Canon 7D vs Nikon D7000 ?

jonneymendoza said:
I have a 400d and wished I started on. A 40d instead. Will most likely wait for the 9d to come out?
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. There may well not be an 8D if Canon follow their numbering pattern from the G series.
 
DemiLion said:
That's a very good point. There may well not be an 8D if Canon follow their numbering pattern from the G series.
Click to expand...

Yea. I'm looking to buy a new body next year so by that time the 9d should be out. My lens will be complete soon as I'm buying a 70-200mm L lens soon to complete my set from a range of 18-200mm spread on various lens.

I think that once I do upgrade my body I will still use my canon 400d as secondary camera.
 
cornishboy said:
Why would someone new to photography want to purchase a pro camera? Its a huge amount of money to invest on a piece of kit that you may find far too complicated for your hobby - which you may give up.
Click to expand...

if hes got the money, why not ?

also if he does decide to sell up pro spec gear will hold its value better.

also its not that much money really I bought the 300D when it was the first 'affordable' dslr and that cost nearly £1k, and my 20D cost £750 when it was new, prices have come down as the market developed but at arround a K the 7D is a hell of a lot of camera for your money
 
as said by a couple of other posters the pentax k-5 should be in the list especially now it that it can be had for the same price as a d7000. I briefly had a d7000 and a d3 but now am very happy with a k5 , solid build quality same sensor as a d7000 and pair it with one of the limited primes and you'll be amazed at the quality of the pics. I can post a few on here for you if you want
 
mjjiva said:
as said by a couple of other posters the pentax k-5 should be in the list especially now it that it can be had for the same price as a d7000. I briefly had a d7000 and a d3 but now am very happy with a k5 , solid build quality same sensor as a d7000 and pair it with one of the limited primes and you'll be amazed at the quality of the pics. I can post a few on here for you if you want
Click to expand...

You had a D7000 AND a D3 - nice !!!
 
cornishboy said:
Why would someone new to photography want to purchase a pro camera? Its a huge amount of money to invest on a piece of kit that you may find far too complicated for your hobby - which you may give up.
I accept that your interests are football but for what use? Taking a few snapshots of your kids kicking the ball around on a Sunday morning can quite easily be done with a much less expensive set up than those suggested and will give you an equal amount of pleasure.
Think very carefully and perhaps buy second hand, but especially entry level until you are convinced this is the right thing to be doing
Click to expand...

I tried downgrading and running with lesser kit, the AF just doesn't perform as well. The number of keepers drops dramatically, no pleasure there. If you want high ISO or AF performance you have to pay for it :(
 
Syd said:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d7000&products=nikon_d300s&products=canon_eos7d

That may help with the feature count. Speaking from personal experience I did prefer the D300 to the D7000 that I now own - better feel, and I preferred the ergonomics and balance. However the low light performance of the 7000 is much better. So it depends if you will be taking advantage of that.
FPS on the D300s is better than the D7000 as well................
Click to expand...

Except 14bit Raw
 
jm2 said:
If you are not capable doing that with a 7D, stick with a P&S ;)
Click to expand...

arad85 said:
You can set the 7D up to do exactly that, but it doesn't come like that out of the box. Setting it up like that also doesn't use the 7D to its fullest potential either...
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
Just because you are incapable of reading the manual or learning how it works, does not make the 7D any less a tool than it was designed to be; ie a very very capable action camera.

As for the 7d v D7000 question, it's the wrong comparison. You should be looking at the 300s if you want to go down the Nikon route.
Click to expand...



The thing is the AF is just a little tricky and counter intuitive, i.e. not user friendly, sure I'm not saying it isn't a great AF system for sports, it's just a little picky at details sometimes as the person I quoted below has found, and his comments seem fairly typical for someone who's honest and has used a 7D for a while.
In short it's a great AF system, it just needs a little refining.
I also think the softer IQ and higher noise levels of the 7D compared to other Canon 18mp crop sensors lower down the chain (550D 600D 60D) also gives the 7D a bad reputation at times, often 7D users even get upset when someone highlights this and squawk :dummy: that the 7D's sensor+filter isn't softer and just need more sharpening and noise reduction in PP...

"Now, in response to a request, My quick tips for anyone struggling with the 7D

In general:

The 7D has a strong AA filter and needs heavier sharpening, In my experience I have to add +25 sharpening to my files in Lightroom, and then for websize I output with the "sharpen for screen" setting enabled (Flickr also FURTHER sharpens them...)

