Another vote for the 1D MKIV.

AF speed and frame rate will help you capture the unpredictable behavior of wildlife.

While the 5D MKIII has the advantages of a full frame sensor, I just don't think it can handle the speed involved in chasing wildlife. Granted it depends on what wildlife you will be pursuing. Slow moving cranes or speedier hummingbirds? The 1D MKIV will be more versatile to cover it all.

The 7D? More reach? Nah. Same reach just a cropped field of view.

Only experience is on 5DII & 5DIII, and 5DIII is pretty awesome for the job. I find 6FPS plenty for wildlife and some limited BIF that I have done

My vote is for the 7D.

7D. Reach trumps all for wildlife. Admittedly, my experience with the 1DIV is through the CPS loaner program and the advantage over the 7D wasn't that black and white. Besides, the 7D being released later has some ancillary techno advantages - better LCD, electronic viewfinder screen, etc.

Db

You have a 500 f/4, my dream lens. My preference would be a 1D Mk IV. Since it will AF natively at f/8 with out funny business, with tele-convertors, you have a 500/4, 700/5.6, and 1000/8, All with auto focus.

Wow Petkal, those are beautiful images.

I'd need more information before making a specific suggestion for YOU.

For me, my primary is a 7D and secondary soon to be a 5D Mark III.

hnilsson wrote:
I'd need more information before making a specific suggestion for YOU.

For me, my primary is a 7D and secondary soon to be a 5D Mark III.


Henrik

great shots!

skibum5 wrote:
hnilsson wrote:
I'd need more information before making a specific suggestion for YOU.

For me, my primary is a 7D and secondary soon to be a 5D Mark III.


Henrik

great shots!


x2
I've been using a 7D and the 400 5.6 handheld with decent results, but not at your level Henrik.
I would expand the OP to include not only best body, but best body+lens for wildlife.

OK - I HAVE a 7D, and a 5DIII, and recently have shot a lot of birds. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the picture quality and lack of noise of the 5DIII, but man, I HATE giving up the reach of the 7D. I MAY go back to the 7D for a lot of bird work, because the 400 just isn't LONG enough for a lot of it.

IF you can get close enough, or you can afford enough lens (why, oh why do I keep looking at 500s and 600s, even though they are not in the budget), the 5DIII is wonderful. I wonder what a 1DIV would be like

Sigh

coppertop wrote:


The 7D? More reach? Nah. Same reach just a cropped field of view.




While there is no question that an image from the 7D or other APS-C camera body is a cropped field of view, the notion that there is no advantage to using a high pixel density APS-C body like the 7D in focal length-limited situations is pure rubbish. When shot from the same distance, a 7D with a 400 mm lens will put about as many pixels on the subject as will a 1D Mark IV with a 500 mm lens or as will a 1DX with a 600 mm lens. And numerous controlled tests that have been done by people here and on other internet boards consistently show that a 7D image will resolve easily seen greater detail than will a 1D Mark IV or 1DX image that is shot with the same lens from the same distance and that has to be cropped to the same field of view as the 7D image.

I primarily shoot wildlife, and I have done so for a little over 3 years with a 7D and for a little less than 3 years with a 1D Mark IV. I would have a hard time picking one over the other for wildlife shooting because each one shines in different ways and in different situations. The two situations in which I am likely to choose to use the 7D are a) when I'm going to be focal length-limited and b) when I need more mobility/portability and can get that mobility/portability by using the 7D with my 400 DO, instead of my 500/4 with the 1D Mark IV. When I'm not in a focal length-limited situation and I don't need mobility/portability, I'll choose to use the 1D Mark IV for all of the often touted advantages of a 1-series body. In either case, though, I have complete confidence that the equipment is not going to compromise my chances of getting the shots. While the 1D Mark IV may well have some advantages in terms of image quality, high ISO capabilities, AF, etc., those differences are not nearly as great as one might be led to believe from reading posts on the internet, and, when I look at prints that I've made, without going back to look at the file information, I cannot tell which shots were taken with the 7D and which were taken with the 1D Mark IV.

