neill_farmer2

There will be a 90D released soon. That said I moved from an APS-C 7D to a FF 6D and have no regrets. Gave the 7D away as it was not being used.

The present mirrorless cameras offer advantages and disadvantages over their DSLR equivalents. The RP uses the 6DII sensor. The electronic view finder has a short delay and so is not as well suited to photoing faster action such as birds in flight. It is perfectly good for still and slower stuff. Another advantage is that the AF system is off the sensor and so AF is particularly accurate and does not require micro adjusting of any AF lens. IS lens remain switched on as long as the camera is switched on, IS does not shut down after taking the shot as on DSLRs. Those that have purchased R and RP cameras seem very happy with them except for a few people who keep both eyes open when shooting find the viewfinder delay causing unpleasant side effects.

Don't buy any lens that has some problem with haze or fungus. It won't get better, only worse. A small mark on the front element will not affect IQ but a similar mark or chip on the rear element may cause problems at high f stops on wide angle lenses.

The 100-400L was the standard safari lens back in the day when it was the lowest cost way to get good quality 600mm using an APS-C camera. It still is useful today. There are alternatives, and as mentioned the Sigma C or Tamron 150-600 are also low cost ways to get good results on safari. The 500 and 600 primes give IQ better than the zooms and AF is better too but at the expense of versatility and lens changes, not to mention the high cost. If I were doing a safari again I think I would take my 150-600 C and leave the 100-400L at home. Be aware that the 150-600 zooms are not as easily handled as the 100-400L, and I find they need higher shutter speeds to overcome camera shake (I only use IS when forced to). What ever, you will find that 600mm or there a-bouts is needed, especially in East Africa. 100-400 is useable for Southern Africa where the game parks are more vegetated.

<p>Canon markets their DSLRs in a similar fashion to the way they did for film cameras. In going to the 6D from a EOS3 several steps downwards are being taken. The 6D is an entry level Full frame camera, the EOS 3 one step down from the top tier.<br> The good news is that the 6D has a sensor that delivers images close to those of higher specification cameras and it's low light capabilities, when introduced, were excellent. Even today the IQ and ISO capabilities still remain very good.<br> Canon chose to offer a basic auto focus system in the camera, but once again what is there is very good. The centre focussing point is very accurate and capable of focussing on objects in very low light. In this respect the auto focus is again very good. Unfortunately the off centre points are average and I don't use them on my camera. Also the engine that tracks fast moving objects is also average, but still good for larger birds in flight and moderately fast objects.<br> The camera's strengths are its image quality, low light imagery and the surefooted centre focussing point.<br> It is a relatively simple camera and that, for some, is also a strength.<br> I would not buy one now, there is a mark II version due in a few months, that should build on the 6D's strengths with more recent AF and even better IQ.</p>

<p>I would advise against it. Firstly no DSLR is an investment, they all eventually depreciate to near zero.<br> Secondly it is an old camera with two known deficiencies, a mirror that falls out and no auto sensor cleaning.<br> Much more recent crop cameras, in good light will produce very similar image quality. When the light fades so does the 5D, more recent cameras, crop included, will still produce good images at higher ISOs before sunrise and after sunset or indoors.<br> If full frame is your desire then I suggest a 6D, (shortly to be replaced by a 6DII so prices of second hand units will drop shortly), or a 5DII. Of the two the 6D is the more recent and better camera.<br> Full Frame costs do not stop at the camera, the EF-S lenses will not fit so access to Canon's excellent and lower priced lenses is also lost.</p>

<p>For South African Private reserves either a 100-400L (better) or a 70-300L(more useful for normal photography) will be good. A 70-300 IS would be the bare minimum.<br> For a body all are good, but latter ones will offer better low light capability. Some game reserves offer twilight and night drives. You will need a 7D or later if you wish to get shots on these.<br> Good luck, trip of a lifetime.</p>

<p>I purchased my 6D for low light photography. It is usable up to around ISO 10,000, although I have made images that look good on my 27" monitor off ISO 20,000 raws. I would not bother with the 5D, amazing camera for its time, still good in the hands of those adept at sensor cleaning, but not much chop for low light.</p>

