Sark17 Loc: Atlanta, GA

If the focus is bird & wildlife photography, in your opinion, which canon Full frame camera is the most capable and why? I am asking for a friend who isn’t in this group, but I’m also really interested in the answer as well.

Thank you for any opinions in advance and also, I did search for this in previous posts and the most similar I was able to find was dated 8 years ago.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Full-frame: the 5DIV mixes the advanced EOS AF system of the pro-level 1DXII with the larger megapixel sensor for stunning results, including more opportunities to crop into the frame, retaining plenty of pixels to fill a 2-page sized magazine print. The 1DXIII is currently Canon's premier camera, with the rugged build for everyday, all day, all weather, heavy use for all photography needs. Canon explained in the white paper that accompanied this release that the 20MP (ish) resolution of the 1DX line is intended for magazine-sized (2-page) images. Any of the 1DX models, as well as the older 5DIII, feature Canon's most advanced auto focus systems.

The 1DXII and 1DXIII models features a second onboard processor (computer) to drive the AF system separate to the camera operation. The cropped 7DII also features this design feature. Of course, 20MP and upward will print stunning images at larger than a 2-page magazine spread.

Sark17 Loc: Atlanta, GA

Thank you! I was hoping you’d reply, I always find your messages super insightful. Thank you! I’m going to digest this and probably reply again with some questions!

mrpentaxk5ii

While having a camera with a fast auto focus and frame rate, the proper lens and the ability to use your camera properly for wildlife and birds in flight is important.

Zooman 1

This may seem strange, but I have the R and the 7DMII, but lately have been trying out the M50 for much of my bird and other nature photography. Too early for any determination, but so far have been pleased with the results using the smaller camera.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

For a full frame DSLR body I would say a 1Dx3. The 1 Series can shoot anything well. Watch some of the videos regarding its focus tracking features. If not shooting as many quickly moving subjects you can save some money with the 5D4.

Gonna need some good glass too.

Bison Bud

I've come close to purchasing an M50 several times, but just couldn't pull the trigger. I'd be real interested in seeing some of your M50 bird and nature shots!

Sark17 Loc: Atlanta, GA

I’ve for the R and my friend asking had the RP and neither of us can seem to get consistent SHARP images for anything less than direct light situations. It’s frustrating but I’m not sure if we are doing something wrong, or if canon seriously slacked on their first mirrorless options.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The knock on the initial EOS R bodies is the AF system for action. If time is not pressing, wait for the EOS R5 to be announced over the next few weeks as well as the hands-on reviews over the next few months. The industry expects the EOS R5 to change how we think about mirrorless, how we think about photography, how we think about life.

The 1DX options are a $2000 to $6000, depending on model and new vs used. The body is large, with a built in grip. The 5DIV has been spotted at $2000 now twice on sale, new, from Canon, with the 5D line also being a large full-frame camera, but still nothing like the size of the 1D line.

In the meantime, as asked by another post, what lenses are being considered as technique and focal length matter far more than fps.

Sark17 Loc: Atlanta, GA

I feel like I’ve invested in really solid glass. I am going to stick with canon forever because of this. Also, since I am not a professional, I can’t justify the price tag on the 1dx mark iii, and even if I could (because I CAN get creative in my justifications for things - “I haven’t gotten a speeding ticket in two years so I should totally buy this new lens” 🤣), I want to stay with mirrorless. I do a lot of wandering in the woods, beaches, lakes (looking for things to shoot), and my big adventures are my Africa trips. I just want a camera that does well in less than perfect lighting and can track decently. FPS doesn’t matter to me as much as those things. So to me, I wonder if I need LESS megapixels to handle the shady nature of the woods.

Now for the question for my friend on the other hand, he will care more about fps since he’s strictly interested in bird photography. So seems we have two different needs but similar issues with our current cameras.

MountainDave

Tell us what AF settings, how many focus points and other details of technique as well as which specific lens(es) you are using?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

It’s a shame more people don’t get The chance to experience a 1D Series body. I prefer the built in vertical grip and the size and weight help balance longer lenses especially when hand holding.

Perhaps your friend should rent a couple bodies to try out. Or buy from a place like B&Ag where you can return easily if not happy...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If the focus is bird & wildlife photography... which full frame camera?

My answer for your friend would be "none".

With 32.5MP the Canon 90D is an APS-C camera that actually has higher resolution than any of the Canon full frame cameras (except the 50MP 5DS series, which is a "no go" for wildlife for other reasons) and would be a better choice for the vast majority of bird & wildlife shooters. An APS-C camera "leverages the reach" of telephoto lenses wonderfully... and there's a saying among bird photographers that "you never have a 'long enough' lens" (can be applied to wildlife in general... especially smaller critters). There are always subjects you'd like to shoot who are just a little too far away, no matter how much $ you've sunk into big telephotos for the purpose. In some ways... such as it's AF system & controls and a more robust, better sealed build... the APS-C format 20MP 7D Mark II is also a better Canon DSLR choice for most people, but will not allow as much cropping or enlargement for printing as the higher resolution and much newer 90D.

