Posted by Pat Sampson on April 17, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Folks,
I had my third Canon camera failure yesterday, 7D has two bent pens in the card reader assembly and I can't seat a memory card. Have no idea how I did that unless I had something small that I didn't see stuck to the card when I inserted it. It's not really possible to insert the card with the wrong orientation so ... prior to that a dead 50D that had to be returned and a metal plate that fell off the control knob on a 40D. (I glued it back on.)
Moreover, none of my Canons have ever auto focused to my satisfaction on still birds. Low light, low contrast, high contrast, some shape behind the bird that's more interesting to the AI than the shape of the bird and the autofocus wanders off into it's own algorithm musings.
Here's my dilemma, I love my Canon 500mm lens. And while I shoot Nikons routinely for flora because of the Zeiss macro lenses available for the Nikon platform, I'm not really wild about either the D300 or D700. Also, Nikon's new pricing strategy has irritated me to the point that I don't want to buy anything NIkon. Also I prefer the Canon interface, probably because the 30D was my first camera and I learned to shoot using it. I don't want to switch to a Nikon lens and if the Sigmas are not image stabilized the same applies there. So what camera do I attach to the Canon 500 to shoot birds? I apparently can't adapt a Canon lens to a Nikon or Sony body.
I can very grudgingly afford a Mark IV but given the problems with autofocus on the Mark III and the quality control problems I've experienced with Canon bodies, I'm really hesitant to put out the 5K on it. Also, I'd be going from a 1.6 cropping factor to 1.3 and that doesn't excite me much. I don't need the 10fps. I rarely attempt flight shots. Given that I expect the camera to fail in some way within three months of purchase, I'm inclined to buy a Rebel 550 and just throw it away or donate it when it breaks or is superseded by a new model in a year. So two questions:
Does anyone see a problem with using the Rebel for mostly sitting bird shots? - (I do know that it doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder and expect the viewfinder to be darker and I know it's not 100 percent coverage.)
Is anyone just wild about their MarkIV or Mark III and have a really good reason or reasons for buying either of those cameras over a Rebel. (Given the failures I've had with the Canon midrange cameras, I won't consider a 50D or 7D again.)
I'd appreciate your thoughts or any totally different alternatives you might recommend.
What was lacking for me, in my older mid-range body was speed of shooting, focus speed, and buffer size and speed. I also wanted a larger brighter viewfinder and a larger sensor to take better advantage of wide angle lenses. The 1D3 satisfied my needs and I have no complaints about it, other than its size, weight, and price. I do use the 10FPS. Focusing is fast, and for the most part, accurate. I use a 300mm f2.8, often with 1.4x or 2.0x TC for birds. Though, when I upgraded from a 1.6 body, it increased my lust for the 500mm f4. If you enjoy the advantages of the crop factor of a smaller sensor, you always have the option of cropping images in post processing. Most of the big-glass photographers that I know are using some version of a 1D or 1Ds body.
My wife has a Rebel T1i (500D). I am really impressed with this little camera. It's a great walking around camera. Though I haven't used it for birds, I expect it would perform reasonably well, especially if you don't do shoot birds in motion. The big plus is the Rebel is a fraction of the cost of a pro body. It's so lightweight, you might need to make sure you've got a long enough QR plate to balance the shifted center of gravity of the lens/camera combo
I think most folks haven't suffered the problems with Canon bodies that you have. Now that you've had your three bad things happen, fate should be done with you and you'll never have another problem. I guess my experience won't be all that much help to you. Sorry 'bout that. Good luck with whatever choice you make.
Hi Pat,
Too bad about the other Canon bodies. One thing that would sway me regarding switching to a full frame camera is the 1.6 crop as well as moving to a 500mm lens. Once you have learned to compose your shots, as you have with your current tools, it is very hard to change shooting styles. Too mamy shots will get away during the learning curve and for some, the frustration is not worth it.
Thanksfully I rented a prime 400mm and 500mm lens before I purchased either. I used them on my Canon 50D (love, love, love this camera). While I got use to the heavy weight and balance issues, I found that I just have to have a zoom lens so I did not have to be the zoom. Now I am comfortable with my 100-400 L with IS. No complaints of any kind and if I'm not too tired, I can ever hand hold still obtaining great clarity. Yes, it is not the fastest but I rarely shoot in low light anyway.
