p.1 #1 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Hi all,
My main focus is on bird photography, but also all wildlife, and of course some nature landscapes on the side since I'm out there anyways. I currently am shooting on an 80d with the sigma 100-400 contemporary (and the 18-35mm Art for landscapes). Every once and a while I get an awesome shot, but I'm finding that the autofocus is really a weak point for my setup. This became abundantly clear only last outing in which a snowy owl flew directly at me, and of the entire burst of pictures I only had 1 that was mostly in focus. I've also found that I'm just tossing tons of pictures that have missed a bit, even for perching birds. Admittedly I haven't got the lens calibrated yet, which may be part of the issue, but I'm wondering if I'd be better served by simply moving up to something newer, or focusing on improving what I have.
I've been eyeing something like the R7, largely influenced by the newer AF tech (bird eye detection) combined with a crop sensor. I'm wondering how much of this is just marketing, versus how much of an impact the new tech will actually improve things. If this is a situation where I just need to get better, I'm happy to hear that too! Or if there's a better ecosystem to move into for birds/BIF/wildlife.
To be clear, I do get some really nice shots that I'm happy with, but I'm only keeping maybe 3% of my total shots, and a lot of those are getting tossed for being out of focus.
For reference: I'm using AI servo, center point single point focus, BBF, lens stabilization on 1 for perching birds and 2 for flying. Generally trying to keep shutter speed around 1/2000 or higher for flyers.
Is it a skill issue? Should I just accept that I would see a marked improvement by jumping to an R7 and Canon glass? Should I bail out to a different ecosystem completely?
Thanks in advance for any input!
Jan 28, 2026 at 11:11 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #2 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
The 80D should be a good camera, not noted for BIF af, though. People report focus issues on Sigma lenses at times
p.1 #3 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
’Hello! I have owned all of the xxD Canon cameras and used them with either a Tamron 160-600 (I&II) or a Canon 100-400 (I & II). I now have an R7 & an R5 and a Canon 100-500L and a Canon 200-800. I think that if I can get close enough, the R5 & 100-500 gives the best results. That being said, the R7 & 200-800 combo continues to amaze me at times. Better than any of the xxD combos. Focus is much better with the R7. I have sold prints from both. Interestingly, most of my favorite images from the DSLR days were taken with a 70D. For some strange reason, I found the 90D a little disappointing.
p.1 #4 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
I'm certainly open to mirrorless, but I wouldn't say it's a requirement. If it's a surefire way to fix/improve things I'm open to it. I guess I felt like the 80d should be good enough, and it wasn't living up to my hopes. Maybe it's just the sigma though? I guess grabbing an ef 100-400L ii is always an option...
p.1 #5 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
I should have mentioned the I mostly shoot shorebirds, herons, egrets,etc. but all birds are fair game. I have a plenty of good images taken with the 80D and the Canon 100-400L II. It’s just not long enough at times.
p.1 #6 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
ORGrown wrote:
To be clear, I do get some really nice shots that I'm happy with, but I'm only keeping maybe 3% of my total shots, and a lot of those are getting tossed for being out of focus.
For reference: I'm using AI servo, center point single point focus, BBF, lens stabilization on 1 for perching birds and 2 for flying. Generally trying to keep shutter speed around 1/2000 or higher for flyers.
Is it a skill issue? Should I just accept that I would see a marked improvement by jumping to an R7 and Canon glass? Should I bail out to a different ecosystem completely?
First, you should calibrate your lens. At minimum, you should be confident that the lens can focus accurately in One Shot AF mode using the center AF point, and that focus acquisition is generally consistent with repeated attempts.
(My typical approach is to set up the camera on a tripod, pick a subject with good contrast to focus on, then compare results between viewfinder focus and Live View focus. Apply MFA as needed to consistently achieve matching results.)
If reliable AF cannot be achieved even after adjusting MFA in-camera, then you could consider Sigma's lens dock, or abandon the lens for a Canon 100-400 II.
Second, I'm afraid the 80D is not known for being a high-performance action camera (whatever its other good qualities). A Canon R7 would be a very substantial upgrade in Servo AF accuracy and consistency for tracking moving subjects.
For example, please compare the AF tracking sequences in DPReview's tests of the 80D and the R7:
So, if you really want to increase your keeper rate, upgrading to an R7 would help a lot. What I don't know is how well the Sigma lens would perform. Generally, EF-mount lenses work better on Canon mirrorless bodies due to the more consistent autofocus provided by on-sensor Dual-Pixel AF. But third party lenses may sometimes have compatibility issues. Sometimes these can be resolved with a lens firmware update (via the Sigma USB dock).
