Tell me why: D300s / 7D

[Derrel]

Well, you currently shoot Nikon, so you might as well stick with them. You'll have the superior controls and ergonomics Nikon has, with the almost-invisible continuity between the semi-pro Nikon odies and the top pro level bodies. A Nikon D300 is a D700 is a D3s or D3x; Canon uses two sets of ergonomics and controls. Nikon's semi-pro D200 and D300 have been "almost exactly: like the pro bodies, where Canon has decidedly different controls on the 1-series and the mid-level. Nikon has had a pro-capable D300 since 2007. Nikon also has two nice full-frame "pro" sports/PJ/generalist d-slr bodies in the D700 and the D3s. Canon has one pro-level full-frame body, the 1Ds Mark IV, which is slower in framing rate and very expensive. The Nikon D700 is about half the price of a Nikon D3s, or a little more than half of the price of the Canon 1Ds-III. Nikon has a perfected CLS multi-flash system: the one in the 7D is not working out so well, but then, it's Canon's first-ever camera with a built-in multi-flash commander, something Nikon's been offering for several generations of cameras now.

For PJ work, many of the high-end people have switched to Nikon D3 systems.. people like Robert Hanashiro at USA Today, as well as many SPorts Illustrated guys let Canon over the 1D-III autofocusing fiasco, and also because, well, a full-frame d-slr has a HUGE viewfinder image compared with a crop-body camera. Canon lost the lead in the spots/PJ market once the D3 came out, primarily because a full-frame sensor offers better high-ISO performance, a larger viewfinder, and more "coverage" on high-speed prime lenses like your 300/2.8.

The way I see it, Nikon has three pro-capable bodies: D300s with video and improved High-ISO, the D3s with vastly improved High-ISO (the industry leader most would say), and the D700. All three offer similar AF performance, although the D700 recently passed a rigorous,highly technical test done by Marianne Oelund, and the D700 and D3 are the AF speed champs. Canon has the 7D--new and untested so far, and the 1D series--nothing in-between with pro quality body capabilities. Nikon has the D700, which is an area Canon is not competitive in. The D700-D3 series 51-point AF is color-aware,and does better at AF focus tracking than the 1D-III Canon, which has a long,checkered A problem list. (Check Robgalbraith.com)

Back to long lenses: I like Nikon's new D3s with the Full Frame, plus the 1.2x 8 MP option, plus the 1.5x DX option, all in one body. As you know,in credentialled shooting, you are often very close to the action; a 300mm lens on 1.5x or 1.6x is often far too narrow a field of view,and all you get is chopped-off feet. Your 300/2.8 is going to be a bread and butter lens, as will be your 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses. Nikon's 300/2.8 VR, 24-70,and new 70-200 VR-II are superb designs. Canon;s L-glass lenses, some are fabulous, some not really so--check around on the 50/1.2L and read four or five reviews--that lens disappoints most reviewers when the results are carefully scrutinized.

I don't know how you feel about switching from Nikon to Canon: I have seen the pendulum swing multiple times now. Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, and now Nikon is in ascendency again. THe guys who shoot many AP assignments and newspaper guys using pool gear are till using Canon systems purchased in the 2005 buying cycle. Those who can afford to have, in many cases, switched to Nikon simply for the full-frame advantages, plus the 200-400 VR zoom which no other system has. Newspapers that had a 2007 or 2008 buying cycle have,in many cases, gone to the new Nikon D700-D3-D300 option of three capable professional bodies + the best flash system.
Canon let the lower-end pros "hang" for multiple years with the 30D-40D-50D when Nikon was stealing the lower-level pros away with the D200 then the D300; Canon refused to put a professionally capable AF system into its bodies from 2003 to october of 2009: Nikon realized that people who need "two" pro bodies could buy two D300 bodies or two D700 bodies, for the price of one Canon 1D-III, and that's kind of why Nikon stole so many new sales away in the 2007-2008-2009 buying cycles.