So, I recommend you rent or borrow and get make your decision from hands on experience.
Posted by Nate Chappell on April 17, 2010 at 2:11 PM
I'd pretty much second Buck's thoughts. I'm extremely happy with my Mark III and from what I've heard the Mark IV is even better, however they are very costly and for your purposes a Rebel would probably do the job.
Posted by John Tobias on April 17, 2010 at 4:01 PM
I use Rebels. As of about a month or so ago I use the T1i. My longest lens is not a Canon, so I can't address that, but my favorite lens is the Canon S 55-250. I find this lens to be very sharp, and have used it with 3 different Rebel models. But, I am a general nature shooter, and do not specialize in any area.
Posted by Pat Sampson on April 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM
You all, thank you very much for the response. Byron, renting or borrowing makes good sense, however I have used both a Rebel and a 5D previously on the 500, so I am familiar with the impact of the different sensor sizes.
It's good to know that the autofocus is working on the Mark IIIs. Unfortunately that just makes the decision harder. (smile) I can get a new Mark III on Ebay for about $3,200 and Adorama supposedly has the Rebel in stock for $800. It also looks like I can find a decent used Mark II for about $1,200. I'll probably end up buying one of the older generation 1Ds. I'm really not wild about using the Rebel's viewfinder and If I go from my 1.4 tc to the doubler which I occasionally do, I certainly am not looking forward to trying to shoot manually looking through that viewfinder.
Again, many thanks for the helpful info. I'll post when I've finally decided and let you know which mistake I made.
Regards,
Pat
Posted by Pat Sampson on April 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM
John,
Thanks for your response too. You made it while I was composing mine and I didn't see it until now.
Pat
Posted by Colin Smith on April 17, 2010 at 7:34 PM
Wish I could help, but my current lineup is a 50D and a 7D and I like them both. My 7D with a 500 F4 on it is super at focusing on stationary birds and BIF. Never had a Canon camera fail except the power switch on a 30D. My advice is don't give up on the 7D - that 1.6 crop factor is hard to give up for wildlife.
Posted by Peter Conway on April 19, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Hi Pat,
I used the Mark III for a long time and overall I thought it performed OK, but I did have issues with the autofocus and I think it cost me a couple of really great shots. I am heavily invested in Canon glass so I made the switch to the Mark IV.
I want to give full disclosure and let you know that I have not really used the new body very much so I could change my mind, but so far I love it. I believe the focus system is way to heck and gone better. I am also able to use ISO 800 as my "normal" setting rather than ISO 400 which was what I used with the III. That extra stop makes a huge difference in low light conditions which we of course see often.
I would recommend that you either step all the way up to the IV or save the money and go with a non pro body. I would not get the III.
Discussion
8 repliesI had my third Canon camera failure yesterday, 7D has two bent pens in the card reader assembly and I can't seat a memory card. Have no idea how I did that unless I had something small that I didn't see stuck to the card when I inserted it. It's not really possible to insert the card with the wrong orientation so ... prior to that a dead 50D that had to be returned and a metal plate that fell off the control knob on a 40D. (I glued it back on.)
Moreover, none of my Canons have ever auto focused to my satisfaction on still birds. Low light, low contrast, high contrast, some shape behind the bird that's more interesting to the AI than the shape of the bird and the autofocus wanders off into it's own algorithm musings.
Here's my dilemma, I love my Canon 500mm lens. And while I shoot Nikons routinely for flora because of the Zeiss macro lenses available for the Nikon platform, I'm not really wild about either the D300 or D700. Also, Nikon's new pricing strategy has irritated me to the point that I don't want to buy anything NIkon. Also I prefer the Canon interface, probably because the 30D was my first camera and I learned to shoot using it. I don't want to switch to a Nikon lens and if the Sigmas are not image stabilized the same applies there. So what camera do I attach to the Canon 500 to shoot birds? I apparently can't adapt a Canon lens to a Nikon or Sony body.
