Zoo, and wild life photography including birds

<p>Hi<br>

I have just joined this forum, since I found a lot of value. I have been doing some photography as an amateur, having used Nikon for nearly 20 years, with various lenses including 500 mm f 8 Catadioptric. I converted to digital with D70 with old 35~70 ED and 70~300 non VR. The pictures are fair. I want to improve on sharpness and pixels. I am seriously contemplating moving to a Canon D50. The question that grapples me is whether I should use a combination of<br>

1. 70~200 2.8LIS with 1.4X and a 300 f 4 LIS<br>

Or a 100~400 LiS. I have limited funds to offer this hobby — $3K at best. Please suggest.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Changing camera systems will do NOTHING for you. The camera isn't the important thing, the lenses are. You say you are unhappy with sharpness. That doesn't come from a camera. Many consider the Canon 50D a step backwards, partly because it has poorer high ISO performance than its predecessor. I would suggest several options for you. For starters, the Nikon D90 is the latest equiv. of your D70. It's more refined and has new features such as HD video mode. The D90 can use higher ISO than the 50D can. It's also less money, but image quality should be the same or better. With limited funds, the smart thing to do is go cheap on the camera and put money on lenses. A D90 with 80-400mm VR will likely do what you want. The cheap kit lenses Nikon has are actually very good optically. You could save a lot of money buying a D90 with Nikon 18-55mm VR, and then put that money on an 80-400mm VR and a strong flash such as SB-900. I use flash quite a bit for zoo type photos. It helps a lot. Don't underestimate how useful it can be.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Hi Kent<br>

I was contemplating the same combination earlier, but was put off some where after reading some "not too good" remarks on the 80~400 VR. Another consideration was the 15 mp body of D50 Canon.</p><div></div>

<p>I'll second the advice for the D90. Excellent sensor for wildlife allowing you to shoot in lower light at higher ISO numbers. And the crop factor of that camera helps with reach. Whereas in the old days of film I'd agree that the camera isn't nearly as important as the lenses, with digital the camera is also very important because the camera's sensor is the film. It's no longer just a light box for your lens. The 80-400 is a very good lens for the money, but compared to much more expensive lenses it doesn't focus as quickly or accurately and is, of course, a stop or two slower. I shoot with Nikon so can't speak to the Canon camera and lenses you mention, but the D90 with 80-400 is a very good setup for wildlife and good advice from Kent. By the way, great monkey shot.</p>

<p>Kent, a 50D is hardly a step backwards as it managed to keep the same (or even slightly) better ISO performance as the 40D while adding megapixels and other improvements. Hardly a flop.</p>

<p>That being said, you are in a bit of a quandry. Just getting the 80-400/5.6 would be the cheapest option as it is a pretty good lens. Then you could add perhaps the D90 or even better the d300. The total cost to you would be about 1.7K +0.9K (D90) or +1.7K (D300) giving you a total bill of either 2.6K or 3.4K. Or you could simply skip getting a new body and just get the 80-400 for 1.7K.</p>

<p>If you switch to canon you can get the 100-400 for 1.5K+1.1K (50D) for 2.6K. Of course, you would either have to retain you nikon kit for normal/wide or you could sell it and invest in a new normal/wide lens. In your case, it is actually hard to lose going with canon. Despite what kent says, the 50D is a better camera than the D90 (there is more to life than image quality) and the 100-400 is a bit better optically and certainly focuses faster than the 80-400. You could pick up a nice normal/wide with whatever you get selling your nikon kit.</p>

<p>If you do decide to migrate to canon you need to decide how much time you will be spending photographing in zoos versus out in the wild. Zoos tend to be dark and the critters close so the 70-200/2.8 would be a great lens as you could add a TC for longer outdoor shoots. Of course, the 100-400 has a better IQ (and faster focus) than the 70-200+TC so out in the wild (where you will be a max focal length all of the time) the 100-400 is the better choice. The 300/4+1.4x TC splits the difference nicely in terms of IQ at ~400mm but you obviously lose the flexibility of a zoom. I personally went with the 100-400 and haven't looked back.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Craig--<br>

I'm going by what I've been told by my friends who bought & used the camera (part time wedding photographers mostly,) plus the review on DPReview.com. A short quote from the conclusion of their review of the D50: </p>

<li>"High ISO performance worse than 40D </li>

<li>Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D </li>

<li>Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras </li>

<li>High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera"(DPReview, 10/30/2008.)</li>

