Nikon D7000 vs Canon 7D for action shots

[Brownbear]

I'm still researching upgrading my camera(s). I believe my Sony Alpha 200 DSLR has had it because the display screen is permanently black (I used to be able to fix this by turning the camera off, changing lens etc) Also many of the control dials and buttons have ceased to function, and repairs are becoming too expensive.

I also have a Nikon D80 which I am fine with, except for challenges with focusing fast enough on birds in flight, usually in low light and noise at high isos.

So I am still thinking, and still researching upgrading my Nikon D80 to a Nikon D7000, but I also have the option of buying a used Canon 7D for which I could buy a quality long lens, in which case I would use the Canon 7D for birds in flight and my Nikon D80 for everything else for the next couple of years while I continue to learn. (happy with it for other shots)

I like having two cameras on hand, so I don't have to change lens if I see something else of interest.. It's handy and right now I am not worried about later when I start upgrading lens.



In researching the Canon 7D vs Nikon 7000

It seems to me that the Canon 7D is great for photographing birds in flight because it focuses fast and grabs focus... That said in comparing the specs (see below) it seems that the Nikon D7000 is better all around.. In image quality, dynamic range, colour, larger sensor, slightly less noise.. Yet somehow it seems that the Canon 7D with a quality long lens would be a better fit for my specific needs... ie birds in flight in low light... actually any nature shot, with a preference for action shots.

Is this the case?







Thank you

[hoffstriker]

I've shot both for action (sports mainly) and there is absolutely no comparison here. The 7D is way better for action hands down. That being said, every first photo with the 7d in Servo will be out of focus typically. It then locks on and you will see 95% keepers. BUT, you already are a Nikon shooter and the D7000 is a great camera and will still produce wonderful images, so why would you want to go two different directions with your outfit? Why not just stick with what you are used to and slowly build-up until you can afford a fast Nikon? You may lose a few images, but you will be able to condense your gear purchases and by better and better equipment. And you will still have plenty to show for your hard work so long as you invest the correct amount of time in perfecting your craft.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Chris.

It is partly because I'm impatient to be able to shoot birds in flight, etc with greater ease, sooner rather than later. A photographer friend has offered to sell me his Canon 7D for which I could buy a long quality lens. It's in great condition and affordable.

It is also because I'm thinking that one day, I may wish to upgrade to a full frame dslr. If I upgrade to a Nikon D7000, invest in quality long lens, and then one day, a few years from now I decide to upgrade to a full frame Nikon, none of the new lens will work with it.

Also I don't know where I will be with my photography in a few years, and which camera I prefer. Reading all the reviews is confusing and it may take me a couple of years to read them all so I can make an informed decision. For example this review said the Nikon provided a better image quality than the Canon and that worries me...

At this time, I don't know enough about what I want or which camera brand I prefer and it may take me a while to know. However, it seems like all the reviews state that Canon 7D shoots and focuses faster which fits what I need now. And the long lens for the Nikon that I've seen are more expensive than the long Canon lens.

This way, I could enjoy the best of both worlds until I figure out which I prefer. As well, it happens quite frequently when I'm photographing birds or something close up with a long lens, I will see another shot that I would like to take that needs a wider lens. So having two cameras provides more flexibility and less chance that I will miss a shot. (and less chance of dust on my sensor from changing lens outside)

I'm happy with my Nikon D80 for all my other shots and it will stand me in good stead for a while. I bought it used, and my lens for this camera are also used and so/so. I figure if and when the day comes that I wish to upgrade to a full frame Nikon DSLR that would be the time to upgrade my lens..

[Mike Buckley]

It is also because I'm thinking that one day, I may wish to upgrade to a full frame dslr. If I upgrade to a Nikon D7000, invest in quality long lens, and then one day, a few years from now I decide to upgrade to a full frame Nikon, none of the new lens will work with it.

For the record, lenses designed for use on a full-frame camera will function properly on a D7000. You could plan your purchases with the eventual use of a full-frame camera in mind.

You're correct that some lenses are specifically designed for use only with a crop-factor camera such as the D7000. Those lenses will not function properly on a full-frame camera.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike. I was not aware of this. Very helpful to know

[mknittle]

Remember that when buying full frame lenses you get a crop factor of 1.6 on the d7000 So a 200mm lens will be a 320mm and so on. Kinda cool gain on the telephoto end

[Brownbear]

Dear MKnittle,

I'm just learning the difference between cropped lens and full frame lens and I am not sure I quite understand what you are trying to tell me. Is it that if I upgrade to a D7000 and use a full frame lens on it, I will benefit from having a longer lens?

