BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tdodd" data-source="post: 1564466" data-attributes="member: 55450">Fred, I have no experience of the 1D2 so I can't comment on that directly. I'm sure the AF will be well up to scratch, as well as the overall build and weatherproofing, but as far as "reach" goes, it will fall short of all the cameras I compared in my tests. Of course, in truth there is actually very little difference between the 8.2MP (3504x2336) of the 1D2 and the 10MP (3888x2592) of the 1D3 in terms of reach, as the difference in linear pixel density is only 11%. i.e. at 100% viewing an image from the 1D3 will look just 11% larger than that from the 1D2. By comparison, the gap between a 1D3 and a 50D is ~55%. Of course, that does mean the gap between a 1D2 and a 50D is ~60%. Now that is a lot.But, with all that said, to make use of those pixels at large (huge) magnifications, the pixels themselves do have to be low noise, high DR and overall of good quality. The reach advantage of the 50D is very real at 100 ISO, but push the ISO up to 800, or more, and you may struggle to get a clean image, with fine detail, if your software is not well engineered and your exposure technique exemplary. That means you might have to settle for combining pixels to smear noise (and detail) away. e.g. you will probably have to view at magnifications no greater than 50% in order to be satisfied with the IQ. At a stroke that reduces the visible pixels to just 1/4 of the original total, so suddenly your 15.1 MP camera is actually only good for ~3.8MP, which is the output you get from sraw2.So, you can compare reach in terms of simple pixel maths only, but you really do need to factor in pixel quality as well. My understanding, based on very little reading, is that the 1D2 is not a great performer at higher ISOs (then neither is the 50D, at the pixel level) so trying to figure out which camera gives the most useable reach in various situations really needs comparisons to be made at each different ISO. For BIF you'll probably want to be shooting at 400 or maybe 800 ISO (although I did try shooting BIF at 100 ISO today! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> and some turned out pretty well). For static subjects you may more easily get away with 100 or 200. So for static birds the 50D really will be an outstanding performer, especially coupled with that AF fine tuning and the Live AF option within Live View, when using a tripod. For BIF, I think there are a lot of factors to weigh up before concluding which camera is best or which is right for you, your goals and your pocket.It's also worth noting that using pixel density as a means to gain "reach" puts much greater demands on the glass, the technique and the AF, because that high pixel density will pick up any flaws in focus accuracy, camera shake and optical quality. Consider that software cropping, just like hardware cropping with smaller sensors, will basically increase the need for good stability and/or higher shutter speeds. Higher shutter speeds need higher ISOs, and they come with a price. It's a vicious circle of no free lunches. The best solution is to get closer to your subject. The next best is to use longer glass. Only after those avenues are exhausted should you start hacking away at the light you captured on your sensor.I can provide examples of 100% crops at different ISOs from my 40D, 50D and 1D3, but I can't help out with the 1D2 and I won't be bothering with the 30D again.Here is an album of 100% crop comparisons - <a href="http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/ReachWithISO" target="_blank">http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/ReachWithISO</a>For convenience, here are the examples at 800 ISO. There is no doubting the difference in reach. The question is, is the quality something you could work with at this level of magnification? I would say that with Photoshop, or similar, and the power to selectively sharpen, blur and apply NR, there is a strong argument to be made for the 50D here, if reach is your thing...(Note to self - on the basis of these results at 800 ISO I shall definitely continue to use the 50D up to at least 800 ISO for static birding. I can't see a reason not to. I still think that for BIF I shall prefer the 1D3, simply for its wonderful viewfinder and AF performance, but the 50D is no slouch there when I aim the focus point correctly - and that's the problem. The 1D3 is very forgiving when it comes to letting the point slip off the subject. The 50D is not at all forgiving and is actually quite a pain. The other thing is that shake/blur/misfocus are all too easily revealed by the 50D when the action is fast, so the reach advantage is lost.)</blockquote>

Verification