New Canon Body For Birds

[Sam_swfc123]

Hello all.

I am looking for a new Canon body for my Sigma 150-500mm, i currently have a Canon 20D which is getting on a bit now and there is a lot more better and modern bodies out now.

I would use my camera and lens for Bird Photography so i need something pretty quick.

The bodies that i have been looking at are;
- Canon 500D
- Canon 550D
- Canon 50D

Also should i keep my Canon 20D or sell it to help fund for my new body because i am buying a new lens soon.

Which would you say is the best for bird photography?

Thank you.

Regards,
Sam Winslow

[GTH]

For me the 7d is the best for birds....and I have a 1DS as well as a 1D,... which have never given me the quality that I`m now getting.

All about personal choice I guess...but do at least look at the 7D.

Best of luck,

Geoff

[Ollie]

I would also definitely look at the 7D body. The auto focus system on the 7D is superb especially if you intend doing any in flight shooting.

Please do remember though that the body doesn't in my opinion play as big a part as the lens. I haven't used the Sigma 150-500mm but from what I have seen it's a very good lens that gives excellent results.

The 7D however does benefit from having a prime lens attached then it makes the very best of the 18 mega pixels it has.

[glsammy]

Got to agree with Roger and Geoff. The 7D is such a large improvement over the 50D, especially in your stated area of interest. The AF is miles better than any of the other cameras.
Personally I don't rate my 40D as any better than my 20D in that area, in fact I think it's worse. The 40D and 50D are just about identical so far as the AF system is concerned.

[bripriuk]

Sam

I would definitely go for the 50D over the 550D. It has a heavier body, faster burst rate, larger cache and better weather sealing. The only advantage of the 550 is the video mode.
The 7D is a much better camera all round but costs a lot more. I think you would be better off with the 50D and spending the difference on a better lens (unless your budget will stretch to it). At the moment the 50D is really cheap as there is a 60D just round the corner.
20D bodies go for around £160 on ebay at the moment - overpriced IMO, so I would cash it in. The difference in quality between the 20D and 50D is so great that you would never use it again, even as a backup.

Brian

[Sam_swfc123]

Thanks a lot everyone, i have looked at the 7D and it looks a bit of a beast of a body but is just too much for my budget. It probably would be my dream body if i had the money. Im only 16 and have a little paper round at the moment. Thank you again though very helpful.

Regards,
Sam Winslow.

[squishy]

I've just picked up a used 40D for just £370.

The autofocus might not be as amazing as the 7D, but it's still pretty damn good. The only advantages I can see of the 50D are:

-higher res screen (aesthetically nicer to look at)

-megapixels: it has 5 more. But to be honest anything over 8 megapixels is eeaasily enough for most people (me included)

-AF microadjust (useful if you have a lens with a tendency to front/back focus slightly)


Apart from that, there isn't really anything else separating it from the 40D that I can see. It has a newer processor (Digic IV vs. Digic III), but the 15 megapixel files mean it doesn't have a speed advantage despite this. On paper you'd think the ISO performance is better, as it goes up to 12,800 but the actual noise performance is pretty much exactly the same as the 40D.


To me, those advantages didn't merit spending more on the 50D, so I'll spend the difference on a flash set up or another lens at some point.

A lot of reviewers seem to think the 40D merits an upgrade from a 20D or 30D, but I can't really comment on that.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by squishy

A lot of reviewers seem to think the 40D merits an upgrade from a 20D or 30D, but I can't really comment on that.

I still use my 20D occasionally. The main difference in use is the lower buffer frame. With the 40D you can shoot continuously without the camera slowing down, not so with the 20D.Apart from that and the very small rear screen on the 20D, the much improved ISO range plus you can see the ISO settings through the camera, in daily use I do there's not much else I miss. Many other advantages of course, such as when your reviewing your shots, the 20D always forgets where you got to and starts from the beginning. Not so with the 40D. Plenty of other improvements but for me it was the continuous shooting rate and buffer frame capacity that made the most impact.

[Sam_swfc123]

Thank you for your comments.

The whole reason i am looking at a new body is because i went to RSPB Blacktoft Sands yesterday and took a fair amount of images and when i got back home and look at my images i noticed that about 50 of my 858 photos were actually decent whereas the other 800 photos that i took were very blury and rubbish. The birds are a bit more further out then some of the reserves i have been at Blacktoft. So i thought that it was the cameras fault because of the lack of megapixels on my 20D. Is this true or is it my Sigma 150-500mm lens instead or have i maybe got a setting wrong. Im not too sure. Ive only been photographing birds seriously for about 3/4 months and am trying to learn everyday while not at school, because i am only 16.

So please can you help me make the right decision, is it the Lack of Megapixels, or the lens, or is it just me or do i need more practice? Please help!?

Thank you for your help so far been amazing.

Kind Regards,
Sam Winslow

[Jim Ford]

Check out the review of the 50D on Dpreview:

Canon EOS 50D Review: 31. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

This quote is worth noting:

"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution."

Jim