Am I limited by my gear?

[powers_brent]

I currently shoot a Canon XS with a 300mm f/4 L IS. I know I am not limited by the lens, but am I limited by my camera when it comes to shooting wildlife? Wildlife action shots? I am mainly referring to when I shoot burst mode. With the Canon XS shooting RAW I can only get 1.3 fps (shooting JPG I can get 3 fps).


I know this kinda stirs the debate between gear and skill, but do I have a valid claim here?

[musickna]

Yes.


If you are trying to capture a rapidly moving object, you are obviously going to have less chance of a great shot when using a camera with a slow fps rate vs. one with a higher rate.


That said, you can still get great shots with the XS, but it seems to me that with a lens of that quality, it would be smart to get a higher frame rate body. But, as always, you have to get what you can afford and what suits at the time. More important is simply to be out there with a camera in hand and wildlife to photograph.

[powers_brent]

Thanks for you input musickna. I whole heartedly agree with you that the single most important thing is that I just get out there, and I do as often as I can. I get some good shots, in my opinion. I just wish I had a high FPS at times, but all in due time I guess.

[HiFiGuy1]

I have a question for you, powers_brent. I have been considering a 300 f/4 because of the IQ and IS, but having seen the 400 f/5.6 shots by Nate, I wonder if I'd do better with the extra range. Do you feel that you have enough experience to say that a 300mm has enough reach for most of your shots? I also considered that I could get a 1.4x extender and use it with the 300 f/4, thus having IS at 420mm and f/5.6 when I wanted it, and having more versatility to boot. My gut feeling is that this would not perform as well optically as a native 400, but it would offer IS.


What do you think?

[wickerprints]

As someone who recently acquired the EF 300/4L IS USM and enjoys it quite a bit, let me tell you my reasoning behind choosing it over the 400/5.6L:

Image Stabilization. This permits handheld photography as slow as 1/50s, but it also improves shots at faster shutter speeds up to and including 1/300s, at which point many fast-moving subjects are rendered still.
Improved AF performance with f/4 instead of f/5.6. The viewfinder is a full stop brighter, and AF is more accurate; whereas with a f/5.6 lens, you only have center point AF on most EOS bodies.
Permits more flexibility with the EF Extender 1.4x II. You sacrifice some image quality @ 420/5.6, but the option is there if you need it.
Newer optical design. It is more likely Canon will update the 400/5.6L before the 300/4L IS.
Closest native MFD of all lenses in the super-tele range (300mm+). This enables a maximum magnification of nearly 1:4. Last time I shot photos with it, I was shooting near MFD and a fellow photographer, upon seeing me so close, asked me what my MFD was, apparently because he could not get that close. It is the ONE optical advantage over the EF 300/2.8L IS.



As you can see, I do my homework and research thoroughly when I decide to buy a lens. [:D] Most people are fixated on image quality, test charts, and the like. Experience has shown me that at the level of performance of the L primes (and especially the super-teles), this is not terribly important. They are ALL extremely sharp. Yes, you can find a way to push them and make their limitations show. But in my view, the aforementioned factors have much more of an impact on the usability of the lens.

[powers_brent]

@HiFiGuy1: I have only used the 300mm twice,November 24th and 25th. Each time I felt that 300mm was too much and not enough. For larger birds like pelicans (which I posted in the "Post your best nature shot," 300mm was just good enough about 50% of the time. The pelicans were diving around this big pond. So depending on which side of the pond they dove on dictated whether or not I had enough reach.


While walking down a pathway I came upon a great blue heron about 5 feet away. With the 400mm I would not have been able to focus so close. While trying to shoot some small song birds, 300mm was not enough. The IS was a lifesaver at times whenever I had to shoot into shaded areas. It really is a toss up.


Obviously I went with the 300mm. I am happy with it, but I plan to get the 1.4 extender eventually. I like the versatility of having two lenses, granted I have not tried the 300mm with the 1.4 extender yet.


As for the 400mm f/5.6 I have no experience. I considered the exact same issue. Versatility was the largest factor.

[powers_brent]

I did not see wickerprints post until after my recent post, but I agree whole heartedly.

[HiFiGuy1]

Thank you both for your responses.


wickerprints,


I, too, am an information gatherer. I try to stop just short of paralysis by analysis, but I feel the only way to decide is to get as much data as possible. Sometimes, as Brent said, it is more important to have real world feel for it, too. Your conclusions are pretty much identical to mine from a theoretical standpoint, and I am also sort of wondering,based on the age of the current 400mm f/5.6,if Canon will be releasing a 400mm f/5.6 IS which may or may not also have a much shorter MFD, and in the near future. A four-stop hybrid IS 400mm f/5.6 would be awesome, and I would have to consider selling a body part for it.


