King Kong of DSLR's

I really appreciate the info. Since Scott mentioned the 7D I have been looking at it.

My main goal is not just macro. I need a camera that will take any and all wildlife photos. This includes, but not limited to, insects (macro), animals, birds (some in flight), plants, landscapes, skyscapes, storms, clouds, and I also want to be able to take video as well (including macro video).

I need to have a camera that will do all these things, still be compatible with most of Canon's popular lenses (65mm, 100mm (currently have), 100-400mm, etc, etc), and that will serve me well in the years to come. I don't want to buy a camera and then discover that there's a better one that I should have bought instead. I figure if I buy the very best I can, while I can, then I should be set.

Given all these things, do you still recommend the 7D over the new 1DsIV ?

Your answer changes the game a bit. Where the 1DIV is going to be extremely strong is in anything that moves (autofocus capability) and and in its ruggedness.

If you are prone to very heavy use of the camera in bad conditions, then the weathersealing and build quality will be an asset. I don't baby my gear, but you won't want to be buying it used after I get done with it. The 1 series cameras will put up with any abuse I can toss at them, including dropping, rain, snow, moisture and the stray accidental whacking of a tree (done at least twice).

Birds in flight take a very solid autofocus system to get regular keepers. Wildlife is also surprisingly fast, so the 1Ds is also going to score points there as well.

Teleconverters - With your 100-400, the 1D will retain autofocus to f8, which means that you can use a 1.4 convertor and still have autofocus. If you go to the big guns (500 f4, 600 f4, 400 f4), you can also use a 2x convertor and retain autofocus. The restriction is that you'll only have the center point, but that is better than nothing. The 7D and 5DII become manual focus only. For action photography, BIF, wildlife, this scores another point in the 1D's favor.

10 frames per second is a bit mutant of a speed. From your description birds in flight is about the only place that speed will be used regularly. The other two cameras are still pretty fast, and will still generate a lot of frames.

For landscapes, I think the 5DII would be the better choice, due to the lower pixel density. The image quality from that camera is is about as good as you'll ever get, short of a large format system. Plus 1 for the 5DII

Autofocus on the 5D is a bit slower - for moving subjects, you'll need to be more selective. I think that is the primary weakness of the camera.

The 7D autfocus seems to be a bit faster although not enough to really be a deal breaker. For landscapes, the 1.6 cropping factor is a bit of a handicap. Canon's superwides are not all that great. I own the 17-40 and I am not terribly impressed. It is not bad sharpness-wise but nothing to write home about. I think its real strength, at least for my shooting style, is in macro work and for extending the effective focal length of a long lens. Frame rate is pretty good as well, but that is not the primary reason for me to get that camera.

The 1D also has a 1.3 crop factor, so for full frame compositions near 1:1 it is a bit of a compromise between the 7D and the 5D.

So, as much as I hate to admit it, I would favor the 1D IV, subject to the following conditions:

- You can afford it, without financial risk. Financially, don't mess yourself up to get it. The 7D or 5D II will produce top end images.

- The 1D IV autofocus works as advertised.

- There are no other bugs in the camera to be found.

- Buy insurance for it.

I should add that the 5DII is probably the best value for what you want to do, taking cost vs camera quality/features vs image quality. You give up a bit on features for about half the price.

Always remember that the glass and user are far more important than the body.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Dan Borzynski

I greatly appreciate your comments!

How do you think the 1D IV will do with macro?

I currently have a Digital Rebel XTi so I guess if the big dog don't do so well I'll always have it for insects. But, I would rather have one "all around" camera. And, for what I'm going to have to pay it should go out and catch the critters for me!

The 1D IV will handle macro very well (and just about everything else you can throw at it).

What you will be giving up is a little bit of cropped magnification vs the 7D, 1.6 vs 1.3. This might be handy if your are near the minimum focussing distance of a "normal" macro, where it will be easier to fill the frame with the 7D rather than the 1D.

On the other hand, the viewfinder will most likely be brighter and easier to work with on the 1D. This won't be an issue near 1:1 but once you go past there with the 65mm 1x-5x, especially nearer the 5x region, it will make a difference. Having used both the 20D-50D series cameras, the 5D and an older 1 series body, that lens is a lot less unpleasant with the 5D and 1 viewfinders. I would expect the 1D viewfinder to be closer to the 5D II than the 1.6 cropped bodies.

The 1D represents a very, very high end compromise between the 5DII and the 7D and probably the most capable option. You are giving up a few megapixels over the 5D II, but gaining functional capability over both the 5D II and the 7D. Image quality is a nonissue. Don't worry about it. Coming from a Rebel, the jump to either the 5D or the 1D will completely blow you away.

And I'll just say it again - the lenses and the user will make more of a difference. Don't forget to budget for those, if you don't already have good lenses. I rather see you go down to the 5D II or 7D but have good glass than go the other way.

But if you can afford it, go for it.

Dan Borzynski

(p.s. No matter what you decide, post some images with it.)

I currently have a Canon 100mm and, as mentioned elsewhere in this post, I plan to add :

Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens
Canon 500mm f/4L IS USM AF Lens

So, I'll have plenty of glass!

If you're shooting songbirds I'd go with a 600/4 instead of a 500/4 though, and teleconverters. There's a good reason why you'll never find a 600/4 on the used market. And don't forget to set aside an extra $1500 for a good tripod.

Any particular brand of tripod I should look for?

What do you think about this one?

No experience with that mfgr. I use a Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber, which is almost strong enough for a 500/4; it feels stable anyway. For a 600/4 a Gitzo 1548 might suit better, or whatever the newer models are called now. Maybe something like this. You'll need one of these for a head. 15lbs. of gear can be handled with your fingertips.

Definitely go with carbon fiber legs if there's any chance of shooting below 40-50°F. Aluminum legs will sap all your body heat through the gloves.

Ahhh, Scott... so you're that devil on my shoulder! Those prices are actually doable. I slowed way down with birds this year because it was so damn hard at 500/6.3 to actually make solid improvements over my current photos.

but not right now. Too many things going on. Benro is a Chinese brand. Don't know much more than that about the product. I have a Gitzo which I mainly use with a spotting scope.

I would love to have a 5D MK2 with the 500 or 600mm f/4L for birds.

has a 600mm f/4 in EX+ condition:

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=CE06999074939R&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=10&BC=CE&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

Save a couple o'grand to spend on that tripod.

is one lens I would like to get someday. Let me know how you like the 100-400. I wonder if it will be as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 L.

Canon's 70-200 lenses, all of them, are probably the sharpest zooms on the market, Nikon's equivalents aside. The f4 versions are supposed to be sharper than the f2.8 versions which is saying a lot. I've never been able to find fault with my 2.8 (user error aside).

The 100-400 is still a fine lens, though, and when you need what it can do there is no substitute.

Dan Borzynski

I picked up the 70-200 slightly used and was very surprised by the sharpness. Makes a great macro lens with a Kenko DG 32mm extension tube. I also use it for guided time exposures of the night sky with my 40D. Very tight and sharp star images.

I'll let you know.

By the way, it's still going to be a while before all this happens and I'm certainly not trying to rush it.

Oh, and I forgot the ATN PVS7-3A Night Vision Biocular Goggle.

ISO 102,400 with 45 point AF :^O Now you can shoot a moth in flight at night @ f/16 with your 70-200L :^)

I still prefer the 5D MK2 at approx. half the price. Priced even lower is the new 7D with the 18mp APS-C sensor. Must be some really tiny photosites crammed onto that crop sensor.

Check out my new updated list-o-stuff I just updated above!

Canon has rebates on some of that gear. Can't wait to see some images!

Well I need all the help I can get with rebates. With my current list I'm pushing 17 grand.
But, I'm an idiot and just can't seem to leave well enough alone :-O

EOS 1D Mark IV
Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens
Canon 500mm f/4L IS USM AF Lens
580EX II Speedlite
Sea & Sea DX-1200HD Underwater Digital Camera Islander Kit
FLIR InfraCam SD Thermal Imager
ATN PVS7-3A Night Vision Biocular Goggle
Bodelin Technologies ProScope HR2 CSI (up to 400x)

A little over 24 grand. I'm not at all sure I'm going to do all this....but maybe....

I'm already feeling guilty and I haven't even bought anything yet.

I'm such an idiot....

to hire a bodyguard with all of that nice gear :^P

Yeah, and a safe (fireproof of course) to store it all in inside the house!

....women and children first my ass, save the camera equipment!

I disagree with this to an extent. The question should be "How good do you want your pictures to be?" for whatever reason. A good dslr is going to produce better quality photos in general, and a higher percentage of "good" ones, than a point and shoot. Sure, a great photographer can produce very nice photos with a lesser camera, but a great photographer and a great camera can produce excellent ones and a mediocre photographer is going to get better pictures from the slr.

Of course a DSLR can provide better quality images. I'm not debating Point & Shoot versus DSLR nor image quality. But if one isn't a good macro photographer, then it doesn't matter what camera one buys, the results will still be average. If one is a good macro photographer, then of course one should buy a DSLR, if one can afford it.

Also, not everyone has the luxury of being able to throw $2,000+ down on photography equipment just to take photos of bugs. That's why I provided photos of insects that I photographed using a Point & Shoot to show that it doesn't matter which camera you use, you can obtain excellent results either way.

Just take a look at one of my first photos when I first got into macro photography. That was taken with a Canon 20D and 100mm lense! It has the same quality as if it were taken by a novice with a Point & Shoot, which a novice using today's Point & Shoots could do even better!(That photo was taken in 2005). Here's a photo from Flickr taken with a Canon Powershot S5. While it's more than a Point & Shoot, it's not a DSLR either.

That's why I said, it's not the camera, it's the photographer.

Just take a look

;)

Best Regards,
Paul

Sure, I'd love to see some of your pics!

That's why I'm a firm believer in "practical purposes".

If you are taking photos for hobbyist pursuits, a Point & Shoot, an SX10 or even a Digital Rebel will suffice. If you have the money, than get a 40D. If you have even more money, than get the 5D. If you enjoy looking at the photos in all their detailed glory on your computer, than a DSLR will provide you with that luxury.

But in all practical purposes, the weekend warrior/hobbyist will be happy with the quality of macro photos you can obtain with today's Point & Shoot cameras (along the lines of Canon Powershot). You can take decent close-up photos of 5mm subjects and even smaller with those cameras that have "super macro" mode.

The larger the pixel count, the greater the effective magnification and/or the greater the effective working distance/zoom (provided it's in focus, of course). This may not make much difference in a studio setting where you can already fill the frame with the detail you want. In the field, though, it means you can take a shot from further away and crop out what you don't want- but still have lots of pixels left to work with. Although you may not use all the resolution, it at least gives you control of the resolution-shrinking proccess.

As far as file size: you can archive the originals on CDs or DVDs, and save cropped or reduced-resolution copies to work with. For that matter, you should check the manuals and see if there are different settings for file size. That way you can use lower-resolution modes for situations where you don't need the extra detail.

Personally, I can't imagine having too much megapixel capacity.

I agree. There are some cameras that more megapixels doesn't really mean a better quality image, but this is not one of them. As long as that is true, then it is always better to have more megapixels, as you can always get rid of unwanted pixels, but you cannot manufacture them from a lesser image. I love my 10mp 40D and I can print a full image from it as large as I could want and the image is gorgeous. On the other hand, I've taken many pictures of kids and bugs--neither of which cooperate very well--which I have to crop and I would love to crop an image to just the part that I want and still be able to print it out at whatever size I might want. It would also be nice to use the increased megapixels to artificially give more depth of field while still retaining enough pixels to print large enough by purposely zooming out. Of course, there's also the fantasy of printing out a great image of a bug poster size at full photographic quality.

Exactly! If it happens that I have an opportunity to get the biggest baddest equipment possible, then I'm of the opinion that I should go for it. All the other stuff, like storage space, is actually a non-issue if the end result is off-the-charts awesome images.

And I've thought of that. Also storing the RAW files will be space costly to say the least. Currently I have a Digital Rebel XTi with a 100mm lens and my computer has a 500gb internal drive with a 320gb external drive. I shoot everything in RAW then crop and save down to a smaller JPEG. But still I keep both files. So that could become a problem.

However, don't you think that the image quality and clarity will be so much better that it will be worth it?

but not for awhile. I'm very happy with my 40D right now. In fact I was considering purchasing another 40D as a spare to replace my XT.

Did you get a bailout check from President Obama? :^)

Did you get a bailout check from President Obama? :^)

No.