Canon 20D or bigger for bird photos?

Am looking at the Canon 20D for bird photography. The 1.6

magnification factor looks to be a help as my longest lens is a good

Canon L series 400.

 

Is this a good choice or would I be better off with the much more

costly models with 10 to 16 megabyte files?

This was shot with a 20D, Tamron 70-300mm 4.5 lens at about f5.6, 1/000 sec.

<P>The Canon 20D has a higher pixel density than the 1DmkII or the full frame models, so you'll be giving up pixel count on any image that requires much in the way of cropping. And with small birds and a 400 mm lens, that will be most photos unless you're working from a blind or near feeders.</P>

 

<P>The 1DmkII and 1DSMKII have significantly better autofocus compared to the 20D, including the ability to autofocus at with lenses or lens / teleconverter combinations having a maximum aperture of f8 rather than the 20D's f5.6. Most reports I've read say that the 5D's autofocus is more nearly comparable to the 20D than the other high-end models. Many bird photographers consider the 1DmkII to be the best choice for flight shots. </P>

 

<P>Your choice will probably come down to the exact type of bird photography you're planning on doing. My reaction is that you would be better off with the 20D and putting the savings towards a longer lens.<P>

 

<P>I use the 20D for all my work -- but then photography is just a hobby for me. There are plenty of examples of bird photos taken with the 20D on my web site, though it's hard to tell much about the camera's potential from the compressed jpegs.<P>

 

<P>Robert

I don't see any problem with the focal length. A 400mm with x1.6 crop factor is 640mm, so I don't think you'll have any problem filling the frame and keeping the cropping to a minimum. I think any problems are more likely to be Frame-Rate and AF related. I would say wait until February to see if a 20D replacement is announced; if it is that will drop the price of the 20D. After that grab one and see how it goes, it will have good resale value for at least a couple more years if you decide you need to upgrade the camera.

<p>The 20D produces some nice files. Do you plan to do a lot of shooting of action, such as flight? It's a bit more challenging with the 20D than the 1D Mark II. My 1D Mark II failed on me during a trip to Texas this past spring and I used a 20D for about two days. I had a lot of problems with it - perhaps it was just that particular body - plus action was a bit difficult to shoot. But there are certainly a lot of people who do it successfully.</p>

 

<p>What are you looking to achieve with your images? I use an 8.2MP camera and can easily do large prints plus some very sharp, usable submissions to editors.</p>

 

<p><a href=http://www.hforcier.com><u>www.heatherforcier.com</u></a></p>

<I>Is this a good choice or would I be better off with the much more costly models with 10

to 16 megabyte files?</i><P>

 

As Robert, Jake, and Heather have noted, a 1-series camera will give you substantially better

autofocus (and a bigger viewfinder). But the image from a 1DII has the same pixel count as a

20D, and the latter has a higher pixel density (an advantage if you have to crop). I use a 1DII,

mainly for the high frame rate (useful for flight shots, as Heather says) and better AF. But in

some ways a 20D has considerable advantages, as in your case where you're using a 400 mm

lens.

"The 1.6 magnification factor looks to be a help"

 

I consider this 'factor' to be a big help. Despite whatever adjective one uses (crop or magnification), its primary effect is to generally 'put the pixels where the bird is'. Your 400mm lens will benefit from that. I've seen some great shots taken with the 20D. Cheers, -Greg-

I've recently been doing some testing of the 5D and 20D under just these conditions (i.e. your longest lens isn't really long enough for either camera!).

 

After cropping, upsizing and generally equalizing the images, the 20D image is better.

 

Of course the 5D image is generally better if you have a good lens and don't need to crop.

"(i.e. your longest lens isn't really long enough for either camera!)."

 

I don't know why it wouldn't be just fine with a 20D? I have photographed birds for 20+ years with a 600 on 35mm with no troubles.

I don't think an effective 640mm is too shabby for bird photography, you will just have to be patient and invest a little more time in your approach with some birds. In some situations you might want to make use of blinds to help conceal your presence, even if it's just a "throw blind" - not sure if that's an actual term but it just means taking a large piece of camo and putting it over you. You can get camo at outdoor stores, I got mine in the hunting section at WalMart.

 

I received a few emails from folks about the problems I had with the 20D and was asked for my thoughts on this camera and the Mark II. I should mention that I've used the 1D then 1D Mark II body since 2003, so I am accustomed to the durable, sealed pro body. Going from one of these cameras to a 20D does have its disadvantages, but the 20D is still a good camera.

 

One known problem appears to be the batteries with vertical grip - at times even charged batteries will appear "dead" and it's hard to get the camera to recognize that power is available. Just be aware that this could be a problem and that removing the grip then reattaching might be needed to get it going again. For me it was frustrating using it for just two days and run into the problem twice and I lost shots because of it.

 

But I was happy with the quality of the photos and, using the center sensor, I did reasonably well with AF even for some shorebirds in flight.

<P>I'm certainly in the camp that there is no such thing as too long a lens for bird photography. Most of my photos are taken as I find them, usually not at feeders or from blinds. As such, getting close is a real challenge.</P>

 

<P>As an example, a couple of mornings ago I found a very cooperative Wilson's Snipe on a pond. When I first saw him, I had my 20D, 300 mm f4 with 1.4x extender on (672 mm on 35 mm basis) The first photo shows the full frame. Certainly a useable shot. For those interested: handheld, 1/125, f8, ISO 400</P>

 

<P>Since the bird was holding tight, I went back to the car for my big glass. The second photo, also shown full frame, was with the 20D, 400 mm f2.8, 2x and 1.4x extenders stacked. (1792 mm on 35 mm basis) Again: tripod w/Wimberly head, 1/125, f10, ISO 800. The percentage of sharp photos wasn't great.</P>

 

<P>Both photos were taken from about the same position on the opposite side of the pond -- perhaps 30 - 40 feet.</P>

 

<P>There is such a variation in what people called bird photography that saying what lens is right for you can't be done. Photographing a warbler in the trees is very different from a Great Blue Heron on the side of a canal. Your best bet might be to pick something about the size of the birds you'll be photographing and see how close you need to get to fill the frame. If you don't think you can normally get that close, then the 20D with its 1.6 crop would probably be the better choice.</P>

 

<P><IMG SRC="http://www.rshantz.com/Snipe1.jpg">

<P><IMG SRC="http://www.rshantz.com/Snipe2.jpg">

 

<P>Robert Shantz

 

<P><A HREF="http://www.rshantz.com">www.rshantz.com</A>