<p>These two cameras have different strengths, but, for general use both are equally suitable. In good light, and ISOs up to 800 - 1600 it is hard to tell the difference in image quality. As ISO gets higher the images produced by the 6D will get better. The 6D is still giving usable images at ISO 10,000+, leaving the 70D in this contest way behind.<br> The 6D also has an excellent center focus point, if you can see it it will focus on it. In such poor light the 70D is unable to achieve focus.<br> These are all advantages that come with a modern FF camera.<br> The 70D has a better focus engine, it will track moving objects better than the 6D. I find the 6D good for junior football, but not for birds in flight.<br> The 70D is a crop camera. It removes part of the image so that the apparent focal length is 1.6 x the lens specification. This makes it great for telephoto work where a relatively inexpensive 100-400L acts like a 160-560mm lens. A similar 600mm lens costs a lot more. Since the image is smaller the EF-s lenses cost less too. This together with its focus engine make the 70D better for sports and wild life. These are the big advantages of the crop body.<br> In a nutshell the 6D is about image excellence and low light, the 70D about fast moving action and wild life.<br> Pick the one that best suits the main use it will be put to.</p>

<p>I often use smaller apertures than f8 on my 7D and don't notice any loss of sharpness. Do a bit of experimenting for yourself and see if this is problem for you.</p>

<p>The problem seems to be caused by a bump or pressure on the front of the lens. Try to avoid this. </p>

<p>Mackenzie, have a look at the Canon 55-250 IS. There are two versions, one with normal AF and one with an STM Focus Motor for video. Scuttlebutt has it that the STM version is sharper. Another lens worth looking at is the 70-300IS. It is sharper than your 75-300mm. The Tamron 70-300 is also said to be pretty good. These are all lenses that cost less than $500, some under $300. <br> The 70-200L F4 is a step ahead of these regards sharpness and build, it will match the latest offerings and will last a lifetime.<br> I have used e global mail order from Hong Kong, they seemed good with fast delivery. Alternatively B&H New York ship overseas and I would see if the larger Australian camera stores do also. All these lenses are relatively common, you could look for one second hand.</p>

<p>Mackenzie, the difference between the 75-300, which is not that good, and the 55-250 IS is sharpness. It offers the best value there is for a budget tele zoom lens. The 70-200L F4 is a step ahead again with sharpness and build but with a restricted zoom range and higher cost. The best are the 70-300L and either of the 100-400Ls, the MkII in a class of it's own.<br> I think I would establish what zoom range I needed, and think of the future here, lenses should last a long time. Then come up with how much I could pay. See what that matches amongst the 55-250 IS, 70-200 F4 and the longer whites.<br> Good luck, you get an interesting collection of long distance planes down there. 747s finished?</p>

<p>The best value birding lens is either the Tamron or Sigma C 150-600mm. One step back is the original Canon 100-400L. I would not accept a lens that is a lesser standard than these three. It would be better to wait and save up if these cannot be purchased now. The birds will still be there. Nothing worse than a soft telephoto for birds. As it is these lenses will probably need to be shot at a stop above their widest. Remember that with lenses of these focal lengths the 1/FL rule doesn't apply, try 1/2xFL or 1/1000th minimum. Good luck, but I must warn that bird photography is very damaging to the wallet.</p>

<p>The 6D is a great camera and part of its greatness is it's simplicity. To get focus tracking press the 'AF' button and turn the top wheel until 'AI servo' appears. The camera scrolls through 'one shot', 'AI focus' and 'AI servo'. It is not recommended to use 'AI focus". With a half press of the shutter the camera will focus, keeping the shutter half pressed swing the camera to pick up other objects at different distances. the lens should refocus on these as the camera is swung around. If this does not happen something is wrong. Pressing and holding the 'AF On' button should have the same effect as a shutter half press.<br> Before sending the camera away I would reset the camera to the default settings, there is a menu item for this, 'clear camera settings'.</p>

<p>They go something like this: 55-250 STM, a good lens at a reasonable price, good value for its performance; 75-300mm various manufactures, cheap but all are best forgotten; 70-300IS, a step better than the 75-300s and for those on a budget, good; 70-300LIS an excellent lens, optics, AF, IS and build all very good; 100-400LIS original, very good optics, good AF, IS only 2 stops, there is a weakness in the zoom mechanism that can cause it to require servicing; 100-400LIS Mk2, excellent optics, build, AF and IS to 4 stops. Users report only excellent results; Tamron 150-600, optically good, sharpness falls off from 400 towards the 600mm FL; Sigma, good optics, seems to be thought by users to be a little better than the Tamron version although both seem to get soft towards the 600mm end (may need to go to f8 out there).<br> You can establish your focal length needs, budget and local prices and select any of the above that suits. Any other long tele lenses are BIG$s. The 400mmL f5.6 is a great lens but only a fixed focal length and no IS. </p>

