Happy with 40D, looking to take publishable shots, 7D, 5DmkII, or 1DmkIV

[imagesgonewild]

<p>Hello,<br>

I know this is very similar to a few recent posts, but I would still appreciate your advice.<br>

I currently have 2 40D bodies, an EF 100 - 400/1:4.5 -5.6 L IS, EF 70-300/1:4 - 5.6 IS and an EF 28-135(came with kit).<br>

My primary interest: wildlife, I aspire to be awesome at capturing all wildlife including birds in flight :)<br>

The 40D is my first DSLR, and I love it. I am self teaching and I haven't been published or done exhibitions or competitions, yet, however publishing is first on my list of what I would like to accomplish.<br>

Questions: I am amazed by the images I've seen coming from my friend's 5DmkII, however I've been reading that the 5DmkII has poor(relative term) autofocus and fps capabilities. Thinking of past experiences watching a cheetah chase and catch an impala through high grass the same basic color as both the chasing and the chased, raises concerns. Is the 5DmkII a viable option for successful wildlife photography?<br>

1DmkIV, having a hard time figuring out how to afford this system, but would it be worth the investment, to have one for all future photography situations, including wildlife, with it's "better" af capabilities? Is it too soon to purchase this new release, would it be better to wait for problems to be washed out first?<br>

7D, is it a better choice than the 5D, for high speed wildlife photography?<br>

Overall, is it worth stepping up from a 40D to new system plus a couple of new lenses, or would more and better lenses be a better investment?<br>

Thank you in advance. </p>

 

[mvw photo]

<p>Much as I love cameras (I very recently reviewed the 1D MkIV and a month or so ago the 7D on http://www.michaelwilems.ca) I would go for the lenses at this stage, Kristin. Fast, long lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Oops, I mean http://www.michaelwillems.ca - I do know my own name. Search for the 7D notes in case they are helpful for you. I love the 7D - even though I own a 1Ds Mark III and a 1D Mark IV, the 7D feels so right.<br>

But again.. great "glass" is going to be huge.</p>

 

[eric merrill]

<p>Kristin:</p>

<p>You can take perfectly publishable shots with what you have. I've seen stunning wildlife images shot with 40D and earlier bodies paired with the 100-400.</p>

<p>I'd add the 500/4 or 600/4 next if I were you.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[summerleif]

<p>You need lenses, long fast glass, as others have suggested. But such lenses cost as much or more than any camera body you are considering.</p>

[matthijs]

<ul>

<li>Are your friends postprocessing skills and yours on the same level?</li>

<li>Are your friends shooting skills and yours on the same level?</li>

</ul>

<p>My guess is that with your setup you should be able to create "publishable" results.</p>

<p>If you can spare it, new gear is always fun. (In your case I'd say the 7D.) However the question is whether that will solve your wishes.<br>

Is it possible to borrow your friends 5d-II to see how that suits you (shooting RAW and using your own post processing style, not her picture styles and post processing)? That way you can check what gear has to do with it.</p>

 

[geoffs1]

<p>I've lost count of how many shots from my 20D and 40D have been published, including quite a few magazine covers. Definitely a vote for more glass! (the 500mm f/4 IS comes to mind...).</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I have the 30D with the 70-400 f4-5.6 and have the same questions - see the recent thread <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VjjC">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VjjC</a><br>

I recently went to a presentation by a wildlife photographer who specialises in birds in flight and many of his shots were taken with a 20D and 100-400 (he has recently upgraded to 1DMkII) . And coincidentally there is a photo by a different photographer on the homepage of Photo.net at this moment taken with this same 20D+100-400 combination<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3854146">http://www.photo.net/photo/3854146</a></p>

<p>I am still surprised at the quality of shot I can get with the 70-300 (bearing in mind its price) but it does have its limitations, especially the tendency to hunt and its (relatively) slow response in AI Servo. But that does not mean I cannot get some very good pictures with it, just that the keeper rate is not a high as it could be. I would love the 7D but legic tells me that the 100-400 is the best immediate upgrade. And if you get the 5D/7D then you will want to (need to?) get a better lens anyway!<br>

