Canon or Nikon

[snips86x]

What focal lengths are you considering. Having looked through your images it doesn't look like you do many portraits, so maybe maybe shallow depth of field isn't a priority, however I see you have taken a few at night/lowlight, so maybe a fast prime might be useful.

I do Landscape, Macro & Birds of Prey.

I would, for Canon, use something like a Canon 70-200mm L non-is , 17-40mm L (or a tokina 11-16) and a 100mm Macro. I'd also keep the 1.4x converter to hand if needed.

Not a portrait kind of photographer, although I do make an exception for my wife & son.

 

[Amp34]

I must say, I really like the look of the D7000. Just need to get my 7D cleaned before selling it. I understand you need good glass/optics to get good shots, shame the money is the problem. Do you know if the FX lens range is compatible with the DX mounts?

On the other hand if I had the 7D before hand I'm not sure it would really be worth swapping, depends on how much you think you will benefit though. The AA was one of the reasons I veered towards the D7000.

I do Landscape, Macro & Birds of Prey.

I would, for Canon, use something like a Canon 70-200mm L non-is , 17-40mm L (or a tokina 11-16) and a 100mm Macro. I'd also keep the 1.4x converter to hand if needed.

Not a portrait kind of photographer, although I do make an exception for my wife & son.

Ah, you didn't mention BoP before, although you currently don't appear to have a long lens for it(?). The longer affordable end is where Nikon lose out IMO, they lack some affordable options, like a VR version of the 300 f/4, no equivalent to the 400 f/4.6 and have only just released a 70-200 VR (which filled that hole, mostly at least). There is also nothing like the 70-300L (although the 70-300 VR is ok...ish). Depends what lens you want though as Sigma and Tamron still do the same range on both.

The 100mm macro is easy enough to get and there are plenty of options to replace the 17-40. You will struggle with something to replace the 70-200L though (assuming it's an f/4), the 70-200 VR isn't out yet and will come in at over £1k i'm assuming, with no chance of buying used, not quite the same as £350 for the non IS 70-200 f/4.

 

[snips86x]

On the other hand if I had the 7D before hand I'm not sure it would really be worth swapping, depends on how much you think you will benefit though. The AA was one of the reasons I veered towards the D7000.



Ah, you didn't mention BoP before, although you currently don't appear to have a long lens for it(?). The longer affordable end is where Nikon lose out IMO, they lack some affordable options, like a VR version of the 300 f/4, no equivalent to the 400 f/4.6 and have only just released a 70-200 VR (which filled that hole, mostly at least). There is also nothing like the 70-300L (although the 70-300 VR is ok...ish). Depends what lens you want though as Sigma and Tamron still do the same range on both.

The 100mm macro is easy enough to get and there are plenty of options to replace the 17-40. You will struggle with something to replace the 70-200L though (assuming it's an f/4), the 70-200 VR isn't out yet and will come in at over £1k i'm assuming, with no chance of buying used, not quite the same as £350 for the non IS 70-200 f/4.

I actually sold the 70-200 as I didn't use it much. I'm planning on getting it again for my trip to South Africa, but have a lot to think about now. I may just replace the 17-40 for something else and get the 7D body cleaned and see how it goes. I think it's a perfect camera, but I'm not sure what is letting it down, or making me think to replace it. More practice maybe........

 

[King Damager]

D600. Maybe this is worth considering if you prize image quality over all else (It's almost on par with D800E). The AF system however is gimped compared to the D700, D800. It has the same AF system as on the D7000, but it's not suitable to be used on a Full Frame camera (AF points are all squashed up together in the centre).

Interesting question... If you're suggesting the d600's AF system is gimped, what would you say about the 6D's?

kd

 

[An Exception]

The same. And it is gimped except for the people who focus recompose or manual focus. Having less points isn't an issue, it's more to do with the placement of the points and if they aid composition. If they are not positioned well, you need to recompose (bad if the subject is moving, or using shorter focal lengths) or crop in post, thus reducing the effective sensor size/resolution.
Personally I nearly always only have 11 points activated, as it's so much faster to change composition if you don't have to scroll through endless points.
If I had a D600, I would deactivate most of the AF points anyway.

 

[koolpc]

Seen others complaining about the 7D and image quality etc.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
It seems to be a great cam for the people who love the speed/performance/features but are not that discerning when it comes to file quality.

 

[2StepSteve]

Yep. The 7D noise handling is what put me off of it entirely. I've said it before but Canon need to up their game with their crop sensor bodies. With the price point of the 7D it really should give higher IQ.

 

[snips86x]

Yep. The 7D noise handling is what put me off of it entirely. I've said it before but Canon need to up their game with their crop sensor bodies. With the price point of the 7D it really should give higher IQ.

I can see why people would put it down for this, but when not used with high ISO (if avoidable) the picture quality is really good, especially when paired with something like 70-200mm L lens. I've had results I'm very very impressed with.

 

[mrk]

The 7D noise is better than the 40D I used to own and I used the 40D up to ISO1250-1600 for usable shots with light NR applied. What kind of ISOs are people using to be let down by noise on the 7D?

Both 6D and D600 AF systems are cut down, the AF point locations are small and centrally located as well so you're going to need to pre-focus or recompose quite a bit. This won't be a problem for those upgrading from xxxD class bodies which had similar AF zone layouts though.

 

[James J]

If you want to shoot birds, especially the smaller ones are birds of prey at distance, I'd stick with the 7D. Canon have a range of lenses that nikon don't, such as the 400mm F5.6 prime, which is far cheaper than the nikon versions which are faster but have over 3x the price tag. I've owned a D300s and the ISO performance above 800 just isn't good enough for wildlife. The FPS is also crippled when you want to shoot 14bit RAW files, as it slows to 2.5fps even with the grip. The D7000 isn't any better for that either, so unless you want to shoot JPEG to maintain the speed, I wouldn't bother.

Personally I'd look into whats "wrong" with your camera and perhaps send it into fixation to have it cleaned and calibrated with your lenses. Might be something daft like a back/foward focus issue giving you soft images with your lenses.

You'll also need a fair chunk of cash to replace your lenses with the nikon equivalents, making it a very dodgy decision from a financial point of view. I'm a nikon shooter as I much prefer the shape of the body in my hand and how easy it is to use for what I shoot regularly. Canon do things just as well though and you can stare at 100% crops all day if you want, or charts on various websites which argue about how much a few percent really mean in real world performance; or you could just go out with your 7D and actually take photos, practise the art, learn the cameras pros and cons and master it.

 

[An Exception]

The 7D noise is better than the 40D I used to own and I used the 40D up to ISO1250-1600 for usable shots with light NR applied. What kind of ISOs are people using to be let down by noise on the 7D?

Technically your right, the 7d has better ISO. However the difference is less than a quarter of a stop.. i.e. basically no difference. Also, ISO 1600 is hardly 'high' these days. I quite happily shoot all the way to an effective 25600 (ISO 12800 but metered to the left a stop). Also the trouble with a strong AA filter, is you need to add sharpening. Guess what happens to noise when you add sharpening?

Also does the 40D suffer the weird banding issues like the 7d?
I don't know exactly what causes it. Some say it's due to the sensor itself, some say it's due to the dual processors.
Personally I think it's probably a bit of both. Off chip ADC's add noise, and the dual processor are likely responsible for some of the pinstripe phenomena. At least that's my guess...

 

[An Exception]

The D7000 isn't any better for that either, so unless you want to shoot JPEG to maintain the speed, I wouldn't bother.

D7000 doesn't slow down with 14bit raws. Stick in a fast SD card, use lossless compressed, and you shouldn't be limited by the buffer too much.

Canon do things just as well though and you can stare at 100% crops all day if you want, or charts on various websites which argue about how much a few percent really mean in real world performance; or you could just go out with your 7D and actually take photos, practise the art, learn the cameras pros and cons and master it.

Your probably not going to be too discerning on IQ if you only view them on a 11 or 13" macbook air. Plug in a high-res 27" or 30"er, and suddenly you don't have to view 100% crops to see the flaws.

 

[James J]

But none of us know whats actually wrong with his 7D, if anything. It sounds more like the OP wants to jump ship and is making up an excuse for doing it rather than moving due to an issue. Like I said, I'd get the camera and lenses checked out before jumping the gun and splashing the cash on a completely different system.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
Agreed, for some reason I was getting confused with this thread.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18473300

Op really should be able to post an example raw, and perform some basic focus tests to make sure camera is functioning to spec.

 

[D.P.]

If you want to shoot birds, especially the smaller ones are birds of prey at distance, I'd stick with the 7D. Canon have a range of lenses that nikon don't, such as the 400mm F5.6 prime, which is far cheaper than the nikon versions which are faster but have over 3x the price tag. I've owned a D300s and the ISO performance above 800 just isn't good enough for wildlife. The FPS is also crippled when you want to shoot 14bit RAW files, as it slows to 2.5fps even with the grip. The D7000 isn't any better for that either, so unless you want to shoot JPEG to maintain the speed, I wouldn't bother.

Personally I'd look into whats "wrong" with your camera and perhaps send it into fixation to have it cleaned and calibrated with your lenses. Might be something daft like a back/foward focus issue giving you soft images with your lenses.

You'll also need a fair chunk of cash to replace your lenses with the nikon equivalents, making it a very dodgy decision from a financial point of view. I'm a nikon shooter as I much prefer the shape of the body in my hand and how easy it is to use for what I shoot regularly. Canon do things just as well though and you can stare at 100% crops all day if you want, or charts on various websites which argue about how much a few percent really mean in real world performance; or you could just go out with your 7D and actually take photos, practise the art, learn the cameras pros and cons and master it.

Nikon 300mm f/4.0 + 1.4TC gives a wonderful 420mm f/5.6, but could do with faster AF when used with the TC on low end bodies when throwing the entire focal range. What would be nicer than a 400mm f/5.6 would be a 400mm f/4.0 so it can work well with TCs to give a very usable 560mm f/5.6 and a just about usable 800mm f/8 (which will AF on modern Nikon bodies).

14 bits on the D300 is also pointless as it is almost impossible to measure the IQ differences compared with 12 bits. On the D7k and D800 there is a more measurable difference when shadows are pushed to high levels. This makes sense, the sensor in the D300/D90 has a dynamic range of 12 stops, the D7k and D800 have a DR of 14 stops.

 

[James J]

Nikon don't make a 400mm F4 lens so what are you even on about? If you edit RAW files with complex presets (as I do as I spent months making a few of them), the 14 bit RAW are far better than 12 bit to edit on a D300s. I know this because I've owned one.

I'll still stick by what I said previously, were the OP should have the camera looked at before jumping ship. Its not a small move at all and in his position, not a wise move either from a birding point of view.