It doesn’t matter what you buy or when. In a few years or even less, there will be something better. If your goal is to always have the newest camera and lenses, be prepared to spend lots of money to achieve it.
Upvote
0
Best birding camera
- Thread starter tareqphoto
- Start date
The 1D X, at least in the right hands, will have much higher hit rate in terms of AF than a 30D, much less a 350D, or phone when talking about capturing moving subjects at distance, such as with sports or birding. The 1D X should get you to around 90%, compared to maybe 50% for the 30D. There's not enough head room between 90% and 100% to see as much improvement from the 1D X to the R1 or R5 Mark II as you saw from the 30D to the 1D X.
Upvote
0
The part of the same comment of mine you left out when you quoted it:
If you have the lenses you need so that you do not need to crop much, then a FF camera will give better results. But if you're having to crop a 45 MP R5 Mark II to APS-C size, you're only using the middle 17.5 MP of the R5 Mark II's sensor, which is about half the number of pixels you'd have with the APS-C sized R7's sensor.
Upvote
0
And that stopped manufacturers from producing new ones or people from buying?
Upvote
0
And why is that? I mean i saw the significant difference between 1D3 to 1DX, maybe there isn't between 1D4 to 1DX, i didn't get 1D4, also i didn't get 1DX2 or 1DX3 anyway, others did, so i will jump from 1DX to mirrorless, why i should jump to R7? So because i said birding now R7 is the best choice?
Upvote
0
Of course not. Car makers launch a new model every year. Do you buy each one when it comes out? Maybe you do.
Upvote
0
No, but i will if i stopped for long time then i want to buy again something new, most likely i will jump for a new model latest one, only budget as someone said can prevent that.
Upvote
0
And a good thing is, in your signature you already have R3 and R8 and M6II and even M6, how long between each of them?
Upvote
0
A fair bit of time between M6 and M6II, during which time one of my kids dabbled in photography, so I bought the latter and loaned her the former. When her interest waned, I had the M6 converted to full spectrum.
Not long between R3 and R8, but the latter I use only for travel. The R3 replaced my 1D X (from 2012) as my primary camera.
I’m also fortunate to have few constraints on budget. Rather, if something offers a capability I want then I buy it.
Not long between R3 and R8, but the latter I use only for travel. The R3 replaced my 1D X (from 2012) as my primary camera.
I’m also fortunate to have few constraints on budget. Rather, if something offers a capability I want then I buy it.
Upvote
0
Good, i understand, i think i also bought my 1DX in 2011 or 2012, and i didn't replace it until to date, i used my 1DX for sports only and very very rare i tried for birds while i was in previous house, i moved to new house, i stopped photography, changed hobbies, left job,....etc, now i feel like i want to be back to it, and for that i want to have something like more as pro or semi pro camera, maybe because i get used to that 1 series of Canon, so that i didn't want R7, i mean even R6 and R5 i feel like they are med level almost entry level, but i can't afford R1 now, later by end of next year i can, but i don't want to wait that long, so i felt like R5II is ticking most points, and i can wait and see what Canon will bring next year and i can add, it could be a successor of R6II or R7, then i can buy that too even being latest, but not so expensive as R1, i mean i am almost able to buy R6III or R7ii than R1 in short time.
Upvote
0
In no world is the R5 a medium level, much less entry level camera. It's just a less shiny and less new model than some of the others. It's still a highly capable camera that can hold its own against any camera in the world for landscape, portraits, astro, etc. If you can't get exceptional images with an R5 the problem is NOT the camera.
For anything other than sports/action/birding the R5 is a better all-around camera than the R3 or the R1. The R5 Mark II even holds its own against the R1 for sports/action /birding. At that point it's a personal preference thing. Higher resolution or faster frame rate? Integrated vertical controls or smaller/lighter (plus optional detachable grip)? Less rolling shutter effect in electronic shutter vs. significantly cheaper?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am following or watching someone on Facebook who is shooting sports using his R3, he has truly wonderful incredible nice images that i like to have, i got that before with my 1DX but in less quality and slightly noisy, so i felt like R3 is amazing sport camera nowadays, but in one post he mentioned about R1 and he decided he either go with R5 Mark II or staying with his two R3 because R1 is so expensive, so i don't know what made him to think about to change from R3 to something like R1 or R5mkii, but whatever his reason i will keep following him and see what he is getting at the end.
For anything else other than sports/birds/action i am just going with Sony, i have A7R that is still serving me until today, and i want to upgrade it to A7R5 which is also already old, but i didn't see any new model from Sony towards A7R line, maybe they won't bring anything newer than A7R5, 60mp is more than enough, i used to 60mp in the past with my Hasselblad, but i don't die to get A7R5 very soon, will see Canon response to A7R5 or even Nikon response, but to be honest, Fuji is standing strong with Sony in that regards, so for me it was like if i want sports/actions/birds then Canon is my first choice due to lenses i have, anything else then not Canon.
Upvote
0
Wildlife photography needs a lot more than a newer camera body. Use what you have and spend the money on lenses.
Upvote
0
I think he means lenses, tripod, gimbal head etc… Having read the thread I think I agree you’d be better using what you have for now. That way once you’ve done some birding you can decide what the shortcomings of your current gear for that application are and then which current camera will best overcome those. Failing that, the best advice I’ve ever heard about buying any tech product is “if you need it now, buy it now. If you don’t, wait”.
Upvote
0
Ok, that is a great advice, so in this case i think i better upgrade for sports then and leave birding for another time if possible, i think it is easier for me to return back to sports and do more of it than dreaming about birding and i don't see them around to make it justice.
Thank you very much
Upvote
0
Having read briefly through the thread, it seem like there is way too much over-thinking going on. It sounds like you want a pro level camera. A camera that can shoot sports, birds, wildlife, and perhaps anything else. If that is the case, then the R5 mark II seems like the obvious choice. The R7 is not on par with the R5 mark II in terms of it's Autofocus. While good, it is not the best. That may be the most important specification when it comes to birds and wildlife, and while the R7 has greater resolution, the difference is not that much, plus the R7 is scheduled to have a new model coming out in 2025. So the current R7 should be eliminated from the conversation. The R1 is certainly a possibility, but the 45 MP R5 II seems the better choice for birds and wildlife, and even perhaps sports if you need the extra cropping ability. The same applies to the R3, which is also an excellent sports camera - and despite your opinion about is becoming out-dated - will be an excellent sports camera for the next decade. Others have mentioned that camera tech has matured and there is often little difference between generations. This is something you should not ignore and makes all of your statements about current models like the R6 mark II or the R3 essentially invalid. Those cameras will be fine for many years to come.
What you should obviously do, is not prolong useless discussions on the internet, but, if possible, rent a R5 mark II - or perhaps one other choice (R1 or R3) and try them for yourself. That will be the only answer that counts. Not what we, or anyone else, says.
And frankly, if budget is an issue, if you choose the Canon R5 mark II, your Sony camera and lenses could easily be sold as they are quite redundant. I think many would agree that the Canon is superior in ergonomics, ruggedness, weather sealing, color science and both back screen and viewfinder.
What you should obviously do, is not prolong useless discussions on the internet, but, if possible, rent a R5 mark II - or perhaps one other choice (R1 or R3) and try them for yourself. That will be the only answer that counts. Not what we, or anyone else, says.
And frankly, if budget is an issue, if you choose the Canon R5 mark II, your Sony camera and lenses could easily be sold as they are quite redundant. I think many would agree that the Canon is superior in ergonomics, ruggedness, weather sealing, color science and both back screen and viewfinder.
Upvote
0
You threw a lot here to think, i need to set back and read and think, first i didn't want a camera for everything, but wanted a main first camera for sports and birds/wildlife, and then second one for same but lesser, while for anything else not sports/birding/wildlife i am happy to use Sony, or even move to Fuji, i mean for landscapes and portraits very fast and accurate AF and fps isn't needed for me, that is why i used my Sony A7R more than 1DX for outdoors, and for that i don't mind to add Sony to my collection, and i will use Canon as backup in those scenes.
I can't rent from anywhere or anyone, but i remember two of media/newspapers photographers i know before just moved to R3, they were using Canon DSLR like me, so going with R3 can tell that it is a remarkable camera, i don't remember which lens they used but i think it is RF 70-200 that is zoom in/out, but those are working professionally and it is not their own cameras, it is what their companies providing them with, even if they provide them with R8 or R6 they will use it, but the choice of R3 was right for them.
I am waiting, i got nice budget, and i used it for astrophotography now, next coming budget next month[year] i think i will have a better idea, and maybe we can hear something from Canon and others, for now i feel even the old Nikon Z8 is appealing to me than R7 or even R5 and R6 markII, but i am not in rush, as you mentioned, as long i am discussing there will be so many posts and answers that will change my mind and decisions.
Upvote
0
There are people shooting sports with ten years+ old cameras who also produce wonderful images.
It's not the camera.
Not to mention that at Facebook size limits and the compression Facebook applies to uploaded images, you can rarely, if ever, tell the subtle differences between cameras such as the R3 and R1 when viewing images on Facebook.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