Canon L-glass. I own a few L-lenses. Not much different than Nikons ED glass f/2.8 lenses,really. The choice was VERY clear until the 1D-III came out-Canon all the way,body wise. But now, Nikon has passed Canon with the 2 full-frame "speed" bodies with pro-AF, and the D300s for the 1.5x crowd. Of course, if you feel like going to Canon because of what you see being shot next to you, realize much of that is "pool gear", bought in 2005 or 2006...it's almost 2010 now. If it were me, I'd look very seriously at the D700 as my body of choice for PJ/sports on a budget.

 

[chip]

Either one will do the trick but I'd go with the D300s. I have read some bad reviews on the 7D. I do agree that if you can afford a D700 that would even be better!

 

[inTempus]

Also keep in mind if you get a 7D with non FX lenses, and later upgrade to a FX camera, those lenses wont work.

He's talking about buying L lenses and not EF-S lenses. All L lenses are EF.

 

[inTempus]

Canon keeps the 1.3x crop body around because it's popular with PJ's and other people who want to maximize the "reach" of their lenses. Very few people who use the 1D's 1.3x sensor hate it, most actually prefer it over full-frame as it's a nice compromise between 1.6x crop and full frame...

The D3 has become popular, no doubt, but the 1D isn't dead by any means. It's a hugely popular body, and with the 1D4 due out next month, the pendulum may just swing the other way for the next few years. High ISO isn't just the domain of the D3 anymore, the 1D4 promises 102400 ISO, just as the D3S does. Also, the 1D4 has 45 cross-type sensors vs. the D3S's 15. The AF system on the 1D4 promises to be the best AF system on the market, something very attractive to sports shooters and PJ's.

But then the OP isn't asking about $5k bodies, he's looking at a D300S and a 7D. They are pretty evenly matched with the exception that 7D presumably has superior HD video capabilities which the OP seems to be interested in. I would hazard a guess and say the D300S has a slightly superior AF and metering system.

Given the choice right now, if I didn't have a major investment in one system already, I would probably go with the D300S. I really don't care that some Nikon lenses are 25% or more - more expensive, I can afford them if I want them. For me the 51 point AF system with a tried and true 3D color metering system plus the ability to shoot both to CF card and SD cards simultaneously with the D300S are the clinchers. I don't give a hoot about the video, I have it with my 5D2 and never use it.

 

[DScience]

Well, you currently shoot Nikon, so you might as well stick with them. You'll have the superior controls and ergonomics Nikon has, with the almost-invisible continuity between the semi-pro Nikon odies and the top pro level bodies. A Nikon D300 is a D700 is a D3s or D3x; Canon uses two sets of ergonomics and controls. Nikon's semi-pro D200 and D300 have been "almost exactly: like the pro bodies, where Canon has decidedly different controls on the 1-series and the mid-level. Nikon has had a pro-capable D300 since 2007. Nikon also has two nice full-frame "pro" sports/PJ/generalist d-slr bodies in the D700 and the D3s. Canon has one pro-level full-frame body, the 1Ds Mark IV, which is slower in framing rate and very expensive. The Nikon D700 is about half the price of a Nikon D3s, or a little more than half of the price of the Canon 1Ds-III. Nikon has a perfected CLS multi-flash system: the one in the 7D is not working out so well, but then, it's Canon's first-ever camera with a built-in multi-flash commander, something Nikon's been offering for several generations of cameras now.

For PJ work, many of the high-end people have switched to Nikon D3 systems.. people like Robert Hanashiro at USA Today, as well as many SPorts Illustrated guys let Canon over the 1D-III autofocusing fiasco, and also because, well, a full-frame d-slr has a HUGE viewfinder image compared with a crop-body camera. Canon lost the lead in the spots/PJ market once the D3 came out, primarily because a full-frame sensor offers better high-ISO performance, a larger viewfinder, and more "coverage" on high-speed prime lenses like your 300/2.8.

