isn't anything you want rely on. Anything is possible but that doesn't mean it will happen when you really need it! A 500mm is best used (even by a very experienced professional) on a tripod.

formula4speed · Oct 5, 2005

As nice as the 1.6 crop factor is I think I'd still go with the 1 series for a few reasons. First being the improved autofocus, 45 points vs 9 points and general focus speed can be a big difference. Second is 8.5 frames per second, I would love to have that for birds in flight. And third the 1 series body can autofocus at f/8, meaning you can use a 2x TC on the 500mm and still retain autofocus. The 1 series is also weather sealed if you ever find yourself shooting in poor weather conditions. Just my 2 cents.

Steve G · Oct 5, 2005

The beauty of digital is that it costs nothing to experiment.

On a holiday in The Gambia in march of this year I took the majority of images handholding a 500mm lens + 1.4x convertor -ok a few images were crap but the majority were very acceptable & this allowed me to capture images I would not have got otherwise. The percieved wisdom is that long lenses can't be handheld -well they can & with practice will yield reasonably good results consistently. It is even worthwhile experimenting with stacked convertors in certain situations (see the Verreaux's Eagle Owl image -the bird was roosting high up in a tall tree -the image is reasonably sharp though there is some chromic aberration apparent).
Checkout a few examples:-
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/50991/sort/1/cat/500/page/4
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49789/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49536/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49191/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/48383/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/6
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/46829/sort/1/cat/500/page/7
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/46075/sort/1/cat/500/page/7
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/45913/sort/1/cat/500/page/7

birder · Oct 5, 2005

The only word I can think of for these images, Steve, is stunning. I think they are fantastic.

Mnay thanks for pointing me in their direction. Thanks also to the other contributors to this thread - please keep your comments coming. They are ALL valuable to me.

Kevin

Steve G said:
The beauty of digital is that it costs nothing to experiment.
On a holiday in The Gambia in march of this year I took the majority of images handholding a 500mm lens + 1.4x convertor -ok a few images were crap but the majority were very acceptable & this allowed me to capture images I would not have got otherwise. The percieved wisdom is that long lenses can't be handheld -well they can & with practice will yield reasonably good results consistently. It is even worthwhile experimenting with stacked convertors in certain situations (see the Verreaux's Eagle Owl image -the bird was roosting high up in a tall tree -the image is reasonably sharp though there is some chromic aberration apparent).
Checkout a few examples:-
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/50991/sort/1/cat/500/page/4
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49789/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49536/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49191/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/48383/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/6
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/46829/sort/1/cat/500/page/7
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/46075/sort/1/cat/500/page/7
www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/45913/sort/1/cat/500/page/7

adrianf · Oct 5, 2005

If it were me I'd go for the 20D for bird pics. I believe that the smaller sensor will actually have an advantage in the "pixels per bird" factor when the bird doesn't completely fill the frame. However, as Jim said above, if you want to shoot wide angle shots then you'll get better (wider) pics from the 1D.

Russ Jones · Oct 6, 2005

I'd go with a 20D. That crop factor is free zoom with no loss of light, it doesn't get any better than that. Also, I wouldn't shoot in really bad weather regardless of how weatherproof my digital equipment is (but I wouldn't want to get "stuck" in the rain with a 20D either). I don't shoot very much wide-angle stuff so a 1Dx wouldn't suit my needs. Also, don't worry about megapixels. The 20D has plenty

With the cash you save you could buy a nice lens or at least put a nice down payment on say....a 400mm DO

Russ

Robert_Scanlon · Oct 6, 2005

I would go for the 1D Mk II (not even bother with the "N" if you can save a few quid on the non-N)

The focusing is better, the body is weatherproof, the buffer is much bigger, the images are better or at least as good, the battery capacity is bigger...it's just a far better machine. It is much heavier and more expensive, those are the only drawbacks for me.