The 7D's focus system is a bit esoteric, its not bad but its definitely very picky at times, I was having issues with it until i discovered that it can also be a bit counter intuitive, I switched from using Spot AF to single point for smaller subjects and that because Spot AF tends to be a bit too "sensitive" in my experience and lock onto something at the very edge of the focus point as opposed to stuff more in the center of it, Single point is a bit less sensative and tends to work better for smaller detail work in my experience (As i said, counter intuitive) The other focus modes have their uses but for most stuff, your bread and butter is single point AF...."
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=12463147
 
@MomentCapture, why don't you post a quote from one of the many D7000 users that are having "focusing issues"? there's plenty out there.
 
MomentCapture said:
I also think the softer IQ and higher noise levels of the 7D compared to other Canon 18mp crop sensors lower down the chain (550D 600D 60D) also gives the 7D a bad reputation at times, often 7D users even get upset when someone highlights this and squawk :dummy: that the 7D's sensor+filter isn't softer and just need more sharpening and noise reduction in PP...
Click to expand...
I've not seen that anywhere, nor can I find any evidence that the 7D has a stronger AA filter than the other 18MPix sensors. My understanding was it had a stronger AA filter compared to previous gen sensors and the post you quoted doesn't suggest to me any different. In fact, looking at the review here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-60D-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx suggests the picture quality is identical between 600D, 60D and 7D.
 
The 7D AF isn't difficult to use at all. There are lots of options providing a wide expanse of uses, but like all tools you need to ensure you pick the right one you want for the task in hand.
 
MomentCapture said:
The thing is the AF is just a little tricky and counter intuitive, i.e. not user friendly, sure I'm not saying it isn't a great AF system for sports, it's just a little picky at details sometimes as the person I quoted below has found, and his comments seem fairly typical for someone who's honest and has used a 7D for a while.
In short it's a great AF system, it just needs a little refining.
I also think the softer IQ and higher noise levels of the 7D compared to other Canon 18mp crop sensors lower down the chain (550D 600D 60D) also gives the 7D a bad reputation at times, often 7D users even get upset when someone highlights this and squawk :dummy: that the 7D's sensor+filter isn't softer and just need more sharpening and noise reduction in PP...
'quote'
Click to expand...

Using a snippet from a website twice in one thread doesn't make it more accurate.

Can I suggest that until you understand a camera and have used it properly, that you desist from handing out crap advice?
 
Last edited:
photon said:
7D compared with K-5
Click to expand...

I might have taken you a bit more seriously if you hadn't quoted that review! :p :D

Without trying to willie wave though, if you enter photography with serious intentions either in sport or photojournalism, then it really isn't worth looking at any system other than Nikon or Canon, and the opinion is fairly evenly balanced as to which camp you drift into out of the pair. I realise that it's not a popular fact amongst non Canikon users, but it is a fact none the less.
 
Frankly if you are not going to print A2 size posters at regular intervals, any of these cameras will do a fantastic job. Worry more about the system you want to buy into. Both are good but Canon has a better selection of telephoto lenses, Nikon does better on the wide end. Like for like, Nikon is sometimes a tad more expensive, especially for pro level equipment.

However buying a pro camera with a superzoom lens is a waste of time. They are fine for holidays when you don't want to carry a lot of gear, but they have a lot of compromises and cannot really make the most of 16 or 18MP.

If you are on a tight budget, with Nikon you are better off sticking with the kit zoom (make sure you get the AF-S 18-55 VR version) and the 55-200 VR. These will provide sharper results despite being cheap and cheerful. However if you can stretch to the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR2 you will gain a lot of versatility and get much better image stabilisation. The Tamron 70-300 OS lens is also very good and if you want something faster, the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is sharp and not that expensive.

Canon's kit lens is not that wonderful but the IS version is OK. The 17-85 IS is OK as a more versatile upgrade, though not quite up to the Nikon's performance. The 17-55 F2.8 IS is superb though (but pricey). Canon also have a respectable 70-300 VR (plus the Tamron option) and a really superb 70-200 F4 VR, so there is a bit more choice at the long end.

Factor in the cost of some of these lenses and I suspect it will influence your buying decisions a bit.

If you do any flash photography, personally I would choose Nikon every time. Sorry Canon folks I tried both and Nikon is just easier.

