Nikon v Canon

[telscossie]

Does anyone have either of these two setups for wildlife ie Birds . canon 7d mk ii + 100-400 usm ii which i currently use and Nikon D500 +200-500 5.6 , i am just looking for peoples opinions on the two setups and which they think is best . thanks

 

[rob-nikon]

Does anyone have either of these two setups for wildlife ie Birds . canon 7d mk ii + 100-400 usm ii which i currently use and Nikon D500 +200-500 5.6 , i am just looking for peoples opinions on the two setups and which they think is best . thanks

This is only to end one way. Whichever system they own they will think is the best! It’s very unlikely anyone has used both setups for a long period to make a unbiased opinion.

 

[Julian Elliott]

You could just hire the Nikon and lens you mention to see for yourself

 

[johnf3f]

No simple answer - you have just got to try them and see how they suit you. I have tried most Nikon stuff (though not the D500) and didn't like it but plenty of photographers rate Nikon higher than Canon - who is right? Neither - just try them out and see which suits you best.

 

[StewartR]

i am just looking for peoples opinions on the two setups and which they think is best . thanks

Define "best" as it applies to you.

I mean, generally speaking, for bird photography the longer lens will win out, and that gives the edge to the Nikon combo. (But not by 25% as you might think, because the cameras have different crop factors. The full-frame equivalent focal lengths come out at 750mm vs 640mm, a difference of 17%.)

On the other hand, the Nikon combo is heavier - 3.1kg vs 2.5kg - and the Nikon lens is also longer, which might mean you'd be comfortable using the Canon hand held but not the Nikon. (That's certainly the case for me - the Nikon is just a bit too big.)

Or you might be interested in autofocus performance. Nikon's 3D tracking is arguably slightly superior to Canon's, but Canon's initial focus acquisition is definitely faster.

So what does "best" mean, for you?

 

[nandbytes]

Does anyone have either of these two setups for wildlife ie Birds . canon 7d mk ii + 100-400 usm ii which i currently use and Nikon D500 +200-500 5.6 , i am just looking for peoples opinions on the two setups and which they think is best . thanks

Nikon is better IMO. I can't think of anything at which canon is better in this case.

 

[KIPAX]

Does anyone have either of these two setups for wildlife ie Birds . canon 7d mk ii + 100-400 usm ii which i currently use and Nikon D500 +200-500 5.6 , i am just looking for peoples opinions on the two setups and which they think is best . thanks

The only answwer worth a salt is from anyone who has and uses both systems.. thats the only person who can advise you...... I would be amazed if that person exists

 

[Caerus]

The best one is the one you can handle and use the best.

Even if someone has both and has a preference it does not mean that it will be best for YOU.

You have to use both and see for yourself in your hands.

But yea just get the d500 anyway. 7D MK 2, your having a laugh
( only kidding )

 

[welshwizard645]

I have D500 plus 200-500 OH has 7D2 and 100-400. She is happy with her Canon set up and gets fabulous images from it. My Nikon set up is limited by idiot user, but I cannot stand the Canon menus and operating system. I am a Pentax Fanboy at heart dying for a K3mk3 and D-FA150-450, but having been a Pentax user for many years the Nikon feels more intuitive.

 

[wave01]

I have a 7d2 with a sigma 150-600c. I find this a very good good combination. The 7d2 is an exceptional camera with 65 focus points all useable. In the end it’s is down to personnel choice. So go try them out

 

[vulcan2912]

I've taken well over 200,000 images with the 7D2 & 100-400 mk2 and now use the D500 with a Nikon 200-500 (among other things). No good answer for you here. The canon 100-400 is better than the Nikon 200-500 in AF speed and sharpness in my opinion but the Nikon D500 is better than the 7DMk2. Swings and roundabouts really. One big difference is in weight. You really notice the extra weight of the 200-500.

Cheers
Gary

 

[toohuge]

Vulcan2912 echoes my experience... the D500 is a sensational body. However, the 20-500 whilst good, is no match for the 100-400 mkii from Canon...

 

[jonneymendoza]

Nikon is better IMO. I can't think of anything at which canon is better in this case.

They are better at marketing and sales

 

[StewartR]

Nikon is better IMO. I can't think of anything at which canon is better in this case.

You've used both those lenses, and you think the Nikon is better? Wow. What's better about it?

 

[nandbytes]

You've used both those lenses, and you think the Nikon is better? Wow. What's better about it?