I tested a 20D alongside my 1DII last year on the Masked Shrike. I found that the 1D gave me the better images than the 20D, though there wasn't much in it. So AFAIAK the crop factor on the 20D is no advantage. I sent it back to the shop and carried on with the 1D.

cfagyal · Oct 6, 2005

compa said:
You missed the key word: "Don't expect to handhold it and get a sharp photo"

You can get an occasional sharp one handheld with a 500mm with IS on even a cloudy day. But it sure isn't anything you want rely on. Anything is possible but that doesn't mean it will happen when you really need it! A 500mm is best used (even by a very experienced professional) on a tripod.

I would say you can definitely get consistently sharp flight shots using a 500mm hand-held. It just takes practice. There are lots of exceptional examples out there. Look at Jim Neigers photographs on Naturescapes.net (especially look at his photo essays on various in flight species..all taken with a 10D or 20D and 500mm f/4 IS handheld)

As for the original question of the thread 20D vs 1dMkIIn I would say it depends a bit on your desires. Both are excellent cameras. They are both good for specific things. If you are not intending to do a lot of action/flight photography the 20D is the easy choice. If you want the faster focus speed and faster shutter speed then the 1dMkIIn is the better choice. There is also the ruggedness of the body, as the 1dMkIIn is completely weather sealed and a "1 series" body...this has some significant merit depending on the situations you expect yourself to be in.

SteveG: Some pretty good example photographs of what can be accomplished hand-holding a 500mm. Again proving it's definitely possible with practice

Some of Jim Neigers photographs on Naturescapes that I mention above are just amazing..Snail Kites and the light in flight that are just stunning.

Cheers,

Neil · Oct 7, 2005

I'm going through the same thought processes about upgrading my D100 and 80-400 and 300/f4. Most of the guys next to me in the hides in Hong Kong are using Canon and in the shops here it looks like a 70/30 split with everyone carrying a wide range of Canon gear. I'm resisting changing from Nikon. An experienced Nikon/Canon man suggested that if I didnt' want to change brands the D2x plus 500mm/f4 would be a good choice. If price was an issue then the D2hs and 300/2.8 plus 1.4x and if weight (megapixels are not so important) was an issue (which it is for me as I will still be digiscoping) then the D2hs and 300/f4 plus 1.4x/1.7x tele is the way to go. I have decided that speed (flight shots) is more important than megapixels and weight is more important than magnification ( I like to get closer anyway) so I'm leaning towards the last option. I hopes this helps.Neil.

Scott67 · Oct 7, 2005

With respect to this part of your post only, ( Everyone elses advice is as usual spot on !)

This is where I need your help. I have narrowed the field down, as far as bodies are concerned, to the EOS 20d and the EOS 1D MARK 2 N. I hope to be submitting some of my work for publication / agencies in the future.

If you are planning on exclusivly selling your images to Stock agencies many insist on very large image files, e.g. ALAMAY below require 48meg unsharpened RGB Tiffs

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/submit.asp

So from that point of view you'll be looking at a 1 series EOS digital.
Not sure about other stock agencies such as Getty or Corbis but I'd imagine its probably the same

You'll also probably need to submit a lot of images to them too.

I've no experience with Agencies as my pictures are'nt that good yet :-C
perhaps some other Pro's on this site can expand a little more

regards

scott

Robert_Scanlon · Oct 7, 2005

I'm no pro, but here are my thoughts:

Its not too hard to get pictures published, but actually making any worthwhile amount of money from it is far from easy, simply because the market is limited and the number of people taking nature / bird photos these days is enormous. I suppose a good analogy would be with football.... when so many people are doing it for fun, you have to be something special to make it in the professional side of it.

I read somewhere that you can reckon on average on earning $1 / year per image you have with an agency, unless, of course, you shoot something outstanding which will be in great demand. But of course, you have to work hard to put together a decent portfolio of photos to submit in the first place.

With the huge investment in time and petrol not to mention equipment that it demands, nature photography is possibly the hardest aspect of photography to make any kind of a living from.

birder · Oct 7, 2005

Hi there

Sorry but I can;t find Jim Neigers pics on the site - could you give a link to his name on the site please?