Conventional wisdom says if you major on sport or wildlife, Canon is the kit to go for as it has more room to expand in this area. If your style is more landscape and photojournalism then Nikon has the edge. Both will do everything pretty darn well though. Plenty of people use Canon for weddings for instance.
 
But, for a noob, who for the record doesn't know anything apart from what he's read and the advice he's been given by experienced photographers & who is oblivious to brand loyalty...but realises it exists, who is now more confused on his decision & has also lost his train of thought with this post too...

What should I go for and why?
 
big soft moose said:
if hes got the money, why not ?

also if he does decide to sell up pro spec gear will hold its value better.

also its not that much money really I bought the 300D when it was the first 'affordable' dslr and that cost nearly £1k, and my 20D cost £750 when it was new, prices have come down as the market developed but at arround a K the 7D is a hell of a lot of camera for your money
Click to expand...

I think higher end cameras lose a lot more and a lot easier than lower end cameras actually if only because lower end cameras are about as cheap as you can get - I am still amazed that I can sell my D40 for near as much as I bought it 5 years ago. On the other hand the D300 and the D90 have lost half their value in only 2 years.

I don't think you should buy the best you can afford, I think you should buy the best you need.
 
Thanks for your reply Critical I, I posted my latest CONFUSED response without seeing your post...

More of that would be very helpful...
 
Last edited:
vrapan said:
I think higher end cameras lose a lot more and a lot easier than lower end cameras actually if only because lower end cameras are about as cheap as you can get - I am still amazed that I can sell my D40 for near as much as I bought it 5 years ago. On the other hand the D300 and the D90 have lost half their value in only 2 years.

I don't think you should buy the best you can afford, I think you should buy the best you need.
Click to expand...

What would you recommend?
 
Critical I said:
Canon's kit lens is not that wonderful but the IS version is OK. The 17-85 IS is OK as a more versatile upgrade, though not quite up to the Nikon's performance. The 17-55 F2.8 IS is superb though (but pricey).
Click to expand...
You've overlooked the excellent (pretty much on a par with the 17-55) 15-85.

WannaTakePix said:
But, for a noob, who for the record doesn't know anything apart from what he's read and the advice he's been given by experienced photographers & who is oblivious to brand loyalty...but realises it exists, who is now more confused on his decision & has also lost his train of thought with this post too...

What should I go for and why?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the options (lenses/resale value/second hand market) are better with Canon/Nikon than any of the other brands. As to which one - which ever feels the best in your hands....They both take pictures and generally do it very well.
 
Yeah, the 7D is that bad, that's why so many people on here have them. :thinking:

It is, by far, the best APS-C camera Canon have ever produced, that's why it has a single digit designation. It ain't half bad at landscapes or portraits as well as wild life & sports, in fact, you could say it's pretty adept at most things, but doing the difficult things well.

I have no experience with Nikon cameras, although their low light IQ does seem to have he edge on Canon at the moment. Their range of lenses isn't as good, but (I think) they have a better range of flash units. You pays your money and takes your choice....

Steve
 
WannaTakePix said:
But, for a noob, who for the record doesn't know anything apart from what he's read and the advice he's been given by experienced photographers & who is oblivious to brand loyalty...but realises it exists, who is now more confused on his decision & has also lost his train of thought with this post too...

What should I go for and why?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think it matters very much which you go for, the 7D and 7K are both excellent cameras. I happen to have a 7D and I think it's the best camera Canon have produced in a long time. Beware of one persons opinion on any camera - you only have to look at the excellent images being posted here on TP from very pleased owners to see there's nothing wrong with the camera in the experience of most people. At current prices, the camera is a bargain for what you're getting.

I'm not trying to steer you away from the Nikon - far from it - I'm sure you'll be equally pleased with it, but you can agonise over choices like this forever when you could be out taking photos. If you're really sure the choice is between these two cameras then go and handle them - take your time - decide which feels best for you. Make a decision and stick with it, they'll both be excellent. although the handling will be different.

With regard to buying an advanced camera as a beginner, I'd often advise people to do that rather than outgrow a lesser model. as long as they're sure they're making a reasonable commitment and it isn't likely to be a passing fad.

Both these camera are high pixel density crop sensor bodies and the downside of that is you don't get away much with using cheap lenses - you need good quality glass to make the best of what they have to offer. Just something to bear in mind - the outlay doesn't end when you buy the body!
 
arad85 said:
I've not seen that anywhere, nor can I find any evidence that the 7D has a stronger AA filter than the other 18MPix sensors. My understanding was it had a stronger AA filter compared to previous gen sensors and the post you quoted doesn't suggest to me any different. In fact, looking at the review here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-60D-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx suggests the picture quality is identical between 600D, 60D and 7D.
Click to expand...