Note that older EF lenses and most third-party lenses impose framerate limits on Canon mirrorless bodies. Your Sigma may only achieve 7-8 fps. The Canon EF 100-400 II does not have this limitation. Nor do any modern RF lenses, such as the RF 100-500.
p.1 #7 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
The latest EOS "R" series cameras have substantial improvements as to AF over my past DSLR's, the 7D2, & 6D, and my R5 has vast improvement in DR as well
As to the R7, I'd wait for the release of the R7-Mk2, as it's likely to have significant improvements, if you find it affordable.
The EF 100-400L-2 should work well, even with a 1.4 TC, with Adapter on any of the "R" series bodies.
Your use of Center Point, or Spot AF for perching birds makes sense, but IMO, as per Pg 125 of the 80D manual, using Zone AF tracking might result in more keepers?
p.1 #8 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
ORGrown wrote:
Hi all,
My main focus is on bird photography, but also all wildlife, and of course some nature landscapes on the side since I'm out there anyways. I currently am shooting on an 80d with the sigma 100-400 contemporary (and the 18-35mm Art for landscapes). Every once and a while I get an awesome shot, but I'm finding that the autofocus is really a weak point for my setup. This became abundantly clear only last outing in which a snowy owl flew directly at me, and of the entire burst of pictures I only had 1 that was mostly in focus. I've also found that I'm just tossing tons of pictures that have missed a bit, even for perching birds. Admittedly I haven't got the lens calibrated yet, which may be part of the issue, but I'm wondering if I'd be better served by simply moving up to something newer, or focusing on improving what I have.
I've been eyeing something like the R7, largely influenced by the newer AF tech (bird eye detection) combined with a crop sensor. I'm wondering how much of this is just marketing, versus how much of an impact the new tech will actually improve things. If this is a situation where I just need to get better, I'm happy to hear that too! Or if there's a better ecosystem to move into for birds/BIF/wildlife.
To be clear, I do get some really nice shots that I'm happy with, but I'm only keeping maybe 3% of my total shots, and a lot of those are getting tossed for being out of focus.
For reference: I'm using AI servo, center point single point focus, BBF, lens stabilization on 1 for perching birds and 2 for flying. Generally trying to keep shutter speed around 1/2000 or higher for flyers.
Is it a skill issue? Should I just accept that I would see a marked improvement by jumping to an R7 and Canon glass? Should I bail out to a different ecosystem completely?
Without making specific camera recommendations, mirrorless in general offers massive AF accuracy and consistency improvements over DSLRs.
With regard to the 80D specifically, I had very limited experience with it and the 90D when testing it for sports use. I found it almost unusable due to excessive AF delay and AF inconsistency. At that time it was in comparison to the 1DXII. And that 1DXII was pretty much trounced for AF accuracy and consistency when I transitioned to the R6II, which sits at a much lower position in the Canon mirrorless lineup than the 1DXII did among DSLRs. For reference, the R6II had no trouble keeping up with most sports action at 40 fps.
p.1 #9 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Wow, super helpful information everyone!
@garyvot: I wish I would've seen those reviews a while ago! That AF tracking looks almost exactly like what I'm experiencing. Shooting a whole sequence and getting just a couple of in focus shots. It definitely seems like I may be trying to push for something that's being technically limited by the gear.
@Sy Sez: I agree that waiting for the R7-mk2 might be smart, but only so that I can pick up the mk1 cheaper! While I'm at peace with spending the money I need to for high quality, I also can't stand buying brand new, and always gravitate towards a generation or two old.
It sounds like maybe the R7 and EF 100-400 ii might be a good place to aim for, with the goal of getting up to a RF 100-500 eventually.
This is really important as a first step, because it can help identify if it's a you or a camera problem. If the AF point is directly on your subject the entire time, then it's probably not your fault. If you see the AF point drift on and off the subject, then you may want to use a different AF selection.
It's fairly common to use the single AF point + 4 expansion points (Plus symbol) to help assist with focusing. The center point is generally used for acquisition but having the surrounding points can help keep the camera from switching to something else if you drift too far off your subject.
The next question is, does your lens "rack" focus (go all the way to near or far) prior to focusing? I found the original Tamron 150 - 600 to be completely hopeless for bird in flight because it would constantly rack focus and as soon as it lost focus for a 1/4 second it was completely out to lunch and you'd never be able to get it focused in time again. If you compare that with L glass like the old EF 400 F5.6 or the wonderful EF 100 - 400 V2 those lenses just go right to the focus spot and stay there. If you temporarily lose focus you can pick it back up without it trying to re-rack the lens. The difference between L lenses and some of the 3rd party lenses is massive when it comes to focus and tracking.