Thank you.

Remember that when buying full frame lenses you get a crop factor of 1.6 on the d7000 So a 200mm lens will be a 320mm and so on. Kinda cool gain on the telephoto end

[pnodrog]

Christina, Nikon full frame Digital SLRs are compatible with just about any Nikon lens made since 1959. Some of the earlier lenses need to be modified but as far as I know all Nikon auto focus lenses are fully compatible. BUT a DX lens will not cover the full frame area and will be soft and suffer vignetting in the area of the sensor that is larger than the DX format. With the current FF models you can chose whether to shoot full frame with a DX lens and crop as you like or have the camera automatically drop down to its DX mode and get the 1.5X effective focal length. One of Nikons objectives over the years has been to maintain the highest possible lens compatibility with its premium range cameras and they have managed to do this better than any other SLR manufacturer.

Note: When I say fully compatible you are still restricted to the functions that were built into the lens. See link below if you want to check functions available for a specific lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

[Andrew76]

Christina, MKnittle's comment is not entirely true, at least for a Canon. The sensor size is what affects the crop factor. If you are not using a full frame camera (a camera who's sensor is approximately the size of a 35mm film frame), you generally have a sensor that is smaller than that. As is the case with a Nikon D7000, and a Canon 7D. Regardless of what lens you put on it. For example, the Canon 7D has a crop factor of 1.6. So, when you attach a 100mm lens, you actually get the 35mm equivalent of 160mm.

As Mknittle points out, on the telephoto end, it can be an asset. But, for wide angle, you always have to remember, you are not getting as wide as you may think.

Does that help at all?

[Brownbear]

Thank you L Paul. Great info to know. I'm glad that I posted this. It sounds like it's a workable plan if I upgraded to the D7000 and bought full frame lens.

The link is also helpful. Thank you.

Christina, Nikon full frame Digital SLRs are compatible with just about any Nikon lens made since 1959. Some of the earlier lenses need to be modified but as far as I know all Nikon auto focus lenses are fully compatible. BUT a DX lens will not cover the full frame area and will be soft and suffer vignetting in the area of the sensor that is larger than the DX format. With the current FF models you can chose whether to shoot full frame with a DX lens and crop as you like or have the camera automatically drop down to its DX mode and get the 1.5X effective focal length. One of Nikons objectives over the years has been to maintain the highest possible lens compatibility with its premium range cameras and they have managed to do this better than any other SLR manufacturer.

Note: When I say fully compatible you are still restricted to the functions that were built into the lens. See link below if you want to check functions available for a specific lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

[rpcrowe]

Dear MKnittle,

I'm just learning the difference between cropped lens and full frame lens and I am not sure I quite understand what you are trying to tell me. Is it that if I upgrade to a D7000 and use a full frame lens on it, I will benefit from having a longer lens?

Thank you.

The crop factor does not change the focal length of a lens. Maybe this illustration can explain crop vs. full frame better than I can...



You will notice that the image size of the mountain is the same whether you are shooting full frame or crop. The difference between the two is that you would cover more area with the full frame camera than you would with a crop camera.

BTW: The Canon 1.6x crop is close enough to the Nikon 1.5x crop to consider the two formats just about equal. The 1.3x crop is a proprietary Canon crop for some of their 1D cameras...

One of the best birds in flight (BIF) lenses is the Canon 400mm f/5.6L. Although it is not equipped with image stabilization, the lens is quite sharp even wide open and the auto focus is accurate and fast! IMO, the combination of 400mm f/5.6L lens and Canon 7D camera is one of the best BIF combos in digital land...

BTW: I cannot speak for the AF capability of the Nikon D7000 but, the AF of the Canon 7D is absoltely mind boggling!

[Brownbear]

Andrew, thank you for advising on the details and the further clarification.

I understand that with a full frame dslr one receives a larger field of view. I think I understand your statement that when using a full frame lens on a cropped frame dslr... I will receive a wider field of view but not be as wide as if the camera was also full frame?

