How Important is FPS and AF in wildlife photography?

M

Matthew

New member
I can't decide between the Nikon D700 and Eos 5d Mark II (I will be doing both landscape and wildlife)

Nikon d700 is 5 FPS and 51 AF and 12 Mega pixels
Canon 5d Mark II is 4 FPS and 9 AF but 21 Mega pixels

I need the higher MP, I think, for large prints which I will sale. But I need the high FPS and AF for wildlife photography.

Both camers are full frame and same price. Since they are full frame, will the 12 Mega pixel produce large prints?

I'm stuck and can't decide which DSLR to buy.
I do believe I will go with the Nikon. Thanks.
 
You are willing to spend over $2,000 on a camera, and yet are stuck because you can't decide which to buy based on megapixels!?

How big are you blowing up these photos? 12 is a lot of megapixels. You can blow up a 12 megapixel photo really big. The megapixels should be the last thing you worry about.

How much noise at high ISO's does each camera have? The Canon goes down to 50 ISO, the nikon only 100. Does that make a difference to you? Wildlife and landscapes are both often done in bright light. A lower ISO might be an advantage.

The Canon also doesn't have a built-in-flash. Does that matter to you? Will you be using an off-camera flash, when flash is necessary?

Do you are if the camera can shoot video? Do you want to do any of your wildlife shots in actual motion? Or is that an unnecessary extravagance you wouldn't use?

Is weight an issue at all? Will you be backpacking with this camera to get better backcountry shots?

These are things I would ask yourself...not how many megapixels you want.
 
Historically, National Geographic, NASA and the Associated Press used Nikon.
In the late 1990's, Sports photographers (wildlife too) started using Canons. They (Canon) have great IS (Image Stabilization) which allows you to hand-hold your camera and still take action shots.

Then Nikon improved on it with the VR (Wave Motor Vibration Reduction) technology and now sports and wildlife photographers are coming back to Nikon both for their better optics and support... more lenses are available for Nikon than any other brand in the world.

It was an economic decision. Canon sells systems. That means some cameras have dedicated lenses that work ONLY on that body.

Nikon uses the F-mount. Period.

Megapixels aren't your concern. Speed and low noise are and Nikon has BOTH of them well managed.

Either way you go, you can go with conviction though. I prefer Nikon from personal experience.
.
 
FPS counts plenty for wildlife photography, but I don't think I'd let the difference between 5 fps and 4 fps break the tie.

Pixels can be very helpful. If you can't get that close to the animals, you can crop the 21 MP more. Of course, that is what slows down the fps, so I imagine it would bog down after maybe 12 frames or so. Check the reviews for this information.

I have a D300 and I can tell you that the 51-zone auto-focus with 3D tracking is FOR REAL. This can really be helpful with birds in flight.

Interestingly, the smaller sensor of the D300 spreads the 51 zones over almost the entire field of view, while the D700 coverage is only half as wide an area due to the sensor being full format. Also, the D300 goes to 6 fps with the internal battery and only 8 fps with the battery pack. I wonder why the D700 is slower without and so much faster with the battery pack.

Anyhow...

I have never used a Canon for serious wildlife photography, but I can tell you that the Nikon focus system is really terrific.

You might find the 21 MP of the Canon to great advantage in your landscape photography.

Tough decision. Give it all up and buy a Nikon D3x. (haha!) Then you'll have it all.
 
FPS I would consider decently important.


Ideally, you'd be using manual focus without the need for AF. If you're not able to use manual, the more points of AF the better.



I'd go with the Nikon. How much will you actually NEED the higher MP? How large are the prints you hope to make?
 
Back
Top