New here.. 7d mark ii vs rebel t7i! Wildlife

[b1gb2olo]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this! Recently bought a Canon rebel T7i... really into wildlife and birds!!! Was considering selling and buying a 7d ii 

Is this a wise decision? I know the 7d is older but has a faster fps

but will the lower MP cause an issue?

[b1gb2olo]

AWESOME!!!! super excited my tripod was probably not the best but it was around 60$ at best buy i think so not the crappiest!

[Waddizzle]

---

@b1gb2olo wrote:

AWESOME!!!! super excited my tripod was probably not the best but it was around 60$ at best buy i think so not the crappiest!

---

The only tripods that I have seen in Best Buy on the sales floor are almost 100% plastic, which is not the best material for a set of tripod legs, much less the tripod head.  Plastic tends to shake when you touch it, or worse when it is breezy.  It's too light, and prone to falling over.  

You have a professional grade lens in the mail.  Treat it right with a professional grade tripod with an interchangeable, professional grade tripod head.  A good set of tripod legs may cost upwards of $200, and a good head may cost almost as much.

There are lots of tripod kits, which includes both a set of legs and a head, out there selling in the $100 to $200.  Make note of the rated "load capacity" of these units.  Many of them rated at well under 15-20 pounds.  Avoid the kits with light load ratings, which are totally meaningless, BTW.  There is no standard way to measure the load capacity of a set of legs or a tripod head.

I would recommend a set of legs that is rated at least 17 pounds, preferably over 20 pounds.  Why so much capacity?  Because those load ratings are typically "measured" with the center column fully lowered.  Raising the center column, raises the center of gravity, which destabilizes the entire rig.  In other words, the rated "load capacity" is reduced the more you raise the center column.  This is just basic physics.  The tripod righ becomes top heavy, and more prone to tip over.

TRIPOD BRANDS:

I like to shop for tripods online at B&H Photo Video, which is based in NYC.  They happen to be the largest Canon dealer in the US, too.  

The more reliable brands are Manfrotto, Oben, Benro, and Sirui.  Of course, there are others.  My personal preference is for Benro, aka Induro.  I am not a fan of the "low cost" carbon fiber tripod legs, or "travel" tripods.  They are not just as stable as a set of aluminum allow legs.  You need to spend several hundred dollars to get a robust set of CF legs.

Finally, beware of the inexpensive tripod kits.  They usually include a ball head that lacks a friction adjustment.  A ball head is pretty useless without a friction adjustment.  Save up, and spring for a good set of legs.  Ask us lots of questions about tripods, too.

[ebiggs1]

" A good set of tripod legs may cost upwards of $200, and a good head may cost almost as much."

A good general rule, if you aren't in the $200 range, it probably isn't worth anything. The mentioned Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 is about $200. A good head can be less than a $100. I prefer the fluid heads.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I use the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.  It is an older design but fits my needs well. Here is my rig.

This is not the Sigma "C" model. It is the "S" version. It is very heavy and extremely well built.

---

Notice how Ernie's tripod lacks a center column.  This tripod looks to be a video tripod, with a video head.  I, too, prefer tripods without a center column, and nearly all video tripods lack a center column.  This usually means you will have longer legs, and a wider, more stable stance.  

[ebiggs1]

This tripod is the Manfrotto 3046.  I don't think it is still being made maybe it is.  It does have the center column.  I have had it for years. ANother good reason to buy the best, it will last a long, long time. I also have the dolly base for it.

The head is the 501 fluid head and I also don't think they still make it.  This combo was well over a $1000 bucks new.

If interested in this very heavy duty tripod you might try eBay. A good buy used since they are extremely well built.

A good general purpose tripod is the Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 Aluminum 3 Section Tripod.  It is the one I carry when out on a job.  The 3046/501 is too heavy to move around very much.  I have a couple more but I like the MT055XPRO3 best for out side work and carrying for any distance.

[Waddizzle]

"This tripod is the Manfrotto 3046.  It does have the center column."

It does?  I thought that thing in the middle was part of the spreader.  It is no longer being made.  I think the closest current equivalent might be the 161.  

[ebiggs1]

"It is no longer being made."

I didn't think it was.  I have had it for years.

" It does have the center column."

If you look closely, you can see the crank that raises the center column. The 501 fluid head is fantastic for stills, too. Probably not made any more either.

[Waddizzle]

"Some years ago when the smaller sensor came out, Rebels and the 7 series, somebody coined a misleading and confusing term "crop factor'.  No camera has a crop factor just as you get larger sensors like medium format don't have a "wide angle factor".  And with MF cameras nobody thought it was a good idea to create one."

I have to disagree here.  Actually, medium format cameras do have a "crop factor".  

Medium format crop factor just happens to be less than 1, which means you will get the opposite of the telephoto effect associated with APS-C image sensors.  It can vary depending upon the size of the frame.  Crop factor is a descriptive benchmark, which allows you to compare how different types of camera bodies will perform when used with a lens of the same focal length.

[ebiggs1]

"Medium format crop factor just happens to be less than 1..."

Everything has a "factor" so to speak but we never had a term for it, crop factor. Or, even though about it. You just knew how certain lenses reacted. I was with a company for 40 years that used every size camera imaginable.  I never heard of a "crop factor" for the larger format cameras. 

A person that never owns or uses a 35mm cameras cares litle about crop factor.  This nonsense is carried even further, now on P&S cameras and smartphones.  Those folks may never own, are likely never to own, a FF or 35mm equivalent camera to compare it to.

The biggest misconception, a crop factor camera crops nothing.  I admit I fall into the crop factor group because it is so ingrained in photography.   Doesn't mean I like it and will stop railing against using it.

[rs-eos]

Perhaps "crop factor" isn't the best term.  Personally, I think I like the usage of '35mm equivalent' instead.

While I agree that many folks won't move to full frame, medium format, or beyond, it's still useful to understand this concept.  Especially when wanting to say pick up another lens beyond the kit lens.

For example, if the person desires to get a wide angle prime, they may search around and see 24mm mentioned alot.  And, they may be finding sample images shot on full frame at 24mm.   But on an APS-C, the 35mm equivalent of a 24mm lens is now 38mm.  Still on the wide side, but not much.  If the user wants that 24mm field-of-view, they'd need a lens closer to 14mm.