There are various options on Nikon inc. a equivalent 80-400mm to his canon 100-400mm which is rather good. On a 20mp sensor they'll give pretty much equivalent results.
In fact I think nikon 80-400mm is a tad bit sharper at long end. I don't think canon even has an equivalent 200-500mm lens if i am not mistaken.

On the other hand the sensor on 7Dii sucks in comparison and so does the AF. What good is having really sharp out of focus or really noisy pictures?

 

[jerry12953]

Well I'm a Canon user and have been for more years than I can remember. I moved over from Contax when it became time to switch to digital.

If I hadn't been a Canon user for so long, and felt that I could easily adapt to another system, I WOULD switch to Nikon, just to get my hands on a D850, which looks like a phenomenal camera.

Not so sure about the lenses, though.........

 

[nandbytes]

Well I'm a Canon user and have been for more years than I can remember. I moved over from Contax when it became time to switch to digital.

If I hadn't been a Canon user for so long, and felt that I could easily adapt to another system, I WOULD switch to Nikon, just to get my hands on a D850, which looks like a phenomenal camera.

Not so sure about the lenses, though.........

I was just saying this in nikon thread, adapting is only fun for so long. It gets fiddly and tiresome.
depends on the lenses, but there are good ones on both. IMO lenses is not really the issue between canon and nikon, its the bodies themselves.

 

[Petrochemist]

If you are used to Canon, then switching will mean you have to learn a different user interface. That's a significant disadvantage for the Nikon.
I doubt there's any difference in usability/IQ etc that's enough to override this.

I suppose it's possible the Nikon ergonomics actually suit the way you are better so you might pick things up quickly & then find them better - but only your experience can tell this. Try renting one for a few days.

FWIW I don't go for either

 

[vulcan2912]

I was a Canon shooter for 30 years before moving over to Nikon and my advice is just stick with what you have got, which is a very nice setup. I found the switch really problematic when it comes to lenses and the Nikon bodies, although very good, do have their problems (garbage live view AF on the D850 which can't always be trusted, even for photos, to name just 1). At the time of change I was shooting with a 5DMK4, 7D2, Canon 16-35 F4L, Canon 24-70 F2.8L Mk2, Canon 70-200 F2.8L Mk2, Canon 100-400L MK2, 50mm STM and 500mm F4L Mk2. Replacing those lenses with like for like has been a nightmare. The Nikon 16-35, 24-70 and 200-500 aren't even in the same ball park as the Canon equivalents. I didn't even bother with the 80-400 because I couldn't find a review that rated it better than the 200-500. I'm also now into my 4th month of waiting for a bloody Nikon 500mm F5.6 PF.

Cheers
Gary

 

[ConnorFlynn-Photography]

In my opinion in a very take it or leave it way having been through a similar conundrum recently, the numbers definitely suggest the Nikon kit in side by side comparison but that's not a complete story, do you also have a bunch of canon glass? are you prepared to take the time to get familiar with a whole new interface and button layout? The main differences that i expect would be quality of life improvements for me are the bigger buffer on the nikon, more focus points, and a longer focal length on the lens i'm not sure it would be worth the cost/hassle of a trade that wont necessarily end up with significantly improved photos. For wildlife photography I would much rather put cash aside for better glass and stick with what you have, both are very capable cameras.

I dont make videos so i overlooked the nikons ability to make movies in 4k @ 30fps which might be attractive if you're into that

 

[jonneymendoza]

Are some people unable to so called learn a new menu system lol?

Its not rocket science and every camera has a shutter button right?

You guys make it sound as if you will need to learn a specialist degree in nikon or any other camera for you to use it and be famikiler with it!

 

[Nikon f1.8]

Are some people unable to so called learn a new menu system lol?

Its not rocket science and every camera has a shutter button right?

You guys make it sound as if you will need to learn a specialist degree in nikon or any other camera for you to use it and be famikiler with it!

the problem is when you are used to a particular system and have used it for a long time, moving to a different one takes some getting used to as one tends to remember how it was done the old way. I suppose after time it will become second nature and easy to remember where that particular setting is kept but believe me it is not a thing you can learn in a couple of days.

 

[ConnorFlynn-Photography]

ofc people can learn to use different systems but it takes time for them to become second nature, and in the mean time can be pretty frustrating.

 

[jonneymendoza]

the problem is when you are used to a particular system and have used it for a long time, moving to a different one takes some getting used to as one tends to remember how it was done the old way. I suppose after time it will become second nature and easy to remember where that particular setting is kept but believe me it is not a thing you can learn in a couple of days.

