BIF: 7D w/ 500 F4 or 5D3 w/ 800 F5.6

[Arthur Morris]

Ofer, the fact remains that most of "them" cannot hand hold an 800mm f/5.6, a 600mm f/4, or a Sigmonster for more than a minute or two.

[Ofer Levy]

Artie, the discussion with Roger and James shifted from the original title into using/not using a tripod for BIF. As far as I know you don't usually use a tripod for BIF - is that correct?
I agree with you no one would HH the Sigmonster and 600 f4 but the most popular long lens for BIF - the 500 f4 is HH by most serious BIF photographers.
As to the Canon 800 f5.6 - I really can't understand the big deal. The 800 f5.6 weighs 4,490 grams (9.9 lbs). The Canon 500 f4 PLUS the x1.4 converter weighs 4,095 grams. (9.29 lbs) - not such a big difference. I believe that most photographers who regularly use the 500 plus x14 handheld for BIF will be able to use the 800 f5.6 handheld.
Having said that, I won't recommend the 800 f5.6 as a main lens for BIF. For that the Canon 500 f4 is more practical - no doubt. However, from what Robert describes about the way he is going to use it - the 800 is a better choice IMHO.

[Doug Brown]

I don't see the point of all this arguing. I prefer hand holding for BIF, as do many of my photographer friends. But if a tripod/gimbal head works for you, more power to you. Ultimately it's all about the shots you get. If you're not getting the kind of quality you want with one technique, give the other one a try.

[Ofer Levy]

I don't see the point of all this arguing. I prefer hand holding for BIF, as do many of my photographer friends. But if a tripod/gimbal head works for you, more power to you. Ultimately it's all about the shots you get. If you're not getting the kind of quality you want with one technique, give the other one a try.

Hi Doug,
This is not an argument but a discussion which can have a lot of value to people who don't have a lot of experience with these lenses and techniques. I am not sure I understand why you feel the need to dismiss the valuable input of other experienced photographers so easily...

[Roger Clark]

Ofer,
You advocate one position as the only way. See other methods:

Long Lens Flight Photography Tips by Art Morris:


http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/06/06/long-lens-flight-photography-tips/

Todd Gustafson does much of his photography from a safari mounted gimbal mount
http://www.gustafsonphotosafari.net/
http://www.gustafsonphotosafari.net/?page_id=43

Outdoor Photographer:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/h...e.html?start=3
"Many serious bird-in-flight photographers use gimbal heads for flight shots with really long lenses."

Moose Peterson is said to use gimbal heads for BIF, though in a minute of searching his web site I could not find verification one way or another.

Roger

[Doug Brown]

Hi Doug,
This is not an argument but a discussion which can have a lot of value to people who don't have a lot of experience with these lenses and techniques. I am not sure I understand why you feel the need to dismiss the valuable input of other experienced photographers so easily...

Ofer, I don't think I was being dismissive of the input of anyone. But we are starting to discuss this issue to death. IMO there is no right answer to the question of hand held vs. tripod for BIF. I know plenty of excellent photographers who favor the hand held technique (you, Arash, and Jim Neiger to name a couple), but I also know quite a few who excel with a tripod (James Shadle and Jim Salywoda come to mind). Each of these two groups will defend their chosen technique until they're blue in the face, and all of them have the shots to back up their opinions.

It's important for inexperienced photographers to understand and experiment with their BIF options, and to choose the one that works best for them. I am a strong advocate for hand held BIF (for all the reasons you outlined earlier), and in fact teach workshops on the technique. But I appreciate that hand holding doesn't work for everyone. That's all I am trying to say.

Once you've explained why you prefer one technique or the other, you've made your contribution to this thread. I don't see the point of all the back and forth that follows.

[Arthur Morris]

I very much agree with Roger and Doug. Read all the pros and cons from the proponents on each side, give each a try, and see how you do. I hand hold my 800 every once in a while for a few seconds at time. And this weekend I was hand holding the 500 f/4L IS II with the 5D III. Evan that super light weight rig gets heavy after a while for me, even with the lens rested on a fence post when not raised to a subject.

[Jim Neiger]

Either method is capable of producing great flight images, but in terms of productivity and probability, hand held is the hands down winner, even when standing in water. That said, James is one of the best tripod shooters I have ever seen.

[Arthur Morris]

Agree 100%. But only when folks are physically able to hold a given lens. Hand holding cannot be best if folks cannot hold the lens up for a minimum period of time....

[dankearl]

My goal is to get photos like Grace Scalzo, James Shadle, Arthur Morris, Ofer Levy, Arash, Jim Nieger, Doug Brown, all the other great photographers at this site.
I handhold because I just enjoy walking around, but when I view a photo, I rarely look to see if it is handheld or tripod, I don't really care.
An interesting discussion, but I really don't think it sways people one way or the other. If a person doesn't feel they can hold a big lens, but can get great opportunities
to photograph with a tripod, why does it matter?
The only thing that matters is the quality of the photograph, no one ever looks at a Landscape photo and wonders if it was handheld.

[Jamie Douglas]

Right now, the 5D III has the most accurate and convenient AF system of any Canon camera that I have used. It is light. It is a bit short on frame rate for most folks. 500 is a great focal length for most flight applications. And the 500 f/l IS II is very light. In Japan, the 300 f/2.8L IS II with the MIV and a 1.4X TC was great for flight with the sea eagles and the cranes (effective 546). When more focal length is needed I would not hesitate to add the 1.4X III TC.

The 1DX promises much of the above with the improved frame rate a plus and the added weight and expense a minus.

Thanks. I somehow wasn't notified that you replied to my question, or more likely overlooked the email. Thanks for getting back to me though.

Jamie

[Gary Kinard]

I think I know the OP. Are you the one that sits on the mountain every day with the 500 and 7D last year. And your wife with the 800mm lens. If that is you I will be there again next year. I bought a new 300mm f2.8 ii. I will use it with the 2x tc. I know it won't be as good as yours but. I do not want to carry the big lens on the mountain. Bo and I will see you next year.
Just for a heads up World camera where I bought the 300. In BKK has a new 1d M1V for about 4000 dollars. I was going to buy it but wanted the lens instead. They still have it. Also the 5D Mark 111. Is there for a good savings as well if I remember right. They had a bunch of them a few months ago. Also I buy all my equipment over there just before I make my jump home. And get the VAT refund. So I always come out a few hundred ahead it seems.
If I see you again next year I will see what you decided on. Good luck,
Gary & Bo

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks. I somehow wasn't notified that you replied to my question, or more likely overlooked the email. Thanks for getting back to me though.

Jamie

You are most welcome. Just got back from two great weeks on the bear boat.

[Jason Holzworth]

Artie, what is the boat trip that you took?

[Jamie Douglas]

You are most welcome. Just got back from two great weeks on the bear boat.

I'll keep an eye out for your next blog post then :) I ended up going with a used 1D Mark IV over the 5D mark III. Got an offer I couldn't turn down and it's such an awesome camera to have in the bag for the future.

Cheers

Jamie