Canon 1D MK II N or Canon 50D for birding? (1 Viewer)

JGobeil · Nov 12, 2008

nigelblake said:
It is of course only my opinion after 40 years of using full frame (35mm slides and digital), that if you constantly feel you need more reach then you are obviously doing it wrong!
I use full frame, I frame my shots in the viewfinder, and having spent a small fortune on high pixel count bodies I am loathe to waste those pixels by cropping them a way!

Nigel, I don't want to start an argument over this. The idea is not that I CONSTANTLY feel that I need more reach. However, when the bird is far away and cannot be approached, like over water, reach is invaluable - it is often the difference between picture and no picture. Also, the idea is not to crop the image but to benefit from the 1.6 crop factor of the C sensor - cropping is only an additional way to get more reach if you have to to save a picture or to improve it.

With all due respect, I don't feel that all those birders using C sensors are doing it wrong. Neither are those using full frame sensors by the way ! What makes a good photograph is not equipment, but what's behind it. :t:

nigelblake · Nov 12, 2008

when a bird is too far, it is too far, no matter how good your camera is

This is of course where fieldcraft skills, as stated earlier, comes into equasion!

Jaff · Nov 12, 2008

nigelblake said:
This is of course where fieldcraft skills, as stated earlier, comes into equasion!

I suppose it all depends on where you do your photography, if your the true outdoorsy type then it goes without saying but if you're like me and many others that enjoy spending time at nature reserves with hides then it makes that a complete impossibility.

Of course the ideal solution is to have one of each to accommodate wherever it is you want to go when the mood takes you. Two bodies would definitely be nice....*Sigh*....

As for reach, you can't beat a good bit of digiscoping. He he.

Toodles.
Jaff

gmax · Dec 9, 2008

websurfer said:
What would you buy if you were me? My 20D broke down recently and a repair will cost me too much £300 and I was told there might be further hidden errors.

I have also been considering FF, tempted by high IQ, but I realized, that I had to spend a lot of money on very long lenses to compensate for missing crop factor.

So now I have narrowed it down to a choice between a new Canon 50D or an used Canon 1D Mark II N [ in mint condition with only 9000 actuations - from a private seller not far away from my place] What would you go for?

Well, here's my tuppence again B

Don't know much about the 50D, apart from what I've been reading extensively in many forums and websites.

My 20D failed again, so it was time for an upgrade. Same narrowed choice as you - and I went for the 1D Mark II N ... much pondering though (spending more money on a used, older model camera instead of getting a cheaper brand new state of art camera).

Well, glad I did it ... I know the comparison is not fair (an old prosumer against a pro body), but here it goes:

AF performance alone is worth the money (mind I use my 400 prime glued to a tc)! Did I say that AF is superb? Fast and accurate, even with very small in the frame subjects ... Paired to the naked 400mm prime, I guess there's no better BIF kit price-wise ...
metering: WOW! The amount of light I get now is far superior to the one I was used to ... unbelievable and unexpected! This is the sweetest surprise for a relative beginner as I am :t:
ISO is not bad, up to 800 it can be easily cleaned,
usability .. well, you have to learn (I miss so much the joystick!!!) how to use it best ...
AWB: very very good!
framerate: well, you know that ... a machinegun ...
etc etc

One last thing: I'd love to try the 50D, just to see how big is the leap from the 20D, but I'm sure that now I'd be much much less surprised.
Upgrading the body allowed me to squeeze the best out of my lens combo - since I couldn't afford THE lens upgrade - a choice which will keep me happy for a while:king:

:loveme::bounce:

IanC_UK · Dec 9, 2008

I have a 1d Mk3 and a 50D, im beginning to think the 50 was a mistake for my photography, on my 600 F4 with a 1.4 TC fitted the AF is noticably slower than the Mk3 and whereas the Mk3 clicks onto focus instantly the 50D will hunt back and forth to get a lock on. I think i have spoiled myself with the Mk3 though, as its always been a great camera. Tracking Owls is a hit and miss affair with the 50 whereas the Mk3 is a joy. It depends i guess, if you are photographing birds in controlled conditions or in the wild. Under controlled conditions (ie garden, feeders etc) the 50D will be fine, it will probably also be fine for slightly less controlled subjects, but it can get frustratring missing shots regularly. I made a conscious effort to persevere with the 50 at my last shoot, and i just couldnt wait to get the Mk3 back out of the bag.