Thnanks

Kevin

cfagyal said:
I would say you can definitely get consistently sharp flight shots using a 500mm hand-held. It just takes practice. There are lots of exceptional examples out there. Look at Jim Neigers photographs on Naturescapes.net (especially look at his photo essays on various in flight species..all taken with a 10D or 20D and 500mm f/4 IS handheld)

As for the original question of the thread 20D vs 1dMkIIn I would say it depends a bit on your desires. Both are excellent cameras. They are both good for specific things. If you are not intending to do a lot of action/flight photography the 20D is the easy choice. If you want the faster focus speed and faster shutter speed then the 1dMkIIn is the better choice. There is also the ruggedness of the body, as the 1dMkIIn is completely weather sealed and a "1 series" body...this has some significant merit depending on the situations you expect yourself to be in.

SteveG: Some pretty good example photographs of what can be accomplished hand-holding a 500mm. Again proving it's definitely possible with practice Some of Jim Neigers photographs on Naturescapes that I mention above are just amazing..Snail Kites and the light in flight that are just stunning.

Cheers,

birder · Oct 7, 2005

Thanks for that, Scott.

Please don;t mind my ignorance but are you saying that I can get a 48Mb unsharpened image from the EOS 1D MARK 2 N? How about the EOS20D?

Kevin

Scott67 said:
With respect to this part of your post only, ( Everyone elses advice is as usual spot on !)

This is where I need your help. I have narrowed the field down, as far as bodies are concerned, to the EOS 20d and the EOS 1D MARK 2 N. I hope to be submitting some of my work for publication / agencies in the future.

If you are planning on exclusivly selling your images to Stock agencies many insist on very large image files, e.g. ALAMAY below require 48meg unsharpened RGB Tiffs

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/submit.asp

So from that point of view you'll be looking at a 1 series EOS digital.
Not sure about other stock agencies such as Getty or Corbis but I'd imagine its probably the same

You'll also probably need to submit a lot of images to them too.

I've no experience with Agencies as my pictures are'nt that good yet :-C
perhaps some other Pro's on this site can expand a little more

regards

scott

HoppyUK · Oct 7, 2005

Kevin/birder,

If I read your post right, you really want a bit more reach. The solution you are proposing will cost well over £5,000GBP, and even then you will have only one lens, fixed at 500mm (800mm effective with 1.6x crop). That is a massively costly and quite restrictive outfit.

Why not get a Nikon D70s body which with your excellent 80-400mm VR lens will give you a 120-600mm lens (effective on 1.5x crop body) for £500. That's a more flexible oufit for 1/10th of the cost.

Try that for a while (check hand-holding, image quality etc) and if you then still want to go for Canon's big guns, trade in the D70s and the experiment will only have cost you a few quid.

Alternatively, hire some Canon gear and give it a thorough trial before buying. I think you are planning to take a very big risk.

Best regards,

Richard.

MarkCaunt · Oct 8, 2005

Im currently doing digiscoping and looking into SLR digital cameras and finding this and other threads very interesting.

You mentioned that x500 mm lens hard to hand hold - does not the canon d20 have an image stabiliser function that would help you able to do that?

What kinda of lens set up would you have to get to be able to take photos to the equivalent of a x20 digiscoping setup? Or near as...

What size convertor would you recommend?

Like I say Im looking to take the SLR leap and know nothing so please excuse my post if it seems a little dumb to all you pros....

Btw - love the Gambia Pics, partic the African Harrier-Hawk. Has that been touched up much on Photoshop? How it compare to original? In my opinion it seems digiscoping is more about what you can do with Photoshop afterwards then the initial shot.

Thanks in advance, Mark
http://AngusBirding.homestead.com

Adey Baker · Oct 8, 2005

Mark, Minolta do a DSLR with in-built stabilisation but for others, including Canon, it comes via an 'IS' lens.

The better quality possible with good SLR kit means you can crop the image more to match a digiscoping outfit but there comes a time when you just can't really compare the two. Unless you want a huge lens then you're better keeping SLRs for closer or moving subjects and keep the digiscoping set up for where you can't get close to the subject

MarkCaunt · Oct 8, 2005

ah ha! Cheers. Things getting a little clearer now.
Scuse my noobiness....

20d - vs. - 1d mark2 N (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

RAINBIRDER

Well-known member

Member

RAINBIRDER

Well-known member

Phat Photographer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Exhausted !

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread