What is the best Canon digital camera for wildlife photography?

I am saving for a new camera and am thinking along the lines of the 1d Mark 111 or 1V. Is it really worth the extra money to go along these choices? Any suggestions???

I certainly am not a Canon guy by ANY means, buttttt it depends what you mean by "wildlife" photography. If you want to get into flight photography, the 7D seems quite capable and impressive and it's rather affordable - but judging by what you're looking at, I'm thinking you want something a little more Pro. I'll leave my opinions there since I don't know anything else about the "other" side

Hi Cheryl, I don't know much about Canon myself. But there is a 1d Mark lll for sale in the clasified forum. Not sure how the sellers price compares to the cost of new. But it might be worth checking out. Good Luck with your decision.

Cheryl, I moved up to a 5d mkII and like it very much. reviews from the Fred Miranda, Dp review and Luminous Landscape sites may help you to make your final decision.

Bill Brennan

I use the Canon EOS 40D. a very good camera and good for the Canon starter. not so expensive. it is the camera most used by the photographer in this category.

The 1D Mark III of course..New prices are pretty competitive now.
Let me count the reason why it's best for wildlife.
1. Superior ISO quality
2. 10 fps
3. Built like a tank
4. Shutter rated at 300,000 clicks
5. APS-H size sensor. They didn't try to cram a bunch of pixels into an APS-C space..

I could go on

I would think if the question is simply "what is the best" rather than "what is the best value" the answer would have to be the Mark IV. If not, then Canon really missed the mark. (pun intended).

It should have every advantage of the Mark III plus be better at higher ISO settings and have a better auto-focus tracking system. The ability to shoot video may or may not be of interest but the jump in total pixels to over 16 million should also be a plus for still shots.

I'm happy with your responses and my biggest issue I forgot to mention is the noise. Litterally speaking and camera language speaking. It seems my 40D is so loud that it scares away the birds all the time. Secondly at 400 ISO I find the noise to be pretty bad. How does the Mark 111 rate for those issues? Thanks

Hi Cheryl

I was going to just nod my head here silently agreeing with the comments already made, until I read you comments on the 40d at 400 ISO and noise being an issue. For years the 40d was my go to camera for my wildlife. I also found noise an issue at ISO 400. For some reason at 200 or 800 I was happier with the results. What Iliked about the 40 was cost, frames per second and pretty decent focusing system. A year ago I stepped to a 1D Mk III. While the resolution is basically the same as the 40d there is a huge difference in overall performance. I shot rainforest bears in low light, high ISO (1600-2000) this fall and while there is more noise than I'm used to its managable. Take a look at (www.dxomark.com). Its an independant site that evaluates dynamic range and image quality performance of cameras. I've found the information very helpful.

The Mark III rates far better on noise than the 40 or 50D, there's virtually none at iso 400 and very little at 500 or 640. A little begins to creep in at 800 but it's still very good at that iso and at 1000. Above those numbers noise becomes a bigger issue. I've heard that the Mark IV is going to be a significant improvement in iso performance over the III.

Hmm...I shoot iso 800 for wildlife with my 40D all the time and the noise doesn't appear to be much of an issue with most of my wildlife shots until ISO 1600 where it is unusable. Personally I don't think the Mark III or Mark IV is worth the extra cost over the 7D at least for me. One nice thing about the 7D for wildlife is right off the bat you got a 1.6x crop factor. However, if you can afford it the Mark IV definitely has some advantages over the 7D like better noise performance at higher ISOs and the ability to auto-focus a f5.6 lens with a 1.4x converter on or a f4 lens with a 2x converter which should make up for having less of a crop factor than the 7D. I'm sure there are other advantages that I'm not aware of but I've never been in the market for one of those pro cameras, it just seems like for the most part its a few little things which aren't worth the extra $3300 (the difference between the 7D and Mark IV). More accurate and quicker auto-focus used to be one of the major advantages as well as weather sealing but the 7D has weather sealing and a darn good 19 point all cross-type auto-focus system, not quite the 45 point, 39 cross-type of the Mark IV but do you really need that and again is it worth the extra $3300?

5 D Mark II for quality m-pix and cropping ability

The 7D is great plus it does excellent video. Why not have both available? The savings between a 7D and Mark IV could buy or be a down payment on a nice piece of glass or backup body. I shoot mostly between 100-400 and don't have a significant problem with noise. The 5D Mark 11 is also an excellent body but does not have the crop factor. If your main subject is wildlife I would certainly go with the 7D.

Thanks everyone for the help. Santa got me the 7D and I'm really excited. I hope it lives up to the good ratings I have seen. When my photos start making me more $$$ I will upgrade to the Mark 111 or 1v. For now I am super happy.