Printable View
Nothing special here, but I thought this was worth posting as an example of what can be squeezed out of the 7D2. I sold my 5D4 and 1DX2
since I'm doing so little shooting around here these days. Shadowed breast and underwing aren't ideal, but that's what the lighting allows
at this fourth-rate location.
Canon 600mm f/4 IS II on EOS 7D2
1/4000 at f/5.6, ISO 400
Processed in LR CC and Topaz without trickery
Attachment 191787
Looks top rate to me. I do like the framing and the down stroke pose. Daniel kills with the 7D2.
Dorian, nice clean shot of this little speedster. Pose is super, shadows or not.
Plenty sharp, great detail from tip of the beak to tip of the talons. Composition is effective.
You could possibly play with white balance just a touch, but tough with not a lot of grays to sample. Overall a nice capture!
Equipment is overated as this shows... I see a lot of crappy photos from Sony gear,,,Canon gear, Nikon gear....
Contest winners from all different gear.
Very clean, nice sharp image. if you said you took on new A1, no one on the internet would know...
Wildlife photography is about being there. I have no idea what gear Moose Peterson or Thomas Mangelsen uses...
great frame. very good sharpness and nice colors. I am OK with the shadow but wish wings were lower or fully up in which case shadows would have been eliminated ...but with the 7D's AF chances are it will miss the frame with the wings fully down or up, this is where your skill was limited by the camera (not the case for everyone)
I have to disagree with Dan partially, for a novice photographer equipment will not make them a better photographer, no doubt about that. But a skilled photographer like Dorian will be limited by the inadequate AF of the 7D for BIF photography. When you are at the top, that little bit makes all the difference....this i a nice frame for sure, but it can also be viewed as a missed opportunity where Dorain did everything perfectly right but the camera could not keep up and quite deliver the best frame. The very same pass could have resulted in a much more pleasing frame if the camera were able to capture the frame with wings stretched down or up. With modern cameras you can expect several frames of each wings fully up or down from the same pass, all tack sharp without really needing to roll the dice or rely on luck on top of your hard earned skills.
This is more of a factor in action shots than static/perched shots where camera AF technology plays a lesser role. None of my BIF shots would be possible with a 7D...make no mistake. you need the skills but also the right tool for the job.
Dorain, so what's next I can't imagine you're settling for the 7D , what's next?
The fact is that good photographers can make good images with whatever gear they have in their hands. But it is very clear to me that for shooting flight and action nothing out there comes close to the SONY a1, and that includes the R5 (that I tested extensively for four months). That said, the R5 is undoubtedly Canon's best autofocusing body. Most of the best American flight photographers abandoned Canon 5-6 years ago because of their frustration with inconsistent AF tracking. First, they jumped ship to Nikon and then to SONY.
The image is a good solid image.
with love, artie
Dorian,
Please explain what you mean by" Topaz without trickery."
with love, artie
Super shot quality is very good and focus pretty much ideal.
Sorry, 'trickery' refers to Lightroom - i.e. nothing added or cloned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
You are correct on two counts - though I've cut the quote down to save some space!Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
1) While it is possible to make great images with lots of different gear, I know I'd make many, many more great images with better gear, particularly when action is involved. It is really impossible to debate this.
2) The 7D2 is not a permanent solution, but I'm kinda paralyzed with indecision about whether to do the simple/easy/cheaper thing and buy the R5 or make the switch to Sony. I know I'd really like the Sony system; I know the AF is unmatched, and the possibility of carrying a 200-600 (with and without a 1.4x) is incredibly attractive given the amount of travel that I do. I don't use my 600/4 much when I'm bird guiding since it's so big, and there's often limited room to maneuver with 6-8 clients in tow, so a smaller zoom lens would get a ton of use on tours as I lead more and more of them.
The big problem is that if I sell my Canon 600/4, I'm really not in a position to replace it with a $13,000 Sony equivalent. So, I'd necessarily need to operate with the 200-600 -- and only the 200-600 -- for the foreseeable future. The other issue is that my 400 DO II has a small scratch on the front element, so I'm unlikely to get proper value for it. I also have other Canon gear (landscape lens, flash, etc), so I'm pretty heavily invested in the system. Trying to sell of all that stuff is a daunting proposition. Regardless, I know that my current Canon 600/4 II isn't a permanent solution either. It's heavy, and it will get slightly heavier when the EF-RF adapter is in place. And it wasn't specially designed for the fast shooting which mirrorless requires. Sony's system works so well because the entire system was designed together. What I don't know is how well the optimal Canon system will perform since it doesn't exist yet. I think the current RF 600/4 is a poor/lazy design by Canon; they just took the EF III and slapped a new mount on it without changing any of the internal technology. Same for the RF 400/2.8. My hypothesis is that the RF 500/4, when it finally comes out, could be an amazing option. It's being designed for for mirrorless, will be able to used the newer TCs, and will probably weight in at ~5lbs (or less). So, I could buy the R5, sell of a bit of my current gear, and then sell off the rest when the RF 500/4 is released because I'd be able to afford it at that future juncture. Sure, my current gear will devalue between now and then, but I'm sure I could make a lot of really nice images in the meantime, particularly once we get our ducks back starting in October!