The funny thing is, I was just shooting some birds on a bayou with my Nikon D100 with 400mm f/5.6 Sigma alongside my 40D with 28-135mm yesterday at "golden hour", andIhave become a little disenchanted with the AF of the Nikon/Sigma combo in less than full daylight, so I have been considering selling the whole kit andbuying a Canon tele with the money. While I was shooting, though, I also realized that some of my shots really needed much more than 400mm, so Iam kind of nervous about a 300mm, which is obviously shorter. Being limited by available funds, I want to make my next lens be as flexible as possible, but with outstanding IQ.

[wickerprints]

I am also sort of wondering,based on the age of the current 400mm f/5.6,if Canon will be releasing a 400mm f/5.6 IS which may or may not also have a much shorter MFD, and in the near future. A four-stop hybrid IS 400mm f/5.6 would be awesome, and I would have to consider selling a body part for it.


That would be a nice lens, but IMO it still would not compensate for the loss of AF sensitivity due to f/5.6.


The more recent 1-series bodies' center-point AF is cross-type up to f/4 and linear up to f/8. That is a whole level of awesome in itself. While every EOS body has center point AF up to f/5.6, it is not cross-type. And again, on most bodies, peripheral AF points don't even work at f/5.6 (though they do on the 1-series).



The funny thing is, I was just shooting some birds on a bayou with my Nikon D100 with 400mm f/5.6 Sigma alongside my 40D with 28-135mm yesterday at "golden hour", andIhave become a little disenchanted with the AF of the Nikon/Sigma combo in less than full daylight, so I have been considering selling the whole kit andbuying a Canon tele with the money. While I was shooting, though, I also realized that some of my shots really needed much more than 400mm, so Iam kind of nervous about a 300mm, which is obviously shorter. Being limited by available funds, I want to make my next lens be as flexible as possible, but with outstanding IQ.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Well, first of all, you're using a low-density DX sensor with a third-party f/5.6 lens, so it should not be terribly surprising that the AF performance is poor and the reach is insufficient. If you were using a high-density APS-C sensor with a faster f/4 lens, you would be well on your way to rectifying those shortcomings. But it doesn't sound like you really intend to work near MFD with the super-teles if you say you can't get enough reach. There is no substitute for a 400mm or 500mm lens. You may have to consider saving for an EF 500/4L IS, which with a 1.4x II gives 700/5.6. There isn't any way of getting much further than 400/5.6 with anything less than the big whites (unless you go third-party).


Once you go beyond the 77mm front filter diameter, you enter a whole new realm of imaging...and cost.


If anything, you should rent the 300/4L IS, 400/5.6L, and EF 1.4x II, slap them on your 40D. You will immediately find (1) AF performance with the 300/4L IS is superior to the D100+Sigma; (2) Crop ability is superior due to the higher sensor density in the 40D over the D100; (3) 400/5.6 AF may be slightly less impressive, and perhaps even undesirable in low light situations. What you really need for birding is a 500/4L--relatively light weight, long focal length, and wide aperture. That is, unless you are me and have a peculiar obsession with hummingbirds.

[HiFiGuy1]

As a point of fact, the D100 is a crop body, with a 1.5x factor, so it is very similar to my 40D if not quite the same. You're right about the low density, at 6.1 MP. Certainly my Canon's resolution is much higher. A 400mm on the D100 is effectively 600mm, whereas a 400mm on my 40D is effectively 640mm. Different, but not hugely.


Good point about the AF system in my 40D versus the 1-series. I just remembered I have a test subject in the form of a Nikon D200 (a loaner from a friend before I bought my D100 to use with the Nikon-mount Sigma that I got as a gift), so I will be able to see for myself what effect a different body has, all else equal.


You're right about the MFD probably not being important, but it is ironic that I have enjoyed the Sigma's macro capabilities, as it is a APO TeleMacro version which is good for 1:3 magnification. Takes great, frame-fillingflower pics with nicely blurred background almost certainly BECAUSE of the focal length.


I just need a night job, I guess.


P.S. Brent, I am sorry if we sort of hijacked your thread. [:$] It is still about the 300mm f/4, though. [:D]

[powers_brent]

P.S. Brent, I am sorry if we sort of hijacked your thread. /emoticons/emotion-10.gif It is still about the 300mm f/4, though. /emoticons/emotion-2.gif



hahah, no worries. [H]

[Oren]

"Improved AF performance with f/4 instead of f/5.6. The
viewfinder is a full stop brighter, and AF is more accurate; whereas
with a f/5.6 lens, you only have center point AF on most EOS bodies."