I didn't see it mentioned, do you have the focus limiter set to 6M to infinity? If you have that set to FULL the lens is going to have a harder time recovering because it has a lot more range to search before it picks up focus.
One of the other negatives towards lenses like your sigma is it's a F6.3 lens. Light is your friend and the way the AF points work on DSLRs there are improvements for both F4 and F2.8 lenses. The 80D can do F8 on a single AF point, but it's probably not going to be the best experience. Because that lens is technically below F5.6 it's going to be best to only ever put AF on the center point. If you try to use points that are not in the center the AF can be slightly less performant. It's not a big deal for stationary subjects, but trying to track is starting to push the limits of the camera system.
I do think the 80D should be capable of what you're doing, but it may be worth trying a Canon lens to see if it helps. The EF 100 - 400 IS II is a great choice and will work good on anything you put it on, DSLR or mirrorless.
p.1 #11 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
ORGrown wrote:
I'm certainly open to mirrorless, but I wouldn't say it's a requirement. If it's a surefire way to fix/improve things I'm open to it. I guess I felt like the 80d should be good enough, and it wasn't living up to my hopes. Maybe it's just the sigma though? I guess grabbing an ef 100-400L ii is always an option...
I would 100% switch to mirrorless. It will address the vast majority of the AF problems you're experiencing. In general, Canon's EF lenses work even better on mirrorless than they did natively on DSLRs. But you should research your specific Sigma lenses on mirrorless as I believe there have been some reports about certain long tele zooms not working optimally. In any case, if you were to make one change, I would recommend a mirrorless camera with your existing lenses and then eventually replace those with mirrorless equivalents, if necessary.
There can be some frame rate reductions depending on the age of the Canon EF lenses but I'm not sure how this also translates to Sigma EF lenses. Highest consistently available frame rates are with e-shutter, but some camera like the R7 have slow sensor readout speed that results in 'rolling shutter' distortion of fast moving image content. To avoid rolling shutter, you use electronic first curtain shutter, or fully mechanical shutter. But in these two shutter modes frame rate reduction occurs with older lenses. Given that the R7 does 15fps in EFCS and mechanical, IIRC, the frame rate reduction will probably roughly approximate what you currently get with the 80D. The full frame R cameras typically max out at 12fps in EFCS and mechanical and will drop to around 8 fps with older lenses. It's just something to keep in mind.
p.1 #12 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
I get that there are DSLR fans but the AF in the R bodies is magic. But if you are looking to upgrade wait for the R7 II. The R7 was a nice try, no cigar body for a few reasons, but mostly because of the choice between a very loud mechanical shutter or unusable rolling shutter. Owned it for about a year and then sold it because of that. I'm eagerly awaiting the R7 II myself.
If you decide to get the R7 II and on a budget the RF 100-400 is a nice lens. It's in my kit even though I also have the RF 100-500 and 200-800. I reach for it all the time because it's so compact. It pairs up with the R7 well.
Also you might try to up your BIF shutter speed to 3500. Even if that results in more noise, software these days nearly erases it without sacrificing too much detail.
p.1 #13 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Unfortunately is a combination of an old Dslr with modes AF and third party lenses.
The least expensive move is to upgrade to a Canon EF lens such as a 100-400mm f5.6 L II, which will address sime of the shortcomings. The next step is an older L prime, such as the 500mm f4 IS.
Otherwise, o move to mirrorless will be very expensive, since you'll need to change both the body and the lenses
R7 is a mediocre camera, so you'd better wait for its succesor or consider full frame.
p.1 #14 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Once you try mirrorless there is no going back! Together with superior AF you get access to longer focal lengths at far lower prices.
The mighty f/11´s, the 600/11 and 800/11 - they are f/11 for sure, but don´t let that fool you, they are great. Especially the 600/11 with a 960mm field of view on Canon crop is a hidden gem for IQ, size and weight. The perfect 100-500, 160-800mm on crop, the by far good enough 200-800, 320-1280mm on crop sensor.
Keep in mind though that the AF revolution came with the R5 and R6, NOT the R or RP.
I simply could not believe how good the R5 AF was. At 20fps at that!