<p>Anyway, I'd advise the OP to read several opinions from regular reviewers such as DPreview etc. before buying anything. My point in recommending the D90 is it's a better value if it will work for you, and the money saved can be put on better lens, better software, decent tripod, SB-900 flash with Beamer, and so on. I have doubts I'd ever switch camera systems just for a camera body. An outstanding & unique lens, perhaps.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have no intention of getting into a pissing contest over things, but the findings on the dpreview (and most other review sites) are high flawed due to them comparing 100% crops. A 100% crop from a 50D image comprises a much smaller area on the sensor (or final image) compared to that of a 40D. We would never compare the quality of a film camera+lens by examining one slide with a 4x loupe and the other slide with a 6x loupe which is effectively what dpreview did. If you actually compare same-sized areas, the 50D comes out looking a bit better than the 40D. </p>

<p>This squares with my personal experience that, other than maybe a tiny smidge (i.e. inconsequential) more noise in the shadows, the images produced by the 50D are superior to that of the 40D when using quality glass (including the 100-400L), especially if you have to crop... as is usually the case when dealing with wild subjects. </p>

<p>I agree that I wouldn't switch systems for a body, but given the current offerings of both manufacturers, the OP may be better off with Canon as their lenses in the price range are either better or less expensive than their nikon competitors. I quit nikon over their 600mm... way too much compared to Canon's. Personally, if I was in the OP shoes, I'd jump ship if thought I needed a new body now or any time in the near future. If I didn't plan on getting a new body any time soon, I'd probably stay with Nikon. </p>

<p>Craig and Kent,<br>

Thanks a lot for your valuable opinions both ways. Assuming that the D90 is a better body at 12mp than the D50 at 15, one lurking question remains that is which optic is better - 80~400 VR Nikor or 100~400 IS Canon? I was going through the reviews of the 80~400, and majority opinions seem that the focussing is slow, lens is dark at 400 mm, and some one pointed out that it is better off with VR off!</p><div></div>

<p>Craig and Kent,<br>

Thanks a lot for your valuable opinions both ways. Assuming that the D90 is a better body at 12mp than the D50 at 15, one lurking question remains that is which optic is better - 80~400 VR Nikor or 100~400 IS Canon? I was going through the reviews of the 80~400, and majority opinions seem that the focussing is slow, lens is dark at 400 mm, and some one pointed out that it is better off with VR off!</p>

<p>First, the 50D is a better body than the d90 in just about any respect. Faster frame rate, faster AF, a real mirror lock up (occasionally useful with a long tele lens), and a couple more megapixels (good for cropping if you have a good lens). The only thing you give up is video, nikon's creative lighting system (which you may enjoy if you do a lot of remote flash work) and the d90 may be a smidge better at high ISOs. </p>

<p>As for the lenses, the both the 100-400 and the 80-400 have older VR/IS systems. I find I can shoot my 100-400L to about 1/200 and get almost all keepers and down to 1/100 if I am willing to tolerate about a 50% keeper rate. From my limited experience and from what others have written, you can expect similar to slightly worse performance with the 80-400. </p>

<p>Optically, the 80-400 is a bit softer than the 100-400L at 400mm and wide open, though both are good lenses. You see a lot of complaints about both on the internet, but I would be willing to bet that almost all of the so called "soft copies" of both of these lenses out there are actually cases of user error. Your mileage may vary of course</p>

<p>As for focus speed, the 100-400 is the clear winner. It's much faster and quieter than the 80-400 and has instant MF override. The 80-400 is a dog when it comes to focus speed. </p>

<p>Other stuff... the 100-400 focuses a bit closer (may or may not be important to you) but weighs a bit more. The 100-400 is also a push-pull zoom which may or may not appeal to you. The 100-400 also costs less.... so pretty much unless you absolutely hate push-pull lenses, the 100-400 is better and less expensive... a clear winner. </p>

<p>Hello Milind,<br>

Either camera system will be fine. Here's what I use, and you can check out the kind of shots I take in my profile. Most of my stuff are taken in wildlife parks and conservations.<br>

D200, 300mm/4 AF-S, SB600 + extender (Flash is important imo!), Monopod.<br>

Recent additions to my kit: 70-200/2.8 and TC14E.<br>

While I do wish nikon had a 300/4 with stabilization, I find that the shutter speeds to freeze motion are pretty high anyways, so stabilization isn't required. I do miss it when in low light though - I have to bump up iso to get reasonable shutter speeds.<br>

Wouldn't recommend the 80-400VR for nikon though. Then again I've only shot it for 3 days, and there are tons of great wildlife shots with it. AF is slightly slower compared to newer zooms/primes, and the handling isn't very good for me.<br>