There is also a another side to all of this. The county has closed Foster City for the next three years, so there really isn't much for local for shooting unless I'm willing to do a lot more driving to get to other spots. I've also had some personal changes precipitated by the pandemic. All my wife's friends have moved away, so we've been spending more time together on weekends, mostly hiking from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. I love spending time with her, but I cannot get her up early enough to do proper photography. And we only have one car, so I cannot leave her home while I go out for the entire morning -- and longer if I need to drive to father photo spots. She used to go out to brunch with friends every weekend, but that doesn't happen anymore since all her friends are gone and her recent Lupus diagnosis means she has to be really, really careful about being in public places even with 2 vaccine doses. She's on immunosuppressant drugs for her condition, and those are likely to lessen vaccine efficacy. And while we usually take 1-2 major international trips each year (AUS, NZ, Thailand, Colombia, Ecuador, etc), those are on hold until the rest of the world gets vaccinated and Sonia feels more comfortable venturing away from home.
Anyway, a long winded answer to say that photography is, unfortunately, playing a diminishing role in my life. Agains that consideration, it's really hard to justify investing in anything beyond a used R5 at this point. The a1 + 200-600 could be a solution, but I can't afford the 600/4 and I'm not sure I'd have the time/opportunity to extract proper value from it (i.e. use it enough) even if I could. If I was made of money, I'd jump right in an a1 + 600 and sell my Canon gear off in the BG. But that's not the situation. I was talking to some f'ing joker who can't take pictures worth **** the other day who was like "Yeah, I just dropped the 20K on this rig since I needed something to do." I almost murdered the guy and took all his gear.
Anyway, enough........
Hey Dorian,
first stay healthy and safe, take care of your family. spending more time with family is a blessing.
I hear what you say about life getting in the way of shooting. I also find myself with less and less time to shoot, this was actually one strong motivation for me to switch to Sony from Nikon (which wasn't as bad as Canon for BIF) : I don't have that many chances for shooting anymore. I don't have the time to go back to a spot 5 times in a row to get a frame that I like, I have to make the best out of one pass because that might be it for a while. Before it took me many days and hours to come up with one of the frames like the ones I usually post, I couldn't do that anymore. Last month I was in SoCal and went to shoot the falcons for just one morning. The only time I could find with all the family stuff going on. That was it... one morning. I got more keepers in that morning than 10 years of shooting with Canon and Nikon combined in the same spot. Just one pass...and you get all possible poses if you are on it...So don't give up photography yet, with your skills you can make the best out of the limited opportunities that you may have. the catch is you need to make a descision and perhaps some investment
it seems to me the current 600's size and weight is really an issue for you, of course the sony 600 f/4 solves the weight problem but it requires a large upfront investment... I think these two options suit you best, and in both cases you probably end up with a little bit of cash in your pocket from the trade
1. get an A1 and 200-600, you will instantly get 10x more keepers from 85% of the situations. the 200-600 is excellent for close range shots, even lower light. You will sacrifices reach. For example in a place like Half Moon Bay shooting kestrels and kites you need that 600 f/4 + 1.4X or 2X but in Foster City or MV shoreline you will be king since the birds are close. This should cost you ~10K which you can probably raise by selling your 600 and the DO and all the canon bodies.
2. trade your 600 f/4 for a 500 f/4. It will mostly solve the size/weight problem although it will not improve the AF technology. Get a used R5, I see a lot of them on FM offered for sale. It's not Sony AF but it is significantly better than the 1DX series. Again you should come out ahead by getting rid of the 600, the DO and all of your bodies.
I think the improvement you will see from either option is so significant that will motivate you to squeeze that 1 hour before sunset that you have and still come out with an epic frame, even if it is just once a month. Truth is that sporadic BIF shooting with a DSLR, especially Canon, never worked. you needed lots of persistence, time and luck to get a frame. Today that's no longer the case.
cheers and let us know what you decide.
I agree with Arash, good gear maximizes the opportunities..
A Sony switch for an A1 and a 200-600 (I would be very happy with that combo), costs $8000.
It might be old tech but a Nikon D500 and a 500pf is about $4000 right now.
It will last years as a decent combo. I just flew to Central Cal and you can keep it in
a fanny pack and it beats any Canon combo.
Shooting on a kayak or boat is so easy, the combo weighs 3 lb.