You can actually find quite a few comparisons on the interwebs, particularly between the 7D and 550D as well as older gen Canon's that are sharper than the 7D even when their images are up-scaled to the size of the 7D's.

As well as being softer and nosier, the 7D also has less dynamic range than the 550D.
My theory with it having less dynamic range was that, the AA filter (blur filter used to reduce moire) on the 7D was eating a little more light than the lesser filter on the 550D.
So to compensate for this loss of light I think the 7D's sensor is calibrated at the factory to be a little more sensitive than for example the 550D at the same ISO settings in camera.
The reason I think this, is because as you increase the ISO (sensor sensitivity) the dynamic range is reduced accordingly, and the image also becomes noisier, which would explain what we see if we compare the 7D and 550D images side by side.

All in all the difference isn't a major issue, but something worth considering if you place allot of value of absolute image quality.


550D - ISO 100 - ruler numbers look a little sharper than 7D
T2i-100.jpg


7D - ISO 100 - Slightly softer, with larger grain.
7D-100.jpg


550D - ISO 1600 - Noise is clearly reduced, compared to the 7D.
T2i-1600.jpg


7D - ISO 1600 - Image has more noise, and is again very slightly softer.
7D-1600.jpg
 
Syd said:
You had a D7000 AND a D3 - nice !!!
Click to expand...
oh sorry forgot to mention the d700. the d3 was fab but a bit too heavy same for goes for the d700 and was not taking the camera out as much as I wanted and the d7000 felt like a toy after coming down from those 2 , saying that the image quality was more pleasing to my eyes but the ergonomics was getting to me so next came the k-5 which I am currently very happy with especially with my current 2 lenses the 43mm ltd and 70mm 2.4 ltd. Af could be a tad faster but bokeh and colour rendition from these lenses/camera are fantastic
here's a snap with the 43mm wide open I took on a day out at Fleetwood
jabs2201.jpg
 
MomentCapture said:
550D - ISO 100 - ruler numbers look a little sharper than 7D
T2i-100.jpg


7D - ISO 100 - Slightly softer, with larger grain.
7D-100.jpg


550D - ISO 1600 - Noise is clearly reduced, compared to the 7D.
T2i-1600.jpg


7D - ISO 1600 - Image has more noise, and is again very slightly softer.
7D-1600.jpg
Click to expand...

but unless your hobby is photographing comparrison charts who really gives a flying one - its real world performance that matters not slight differences in the lab

The 550D is an excellent starter camera but it also lacks some features that might be important for sport - like fast and deep burst.

at the end of the day you pays your money and takes your choice (personally if i was buying fresh now i'd be looking at a low milleage 1Dmk2 or mk3 - the reason i'm not upgrading to that is that a lot of my lenses are EFs)
 
Jelster said:
I have no experience with Nikon cameras, although their low light IQ does seem to have he edge on Canon at the moment.
Click to expand...

The D7000 sensor has a little cleaner ISO, but the real strength of the sensor is it's amazing dynamic range in the shadows that can lifted in post, and unlike Canon sensors doesn't suffer cross-hatch patterns etc that look unnatural and can literally destroy an image because it looks so natural.

Jelster said:
Their range of lenses isn't as good,
Click to expand...
With the Non-pro primes, I'v personally found the Nikon's to be a little better in terms of consistent AF. I do believe Canon's Pro range of lenses is better however.

Jelster said:
(I think) they have a better range of flash units. You pays your money and takes your choice....

Steve
Click to expand...

Yep, Nikon flash units are much more advanced.
The 580exii was a good flash though when I had it, but I sold it when I got some TT5's due to allot of 580's dying when mounted to a flex TT5.
 
big soft moose said:
but unless your hobby is photographing comparrison charts who really gives a flying one - its real world performance that matters not slight differences in the lab
Click to expand...

If the difference is in the lab, it's also in the real world, the example I posted was from the same source a poster said there was no difference, there are other examples that show a more obvious difference.

And Yes the 550D is a good starter camera with great IQ and I enjoy using it, but I agree, it obviously lacks high end features which was why I took a different upgrade path instead and went to the D7K.
 