Alvin<br>

PS: If you need absolute sharpness, <em><strong>shoot with</strong> <strong> prime</strong> </em> s. I would say the 70-200/2.8, even without the extender is relatively soft at 200mm/2.8 when compared to the 300/4..... almost every zoom I own is crappy after using the 300/4. Stupid lens :( However, in actual use either lens with the teleconverter is fine. Well for me at least ;-)</p>

<p>Probably the best money I ever spent in photography was for my Nikon 300mm f/4 (and 1.4x TC). It's sharp, lightweight portable, and gets a lot of use. When I really need to go bigger (and can deal with the weight/size logistics) I reach for the 500mm f/4... but that is a whole new ballgame. I will have the 300mm f/4 permanently in my collection.</p>

<p>I shoot with Nikon and only know Nikon. However, I have done a lot of zoo shooting. For either Nikon or Canon, I would recommend as a minimum focal length a prime lens of at least 300mm f 4.0 AF or AFS mounted on a tripod. VR might be a nice feature to have, but IMO using a tripod is the better way to go. (Depending on the lens, VR might not work while mounted on a tripod.) Adding a matched 1.4 teleconverter is an added plus.<br>

IMO zooms are of limited use for nature work unless you want to include foregrounds as 80% of the image and that is not the case for zoos where you usually want to eliminate as much of the distracting stuff as possible.<br>

My standard zoo equipment is my D 300, 500mm f 4.0 AFS and a 1.4x tc.<br>

If your budget is tight consider a used manual focus prime tele lens from Nikon mounted to a D200 or higher body that will meter with a manual focus lens. The best of the manual focus lenses is the Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens which has electronic contacts. Mounted to a D 200 or D 300 it produces great results. I would not use it on a D 70 as its viewfinder is too poor for manual focusing. <br>

Zoo shooting is a lot of fun and a grat way to learn nature photography.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

<p>Dear all<br>

Thanks a ton for giving a lot of valuable information. It certainly added to my perspective. Now I NEED TO THINK!</p>

<p>Dear friends<br>

Is there any news of Nikon updating the 80~400 VR and adding VR to the 300mm f4 yet? Also if ther is any news on updating of 100~400 Canon L IS?<br>

If so, the decision from me can sure wait!<br>

Milind</p>

<p>Probably no updates to any of them this calendar year (but no one really knows). All are older designs and theoretically due for an update and I would expect to see new versions (or outright replacements) in the next couple years. However, newer versions aren't going to render the older versions worthless and you need to think of all of the shots you are going to miss waiting around for something that may or may not happen. </p>

<p>I have been shooting street, street portraits and am just getting into zoo shots. the last shots I have posted here on my workspace are zoo shots with a Nikon D300 and 80-400 vr lens. I have turned off the AF and in these shots manually focus. I have heard that the error margin with the AF is significant and am working with manual focus. I believe that the shots are much sharper than my older zoo attempts using AF. None of the shots are using a flash. However, my next zoo trip will be with a flash, 80-400, and manual focus.</p>

<p>Please compare my first zoo shots a year ago and the latest a couple of weeks ago.</p>

<p>Either brand, doesn't matter. If money is an issue, then there is a lot of redundant coverage (and weight) with a 70-200/2.8 and TC and also a 300/4. The 300/4 should (and you can find and read reviews to be check on this) do better than the zoom with TC but it may not be so obvious as one might get from reading forums and reviews - a lot would depend on how you "output" the image. Are you planning prints and to what size, or just on-screen viewing? That combination would be heavy (although the TC kind of redundant as adding it just kind of gets you an almost 300/4 lens again - but leaving it home doesn't save much kit weight). One advantage to the zoom is f2.8 when it might be needed for low light or slimmer depth of field.</p>

<p>Either the 100-400 or the 70/80-400 type lenses will be easier to deal with and offer some advantages from the available zoom range compared to a fixed 300 or a 300 and TC, etc. BTW, I went on one of the San Diego Wild Animal Park photo sleepovers and the retired director of photography was there to make a presentation and be a part of the weekend. He was using the Nikon 80-400. I don't recall which body.</p>

<p>Another vote against the 80-400... if you have to switch into MF as Mr. Owen... it might be worth passing on that lens.n </p>

<p>I have found that manual focusing with any lens "can" provide a much more detail photo and be focused where you want it focused and not where then lens wants to be focused. I am also getting used to manual focus vs auto, however, I am getting to like it very much regardless of which AF lens I am using. Unless it is action photos i think it works for me.</p>

<p>Thanks all of you for the valuable contributions you have made.<br>

Milind</p>