You can start shooting in a couple of days but u may take longer to learn some hidden gems and settings but learning how to program the shutter speed iso and aperture will take you 5mins

 

[StewartR]

Are some people unable to so called learn a new menu system lol?

Its not rocket science and every camera has a shutter button right?

You guys make it sound as if you will need to learn a specialist degree in nikon or any other camera for you to use it and be famikiler with it!

It's not necessarily as simple as that. I find that I have to hold Nikon DSLRs in a completely different way to how I hold Canon DSLRs. My natural/instinctive hand position puts my right index finder on the top of the camera, where the Canon top control dial is easy to reach. But pick up a Nikon like that, and my index finger can't reach the front control dial and my thumb can't reach the rear control dial. I have to rotate my hand at the wrist. (Imagine holding a beer glass in your right hand, then tipping the glass away from you. That's the movement.)

Learning the different menus isn't so hard. Re-learning how to hold a camera can be harder, and stopping it from being uncomfortable can be harder still..

 

[sk66]

There are a few things that would lead me to the D500 over the 7D II for wildlife/action.
First is that the sensor performance of the D500 is much better. It has better ISO performance, greater dynamic range, and it is very nearly ISO invariant. These things matter when light levels drop (wildlife is most active early/late), and when you have really tough situations like a black and white bird (or uniforms) in strong sunlight.

The Nikon also has a 153pt AF system with focus points that go nearly to the very edge of the FOV. It also has a bit better f/8 AF functionality. IMO, these are relatively small differences that will only affect limited situations... but it shouldn't be surprising how often many end up at f/8 with TC's when photographing wildlife.

Lens choices are a bit harder, but if staying brand specific I think Canon has a few more/better options (my current wildlife zoom lens of choice is the Sigma 60-600).

This is a Hooded Merganser I photographed in hard light... I underexposed the image by about 3 stops in order to retain details in the white feather regions and recovered the rest in post. IDT you could get anywhere near the same kind of results from the 7D II (or perhaps any current Canon model).

 

[scott199]

Sorry to jump in, was just taking notes from this thread and came across this

“and it is very nearly ISO invariant”
I have a D500 and wondered what this means ??

There are a few things that would lead me to the D500 over the 7D II for wildlife/action.
First is that the sensor performance of the D500 is much better. It has better ISO performance, greater dynamic range, and it is very nearly ISO invariant. These things matter when light levels drop (wildlife is most active early/late), and when you have really tough situations like a black and white bird (or uniforms) in strong sunlight.

The Nikon also has a 153pt AF system with focus points that go nearly to the very edge of the FOV. It also has a bit better f/8 AF functionality. IMO, these are relatively small differences that will only affect limited situations... but it shouldn't be surprising how often many end up at f/8 with TC's when photographing wildlife.

Lens choices are a bit harder, but if staying brand specific I think Canon has a few more/better options (my current wildlife zoom lens of choice is the Sigma 60-600).

This is a Hooded Merganser I photographed in hard light... I underexposed the image by about 3 stops in order to retain details in the white feather regions and recovered the rest in post. IDT you could get anywhere near the same kind of results from the 7D II (or perhaps any current Canon model).

View attachment 241527
View attachment 241528

 

[Diving Pete]

If I hadn't been a Canon user for so long, and felt that I could easily adapt to another system, I WOULD switch to Nikon, just to get my hands on a D850, which looks like a phenomenal camera.

Not so sure about the lenses, though.........

The D850 is worth jumping for - its simply amazing..

 

[sk66]

Sorry to jump in, was just taking notes from this thread and came across this

“and it is very nearly ISO invariant”
I have a D500 and wondered what this means ??

It means that it doesn't much matter what ISO you use in camera. You can underexpose using a lower ISO and recover the image in post with little/no negative side effects because the camera itself doesn't add much/any noise to the signal/image.

 

[holty]

It means that it doesn't much matter what ISO you use in camera. You can underexpose using a lower ISO and recover the image in post with little/no negative side effects because the camera itself doesn't add much/any noise to the signal/image.

never new that i will have to try it
how many stops under can you go 2, 3, 4 ?
i have found i normally blow the whites so this could be helpful

 

[Caerus]

It means that it doesn't much matter what ISO you use in camera. You can underexpose using a lower ISO and recover the image in post with little/no negative side effects because the camera itself doesn't add much/any noise to the signal/image.

never new that i will have to try it
how many stops under can you go 2, 3, 4 ?
i have found i normally blow the whites so this could be helpful

Try it and see, I don't believe it myself really. Only so far you can go before a cameras file turn to crap

 

[ConnorFlynn-Photography]

Just out of curiosity, if we're talking about dynamic range, cant the same effect be achieved by image stacking?

