I am also a complete newbie to both photography and birding, as many of the respondents to this thread can testify since they have given me much advice. Ultimately, every camera even a handphone camera can take shots. Also, every camera is a compromise - you want a light and easy to carry camera, you compromise image quality in the form of a smaller sensor; you want better low light performance with a wider field of view, you compromise on reach with a full frame. A skillful photographer not only understands these compromises and picks the best tool for the job, he also understands his subject and surrounding conditions enough to be able to manipulate his chosen tool to achieve the shot he wants, even if circumstances force him to choose a less than ideal tool. As shown by dd123, when there's a skillful photographer behind the camera, most if not all viewers can't even tell which camera he chose. This point has been raised and proven several times to me over several threads with different photos, from birding to macro to landscape. I've seen spectacular landscape shots with mirrorless cameras using a micro four-thirds sensor, and crappy ones using a full frame - but full frame is supposed to be the best for landscape! So for now, maybe buying a full frame has satisfied you, and you like the images better perhaps because you find it has better dynamic range or less noise. However, until and unless you improve your photography skills, you will find yourself skill capped and the "boost" given to you by the new camera will only bring you forward so far. Over time, if you don't improve, you may even find yourself back in the situation admiring others with a crop sensor because they can "reach" much nearer to the birds and fill their frame than you can, and their mastery over photographic skills end up producing better shots than you. Even award winning nature photographers use crop sensors to produce their award winning shots. For me, being an absolute newbie, I am glad to have received advice from the pros here like dd123, Turbonetics, rhino123 etc as well as on other forums. I recently upgraded my body, and was considering between a 70D and a 5D3. Using your logic, I would have upgraded to a 5D3 with no doubt. However, with the advice given by the pros, I chose the 70D to upgrade from my 600D. Immediately upon upgrade, I already felt overwhelmed slightly by the new features. Faster and more versatile AF, much more convenient control over settings, etc. Took me awhile before I could even start shooting basic shots, let alone master the camera. I personally feel that I'm still growing into this camera. In fact, I think that the shots I took with my 600D last week (having used and grown into the camera and developed my limited skill with the camera over a few months) are better than the shots that I took with my new 70D this week. However, I can also tell that with time to practice, I will be able to achieve more with my 70D than I did with my 600D which I already started to feel limited by. Perhaps I'm just a slow learner hence failed to use my 70D properly the first time I took it out for a shoot? I think a 5D3 would have definitely overwhelmed me much more. I probably would have been able to shoot nicer looking pictures out of the box due to the "better" sensor, but would have stagnated at the same level for much longer, not to mention losing the 1.6x reach, which is essential in my opinion to a newbie birder who hasn't mastered the tricks of birding and getting closer to a bird. Aside from reach, the 70D also has other advantages good for nature photography and birding such as faster fps for BIF shots, articulating screen and dual pixel AF to allow more convenience in getting that low level or hard to reach shot, lighter body so that you can handhold longer before your arms give way to fatigue etc. All these don't show up in "image quality" comparisons in a vacuum, but end up affecting your image quality anyway. The money I saved not getting the 5D3 body can go into getting me a good tripod and gimbal head with spare change left over. This further improves my image quality in ways that cannot be measured by sensor alone. Sorry for the long rambling post, but all in all, I think OP is wrong in criticizing the pros for giving proper advice. If you have an unlimited budget then sure, get a D4s with an 800mm lens + tc and the best tripod with gimbal head, and you will never be limited by your equipment. However, ultimately it is the skill of the person behind the camera that matters most and that is what the pros are trying to get you to see. Learn your craft and what your tools do before upgrading your tools. P.S. it isn't true that the pros always advise to get the "lousier" camera. I remember in one of my threads dd123 gave the example of one of his friends who went ahead to get the best of the best gear (Canon 1dx etc.) and developed his skill from there. The logic there being that if he gets the best gear from the outset, then none of his errors can be blamed on the gear, and he knows exactly how he needs to improve his skill based on the shots taken. That is a valid approach too provided you have the budget. Point is that the pros here are likely to analyze your situation before recommending what they think is the best for you. P.P.S Turbonetics, if you're considering the 400mm 5.6L, why not consider the Tamron 150-600? It is versatile as a zoom, has almost as good optics (reviews place it as equal to or better than the 100-400L, and equal or slightly worse than a 300mm f/2.8 + 2x tc) and it reaches further. I may be wrong, but at 400mm the Tamron is f/5.6 too. I am really enjoying mine!