Just for example, say your friend wants a lens around 500mm full frame equivalent. With an APS-C camera they have choice of Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM... under 3 lb., about 12" long dwith hood, 3" diameter, costing under $1400, and quite easily hand held for long periods of time. To accomplish the same thing with a full frame camera your friend would need a Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM... roughly 8 lb., about 18" long with lens hood, approx. 6" diameter, around $9000, and really only hand-holdable for very short periods of time, so figure another $1200 to $1500 for a sturdy tripod, or at least a very good monopod for shorter shooting sessions. You can go down a list of telephotos where similar comparisons can be made... 70-200/2.8 (~3 lb., $1800) versus 300mm f/2.8 (~ 6 lb., $6000)... 100-400mm (~3.5 lb., $2000) versus 200-400mm with built in 1.4X (~ 8 lb., $12,000).... even 135mm f/2 (~1.65 lb., $1000) versus 200mm f/2 (~5.5 lb., $5600).

How about just shooting with full frame using the same lens you would on APS-C, then cropping the image? That will almost always mean lower quality images. The Canon APS-C sensor has 38% of the image area of one of their full frame sensors.... as a result, a full frame, 30MP 5D Mark IV's image will be reduced to around 11.5MP when it's cropped to match the APS-C format. Even the upcoming EOS R5, rumored to be around 45MP, would be reduced to around 17MP if it's images were cropped to APS-C. Heck, even the 50MP 5DS models only end up with around the same 20MP as the 7D Mark II, if their full frame images are cropped to match the APS-C camera's format (and the 5DS have other possible short-comings for this purpose, such as quite limited high ISO capabilities and a less high performance AF system).

I've proven this beyond doubt to myself.... some years ago... comparing images shot with an 18MP APS-C camera versus a 21MP full frame camera... both with the same lens, both shooting the same subject from the same distance using all the same settings. By the time the full frame shot was cropped down to match the APS-C image, it showed very obvious loss of image quality. The crop sensor image was always superior. And that was comparing an APS-C camera that used an unusually strong anti-alias filter against a full frame camera with a rather weak one. Years later, both full frame and APS-C have seen a number of improvements. It's arguable that the APS-C have seen the most improvement.

There also can be other factors... For example, in many cases an APS-C camera has a faster maximum continuous frame rate. Both 90D and 7DII can shoot at 10 frames per second... In comparison, full frame 6D Mark II maxes out at 6.5 fps, 5D Mark IV at 7 fps and 5DS models at 5 fps. Those FF cameras also have slower flash sync, 1/200 or less... versus 1/250 that the APS-C offer. All the above models, both FF and APS-C have a top shutter speed of 1/8000, too... except the 6DII (FF) and Rebel models mentioned below (APS-C), which max out at 1/4000. Only the big, heavy and most expensive, top-of-the-line 1DX-series full frame models are faster. Those are "sports oriented"... like the APS-C 7DII... and, similarly, are right around 20MP resolution, too.

It makes more sense in most cases, to get the 32.5MP possible with 90D... Or, if sufficient, the 20MP possible with 7D Mark II. Or perhaps the 24MP of a Rebel T8i, 77D or T7i (or, if considering used, the 24MP of an 80D). For most photographers, any of these APS-C cameras would be better choice than any full frame for "long lens work".

Plus, these APS-C cameras also typically cost less, so might leave more money in the bank that might be put to better use for a lens upgrade or other purpose.

I am not knocking full frame cameras. They're excellent and very useful for a lot of things. Ideal for wide angle work, in particular, a full frame is a great choice (and probably better than APS-C) for landscape, architectural and similar photography. They also can be a top choice for portraiture (depth of field control) and low light shooting (high ISO capabilities). Full frame might in some cases be better for macro, too.

BUT, unless you have a huge lens budget and someone to help you lug around heavy gear and tripods to sit it upon, full frame are NOT the best choice for birds and most other wildlife photography. I am not saying it can't be done... just that for most people, most of the time, an APS-C camera would be a better choice for a lot of reasons.

P.S. Personally I use both FF and crop cameras. Usually... though not always... each for their own best purposes.

Sark17 Loc: Atlanta, GA

WOW! This is wonderful insight! Thank you so much for taking your time to explain all of this. I’m going to pass it along to him now. It seems in conclusion, you’d suggest the canon 90D for wildlife and birding? Thank you again!

Zooman 1

Attached are 2 photos taken with the Canon M50. Both were taken with the Canon 300mm F-4L and the Canon 1.4XIII. Exposure for the dickcissel was 1/800 @ F-10 ISO 400. 420mm. The blackbird was the same except for F-8 instead of F-10. Other than adjusting size for the web I have not done any processing on either photo. The BB should have a bit of shadow lightening. But, wanted to show just as they came out of the camera. Both were braced on my car window, with a towel as a bean bag. A thick towel. Enjoy. Also, I found the focusing about the same on both the M50 and the R as far as speed. Have not found that to be a problem.

(Download)


(Download)