Are you sure? Can you point me to a reliable source to support this?


f/2.8 WILL of course improve AF performance when mounted on the right body (one which has the super precision AF sensor at the center). But I honestly don't remember reading anywhere that there is a difference when going down from 5.6 to 4. All the AF sensors in most cameras are sensitive to 5.6 and below.

[wickerprints]

Indeed, I was misleading with my statement. The better performance is not because the AF sensor actually does any better at f/4 (with the exception of the 1-series bodies which have cross-type center AF @ f/4) compared to f/5.6, but because you generally have more AF points to select at f/4 than you would at f/5.6.

[Oren]

More AF points to select at f/4? I'm still confused... maybe it's something specific to the XS? otherwise, as far as I know, all AF points should work just fine with f/5.6.

[wickerprints]

Never mind, I think I'm smoking something. [:(]

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Brent,


Short answer, Yes you are limited by your gear, good gear helps a lot. However, when you have better gear the standard is raised higher.


You don't have to rent a 400 f/5.6 L, let's meet up sometimes after next Tuesday at the Bolsa Chica Bridge, you can try my 400 f/5.6 L.

[Fast Glass]

If your are not considering the Big Whites as an alternative, then I very strongly recomenda 500mm or 600mm manual lenses. Or even the Canon FD 800mm f/5.6. They obviously do not have AF the there image quality is superb, and they have wide apetures for there focal length so you can get very difused backrounds. I think if you can get around the manual focusing them they will give you the best results.


I have a Minolta 600mm f/6.3 and I am absolutelly in love with it! Check out the image quality. It simply blows me away how good it is.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_7774.JPG


100% cropat ISO 100, wide open at f/6.3, 1/200th of a second. It is simply astonashing that a lens 15 years old has this good image quality. I havenever ever worked with such a sharp lens and I am lov'in it.[:)]


Even if I bought a Big White I would never sell this lens simply because it is so light for a high quality 600mm lens, it weighs only 5.2lbs. Did I mention that is super sharp?


John.

[asmodai]

Hey, look. You could have a higher-res CCD, so you could crop more shots out of it. You could have a higher frame rate and better low-light capability. It'd help a bit. But remember what the fella said: "80% of success in life is just showing up". That goes double--no, quintuple-- for photography. The most important thing is to keep the hell at it. Whatever your gear, you'll walk away with tons beautiful shots if you remain resolute and undeterred.





Hope that didn't sound too pep-talky.

[Oren]

"100% crop at ISO 100, wide open at f/6.3, 1/200th of a second."


Wow, that's a one great lens! I'm still jealous Fast Glass!


Shooting with Nate sounds fun, you are simply lucky Brent! If that's not fun enough, you get to shoot with his 400 f/5.6... [:D]

[Fast Glass]

Hey Oren let me ask you this. If you got this lens would shoot more pictures? If you do then why don't you get one? It might make a better photographer simply from the fact that you are out and about instead of loafing around.[;)]

[Oren]

Hey Fast Glass. No, having this lens won't make more spare time, but when you DON'T have a lens, then even on the rare cases where you find time and go out - you can't take pictures.

[Fast Glass]

Yeah I knowhat you mean. Fortunatly I can take my lens to work and on the lunch brakes or when knowbody is looking I can take a few pictures.[:D]Having the right lens is absolutely crucialfor bird photography. The Minolta 600mm is a great lens but there are other even better lenses such as the Canon FD 500mm f/4.5 L, Nikkor 600mm f/4 (the Canon 600mm is not as good as the old Nikon),r the Canon FD 800mm f/5.6 L, or Canon FD 400mm f/2.8 Lwith extenders (it does really well with extenders). All of these lenses are under $2000 and some times under a $1000.


John.

[Oren]

Good to know FG, I'll check it out when I have time. What about the conversion to EF mount? what should I know?

[asmodai]

f/2.8 WILL of course improve AF performance when mounted on the right body (one which has the super precision AF sensor at the center). But I honestly don't remember reading anywhere that there is a difference when going down from 5.6 to 4. All the AF sensors in most cameras are sensitive to 5.6 and below.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








But in going from 5.6 to 4, presumably, even if you don't gain access to the 'cross type' points, more light coming in means AF will work better, and in dimmer situations, right? I mean, an f1.2 would be faster than anything if its focal plane weren't the depth of rice paper run over by a steam-roller.





Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Mark Elberson]

Or am I misunderstanding something?



Daniel Browning says that you are:





Wouldn't a "faster" lens allow in more light, possibly shedding enough light on the AF sensor to focus when a "slower" lens might not put enough light on the AF sensor?