Roy C · Dec 9, 2008

gmax said:
metering: WOW! The amount of light I get now is far superior to the one I was used to ... unbelievable and unexpected! This is the sweetest surprise for a relative beginner as I am :t:
:loveme::bounce:

Probably me being a bit dumb Peter but how can you get more light relative to metering or do you mean the viewfinder image?

gmax · Dec 10, 2008

Roy C said:
Probably me being a bit dumb Peter but how can you get more light relative to metering or do you mean the viewfinder image?

Hi Roy, not dumb I'd say ... perhaps my sentence needs some careful rewording (I apologise, but I'm riding on the wave of enthusiasm o

), nontheless I too find it quite difficult to explain it to myself (I'm not such a tech guy), yet this is the actual thing.
I wrote this question - based on my experience in these few days - in another forum:

Same place, same time of the day, same perch, same ISO, same f/ratio, same lens+TC ... I was used to shooting with a speed in the region of 1/125s (or less) - 1/1000s (no more), now speed ranged consistently in the region of 1/1600s - 1/2500s ... wow! This was unexpected for me (I'm an absolute beginner with this camera)
And here's my question? Why?

Among various replies, one user told me that:

Exposure times with the same f/ratio and same subject should be the same with your 20D and 1DII. However, the 1DII will be gathering more light, and the pixels have a greater capacity, so the ISO definition is adjusted for each sensor. Why you are getting different exposures probably has more to do with the metering of the camera.

This sounds quite sensible, and perhaps it can be the solution to my "problem"

... I must have put different things together ... :eek!:

Cheers,
Max

Roy C · Dec 10, 2008

gmax said:
[/INDENT]Among various replies, one user told me that:

Exposure times with the same f/ratio and same subject should be the same with your 20D and 1DII. However, the 1DII will be gathering more light, and the pixels have a greater capacity, so the ISO definition is adjusted for each sensor. Why you are getting different exposures probably has more to do with the metering of the camera.

This sounds quite sensible, and perhaps it can be the solution to my "problem" ... I must have put different things together ... :eek!:

Cheers,
Max

Hmm! that's interesting Max, I have never heard this before. I can see that metering on different cameras could account for minor changes but from what you say you are getting mega differences.- maybe one of the experts on BF can confirm this to be the case.

vkalia · Dec 11, 2008

gmax said:
I wrote this question - based on my experience in these few days - in another forum:

Same place, same time of the day, same perch, same ISO, same f/ratio, same lens+TC ... I was used to shooting with a speed in the region of 1/125s (or less) - 1/1000s (no more), now speed ranged consistently in the region of 1/1600s - 1/2500s ... wow! This was unexpected for me (I'm an absolute beginner with this camera)
And here's my question? Why?

About the only explanation I can think of has to do with the different crops of the 2 bodies (1.3 vs 1.6) - perhaps the view seen through the 1.3 crop camera has brighter edges (sky, sunlit background vs bird in shade), which may lead to a faster shutter speed.

Even then, a 2-stop difference in exposure would result in a greatly different image - is that the case? If not, and given that you are talking about a range of images, I do think that the most likely reason is that the light is different. The best thing to do is a rigorous test (controlled light, spot meter from the center of the frame, etc).

The reply you got "However, the 1DII will be gathering more light" - while technically true, doesnt affect exposure because the number of photons/unit area does not change, provided the light is constant.

You simply will NOT be getting a 2-stop faster shutter speed simply by switching to a 1-series body. As someone who uses a 1-series and an xxD body together all the time, I can vouch for the fact that this does not happen.