 

[twist]

Just out of curiosity, if we're talking about dynamic range, cant the same effect be achieved by image stacking?

Bracketing, yes, but who wants to bracket when you can take 1 shot and push / pull in post. Good luck bracketing moving subjects.

 

[Phil V]

To @telscossie
I hope you realised that 2 people in this thread had the answer for you... Both @StewartR and @welshwizard645 have experience of both options - very little if any of the other posts are relevant - just the usual nonsense you'd expect in a Canon vs Nikon thread.

 

[Vintage Racer]

To @telscossie
I hope you realised that 2 people in this thread had the answer for you... Both @StewartR and @welshwizard645 have experience of both options - very little if any of the other posts are relevant - just the usual nonsense you'd expect in a Canon vs Nikon thread.

I agree with Phil's comments, but I use the Nikon D500 & 200-500 combo and have found them to be excellent. My only comment would be that we ALL want more reach for our wildlife photography and the extra 100mm on the Nikon is a bigger difference than you might think.

I know you can add teleconverters to both, but don't get me started on that one!


.

 

[sk66]

never new that i will have to try it
how many stops under can you go 2, 3, 4 ?
i have found i normally blow the whites so this could be helpful

It depends on the specific camera and your noise tolerance. In the example I underexposed by ~ 3 stops by using ISO 100. I then recovered the shadows/darks ~ 3stops which puts them at ~ ISO800 equivalent.
The *only* benefit of doing this is preventing the clipping of highlights... you do *not* get ISO 100 characteristics/performance other than in areas where there was enough light to not require recovery... i.e. the brightest areas where you don't need it as much to start with. And this only applies to ISO... if you underexpose at ISO 800 and have to recover 3 stops it's going to look like ISO 6400 (+/-).

Just out of curiosity, if we're talking about dynamic range, cant the same effect be achieved by image stacking?

This is the best option... but not practical with wildlife/moving subjects. Underexposing using a lower ISO does not really increase the DR, the number of "steps"/stops between min/max. It only prevents ISO amplification from pushing the max recorded to clipping.

IMO/E this is very relevant/beneficial to wildlife/action photography... because in those situations the "exposure variable" is usually ISO. And most Nikons (and others like Sony, Fuji, etc) are very nearly ISO invariant, which means you can use any lower ISO with little/no penalty... "getting it right" in camera is much less critical, which is good because these can be very demanding/difficult situations.

 

[welshwizard645]

To @telscossie
I hope you realised that 2 people in this thread had the answer for you... Both @StewartR and @welshwizard645 have experience of both options - very little if any of the other posts are relevant - just the usual nonsense you'd expect in a Canon vs Nikon thread.

I am RELEVANT!! Thank Phil 5

 

[welshwizard645]

Vulcan2912 echoes my experience... the D500 is a sensational body. However, the 20-500 whilst good, is no match for the 100-400 mkii from Canon...

This explains why the 200-500 is half the price of the 80-400 (I have both), the AF is 'better' on the more expensive 80-400 (and the 200-400 VR2) but the 200-500 has a market segment all to itself at the moment. I do hanker after the D-FA 150-450 (just look at Mike P's images) but us Pentax fanboys are just waiting for that worthy APS-C body (we hope Ricoh hasn't abandoned that segment)...

 

[StewartR]

... just the usual nonsense you'd expect in a Canon vs Nikon thread.

I'm beginning to wonder whether this thread was just a wind-up. Ask a seemingly sincere question ... light the blue touch-paper ... retire to a safe distance. Nice one, OP.

 

[rob-nikon]

I'm beginning to wonder whether this thread was just a wind-up. Ask a seemingly sincere question ... light the blue touch-paper ... retire to a safe distance. Nice one, OP.

The initial question sounded like ‘I’ve got this setup but someone else has this set up and they say it’s much better than mine and I want to prove them wrong’ type question. It all sounds like an argument between photographers over who has the “best” kit. Just sounds like a load of willy waving to me.

I think we should ban these type of manufacturer vs manufacturer type posts. All they do it cause arguments just like the..... dare I mention it...... grey import debate.