Best birding camera

[Michael Clark]

Because R7 although it has 33mp and a crop factor it is still less than R1 or R6 or R5 and R3, and when i asked about R7 before people said it will surpass my 1DX but it isn't a better choice over others, so to me it is like i go from top of the line DSLR to a med range mirrorless then later upgrade to top of the line, i already mentioned that R7 and R6 and even R6II/R5 all are old enough and subjective to upgrade by Canon, which means i will definitely buy them now/soon to upgrade them very soon later, pointless, while if i buy R1 or R5II or Sony A1ii those will never see upgrade by me for next 3-5 years at worst, so to me it is like i just try R7 to get start wet then i look for something else, what i will do with R7 then? I couldn't sell my previous cameras, not sure R7 will see any good sale later with its low price anyway.

With birding where you're cropping no matter what sensor/camera you have, it is all about pixel density/pixel size. (Assuming the lens is the same with whatever camera you're using and not as long as you desire to have. With birding one NEVER seems to have enough focal length.)

The APS-C 35MP R7 has the same pixel density as an 83MP FF camera would have. So the R7 gives more actual reach than any of the FF cameras do with the same lens.

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.

You seem more preoccupied that it's not expensive enough for you to be proud that you have a "better" camera than everyone else.

 

[neuroanatomist]

With birding where you're cropping no matter what sensor/camera you have, it is all about pixel density/pixel size.

Not all. It’s also about the lens you’re using, and the output size/resolution you require. This was my first bird picture, shot with a Rebel T1i/500D (15 MP APS-C, a significantly higher pixel density than my R3/R1). I figured out rather quickly that for birds I needed a lens longer than the EF 100/2.8L Macro with which this shot was taken... That led to the EF 300/4L, then the EF 100-400L, then the EF 600/4L II that I still use today.

 

[Michael Clark]

Means?

It means the relative improvements between the 1D Mark IV and the 1D X were a much larger jump than the relative improvements between the R3 and the R1. If you were climbing a mountain, the 1D IV→1D X was like going from 8,000 feet up to 12,000 feet. The R3→R1 is like moving up from 15,000 feet to 15,800 feet.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not all. It’s also about the lens you’re using, and the output size/resolution you require.

With regards to the camera body. Display size/resolution is directly tied to numbers of pixels.

 

[tareqphoto]

With birding where you're cropping no matter what sensor/camera you have, it is all about pixel density/pixel size.

The APS-C 35MP R7 has the same pixel density as an 83MP FF camera would have. So the R7 gives more actual reach than any of the FF cameras do.

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.

You seem more preoccupied that it's not expensive enough for you to be proud that you have a "better" camera than everyone else.

Really?!!! That is not what i see from people doing birding, i mean i looked at so many places and R7 wasn't the most used for birding from Canon, so what you are saying is like only for me, but the reality others don't care about that, in all cases i might add R7 as backup and see if it will be my main camera or just remaining as backup and out of use after a while, i still have time to decide, and i am asking around, if many will suggest or recommend R7 with same reason of yours then i will get it, it is nothing to do about how much cheap or expensive it is.

 

[Michael Clark]

I had version II of both, but then i upgraded both to version III, i sold 2x II but i still have 1.4x II for sale, but if i go with mirrorless camera i might sell both mkIII and buy 1.4x of RF mount, but do you think it is any difference or worth it?

I've no experience with the RF extenders.

 

[tareqphoto]

It means the relative improvements between the 1D Mark IV and the 1D X were a much larger jump than the relative improvements between the R3 and the R1. If you were climbing a mountain, the 1D IV→1D X was like going from 800 feet up to 1200 feet. The R3→R1 is like moving up from 1500 feet to 1580 feet.

That's right, when i used my 1DX first time i felt like i was blinded with previous models, same with using 1DsII and 1DsIII then jumped to Sony A7R, i never touched my 1Ds models ever again, so i understand.

 

[Michael Clark]

And when i bought my 1DX or 1D3 they weren't so old that i though about newer models coming, and i didn't regret, see after i bought my 1DX and Sony A7R they now have 1DXIII and mirrorless and A7R5, i missed so many generations or models already, if i will start or return back now again i better start/return with latest and hold that for another decade maybe or several years, in the past i wanted to jump every model coming out, now i won't, with R1 i won't upgrade until they bring R1 mk4, or with R5II i won't care until they have R5 mk5 maybe, same with Sony A7R5, if they release A8R i won't buy it until they release maybe A8R4, so i will jump after like 3-4 generations, but i see some they just buy every generation when they can, many already have R8 or R7 or R10 or R or R6 or R5 and even R1 and R5II which are just recently released, i have nothing of Canon mirrorless yet.

In 7-8 years from now in 2032 what difference is it going to make if the camera you're using was introduced in 2022 (and had a firmware update in 2024 that gave it updated autofocus capabilities) or was introduced in 2024 or 2025?

 

[tareqphoto]

I've no experience with the RF extenders.

So it sounds like you are still using EF extenders then and happy with them.

 

[Michael Clark]

That's right, when i used my 1DX first time i felt like i was blinded with previous models, same with using 1DsII and 1DsIII then jumped to Sony A7R, i never touched my 1Ds models ever again, so i understand.

That was at a time when every new model seemed to be a significant upgrade from the previous one in the same series. These days the technology has matured and the improvements from one model in a series to the next are much more incremental and subtle. The first mass produced DSLRs appeared in 2001-2002. By 2008-2012 we were only in years 8-12 of the digital SLR age. The state of the art was still advancing rapidly. Now it's twice that long since the first mass produced DSLRs. The rate of improvement is not the same as it was then, in terms of how it affects the quality of image output.

 

[tareqphoto]

In 7-8 years from now in 2032 what difference is it going to make if the camera you're using was introduced in 2022 (and had a firmware update in 2024 that gave it updated autofocus capabilities) or was introduced in 2024 or 2025?

It is not working like that for me, if i know about this your point in the past i won't waste money on several models then, so what is big difference between 5D and 1DsII and 1DsIII, i bought them because i wanted newest or best or latest, same when i bought 1D2n then 1D3, what i want to say is that history is repeating itself, and although technology is advanced now that upgrading might reach diminish point/level, it is still a matter, otherwise Sony or Nikon or even Canon won't make mkII or MKIII or version 4 and 5 of their previous cameras, and i won't read even one single comment that people liked or prefer the newer model over the original older one, difference or no difference isn't the topic, i buy now if i can afford i better go with 2024/2025 rather than 2018-2022.

 

[neuroanatomist]

With regards to the camera body. Display size/resolution is directly tied to numbers of pixels.

If you are planning to only post your images at 2000 pixels wide on the internet, you have a different requirement in terms of number of pixels than if you are planning to make 24x16" prints at 300 dpi. For the former, a heavy crop from a 24 MP image will be fine, for the latter you need a nearly uncropped image from an R5/R5II.

 

[tareqphoto]

That was at a time when every new model seemed to be a significant upgrade from the previous one in the same series. These days the technology has matured and the improvements from one model in a series to the next are much more incremental and subtle. The first mass produced DSLRs appeared in 2001-2002. By 2008-2012 we were only in years 8-12 of the digital SLR age. The state of the art was still advancing rapidly. Now it's twice that long since the first mass produced DSLRs. The rate of improvement is not the same as it was then, in terms of how it affects the quality of image output.

It is like very confusing or contradicting me, so if the technology is very matured now i should not see Sony A7iii or R5ii or even R1, and they will not stop either, so it is like we don't want any new cars or mobiles and yet every year there are new models and people whistling about those new models regardless the difference is almost %5-20.

 

[Michael Clark]

So it sounds like you are still using EF extenders then and happy with them.

I don't use extenders very much at all. I currently own an EF 1.4X III which I occasionally use. But I'm not a birder, either. When I was shooting sports heavily (pun intended - that was an 8.5 pound lens!) a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 on a 7D Mark II was enough reach for American Football and Baseball. For everything else I do my bread and butter are 35-85-135 primes, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 zooms on FF bodies.

 

[tareqphoto]

If you are planning to only post your images at 2000 pixels wide on the internet, you have a different requirement in terms of number of pixels than if you are planning to make 24x16" prints at 300 dpi. For the former, a heavy crop from a 24 MP image will be fine, for the latter you need a nearly uncropped image from an R5/R5II.

And the R7 is still cropped factor, so we assume that i will only image birds and i will always crop, but i can use the camera for wildlife where i also might fill the frame so i don't need to crop, in this case R5 will win, when i looked at my 1DX cropped result and 1D3 uncropped i always prefer the one from 1DX cropped, also when i cropped Sony A7R i liked it more than my 1Ds3 uncropped, i don't know why.

 

[Michael Clark]

If you are planning to only post your images at 2000 pixels wide on the internet, you have a different requirement in terms of number of pixels than if you are planning to make 24x16" prints at 300 dpi. For the former, a heavy crop from a 24 MP image will be fine, for the latter you need a nearly uncropped image from an R5/R5II.

If you're only posting 2000 pixel images on the internet, anything on the market today is "good enough". So are the OP's existing 1D X and EF lenses.

 

[tareqphoto]

I don't use extenders very much at all. I currently own an EF 1.4X III which I occasionally use. But I'm not a birder, either. When I was shooting sports heavily (pun intended - that was an 8.5 pound lens!) a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 on a 7D Mark II was enough reach for American Football and Baseball. For everything else I do my bread and butter are 35-85-135 primes, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 zooms.

I understand, i am not a birder as well, even i am not a sport photographer, but when i do photography i try to do all applications when possible, i don't limit myself to one area, and i had nice happy results in the past, time for me to move on, i also don't use extenders, i bought them in the past because i was able to and wanted to see how much they can add, turned out they aren't so important, i used them like %10 only, barely i used my 2XIII anyway, maybe only twice, one of them was just a test.

 

[tareqphoto]

If you're only posting 2000 pixel images on the internet, anything on the market today is "good enough". So are the OP's existing 1D X and EF lenses.

And my 30D or my lost 350D or my gone Nikon Coolpix or my iPhone 4, in fact even film cameras are capable also, i do have medium format film cameras, they aren't good? You got the point.

 

[Michael Clark]

It is like very confusing or contradicting me, so if the technology is very matured now i should not see Sony A7iii or R5ii or even R1, and they will not stop either, so it is like we don't want any new cars or mobiles and yet every year there are new models and people whistling about those new models regardless the difference is almost %5-20.

Buy the most expensive camera you can, regardless of the technical strengths and weaknesses as they apply to the type of photography you want to do. Nothing else will satisfy you. People who have to have the newest car model every year are fools with more money than sense. If you care more about how others will whistle when they see what camera you are using than you care about how your photographs turn out, that's the strategy you should take.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you're only posting 2000 pixel images on the internet, anything on the market today is "good enough". So are the OP's existing 1D X and EF lenses.

Sure. The point is that all of these can factor into the camera decision. A camera needs a lens (pinhole body caps notwithstanding). If one’s longest focal length will be 400-500mm, then for birding one will likely want a body with a higher pixel density. If one is shooting with an 800mm lens, a body with lower pixel density that has other desirable features may be a better choice.