Vandit

vkalia · Dec 11, 2008

gmax said:
I wrote this question - based on my experience in these few days - in another forum:

Same place, same time of the day, same perch, same ISO, same f/ratio, same lens+TC ... I was used to shooting with a speed in the region of 1/125s (or less) - 1/1000s (no more), now speed ranged consistently in the region of 1/1600s - 1/2500s ... wow! This was unexpected for me (I'm an absolute beginner with this camera)
And here's my question? Why?

About the only explanation I can think of has to do with the different crops of the 2 bodies (1.3 vs 1.6) - perhaps the view seen through the 1.3 crop camera has brighter edges (sky, sunlit background vs bird in shade), which may lead to a faster shutter speed.

Even then, a 2-stop difference in exposure would result in a greatly different image - is that the case? If not, and given that you are talking about a range of images, I do think that the most likely reason is that the light is different. The best thing to do is a rigorous test (controlled light, spot meter from the center of the frame, etc).

The reply you got "However, the 1DII will be gathering more light" - while technically true, doesnt affect exposure because the number of photons/unit area does not change, provided the light is constant.

You simply will NOT be getting a 2-stop faster shutter speed simply by switching to a 1-series body. As someone who uses a 1-series and an xxD body together all the time, I can vouch for the fact that this does not happen.

Vandit

kevindurose · Dec 11, 2008

I dont own either a 50d or a 1d MkII, however I do own a 1ds MkII and a 40d. My advice would be to go for the pro camera, although the mk II has less pixels compared to the 50d, the focus is far superior in the Mk II in A1servo, in my opinion its practically useless on the 40d for fast moving birds, although you do get the odd sharp picture. The other advantage of the MkII is that you can still get auto focus using a 1.4 convertor. As its been said on this forum many times there is a limit to the number of pixels its worth having, as we are ultimatley limited by the resolution delivered by the camera lens. Doubling the number of pixels in the camera aint gonna to give you twice the resolution in your photograph if the pixels are recording blurred or distorted light. To be honest i'm considering selling my 40d to help fund a 1d mkII because getting 1ds mkII has been a real eye opener, there is just no comparison between the XXD and the pro camera.

wings · Dec 13, 2008

I still shoot with a 2nd generation 20D and if I may say so I turn out some pretty good photos. One could argue all day about full frame vs APS-C sized sensor cameras. Each has its advantages. Don't get too hung up on specifications. Give more credit to the the photographer and his/her eye for the artistic shot as well as technical know-how.

Also, nobody mentioned a feature of the new technology, Digic IV vs Digic II or III.

kevindurose · Dec 13, 2008

wings said:
I still shoot with a 2nd generation 20D and if I may say so I turn out some pretty good photos. One could argue all day about full frame vs APS-C sized sensor cameras. Each has its advantages. Don't get too hung up on specifications. Give more credit to the the photographer and his/her eye for the artistic shot as well as technical know-how.

Also, nobody mentioned a feature of the new technology, Digic IV vs Digic II or III.

I agree and still use a 20D myself see http://kevindurose.blogspot.com/. That said its just a lot easier with a pro camera because of the superior (more accurate) focusing system means more sharp pictures.

screaming piha · Dec 13, 2008

If you are happy with the file sizes from your 20D, the 40D is still available at a massive discount and still a large step up in image quality. Best value for money camera at the moment.

cagiva88 · Jan 2, 2009

I sold my 50D and go to Id Mark IIn till now very happy wiht the AF and low noise Performance ...2 word for this 1dmark2 ...Fast and Accurate ...Metering is super too

Canon 1D MK II N or Canon 50D for birding? (1 Viewer)

More options

JGobeil

Nature Photographer

nigelblake

don't re member

Jaff

Registered Member

gmax

Sontium Dweller

IanC_UK

Well-known member

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

gmax

Sontium Dweller

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

vkalia

Robin stroker

vkalia

Robin stroker

kevindurose

Well-known member

wings

Well-known member

kevindurose

Well-known member

screaming piha

Well-known member

cagiva88

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread