• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

To Full Frame or Not Full Frame (1 Viewer)

frinky

Well-known member
Hi,

I've been getting some serious lusting for a 5D3 to augment our existing lenses and SLR bodies. While I'm sure it will be great for wide angle to medium telephoto work ie landscapes, portraits, architecture and macro I'm still flip-flopping on whether it will replace my APS-H/APS-C cameras for birding.

Our current typical birding setup is 1D4+500mm/f4+1.4x (his) and 7D+100-400mm (hers). Usuallly with a 60D backup for both of us with a macro/wide angle. We are usually distance limited so even on crop cameras we're still cropping by 25-50%.

This is a question particularly for those who have a 5D3. Is the extra image quality and megapixels enough compensation for the lack of crop-factor/pixel density of the APS-C sensors? If so, would you replace a 7D with it, or just a 60D?

I doubt I'd give up my 1D4, it's just too fast and rugged and I love it. I'd only replace it with a 1DX-equivalent in the fullness of time. On the other hand I've never been overly impressed (relative to a 1D4 anyway) with the output from my 7D/60D and really the only saving grace of the 60D is the articulated screen (I don't particularly like the camera much but that articulated screen is so damn useful sometimes).

My thinking at the moment is replace 7D with 5D3, and upgrade the 60D with a 7D2 (or whatever appears) in the future, hopefully with an articulated screen, but this does depend on the 5D3 being a match for a the 7D purely for moderately distance-limited wildlife photography.

Any experiences of 5D3 for birding (and BIF) would be gratefully received.
 
Hi,

I've been getting some serious lusting for a 5D3 to augment our existing lenses and SLR bodies. While I'm sure it will be great for wide angle to medium telephoto work ie landscapes, portraits, architecture and macro I'm still flip-flopping on whether it will replace my APS-H/APS-C cameras for birding.

Our current typical birding setup is 1D4+500mm/f4+1.4x (his) and 7D+100-400mm (hers). Usuallly with a 60D backup for both of us with a macro/wide angle. We are usually distance limited so even on crop cameras we're still cropping by 25-50%.

This is a question particularly for those who have a 5D3. Is the extra image quality and megapixels enough compensation for the lack of crop-factor/pixel density of the APS-C sensors? If so, would you replace a 7D with it, or just a 60D?

I doubt I'd give up my 1D4, it's just too fast and rugged and I love it. I'd only replace it with a 1DX-equivalent in the fullness of time. On the other hand I've never been overly impressed (relative to a 1D4 anyway) with the output from my 7D/60D and really the only saving grace of the 60D is the articulated screen (I don't particularly like the camera much but that articulated screen is so damn useful sometimes).

My thinking at the moment is replace 7D with 5D3, and upgrade the 60D with a 7D2 (or whatever appears) in the future, hopefully with an articulated screen, but this does depend on the 5D3 being a match for a the 7D purely for moderately distance-limited wildlife photography.

Any experiences of 5D3 for birding (and BIF) would be gratefully received.
The 5D3 has 4 MP more than the 7D and so would allow for a bit of extra cropping but not enough to get you to the same 'reach' as a 1.6 cropper. Having shot both Cameras there is no doubt that the AF on the 5D3 is far better/consistent than the 7D although the FPS is slower of course. Also the high ISO noise levels is way better on the 5D3. I also think the overall IQ is a lot better on the 5D3 but that is subjective I guess. The big drawback of the Full frame is obviously the reach and if you are already reach limited then that would be a big problem. It is worth remembering that the 5D3 AF's to f8 so with the right lens you could get the loss of reach back.
I bought the 5D3 primarily for things other than wildlife photography (landscapes, macro ....) but I have tried it for birds and the AF and IQ is superb. I have picked up a Tamron 150-600 as a way of trying to claw back some reach but at the end of the day 600mm on a FF is still less than 400mm on a 1.6 cropper!!.
I would find it very difficult to go back to a crop Camera after the 5D3 but then again I do not do a lot of bird photography these days.
 
I have only played with a 5D3 once or twice so I cannot make an informed recommendation other than that I liked it! I know a few birders who have 5D3's and some prefer it to the 1D4 - others don't so it must be close.
My birding (only) camera is the Canon 1DX which I use on either a 300mm or 800mm lens. Before the 1DX I had, and loved, the 1D4 and 1.6 crop cameras before that. In my experience I am not experiencing a significant loss of reach. On the same lens the 1DX gives sufficiently better results that I can crop it to equal the 1D4 and still have a better image - true there are fewer pixels on target but they are bigger better ones!
If you can afford a 5D3 and sell your 1D4 then you should have more than enough for a 1DX - you won't need/want any other camera. For reference I picked up my 1DX for 3600, so they need not be stupidly expensive.
 
I'm definitely in the 1D IV plus EF 500 F/4L IS (+ tripod etc.) camp for serious birding, but I've also had good results from my 7D & EF 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS when I've been a mere "tourist". However, at my local Reserve, we now have a guy showing off just what can be done with a 1DX and an EF 600 F/4L IS II. He does use his legs to get closer to the action, and in his case, it definitely pays off. Unfortunately I've not seen any of his earlier shots (before the 1DX) for comparison.
 
On my photographic journey I have moved from Nikon's 1.5 crop bodies through Canon's 1D2, 1D1V and now have a 5D3 and 1DX.
The only time I have been aware that I wasn't happy with overall performance of the body was the 1D2 but that was probably more to do with the camera being much older than my D300s,the complexity of menus and the change of manufacturer than anything else.
Once I had the 1D4 the comparison with the my D300s was noticeably much better.
I decided I couldn't run two systems side by side and chose to abandon Nikon.
I needed a back up camera and decided that I would buy a 5D3. Once I had the 5D3, the 1D1V became my reserve, only coming out on occasion when I needed a higher fps rate. This I found frustrating and decided to sell the 1D1V and buy the 1DX.
The 1DX would be my preferred weapon of choice but it has one major disadvantage. It's very,very noisy so I'm glad I have the pretty silent 5D3 as a back up as it's also much lighter and less bulky when you need it so.
I haven't missed the difference in not having a 1.3 crop body, the IQ on the full frame bodies allows bigger crops than I have previously experienced.
I'm not sure what I would recommend though. The 1DX on it's own is far from perfect for my needs, and I'm sure others too. To own one in combination with a 5D3 is a huge financial outlay. I am lucky to be in a position to do so.
In my opinion the 1DX is primarily a sports camera not a wildlife one and I have a feeling that one with silent mode might well be next on the agenda. There must be lots of pro's that need a more discreet body for weddings and such to say nothing of wildlife togs.
There are loads of folk waiting hopefully for the launch of the 7D2. The one thing that probably won't make any difference to me is the 1.6 crop. I know nothing of technical issues but in my opinion, the 1D series produces better quality images than other current Canon bodies. The IQ on the 1DX is better than the 1D1V although the latter is certainly no slouch.The 1DX though has clear advantages at higher ISO.
If I had a 1D1V and could afford to keep it and buy a newer body, my choice as it stands currently would be a 5D3, as was my decision when I bought mine.
I'm not sure the price difference between a 1DX and 5D3 is worth it, I would be tempted to wait to see where the 1D series leads to next before making the upgrade unless finances are not the main issue.
 
Thanks all for the comments so far, they're very useful. It's much more reassuring to get real world experience than simply reviews done in controlled environments.

I must say that the 5D3 wouldn't only be for bird photography, we also do a lot of macro/landscape and general photography and while a 1DX would be lovely as a replacement for the 1D4 it would be a bit of a noisy brick to use at eg a party or family gathering, and would leave my better half languishing even further in the IQ doldrums. While we could probably afford it it's hard to justify.

It is good to hear, though, that even with the 1DX's fewer MPixels perceived reach isn't that much of an issue. I shouldn't be too surprised, we see a similar thing with the 1D4 and 7D; the 1D4 has fewer MPixels and less crop but we still prefer it to the 7D except in direst need (simply can't get closer to a small subject and there's lots of light to keep the ISO down).

I've read that the 5D3 has a much quieter "silent" mode compared to the 1DX. The silent shutter on the 1D4 is slow and isn't really that quiet, still spooking birds at close distances. Is the slient shot/silent continuous mode on the 5D3 a real advantage in the field? Also, is the AF system just as good as the 1DX's, just coupled to a slower burst rate?

Anyway, it's sounding like a combination of 5D3 and 1D4 would be better than 7D and 1D4, just not sure which way round it would be. Also, with the extra ISO on the 5D3 maybe moving up to the Tamron 150-600 might be feasible with the extra latitude in stopping down the aperture at the 600mm end. How does the Tamron fare on the 5D3, optically it seems fine but the AF on third party lenses has always been a bit unreliable IME?
 
Roy's your man on the 150-600mm plus 5D3 but he is also it appears in favour of the 7D and it's crop ability. I'm not sure what experience he has had with the 1D series though, I'm sure he'll enlighten us.
I have never owned a 7D so I can't make judgement either but a pal who added the 1D1V to his 7D found he never used the 7D again and has since sold it and bought a 5D3.
The higher rate silent fps on the 5D3 is definitely a big plus for me. It's not that fast but on a subject that's moving like a hunting Heron it gives a better chance of getting the image you are seeking without spooking the bird or annoying others if you are in a public hide.
I think investing in better glass is always a sound one, particularly if you can buy used. The latest lenses hardly become available on the used market so buying new might be the only option, like everything though, the price settles after a while. I reckon a new 500mm f4 will hold it's value for many years to come whereas the 5D3 will be pretty worthless in a few years time. It's a decision you have to make and accept that there might be a loss. We can expect the hobby to be totally free of cost can we ?
So what of the lenses ? The Tamron certainly is well priced, in fact it appears to be a bargain. It's not the only lens that performs better stopped down and to be honest I tend to do so with wild life to get better DOF unless there is a side on view available, then I might play around.
One of the factors I never really thought about too deeply though was the AF performance of different lenses. In my ignorance I just assumed more light on the sensor,faster response. In fact it's the available focus points that make a difference and some lenses are much better for say birds in flight than others as a result. My 300f2.8Mk1 outperforms the 500mm f4Mk11 as far as I can tell. With the 300mm you are loosing reach though.
I also had to make a decision on buying a 500 or 600 mm lens too. I used to own both a 500mm and 600mm Mk1 having acquired the 500mm second and purely to be able to take it on charter flights when there is a weight and volume restriction. It was very indulgent but I paid roughly the same for the two as I did the 500mm Mk11. I still miss the extra reach of the now departed 600mm but it's a bit of a beast in weight and volume. I could , as many have decided, purchased the 600mm Mk 11 in preference to the 500mm but the advantage of reach was out weighed by that of weight and volume. The 500mm is very hand holdable, I would struggle with the 600mm as I did with the 500mmMk1.
Once you move to an f4 lens though you are limiting your focus points, more so with a TC attached. I am surprised how good the IQ is when a 2.0X TC is added but the very limited focus of only 5 expanded centre point is a big and frustrating issue to me .
That's all I can think of to add from my own experience. I sometimes wonder what others think when I'm passing judgement on expensive pieces of kit and obviously have a lack of knowledge to match my deeper pockets.
On the other hand when someone queried the cost of my lens when I was in a hide the other day, for once I told him. (I usually try and duck the answer as I don't want to appear as if I'm bragging) His response was that he had to make do with what he had because he couldn't afford one. I responded that he probably took better pictures than me and that my car is only worth £250 but he told me he'd come on the bus !! Ah well, I tried to make him feel better !
 
I have not had issues with the rather noisy shutter on the 1DX with one exception. All the wildlife that I have photographed with it so far has simply ignored me! The exception was a Vixen, last November, she trotted between 2 banks of reeds and got briefly machine gunned by my 1DX - didn't even acknowledge my presence! She re-appeared about 30 minutes later and, after hearing my camera clatter intermittently for a while, slowly looked over her shoulder at me for a while then slowly walked off. Even a Bittern at less than 20 yards totally ignored me! Humans are different though! At my Grand Nice's christening they were running for cover!
 
Interesting topic on FF/APS-C reach in focal-length limited situations on canonrumors (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0). Note really sure what the conclusion is, there's lots of petty nit-picking and arguing as usual, but food for thought.

I think the general idea is that at low ISOs the high pixel density of APS-C is as good or better, but at higher ISOs the lower noise of FF is more useful.

Of course, nothing beats just getting closer ;0).
 
How does the Tamron fare on the 5D3, optically it seems fine but the AF on third party lenses has always been a bit unreliable IME?
AF is fine on the 5D3 in my experience, better than other lenses I have used in the past on the 7D (400/5.6 and 300/2.8 + 2x tc ....) but then again the AF on the 5D3 is a lot better than the 7D anyway IMHO.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top