Sony To Canon or Nikon?

[Grievous247]

Hi All,

I am looking at the possibilty of jumping ship (Sorry Pirate! ) from Sony to Canon or Nikon.

I have been very happy with my Sony Alpha gear but do not think that the SLT route is for me personally. I also am in need of a better picture in low light and higher ISO and know that the Canon's and Nikon's are famed for this and pretty much everything else for that matter.

So here are my thoughts:

This is my current setup:

Sony Alpha A700 x 2
Sony SAL-70400 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM lens
Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Lens
Kenko Extension Tubes - full set

I am an avid wildlife photographer and was therefore thinking along the following lines:

Canon 7D
Canon 1D Markiv

Nikon D700
Nikon D3S

Do you guys have any recommendations or pros/cons I should consider?

Also what benchmark do you think I could feasibly get for all my above kit?

As always, many thanks for taking the time to read this post

Cheers
G

 

[aeronic]

Do you shoot wildlife handhold or tripod - hides or out in the open. If you carry your gear around a lot and/or handhold then a crop body may save quite a bit of weight.

 

[Darnun]

Hmmm I have recently been on a seminar with Chris Weston (Pro WL photographer) and he is a Nikon man through and through. Of course he had your silly priced D3X with just as expensive lenses.
His sidekick was a Canon man and he swore by the Canon 5D Mk2

I have neither but what I can give you, is my humble opinion.
A good friend of mine had a D700 with the 24-70 lens and the equivalent to 100-400 type lens Nikon (can't remember which exactly)
He loved the camera but felt that it had it's downfalls and an abundance of things on it, that he would most likely never use. He took some superb shots with it.

He then made the decision to go to the lesser D7000. He put the decision down to getting the kit that was right for him. He still feels he can achieve the same level of shots with the 7000 as he ever could with the 700.
His review of the 7000 was so good, it was what prompted me to go for it too.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is to go with the one that gives you the freedom you need for the type of shot you're after. Also, and I am learning this every year, that it is mostly down to the glass on the front that gives you the shot you're after, not necessarily the camera alone.
He has never looked back.

I for one, used to be a canon user (5D mk1) with a few L lenses, I now use a Nikon D7000 with non Nikon lenses for now and I am equally as happy with this as I ever was with the canon and it's much cheaper.

I personally think you can achieve a much higher quality of photo for less money with Nikon than Canon. That is just MY opinion and I am sure there will many who disagree but that is what I have found so far.
To achieve the same level of quality, as I currently do with the 7000, I would have to spend a lot more on Camera and glass with Canon. Canon also seemed to have given me much softer pictures, whereas the Nikon gives me much sharper pics with deeper colours. Again a personal experience thing.

Have you used either yet? Go to the likes of Jessops and try them out. You may simply find that you like one over the other anyway.
If you are in the budget to buy those sorts of cameras then expensive lenses may not be an issue, in which case it will be down to simply what makes you feel more comfortable when using it.

EDIT: Also I do honestly believe that Nikon 700 and 700 are much better at low noise in lowlight / high Iso scenarios. I can take a handheld picture at 6400 with very little noise on the Nikon. Couldn't get close on the Canon.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

If you are really into wildlife, then I would suggest the crop factor of the 7D or D7000 would be preferable to a full frame camera like a D3s or D700, where you will require some VERY long lenses or teleconverters to reach the sort of effective focal lengths you are getting with your a700 at the moment. The 1D IV is a sort of half way house...you will get the weather sealing but not quite so much reach.

 

[Grievous247]

Do you shoot wildlife handhold or tripod - hides or out in the open. If you carry your gear around a lot and/or handhold then a crop body may save quite a bit of weight.

Hi - I am 99% Handheld and mostly out in the open, I do go to hides for specialst shoots like Kingfishers etc...but on the whole I like to handhold and shoot wildlife in the open.

cheers
G

 

[Grievous247]

Hmmm I have recently been on a seminar with Chris Weston (Pro WL photographer) and he is a Nikon man through and through. Of course he had your silly priced D3X with just as expensive lenses.
His sidekick was a Canon man and he swore by the Canon 5D Mk2

I have neither but what I can give you, is my humble opinion.
A good friend of mine had a D700 with the 24-70 lens and the equivalent to 100-400 type lens Nikon (can't remember which exactly)
He loved the camera but felt that it had it's downfalls and an abundance of things on it, that he would most likely never use. He took some superb shots with it.

He then made the decision to go to the lesser D7000. He put the decision down to getting the kit that was right for him. He still feels he can achieve the same level of shots with the 7000 as he ever could with the 700.
His review of the 7000 was so good, it was what prompted me to go for it too.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is to go with the one that gives you the freedom you need for the type of shot you're after. Also, and I am learning this every year, that it is mostly down to the glass on the front that gives you the shot you're after, not necessarily the camera alone.
He has never looked back.

I for one, used to be a canon user (5D mk1) with a few L lenses, I now use a Nikon D7000 with non Nikon lenses for now and I am equally as happy with this as I ever was with the canon and it's much cheaper.

I personally think you can achieve a much higher quality of photo for less money with Nikon than Canon. That is just MY opinion and I am sure there will many who disagree but that is what I have found so far.
To achieve the same level of quality, as I currently do with the 7000, I would have to spend a lot more on Camera and glass with Canon. Canon also seemed to have given me much softer pictures, whereas the Nikon gives me much sharper pics with deeper colours. Again a personal experience thing.

Have you used either yet? Go to the likes of Jessops and try them out. You may simply find that you like one over the other anyway.
If you are in the budget to buy those sorts of cameras then expensive lenses may not be an issue, in which case it will be down to simply what makes you feel more comfortable when using it.

EDIT: Also I do honestly believe that Nikon 700 and 700 are much better at low noise in lowlight / high Iso scenarios. I can take a handheld picture at 6400 with very little noise on the Nikon. Couldn't get close on the Canon.

Thanks Darren - Interesting points that you have raised. I had not looked at the D7000 but when you factor in the extra cost in good glass it may be a worth looking at. What I am worried about is spending out on new gear to then find that I wished I had something better. I have never used any other DSLR other than my trusty A700 and previously an A200.

Cheers
G

 

[Grievous247]

If you are really into wildlife, then I would suggest the crop factor of the 7D or D7000 would be preferable to a full frame camera like a D3s or D700, where you will require some VERY long lenses or teleconverters to reach the sort of effective focal lengths you are getting with your a700 at the moment. The 1D IV is a sort of half way house...you will get the weather sealing but not quite so much reach.

Sounds like I should be taking a look at the D7000 then? I was quite surprised when I just saw the 'noise' comparison test on DP against the 7D, D7000 and the A55SLT. I had assumed that the Nikon and Canon's would be a lot better but they say that the they are all very similar.....it's all very confusing.....
Cheers
G

 

[Darnun]

Hahaha Well you have met the right contact in me then. I have spent soooo long thinking along those lines. "What if I buy something and feel I could have had better"
I personally hate feeling I have bought something that limits me and the photo.

Push all that aside and look at reviews. The D7000 is a very different beast compared to the other Nikons it's price range.
All I know is that when I pop the Tamron 17-50 on it, I can shoot pics so pin sharp and clean that I feel I have achieved what I set out to do. I could ask for no more.

To me, personally, the 7000 feels as professional as would be if I owned a D700 or 5dmk2. That's going some for me. I always had this thought, in the back of my mind that I would regret not saving up for the 700. I can see no reason to upgrade to the 700 now, unless I was obsessed with the lowlight excellence it has. I personally don't need that.
Also Manualfocus-g makes a good point about focal length. You would get closer to your subject with the crop sensor compared to a full frame one. It would have to be expensive lenses to achieve the same thing.

If you go in to you tube and type in Nikon D7000 vs Canon 60D, there are a multitude of videos reviewing both side to side and showing the results. These may help you.

Either way I think your best bet would be to get the crop sensor and spend your hard earned cash on excellent lenses and I am absolutely sure you won't be disappointed.

 

[Grievous247]

Hahaha Well you have met the right contact in me then. I have spent soooo long thinking along those lines. "What if I buy something and feel I could have had better"
I personally hate feeling I have bought something that limits me and the photo.

Push all that aside and look at reviews. The D7000 is a very different beast compared to the other Nikons it's price range.
All I know is that when I pop the Tamron 17-50 on it, I can shoot pics so pin sharp and clean that I feel I have achieved what I set out to do. I could ask for no more.

To me, personally, the 7000 feels as professional as would be if I owned a D700 or 5dmk2. That's going some for me. I always had this thought, in the back of my mind that I would regret not saving up for the 700. I can see no reason to upgrade to the 700 now, unless I was obsessed with the lowlight excellence it has. I personally don't need that.
Also Manualfocus-g makes a good point about focal length. You would get closer to your subject with the crop sensor compared to a full frame one. It would have to be expensive lenses to achieve the same thing.

If you go in to you tube and type in Nikon D7000 vs Canon 60D, there are a multitude of videos reviewing both side to side and showing the results. These may help you.

Either way I think your best bet would be to get the crop sensor and spend your hard earned cash on excellent lenses and I am absolutely sure you won't be disappointed.

Thanks - I think I will go take a look at the D7000. The D700 appeals but like you have mentioned, it is the FF dilemma over losing all that extra reach. however, would it be fair to say that you could crop the D700 and still get enviable results compared to the D7000?

Thanks so much for all the support - it's greatly appreciated.

Cheers
G

 

[Darnun]

Hmmm Yes in a way but you will have to think about every picture you took to allow for the cropping afterwards. Also if you shoot lowlight and get a crisp picture on FF, you may see a little noise when cropped.....
Also, have you really thought about what appeals about the 700 over the 7000. Is it just the fact that it's full frame?
Maybe when you write down what appeals you will realise which one to really go for.

 

[squishy]

Unless you go full frame/1.3x crop and/or invest in a big tele photo prime, I'm not sure you'll get much advantage from switching.

IMO, crop sensors haven't advanced quite far enough for it to be worth switching systems for (with the exception of people who like to push exposure up 5 stops in processing).

You won't find a better hand-holdable tele-zoom than your 70-400G, the canon 100-400L performs very close (the nikkor 80-400 is a bit further off since it lacks an ultra-sonic motor) but certainly not better than the 70-400.

In your shoes, I'd just wait to see what happens with the next generation before moving. The A77 (or whatever replaces the A700) might be truly excellent, or the nikon D400 or canon 7D mark II might be even better in sensor performance.

Unless you're prepared to invest in some serious big lens and/or a larger sensor format, I don't think moving would do you much good.

EDIT: Also I do honestly believe that Nikon 700 and 700 are much better at low noise in lowlight / high Iso scenarios. I can take a handheld picture at 6400 with very little noise on the Nikon. Couldn't get close on the Canon.

To be fair though, you're comparing much more recent sensor technology to a much older canon.

 

[srichards]

The A700 is quite old now. I'd look at the Sony A580 first as that has the same sensor as the Nikon D7000 and the Sony A55 SLT.

 

[heidfirst]

I also am in need of a better picture in low light and higher ISO and know that the Canon's and Nikon's are famed for this

Sony high ISO results have moved a long way in the last few years (partly because Adobe markedly improved their routines for Sony).
Sony currently makes the best APS-C sensors (also used by Nikon & Pentax).


This is my current setup:

Sony Alpha A700 x 2 still a great body but starting to show it's age against the latest semi-pro bodies
Sony SAL-70400 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM lens there is nothing to match this in either Canon or Nikon camps, Nikon's 200-400/4 is better but at £5k it ought to be & it's bigger & heavier
Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Lens again hard to beat
Kenko Extension Tubes - full set

I am an avid wildlife photographer and was therefore thinking along the following lines:

Canon 7D
Canon 1D Markiv

Nikon D700
Nikon D3S

Do you guys have any recommendations or pros/cons I should consider?

I also think that you should stick with APS-C but I also think that you might as well wait a few months to see how the A77 actually turns out & if having seen/handled one you don't like it then you can change systems with no regrets. Imagine spending all the money & then finding out that you would have liked an A77 afterall ...

 

[Johnd2000]

I also think that you should stick with APS-C but I also think that you might as well wait a few months to see how the A77 actually turns out & if having seen/handled one you don't like it then you can change systems with no regrets. Imagine spending all the money & then finding out that you would have liked an A77 afterall ...

Wise words.

Im no fan of EVFs, but if I was a wildlife shooter I'd really want to see how the rumoured 24mp sensor in the a77 performs. I know that resolution gives me loads of crop ability on my a850 and that's a useful feature for shooting small things without hugely expensive 500mm+ lenses. If Sony manage to get as good or better high ISO performance than the latest 16mp sensor, from the new 24mp, then the D7000 is going to look like fairly poor value for money. Particularly when the OP would have the financial hit of selling the class-leading 70-400G.

I'd wait. The release announcement is rumoured to be less than a month away.

 

[scottthehat]

for wildlife d300 or d7000 in canon 7d or 1dmk4

 

[LongLensPhotography]

On Sony you have (had) 400mm (1.5x) = 600mm max reach. I presume you would be looking for a similar range, but I could be wrong.

On the Canon side there is an equivalent 100-400mm L IS f/4-5.6 zoom, or a 400mm 5.6 non-IS prime, or 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x. If we add loads more money we come to 500mm f/4L IS or 300mm f/2.8 + TCs.

On the Nikon side there is a much more outdated 80-400mm zoom - I'd go Canon instead on this count - and some non VR primes, and mega expensive big fat glass.

Third party options, that match the IQ of that Sony lens are limited - probably Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is the best and expensive bet. I really don't think their other zooms are comparable.

Lenses aside, the choice of cameras would be between 7D and D7000 (apsc) and bigger sensor variants. APS-C should provide an affordable entry point to these systems, and would be comparable or better to A700. Layout of controls is a personal preference, and personally I hate how Nikons are made. I suggest getting familiar with both before making a decision.

Larger sensor cameras will invariably give better IQ / ISO performance, at a cost of lower pixel density. The balance may be very different depending on the lenses, subjects and shooting conditions. Either way, larger mp count is favourable. 16mp ff (1Ds2) or the cropped equivalent 1D3 simply needs monster glass to get decent image of even a simple heron. D3s and D700 would be worse in this respect, unless you can get close. I wouldn't consider for WL them w/o access to 600mm+. D3X and 1Ds3 sound much better, also 1DIV if you would crop anyway or need fps.

To summarize, I'd stick to the budget and get a 7D or find a used and cheap 1DIV.

 

[faddy]

On Sony you have (had) 400mm (1.5x) = 600mm max reach. I presume you would be looking for a similar range, but I could be wrong.

On the Canon side there is an equivalent 100-400mm L IS f/4-5.6 zoom, or a 400mm 5.6 non-IS prime, or 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x. If we add loads more money we come to 500mm f/4L IS or 300mm f/2.8 + TCs.

On the Nikon side there is a much more outdated 80-400mm zoom - I'd go Canon instead on this count - and some non VR primes, and mega expensive big fat glass.

Third party options, that match the IQ of that Sony lens are limited - probably Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is the best and expensive bet. I really don't think their other zooms are comparable.

Lenses aside, the choice of cameras would be between 7D and D7000 (apsc) and bigger sensor variants. APS-C should provide an affordable entry point to these systems, and would be comparable or better to A700. Layout of controls is a personal preference, and personally I hate how Nikons are made. I suggest getting familiar with both before making a decision.

Larger sensor cameras will invariably give better IQ / ISO performance, at a cost of lower pixel density. The balance may be very different depending on the lenses, subjects and shooting conditions. Either way, larger mp count is favourable. 16mp ff (1Ds2) or the cropped equivalent 1D3 simply needs monster glass to get decent image of even a simple heron. D3s and D700 would be worse in this respect, unless you can get close. I wouldn't consider for WL them w/o access to 600mm+. D3X and 1Ds3 sound much better, also 1DIV if you would crop anyway or need fps.

To summarize, I'd stick to the budget and get a 7D or find a used and cheap 1DIV.

Totally agree.. the 7d is an awesome piece of kit for the money!

 

[architectfadi]

I would wait till the A77 is out because surely the D300s replacement will have the same sensor and if as you say the SLT is not your cup of tea then the ?D400? will be the one to look at

 

[Assassin]

Hi All,

I am looking at the possibilty of jumping ship (Sorry Pirate! ) from Sony to Canon or Nikon.

I have been very happy with my Sony Alpha gear but do not think that the SLT route is for me personally. I also am in need of a better picture in low light and higher ISO and know that the Canon's and Nikon's are famed for this and pretty much everything else for that matter.

So here are my thoughts:

This is my current setup:

Sony Alpha A700 x 2
Sony SAL-70400 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM lens
Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Lens
Kenko Extension Tubes - full set

I am an avid wildlife photographer and was therefore thinking along the following lines:

Canon 7D
Canon 1D Markiv

Nikon D700
Nikon D3S

Do you guys have any recommendations or pros/cons I should consider?

Also what benchmark do you think I could feasibly get for all my above kit?

As always, many thanks for taking the time to read this post

Cheers
G

As you can see from my siggy, I'm a Canon guy..., I'll try not going to give you a biased opinion in favour of Canon, but....

Nikon is better than Canon in the noise department, if this is your main concern.... there is no arguement there. The D3s is a weapon and so is the D700 (although the 700 is probably due for replacement now).... both excellent cameras in every respect.... they are both FF but only 12 mega-pixels....

I'm not one of those dudes that is hung up on pixels, but in the wildlife department, pixels do matter...

Firstly, forget about the 7D !! the image quality is not good on these cameras, and if you're serious about wildlife, you need to take this one off your list. (too many pixels on a very small sensor...)..

Secondly, the MkIV is a formidable camera, 16Mp, ultra fast and razor sharp and would be my first choice in camera.

My second choice would be the 1Ds MkIII (preferably), but as expensive as they are, the 5D MkII would suffice....
The 5D2 is a weapon as well, and the image quality from this camera is absolutely superb...

The extra sensor pixels will allow you to crop fairly heavily if required...

I came from Konica/Minolta era as well, and have never regretted the move.... both the D3s and the MkIV have extreme ISO102,400 which is just ridiculous, but it is there if needed. If you do your research, you will see that the ISO102,400 on the Canon is completely unusable where as the Nikon is well favoured in this area...

Canon also has a vast array of very fast lenses, which hold their value really well. Nikon lenses are just as good as the Canon, but harder to locate and more expensive....

One thing to bear in mind, is that the cropped sensor cameras like the D60 etc, don't really give you extra reach as some may tell you; all they do is give you a cropped view....

I hope this helps....

Sass

 

[Grievous247]

Wow! thanks guys for all your advice - it really has stopped me dead in my tracks and made me evaluate things in greater detail. Maybe the best bet will be to see whta the A77 is actually like. My main fears were that it may be small in the hand (I love the chunky feel of the A700) and that the EVF would not be my thing. I tested out the first Sony EVF a few months back and was left beyond cold. If you looked straight it was pretty good and very bright, but as soon as you moved to track anything you get motion blur....which for me doing Wildlife is not an option for my style.
Sony are claiming many great things for the A77 so maybe I should wait a few months and at least give it the benefit of the doubt? My worry was that the other kit will seriously depreciate in price after it's arrival should I wish to change camps. Guess that is how it goes if that happens....

I am so grateful for all your advice - truly I am ;-)

Have a great weekend all....
Cheers
G

 

[menthel]

As you can see from my siggy, I'm a Canon guy..., I'll try not going to give you a biased opinion in favour of Canon, but....

Nikon is better than Canon in the noise department, if this is your main concern.... there is no arguement there. The D3s is a weapon and so is the D700 (although the 700 is probably due for replacement now).... both excellent cameras in every respect.... they are both FF but only 12 mega-pixels....

I'm not one of those dudes that is hung up on pixels, but in the wildlife department, pixels do matter...

Firstly, forget about the 7D !! the image quality is not good on these cameras, and if you're serious about wildlife, you need to take this one off your list. (too many pixels on a very small sensor...)..

Secondly, the MkIV is a formidable camera, 16Mp, ultra fast and razor sharp and would be my first choice in camera.

My second choice would be the 1Ds MkIII (preferably), but as expensive as they are, the 5D MkII would suffice....
The 5D2 is a weapon as well, and the image quality from this camera is absolutely superb...

The extra sensor pixels will allow you to crop fairly heavily if required...

I came from Konica/Minolta era as well, and have never regretted the move.... both the D3s and the MkIV have extreme ISO102,400 which is just ridiculous, but it is there if needed. If you do your research, you will see that the ISO102,400 on the Canon is completely unusable where as the Nikon is well favoured in this area...

Canon also has a vast array of very fast lenses, which hold their value really well. Nikon lenses are just as good as the Canon, but harder to locate and more expensive....

One thing to bear in mind, is that the cropped sensor cameras like the D60 etc, don't really give you extra reach as some may tell you; all they do is give you a cropped view....

I hope this helps....

Sass

Seriously, you do talk absolute rubbish about the 7d. A large number of people on here use it precicely for wildlife and get superb results. Just have a look in the bird and wildlife photo sections. You really should think very carefully about spouting biased and unsubstatiated views as gospel because you are simply giving bad advice!


Cotswolds May 2011-46.jpg by menthel, on Flickr

 

[David Stallard]

G:
I have the a900, 70-400G combo which I use 90% of the time for wildlife / motorsports.
Up until last week I was ready to switch to Canon, I asked all the same questions and got an equal amount of answers for and against, as you know the 900 is a full frame with 24.6mp sensor and takes superb shot's and I can crop in 'hard' and still have better images than I get with the wife's 700.

The biggest downside to the Sony gear is the glass, I have just managed to grab a Minolta 200mm 2.8 and to say it's a revelation would be an understatement. I have made my choice and am sticking with the Sony gear.

Good luck whatever you decide, be interested to hear what you decide

.DAVID.

 

[EMA747]

I'm kind of having the same dilemma as the OP but coming from a different starting point.

The Canon 7D and Nikon D7000 seem to have been mentioned as from runners. How do they compare though?

 

[martinsmith99]

I really don't think you can go wrong with either brand.

Sadly, Sony seem to have little interest in the DSLR market.

 

[Darnun]

EMA747, I had a blast with a 7D, before I went with the 7000. My Uncle also has a 7D so I get to use them a lot.

As I have said in this and other threads, I personally believe the 7000 just gives me crisper photos, whereas the 7D seem to take a softer pic, which I prefer less. It is all down to personal preference.

The actual truth is, that both cameras are damn similar and you wouldn't really notice unless you are seriously pedantic or you review cameras as a job.

For me it was simply down to the layout of the 7000 that won me over. Being newish to Nikon (eg I have never owned an older Nikon) I am led to believe, from my nikon friends, that the 7000 button layout is way more intuitive than it's predecessors. Either way I find it way easier than the Canon one......and that is coming from Canon for 4 years.

You won't be disappointed with either though really.

Oh and someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Nikon crop is 1.5 as opposed to 1.6 on the canon, so with nikon you get a tiny bit more in frame.

 

[Grievous247]

G:
I have the a900, 70-400G combo which I use 90% of the time for wildlife / motorsports.
Up until last week I was ready to switch to Canon, I asked all the same questions and got an equal amount of answers for and against, as you know the 900 is a full frame with 24.6mp sensor and takes superb shot's and I can crop in 'hard' and still have better images than I get with the wife's 700.

The biggest downside to the Sony gear is the glass, I have just managed to grab a Minolta 200mm 2.8 and to say it's a revelation would be an understatement. I have made my choice and am sticking with the Sony gear.

Good luck whatever you decide, be interested to hear what you decide

.DAVID.

thanks David - I will take all of this into note for sure. Really appreciate the views you give
Cheers
G

 

[wack61]

I have a D7000 and a 7D at the moment, for financial reasons I had to slim my gear down so sold a D700 and a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AFS

This left me with a 70-200VR and a D7000, the VR is definitely going as well so I had a decision to make which in the end wasn't hard.

Nikon don't have anything like the mid range lenses Canon make, theirs are either £200 or £2000 with nothing in the middle

All bought secondhand but I bought a Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm F/4 L and a Canon 300mm F/4 L for less than I got for the 300mm F/2.8, I could add a new 400mm f/5.6 for the cost of the 70-200mm VR which would cover every eventuality I'd ever come across

Both bodies are more than adequate but it's the money you have to spend on glass with Nikon so think carefully before you're swayed by a review or opinion

 

[godsakes]

as others have said you're probably best waiting to see if the A77 is any good, but in your position I'd be tempted to sell off one A700 and trying out a A580, since it uses basically the same sensor as the D7000 and would give you a big ISO boost without too much buying/selling hassle

 

[heidfirst]

Sadly, Sony seem to have little interest in the DSLR market.

which is why they are spending tens of millions bringing out new models ....
Seriously, as a primarily electronics company they have different ideas & different approaches from a traditional optics company but they are interested in the market (btw SLTs are still DSLRs as they still have a mirror).

but in your position I'd be tempted to sell off one A700 and trying out a A580,

+1
I did think of suggesting last night that you sell 1 & possibly invest in a single body from whichever camp you fancied but this is probably a better idea.

 

[Assassin]

Seriously, you do talk absolute rubbish about the 7d. A large number of people on here use it precicely for wildlife and get superb results. Just have a look in the bird and wildlife photo sections. You really should think very carefully about spouting biased and unsubstatiated views as gospel because you are simply giving bad advice!

Well, I suppose I'm comparing to the 5D2 and the 1D4, from the images i have seen, the 7D doesn't come close...

 

[menthel]

Unsubstantiated then.

 

[images-by-pfje]

My first dslr was Sony a550 jumping from Minolta X570 & X700 slr and now I have jumped again to a900!

I didn't like the APS-C format because I was brought up with the '35mm' frame.

Give the a900 a try and see what you'd think of it.

Up to you.