Ginve the technology we have now, and the way some people talk, it sometimes seems amazing that only 30 years ago we had any decent wildlife action shots at all without AF, zoom lenses and mega-fast frame shooting.</p>

<p>Is the 7D better than the 5D for this type of photography? With is improved AF and higher frame rate the 7D seems preferable. If you can afford the 5D2 body you can probably afford the 7D+100-400 and that will set you up <em>very</em> nicely.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>There's nothing slouchy about the 40D (or the 30D, Mike). Images are quite publishable even with the humble 10D. Your 100-400L on a crop body is a very good combination for wildlife photography. If you like your 40D, I'd advise you not to upgrade. I like my own 40D very much and shoot with it professionally.</p>

<p>I'd advise against going full frame, although I dearly love my own 5D. Problems with a full frame camera (for you) would include a less telephoto field of view (so that you don't get as much "reach" out of your lenses) and greater noise (as in loud clicking sounds that startle your subjects). If you want to upgrade, you should probably stay with the APS-C format.</p>

<p>The best investment you can make right now is education, whether it's a course, a workshop, or a good book. Of course lots of practice goes along with that.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The 5D MII didn't make the shots better the photographer did. Also, better lenses will help too. I'd sell the 70-300mm and get a 70-200mm f/2.8 L. The AF on the 70-300mm sucks, and it doesn't matter what camera you put it on, it will still suck. I'd also sell the 28-135mm and get something a little wider. I'd get some premium glass before making the jump to full frame. Also, full frame probably isn't the solution for wildlife anyways. Maybe look at a 1D MkIII or the 7D when the time comes. But for now, definitely get rid of the 70-300mm.</p>

<p>Your 40D is more than capable of taking publishable shots. Hell, look at all the bozos that get their camera phone shots published b/c they were at the right place at the right time, or the wrong place at the right time.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I would also vote for getting new/better glass instead of upgrading to one of the latest bodies.</p>

<p>This is what I would do if I were you:<br>

- sell one of the 40D and get a used 1DmkIII or 1DmkIIn (they will get cheaper soon)<br>

- sell the 70-300IS, and get the 70-200 F2.8 (either IS or non-IS). I found that the 70-300 holds it value pretty well (not a bad lens, but not 2.8)<br>

- the 100-400mm is great, but many times not long enough, and you won't get the great background blur that makes a photo much more "publishable". Get a fast and long prime (e.g. 300mm F2.8, 500mm F4) plus extenders</p>

<p>Have fun</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>You can take perfectly publishable shots with what you have. I've seen stunning wildlife images shot with 40D and earlier bodies paired with the 100-400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plus about a million - I've taken a few myself..!</p>

<p>I've looked at your PN gallery - you have an eye for the shot and an engaging compositional sense, but many of the images seem a wee bit soft at larger views and most are rather dark.</p>

<p>Which lens are you using, how are you converting, and do you regard your PP skills as up to the mark?</p>

<p>And is your monitor calibrated?</p>

<p>I will add that the 7D is a better wildlife camera than the 40D (the 40D is great - I've still got mine) but the 7D is noticeably better: but based on your gallery, I don't see any camera body problems.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I'm still selling shots I took with a 10D. I have a full-page image used for an ad for years, and some stock photos. I had a magazine cover with a shot from the 10D. Your 40D is fine for publishable shots.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>the 100-400mm is great, but many times not long enough, and <strong>you won't get the great background blur that makes a photo much more "publishable</strong> ".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know where to start to make the point about just how many ways that's wrong!</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>Keith: start by stating what does "publishable" means to you.</p>

<p>Do you think a better background does not make a picture better (expecially those safari shots when you don't need that distracting background vegetation in a lion portrait for example) ? Or do you think the 100-400mm delivers the same bokeh when compared to the 300mm F2.8 or 500mm F4 (e.g. at the longest end / widest aperture) ?</p>

[markonestudios]

Just in case it's not been said enough :) you should use the kit you presently have to work on your technique before you then look to upgrade your lenses. No point splashing out now and you haven't yet got to grips with the basics. 1D2n, 1D3 or even 7D + better glass in inexperienced hands will still not make your shots 'publishable'.