I can very grudgingly afford a Mark IV but given the problems with autofocus on the Mark III and the quality control problems I've experienced with Canon bodies, I'm really hesitant to put out the 5K on it. Also, I'd be going from a 1.6 cropping factor to 1.3 and that doesn't excite me much. I don't need the 10fps. I rarely attempt flight shots. Given that I expect the camera to fail in some way within three months of purchase, I'm inclined to buy a Rebel 550 and just throw it away or donate it when it breaks or is superseded by a new model in a year. So two questions:
Does anyone see a problem with using the Rebel for mostly sitting bird shots? - (I do know that it doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder and expect the viewfinder to be darker and I know it's not 100 percent coverage.)
Is anyone just wild about their MarkIV or Mark III and have a really good reason or reasons for buying either of those cameras over a Rebel. (Given the failures I've had with the Canon midrange cameras, I won't consider a 50D or 7D again.)
I'd appreciate your thoughts or any totally different alternatives you might recommend.
Thanks.
Pat
What was lacking for me, in my older mid-range body was speed of shooting, focus speed, and buffer size and speed. I also wanted a larger brighter viewfinder and a larger sensor to take better advantage of wide angle lenses. The 1D3 satisfied my needs and I have no complaints about it, other than its size, weight, and price. I do use the 10FPS. Focusing is fast, and for the most part, accurate. I use a 300mm f2.8, often with 1.4x or 2.0x TC for birds. Though, when I upgraded from a 1.6 body, it increased my lust for the 500mm f4. If you enjoy the advantages of the crop factor of a smaller sensor, you always have the option of cropping images in post processing. Most of the big-glass photographers that I know are using some version of a 1D or 1Ds body.
My wife has a Rebel T1i (500D). I am really impressed with this little camera. It's a great walking around camera. Though I haven't used it for birds, I expect it would perform reasonably well, especially if you don't do shoot birds in motion. The big plus is the Rebel is a fraction of the cost of a pro body. It's so lightweight, you might need to make sure you've got a long enough QR plate to balance the shifted center of gravity of the lens/camera combo
I think most folks haven't suffered the problems with Canon bodies that you have. Now that you've had your three bad things happen, fate should be done with you and you'll never have another problem. I guess my experience won't be all that much help to you. Sorry 'bout that. Good luck with whatever choice you make.
Too bad about the other Canon bodies. One thing that would sway me regarding switching to a full frame camera is the 1.6 crop as well as moving to a 500mm lens. Once you have learned to compose your shots, as you have with your current tools, it is very hard to change shooting styles. Too mamy shots will get away during the learning curve and for some, the frustration is not worth it.
Thanksfully I rented a prime 400mm and 500mm lens before I purchased either. I used them on my Canon 50D (love, love, love this camera). While I got use to the heavy weight and balance issues, I found that I just have to have a zoom lens so I did not have to be the zoom. Now I am comfortable with my 100-400 L with IS. No complaints of any kind and if I'm not too tired, I can ever hand hold still obtaining great clarity. Yes, it is not the fastest but I rarely shoot in low light anyway.
So, I recommend you rent or borrow and get make your decision from hands on experience.
It's good to know that the autofocus is working on the Mark IIIs. Unfortunately that just makes the decision harder. (smile) I can get a new Mark III on Ebay for about $3,200 and Adorama supposedly has the Rebel in stock for $800. It also looks like I can find a decent used Mark II for about $1,200. I'll probably end up buying one of the older generation 1Ds. I'm really not wild about using the Rebel's viewfinder and If I go from my 1.4 tc to the doubler which I occasionally do, I certainly am not looking forward to trying to shoot manually looking through that viewfinder.
Again, many thanks for the helpful info. I'll post when I've finally decided and let you know which mistake I made.
Regards,
Pat
Thanks for your response too. You made it while I was composing mine and I didn't see it until now.
Pat
I used the Mark III for a long time and overall I thought it performed OK, but I did have issues with the autofocus and I think it cost me a couple of really great shots. I am heavily invested in Canon glass so I made the switch to the Mark IV.
I want to give full disclosure and let you know that I have not really used the new body very much so I could change my mind, but so far I love it. I believe the focus system is way to heck and gone better. I am also able to use ISO 800 as my "normal" setting rather than ISO 400 which was what I used with the III. That extra stop makes a huge difference in low light conditions which we of course see often.
I would recommend that you either step all the way up to the IV or save the money and go with a non pro body. I would not get the III.
Hope that helps,
Peter