If I knew that I was never going to be focal length-limited situations and that I was never going to need the mobility/portability that comes with using shorter/lighter lenses, I'm sure that my camera choice would be 1DX or a 5D Mark III, but I do know that I am often going to be focal length-limited and that I am often going to need portability/mobility. And that is the reason why large numbers of very capable wildlife photographers who post here and on other internet boards and who have previously bought all of the earlier 1-series bodies have chosen to skip the 1DX (or 5D Mark III) and have decided, instead, to keep using their 1D Mark IV and/or 7D bodies.

I recently spent 6 months documenting and following the progress at an eagle nest and photographing the single chick that fledged from the nest. I used both the 1D Mark IV paired with the 500/4 and the 7D with the 400 DO. Below are a few shots from the nest project that show, I think, that any image quality differences between the two combinations of cameras/lenses are not as great as you would be led to believe from reading internet posts.

If you can afford it, it's got to be the 1DMKIV

uz2work wrote:
coppertop wrote:


The 7D? More reach? Nah. Same reach just a cropped field of view.



While there is no question that an image from the 7D or other APS-C camera body is a cropped field of view, the notion that there is no advantage to using a high pixel density APS-C body like the 7D in focal length-limited situations is pure rubbish. When shot from the same distance, a 7D with a 400 mm lens will put about as many pixels on the subject as will a 1D Mark IV with a 500 mm lens or as will a 1DX with a 600 mm lens. And numerous controlled tests that have been done by people here and on other internet boards consistently show that a 7D image will resolve easily seen greater detail than will a 1D Mark IV or 1DX image that is shot with the same lens from the same distance and that has to be cropped to the same field of view as the 7D image.


Rubbish? I guess I could say the same of your opinion.

An APS-C body does not add any magnification to a lens. It may put more pixel density on the subject or crop the image to the equivalent but it adds no more reach to the lens.

If you see things differently, that's fine, and the 7D is more than capable of capturing quality images. But my opinion on the "reach" won't waiver and it certainly isn't rubbish.

coppertop wrote:
uz2work wrote:
coppertop wrote:


The 7D? More reach? Nah. Same reach just a cropped field of view.



While there is no question that an image from the 7D or other APS-C camera body is a cropped field of view, the notion that there is no advantage to using a high pixel density APS-C body like the 7D in focal length-limited situations is pure rubbish. When shot from the same distance, a 7D with a 400 mm lens will put about as many pixels on the subject as will a 1D Mark IV with a 500 mm lens or as will a 1DX with a 600 mm lens. And numerous controlled tests that have been done by people here and on other internet boards consistently show that a 7D image will resolve easily seen greater detail than will a 1D Mark IV or 1DX image that is shot with the same lens from the same distance and that has to be cropped to the same field of view as the 7D image.


Rubbish? I guess I could say the same of your opinion.

An APS-C body does not add any magnification to a lens. It may put more pixel density on the subject or crop the image to the equivalent but it adds no more reach to the lens.

If you see things differently, that's fine, and the 7D is more than capable of capturing quality images. But my opinion on the "reach" won't waiver and it certainly isn't rubbish.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you are denying reality if you think, in a focal length-limited situation, that you can take an 18 MP 1DX image and crop it down to 7 MP to get the same field of view that you would get with the 7D and the same lens and if you think that the cropped 1DX 7 MP image is going to show the same detail as the uncropped 18 MP 7D image. Take some time to look at the tests done by Skibum here, by Richard Clark on other sites, and by numerous others, and you are likely to change your thinking. The only way that a cropped full frame image is the same as an uncropped APS-C image is if both cameras have the same pixel density. A cropped full frame image is not the same and will not show the same detail as an uncropped APS-C image taken with an APS-C camera with higher pixel density, and that is reality, and claiming that they are the same is, in fact, rubbish.