<p>I use a 6D and 100-400L first series. It's sharp and contrasty at 100% at all focal lengths. Long lenses over 200mm have a learning curve. They like lots of light and higher shutter speeds. Forget the I/focal length rule, more like 1/2xFL. I aim for 1/1000th with my 100-400L. At these shutter speeds IS can be switched off. I only use it for stationary objects in low light where I can take my time to get AF, IS settled for the shot, works well under these conditions. I've heard nothing but good about the new 100-400L MkII. If this is affordable I'd go for this. If not the older version will not disappoint. Canon have refurb 100-400L MkIIs on sale but they go fast.</p>

<p>The Canon x0D bodies have all seen steady improvement in Autofocus and higher ISO performance with each new model. There was a step change after the 60D with the 7D and the improvements in this camera found their way, with some beneficial tweaking, into the 70D. The 60D doesn't have AF micro adjust, this might be an issue if long or wide apertures lenses are envisaged. In order of cost and capability the cameras go; 7D2, 70D, 7D, 60D, 50D, 40D. Although the differences model to model were small, overall there is a big difference in high ISO IQ and AF between the 40D and 70D. The 7D2 is a step ahead again. Start with your budget and see what can be bought. Equally important are the chosen lenses. The more recent STM versions are better while still having reasonable purchase prices. Nikon or Canon, both are good, but Canon seems to have a better price/performance for lenses and their fix-it people seem better.</p>

<p>My 2001 Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 is still going fine and is as sharp as a pin. In that time I've gone through two 50mm 1.8 IIs and used it on 4 cameras.. My 100-400L needed a full rebuild after 5 years. Most of my kit lenses are superannuated by sharper versions. So some L's (24-105, 100-400L Mk1) are a bit fragile others are everlasting. The best way to prevent fungus is to use the lens, sunlight kills the fungus, and store them in a dry place. How long does a lens last ? Depends on the lens and how it is looked after.</p>

<p>I think those that have the 24-105L (including me) have it for it's versatility, it is good at most things but it gives up a small degree of sharpness and has some distortion. The 24-70Ls are more focussed (pun intended) on sharpness and good bokeh. If I used the 24-70Ls I would need many more lens changes as the most used range for my subjects is 35 to 100mm, all shot at around f8. For fine art I think I would go chasing resolution and minimal distortion. The 24-70Ls were made for this.</p>

<p>If the NZ$1100 is not too much of a stretch I'd get the 70-300L. It is a lens that will last forever and the optics, focussing and IS are first class. A country mile ahead of the 70-300IS. A few guys at BNE are using the new 100-400 Mk2, it seems to be as good as the 70-300L, but then we need 400mm as the viewing distance is greater. Did you see Pocock give the interview the other day? Two black eyes and sprig cuts all over his face. Gunna be a great match.</p>

<p>Mackenzie. There is no doubt that the 70-300L and the 100-400L are the bees knees for aviation photography. I assumed you were a New Zealander and on a budget? Lenses in NZ cost a lot more than in NY. Hence my hesitation to recommend the Ls, one of which I have. Of the two non Ls, the 55-250 STM has the better reputation and is sharp at both ends of the zoom range. It is good value for money. The 70-300IS is an older lens and is not so good in the 200-300mm range. You are right to go looking at better lenses as the 1200D is a perfectly good camera for aviation photography. I suggest you price both the Ls and the two non Ls and make your own decision of cost vs excellence. As an indication you can crop either L at 100% and still have a sharp image suited for the web or A4 printing. The non L 70-300IS might find this treatment a bit of a stretch. Good luck and go the Wallabies.</p>

<p>There are two possible Canon tele lenses within your budget that have a good image quality. The 55-250 STM or the 70-300 IS. While the L lenses take the quality to another level they could be expensive over kill for your purposes. While the STM is a little more expensive than the non STM 55 250, it seems to have glowing reviews. On your crop camera these lenses will produce an angle of view similar to a 90-400 and 112-480 lens on Full frame a camera.</p>

<p>Two other options not canvassed. Do nothing and go the whole way.<br> There is not a lot of difference, for viewing on the web and printing A4, and taken in good light, between the XTi and the current Rebels. In low light, the IQ and AF are much better, but this difference disappears in good light.<br> I see you have a 70-200L. that signifies you wish to do some serious photography. If you wish to leap ahead then the 6D is the go. But it IS more money and there is a need for a 24-105L or something similar. You will be set for years to come tho'.</p>

<p>I think there needs to be a good reason to go 24-70 and 70-200 rather than 24-105 and 70-200. If you have two bodies then the 24-70 can sit on one and the 70-200 on the other. With only one body the change at 70mm is a pain for me. It occurs in the area, 50mm to 100mm, where I take most of my photos. The 24-105 eliminates the tiresoms lens changing. Image quality is good too. I think I'd only get a 24-70 2.8 if more OOF blurring was an important consideration.</p>