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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Newer optical design. It is more likely Canon will update the 400/5.6L before the 300/4L IS.
5. 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. [] 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.

[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... []

[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.[]