Care to post any photos of your own that show these problems, or is it just something that you've read about yet again?
 
MomentCapture said:
You can actually find quite a few comparisons on the interwebs, particularly between the 7D and 550D as well as older gen Canon's that are sharper than the 7D even when their images are up-scaled to the size of the 7D's.
Click to expand...
I can find a lot of posts/reviews that say they are identical. Only the odd comment that they are not the same. Can you post some links to decent reviews that show a difference? Also one that tates the AA filter is different on the 550 compared to the 600/60/7?

MomentCapture said:
As well as being softer and nosier, the 7D also has less dynamic range than the 550D.
Click to expand...
How interesting. This isn't what DxO says. It puts the 550/60/600 .1EV less dynamic range than the 7D. I don't think you'd notice this and could be sample variation.

BTW, the pictures you posted... I think the 7D looks slightly sharper, but all you are now doing is comparing the in-camera settings for noise reduction (550D looking to have a higher default setting) as those are JPEGs and have been processed by the camera.

I'm OK with people claiming the older gen (i.e. not 18MPix based sensor) are sharper, just not that it applies within the 18MPix ones. They use the same sensor, I'd be willing to bet the same AA filter, so will, more or less (as you'll have sample variations and slightly tweaked default settings for processing) produce the same image. And if you were after the ultimate image quality, you'd be shooting/processing raw anyway....

It seems to me you are theorising reasons for differences that really aren't there.
 
MomentCapture said:
If the difference is in the lab, it's also in the real world, the example I posted was from the same source a poster said there was no difference, there are other examples that show a more obvious difference.
Click to expand...
I'll quote from the review shall I:

TDB said:
As I said above in this review, there is not enough difference in image quality between the three 18mp DSLRs for image quality (including high ISO noise) to be a differentiating factor.
Click to expand...

TBH, using the same sensor, that's what I'd expect too....
 
DemiLion said:
Care to post any photos of your own that show these problems, or is it just something that you've read about yet again?
Click to expand...

TBH others have already done a better job doing such comparisons than I could, I don't see how me doing & posting yet more comparisons serve anything other than waste my time.

Below is some good examples of the difference's in dynamic range/noise.

http://www.youtube.com/user/testcams#p/a/u/2/Dp2OeIcB1ak

http://www.youtube.com/user/testcams#p/a/u/1/Dwp7jfcsRSo

http://www.youtube.com/user/testcams#p/a/u/0/68Y5kCf9AVQ
 
The point that I'm trying to make is that you are the sort of twit that spends their life trying to find reviews to make their point for them.

Just learn how to use the damned camera properly, then go and take some photographs. If you'd have done that with the 7D you had, you wouldn't have changed systems and wouldn't be bleating like a stuck troll.
 
WannaTakePix said:
What would you recommend?
Click to expand...

As I said the D7000 no question for me if I was starting now. If I was strapped for cash I'd go for the D90.

My answer was mainly targeted to the guy that said that high end bodies keep their values more and so you should buy the best you can afford. If money is an issue ie if you are to cut money from lenses or from food just to buy a higher model body don't do it.

If you can feed yourself, while having money for a couple of high quality lenses and enough left over to buy the D7000 or D7 then go for it.
 
DemiLion said:
The point that I'm trying to make is that you are the sort of twit that spends their life trying to find reviews to make their point for them.

Just learn how to use the damned camera properly, then go and take some photographs. If you'd have done that with the 7D you had, you wouldn't have changed systems and wouldn't be bleating like a stuck troll.
Click to expand...

Lol.

I agree . If you was to use either bodies to it's full potential the difference between the two would be zero in most cases.

OP should get whatever suits them. The op can't go wrong in any of them.

I chose canon because they are well known, my mum has a slr film canon and liked the lens and body choices.
 
Last edited:
MomentCapture said:
Below is some good examples of the difference's in dynamic range/noise.
Click to expand...
That's between Canon and Nikon, not between the 18Mpix Canons ;) In fact the guy even says in the text they apply to the 600D/60D/7D as they have the same sensor!


And if you're doing that to images,. you aren't taking photos correctly ;)
 
WannaTakePix said:
Another couple of bits I picked up along the way...

"the Nikon doesn't come with any software and you have to pay extra for it, the Canon comes with software"
&
"Nikon has a 2 year warranty" - but would you get separate camera insurance to cover accidental damage also?
Click to expand...

Any views on this my learned friends?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top