I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around the concept in reverse. When I think of telephoto, I think of being able to zoom in closer to the subject, ie shooting the moon with a 400 mm lens being equivalent to a 500 mm lens. However, I don't understand what the larger sensor has to do with this? I may just need to think on it for a day or two for it to sink in.

Very helpful indeed. Thank you.

[Brownbear]

Thank you, Richard.

Yes, the image is very helpful... In terms of McKnittle's comment when speaking of a telephoto effect, I think I now understand that it simply means that it means it looks like one zoomed in on the scenery for a close up?

Thank you for sharing. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens is the one I am looking at if I go with the Canon 7D. I've read the reviews and they sound terrific. It is expensive, but far less expensive than the Nikkor 200-400 or Nikkor 400 mm lens.

[mknittle]

Thanks for the clarification guys!

[mknittle]

I just picked up a 7D last weekend and love it!

[Manfred M]

The Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens is the one I am looking at if I go with the Canon 7D. I've read the reviews and they sound terrific. It is expensive, but far less expensive than the Nikkor 200-400 or Nikkor 400 mm lens.

There is an old saying; you get what you pay for...

The Canon 400mm f/5.6 does not appear to be image stabilized, so unless you are planning to do the bulk of your shooting in well lit areas or use a tripod, this would not be a lens I would look at to hand hold with any degree of success. You are looking at the equivalent of a 640mm full frame lens on the 7D!

The best deals for a long lens is likely the Sigma f4.5 - 5.6 120-400mm or the Sigma f/5 - 6.3 150-500mm, both of which are image stabilized; these are available in Canon and Nikon (and other) mounts. While I am not a Sigma fan, others are quite happy with their lenses. It won't have the build quality of the Canon (or Nikon), but may be a better option for you if cost is the primary driver.

This is an image (hand held) with the Sigma 150-500mm at 500mm focal length taken on my Nikon D800.

[Brownbear]

There is an old saying; you get what you pay for... Yes, I'm all too familiar with this saying (:

Yes, I've read that the Canon 5.6 does not have image stabilization. I think I've also read that it is very light and easy to maneuver but of course IS would be better.

I will look into all of them. This planned step up for my camera is a challenging decision.

Thank you everyone sharing great information and tips.

PS An absolutely amazing shot. Thank you for sharing.

[inkista]

The Canon 400mm f/5.6 does not appear to be image stabilized, so unless you are planning to do the bulk of your shooting in well lit areas or use a tripod, this would not be a lens I would look at to hand hold with any degree of success. You are looking at the equivalent of a 640mm full frame lens on the 7D!...

I shoot with a 400/5.6L on crop-body Canons and never really had too much of an issue with handholding for birds in flight because I'm typically going to be up in the 1/1000s region anyway to "freeze" action, and because I live in Southern California where the sunlight tends to be plentiful most of the year 'round. You'll find most of the birding photographers in the US who swear by this lens are in California or Florida.


White-tailed Kite. Oct. 13, 2012. 4:43pm.
Canon 50D. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. iso 400, f/5.6, 1/2500s. Handheld.

In this situation, IS isn't a huge advantage: my shutter speed is already well above 1/focal_length. In a zoo situation, though, I'd rather have an IS lens. But I bring a monopod along, which performs as well as IS, and has the added bonus of being usable with ALL my lenses and a lot less expensive.


Western Rueppell's Vulture
Canon XT/350D. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. monopod. iso 400, f/5.6, 1/250s.

The 100-400L IS USM or the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4x tc are probably the stabilized alternatives to look at in the Canon lineup if the 400/5.6L isn't going to cut the mustard and you routinely need longer shutter speeds. But the AF performance isn't quite as fast as the 400/5.6L prime. And zooms tend not to take extenders as well as primes (70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II excepted). And you do still have the Sigma alternatives.

The difference on the Nikon side of the fence is that they have no analog to the 400/5.6L prime, and the 80-400 VR is NOT AF-S. It's still AF (analogous to a non-USM lens), and it may not autofocus fast enough, which is why Nikon shooters on a $1000-$1500 budget are more or less forced to look at the longer Sigma HSM (USM) OS (IS) alternatives: the 120-400, 150-500 and 50-500.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Kathy.. Great info. Thank you for sharing.

PS I love your photos.

[Manfred M]

You'll find most of the birding photographers in the US who swear by this lens are in California or Florida.

That does not bode well for a Vancouver photographer, at least from the end of October through well into March...