Les

Owned a 7d. Now have a 1d mkIV and a 1ds mkII.

The mak IV is the clear winner for wildlife. High ISO performance, fast FPS, more reach. It's a no brainier!!!.

ps. I shoot mainly with a 500 f/4 is. I can handhold it for BIF with total confidence.


Al

Considering I still shoot a MKIIN,I would have to surmise from the numerous discussions re 7D vs any other commonly used wildlife/bird camera that I am doomed to be perpetually "focal length limited"

Even so, I would take the MKIV--
for other reasons than pixels on bird--YMMV

uz2work wrote:

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you are denying reality if you think, in a focal length-limited situation, that you can take an 18 MP 1DX image and crop it down to 7 MP to get the same field of view that you would get with the 7D and the same lens and if you think that the cropped 1DX 7 MP image is going to show the same detail as the uncropped 18 MP 7D image. Take some time to look at the tests done by Skibum here, by Richard Clark on other sites, and by numerous others, and you are likely to change your thinking. The only way that a cropped full frame image is the same as an uncropped APS-C image is if both cameras have the same pixel density. A cropped full frame image is not the same and will not show the same detail as an uncropped APS-C image taken with an APS-C camera with higher pixel density, and that is reality, and claiming that they are the same is, in fact, rubbish.

Les


Not going to change my thinking. An APS-C doesn't magically change a 100mm lens into a 160mm lens.

Never said a thing about pixel density or reducing an 18MP image to a 7MP image. My point is that the 7D does not provide more reach. You may interpret all the pixel density crap that way but I don't. Feel free to have a different opinion but it's rude to discount other's opinions as rubbish.

You can argue all day long on the semantics of "reach" but the bottom line is that putting more pixels on target in a FL limited situation yields a better photo. I owned both a 1D2 and a 1D4 and there is just no comparison, 16MP will beat 8MP every single time.

My experience is limited to 5D2, 5D3 and 7D.

The 7D is better in all circumstances than the 5D2.

The 5D3 is better in all circumstances, save one, than the 7D.

When the system is clearly reach limited (meaning to me that the target is very much smaller than the field of view) in the 5D3, the 7D will do better (because of the higher pixel density).

coppertop wrote:

Never said a thing about pixel density or reducing an 18MP image to a 7MP image. My point is that the 7D does not provide more reach. You may interpret all the pixel density crap that way but I don't. Feel free to have a different opinion but it's rude to discount other's opinions as rubbish.

But the very omission of pixel density and not taking it into account is precisely what makes your initial statement inaccurate and misleading. The reality that an APS-C sensor does not make a 100 mm lens into a 160 mm lens is completely irrelevant in focal length-limited situations. What is relevant is the pixel density and, subsequently, how many pixels you can put on the subject.

My main point is that there is no universal answer to the question of which camera body is the best for wildlife shooting. Whether it is a 7D, a 1D Mark IV, a 5D Mark III, or a 1DX, each is going to have the potential to perform better in some situations than will the others. If I'm focal length-limited or if I need mobility, there is no question that my results are going to be better with the 7D. If I'm not focal length-limited and if I don't need mobility, the results will be (marginally) better with the 1D Mark IV. And, if I knew that I was never going to be focal length-limited and never need the mobility that a shorter/smaller lens affords, I'd be more than happy to take my chances with a 5D Mark III or 1DX.

Thus, my objection is to the use of blanket statements like "no brainer", "hands-down winner", etc. that would mislead people into thinking that there is a single Canon camera body is that is going to be the best for use in all wildlife shooting situations. That simply is not the case.

I know that it is difficult for some the behold the concept that there are situations in which an $1800 camera body can outperform a $5000 or a $7000 camera body, but I know from 3 years of experience using the 7D and 1D Mark IV that there are situations in which my $1800 7D does outperform my $5000 1D Mark IV, and there are other situations in which the 1D Mark IV outperforms the 7D.

Les