But now, the R5 mark II (= R52 in short), is a definite step up in both speed and accuracy of the AF. And development continues. There may at times be an advantage to a certain "ecosystem", Canon, Nikon, Sony. But jumping between systems is a game for gamers, not photographs. All systems are so good today, that any benefit of one or another is marginal. It´s far more important to master the gear you have at hand than to search for The Graal elsewhere. As long as it is mirrorless!
I might keep the 80D for landscape where most benefits of mirrorless is negligible.
Regarding the R7 mk II, I would wait and see what it brings. The R7 used market should be interesting unless Canon totally blunders. The R7 AF is far superior to the DSLR croppers, but not quite quick enough for the R7 itself...! And the slow R7 readout speed has been much discussed. The two variables that killed it for me. But not worse than that I sold it to my friend.
p.1 #15 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Also a fan of bird photography, and very happy with an ancient used Canon 7DMk2 and also used Tamron SP 150-600 G2. Might just be lucky with good copies of both, but practice and patience pays off. The crop factor and the 600mm is plenty for me in terms of reach. Also had great luck with the Canon 400mm f/5.6L prime lens that really helped hone skills. Check the albums below for gear used and subjects. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimmy_racoon/albums/with/72157621707013104
Cheers!
p.1 #16 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Z250SA wrote:
Once you try mirrorless there is no going back!
The R7 AF is far superior to the DSLR croppers, but not quite quick enough for the R7 itself...! And the slow R7 readout speed has been much discussed.
I agree! The R7 is a capable camera that is let down by a sensor with slow readout speed in e-shutter mode. It will still be considerably better than the EOS xxD series cameras for what the OP wants to do.
p.1 #17 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
To keep it simple and inexpensive get the 7DMkII, or R7 if you can afford it.
Keep your Sigma 100-400 unless you can prove it is not sharp with either of those bodies.
Do NOT use single point AF for BIF's regardless of the camera/lens you are using. Why would you try to keep a single AF point on a smaller fast flying bird
p.1 #18 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
ORGrown wrote:
This became abundantly clear only last outing in which a snowy owl flew directly at me, and of the entire burst of pictures I only had 1 that was mostly in focus.
This is something better DSLRs like my old 1D Mk III could do with no trouble. What DSLRs, apart from some of the last high-end ones from Nikon, couldn’t do was follow a bird moving around the frame if there was any other potential subject in the frame. (With Canon DSLRs, you could set the AF to all points and hope it didn’t warp to some other subject.)
Maybe your camera isn’t as good as even a 1D Mk III (from 2007!) or perhaps it’s technique. Regarding technique, when using single point or single point + surrounding points AF on a DSLR, you have to pan accurately enough to keep that on the bird. If it slips off, the camera has to reacquire the bird, and it probably can’t before the next frame, even assuming you’ve managed to get the focus point back on the bird. A mirrorless camera which has subject recognition can use that to predict the position of the bird in the frame at any focus point out of those you’ve selected.
One possible culprit might be your use of back button focus. I have very broad shoulders and for me it was impossible to physically keep the camera pointed accurately enough to maintain focus while holding down the back button. The problem was instantly solved by setting shutter half-press to perform AF Start but not exposure lock. That way, you can lock exposure by pressing and then releasing the AE Lock button.
I've also found that I'm just tossing tons of pictures that have missed a bit, even for perching birds.
This just shouldn’t happen.
I've been eyeing something like the R7, largely influenced by the newer AF tech (bird eye detection) combined with a crop sensor. I'm wondering how much of this is just marketing, versus how much of an impact the new tech will actually improve things.
Based on my experience with my R3 and my EF 100–400 II and then RF 100–500, it will be mostly better but sometimes worse. The camera does sometimes slip off a subject and onto the background in low-contrast conditions, and, even worse, won’t recover as quickly as my 1D Mk III did, or at all, requiring manual focus to get out of the situation. I don’t think it’s a case of me just trying harder and harder shots since I got the R3, since there were a couple of months there I couldn’t comfortably use the EVF because of an eye problem, and briefly switched back to the 1D Mk III.
p.1 #19 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Find a used 400 5.6 L prime , EF to RF adaptor and a Canon R6 Mark III, this will be a killer setup, once you are used to the AF and mirrorless, you can move to a bigger lens ( only if needed ) but the 400 5.6 is underrated and its one of the best primes out there for that weight and value !
OP’s contemplated EF 100–400 II is on the list of lenses supporting high frame rates, and I can confirm it does on the R3. (Older copies need a firmware update, and OP should confirm the R7 can apply them to lenses before buying that combination, otherwise they would have to borrow a body that could.)