No. Let me illustrate. Imagine you're in a dark room with no windows. There is only a two-inch pipe that you can peer through to see a tiny circle of the outside world. Now, hold a cardboard tube up to your eye and look through the pipe. You can still only see a tiny bit of the outside world. If the two-inch pipe was replaced with a much bigger pipe, say, one foot in diameter, you would have a much bigger view. But if you are still holding the cardboard tube up to your eye, it wont help. You have to get a bigger pipe *and* a bigger cardboard tube in order to see anything more.


The lens is the pipe and the tube is the autofocus sensor. Canon cameras only have two types of autofocus sensors: f/5.6 (small cardboard tube) and f/2.8 (large cardboard tube). If your lens is f/4, then your pipe is bigger than your cardboard tube. If your lens is f/2.8, then you can finally switch up to the larger cardboard tube. But f/2 and f/1.4 do not help because you are limited by the cardboard tube, not the pipe.


The way autofocus works is that the AF sensor only sees light from one tiny part of the lens

[Oren]

"But in going from 5.6 to 4, presumably, even if you don't gain access to the 'cross type' points".


I'd like to add a correction here - 5.6 AF sensors doesn't mean that they aren't cross type. All the AF sensors in my 50D are cross type for instance.

[Fast Glass]

What about the conversion to EF mount? what should I know?


The worst problem is with wider lenses because they usaully have the reflex mirror shaved a little in order to get itclose enough to focus to infinity. Usually longer lenses you don't have to do this because you can file down the lens where you put your new mount to instead of the reflex mirror, or file or mill the the new mount. I have a FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C that I will convert and will figure out exactaly how to do it for FD lenses. My Minolta 600mm does not need any fillingso it is way easier to convert. Google "how to convert FD lens to EF" and you will pull up quite a bit of information.


John.

[asmodai]

Wouldn't a "faster" lens allow in more light, possibly shedding enough light on the AF sensor to focus when a "slower" lens might not put enough light on the AF sensor?

No. Let me illustrate. Imagine you're in a dark room with no windows. There is only a two-inch pipe that you can peer through to see a tiny circle of the outside world. Now, hold a cardboard tube up to your eye and look through the pipe. You can still only see a tiny bit of the outside world. If the two-inch pipe was replaced with a much bigger pipe, say, one foot in diameter, you would have a much bigger view. But if you are still holding the cardboard tube up to your eye, it wont help. You have to get a bigger pipe *and* a bigger cardboard tube in order to see anything more.


The lens is the pipe and the tube is the autofocus sensor. Canon cameras only have two types of autofocus sensors: f/5.6 (small cardboard tube) and f/2.8 (large cardboard tube). If your lens is f/4, then your pipe is bigger than your cardboard tube. If your lens is f/2.8, then you can finally switch up to the larger cardboard tube. But f/2 and f/1.4 do not help because you are limited by the cardboard tube, not the pipe.


The way autofocus works is that the AF sensor only sees light from one tiny part of the lens

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Okay. Well. You may be right about there being no AF speed/accuracy benefit, I really don't know, But if not, it's not for the reason you listed: that argument by analogy doesn't hold at all.





The 'tube' is its main failing point. Not the only one, but the important one.


Let's put ourselves back in that little box, with the tiny little hole we can see out of. We place our eye up to the hole. On the other side of the hole, on the world-side, let's put something less tube-like and more lens-like. Let's say: a lens. It is the function of a lens to project a focused scene onto smaller area (film, sensor). The reason you can fit a mountain range onto a 35mm sensor is because incoming light rays from many angles are focused onto it in an ordered pattern. Given two lenses mounted in front of our little hole, say, two 85mm lenses, they both show the same scene. But if one has a larger objective lens (and consequently a wider aperture) then MORE light will be gathered from an identical field of view, which will be concentrated into our little hole, giving us more information. The less light is available, the less contrast information is present, and contrast information is, I believe, what AF sensors use to determine focus. So, knowing that more light per unit space all normal situations provides more contrast information, knowing that the AF sensor is a static size, and knowing that a wider lens of identical focal length will increase light intake we must conclude that a faster lens would shed more light on an AF sensor.





It is still possible that faster glass wouldn't make a difference in AF speed because of:


Decreased DOF (harder to focus on)


Engineering specifics of AF sensors that make certain quanta of like less useful


Something else entirely





But more light has to be hitting those sensors. Lenses are not tubes.












"But in going from 5.6 to 4, presumably, even if you don't gain access to the 'cross type' points".


I'd like to add a correction here - 5.6 AF sensors doesn't mean that
they aren't cross type. All the AF sensors in my 50D are cross type for
instance.





Good call. I was stuck in my little 5DII world.