The way I see it, Nikon has three pro-capable bodies: D300s with video and improved High-ISO, the D3s with vastly improved High-ISO (the industry leader most would say), and the D700. All three offer similar AF performance, although the D700 recently passed a rigorous,highly technical test done by Marianne Oelund, and the D700 and D3 are the AF speed champs. Canon has the 7D--new and untested so far, and the 1D series--nothing in-between with pro quality body capabilities. Nikon has the D700, which is an area Canon is not competitive in. The D700-D3 series 51-point AF is color-aware,and does better at AF focus tracking than the 1D-III Canon, which has a long,checkered A problem list. (Check Robgalbraith.com)

Back to long lenses: I like Nikon's new D3s with the Full Frame, plus the 1.2x 8 MP option, plus the 1.5x DX option, all in one body. As you know,in credentialled shooting, you are often very close to the action; a 300mm lens on 1.5x or 1.6x is often far too narrow a field of view,and all you get is chopped-off feet. Your 300/2.8 is going to be a bread and butter lens, as will be your 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses. Nikon's 300/2.8 VR, 24-70,and new 70-200 VR-II are superb designs. Canon;s L-glass lenses, some are fabulous, some not really so--check around on the 50/1.2L and read four or five reviews--that lens disappoints most reviewers when the results are carefully scrutinized.

I don't know how you feel about switching from Nikon to Canon: I have seen the pendulum swing multiple times now. Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, and now Nikon is in ascendency again. THe guys who shoot many AP assignments and newspaper guys using pool gear are till using Canon systems purchased in the 2005 buying cycle. Those who can afford to have, in many cases, switched to Nikon simply for the full-frame advantages, plus the 200-400 VR zoom which no other system has. Newspapers that had a 2007 or 2008 buying cycle have,in many cases, gone to the new Nikon D700-D3-D300 option of three capable professional bodies + the best flash system.
Canon let the lower-end pros "hang" for multiple years with the 30D-40D-50D when Nikon was stealing the lower-level pros away with the D200 then the D300; Canon refused to put a professionally capable AF system into its bodies from 2003 to october of 2009: Nikon realized that people who need "two" pro bodies could buy two D300 bodies or two D700 bodies, for the price of one Canon 1D-III, and that's kind of why Nikon stole so many new sales away in the 2007-2008-2009 buying cycles.

Canon L-glass. I own a few L-lenses. Not much different than Nikons ED glass f/2.8 lenses,really. The choice was VERY clear until the 1D-III came out-Canon all the way,body wise. But now, Nikon has passed Canon with the 2 full-frame "speed" bodies with pro-AF, and the D300s for the 1.5x crowd. Of course, if you feel like going to Canon because of what you see being shot next to you, realize much of that is "pool gear", bought in 2005 or 2006...it's almost 2010 now. If it were me, I'd look very seriously at the D700 as my body of choice for PJ/sports on a budget.

This post makes me want a Nikon tattoo. :blushing:

 

[Sam6644]

I thought the Canon 5D was full frame and is priced competitively with the Nikon D700, between the new 7D and 1D.

I could be wrong, I've honesty never looked into Canon bodies until the 7D came around.

Early reviews I read for it were skeptical, but they were on on pre-production prototypes. Since the official release, almost every review I've read for the 7D has been raving about it and even in some case (I believe Popular Photography magazine) said the 7D will "Change the way you think about the APS-C format."

I shot with a Nikon D300, not S, the other day and had no problem switching between it, a D90, and a D50.

Another question I have would be, if the D90 and D300s have the same sensor, why should I spend the extra money on a D300s when all it really has to offer is a more pro body and some extra features? In my mind, the D300s doesnt offer any REAL reason to spend the extra money, since I can theoretically (and technically) get the same images from both cameras? Better focusing, some extra buttons, better construction, really worth the extra money?

 

[Derrel]

I thought the Canon 5D was full frame and is priced competitively with the Nikon D700, between the new 7D and 1D.

I could be wrong, I've honesty never looked into Canon bodies until the 7D came around.

Early reviews I read for it were skeptical, but they were on on pre-production prototypes. Since the official release, almost every review I've read for the 7D has been raving about it and even in some case (I believe Popular Photography magazine) said the 7D will "Change the way you think about the APS-C format."

I shot with a Nikon D300, not S, the other day and had no problem switching between it, a D90, and a D50.

Another question I have would be, if the D90 and D300s have the same sensor, why should I spend the extra money on a D300s when all it really has to offer is a more pro body and some extra features? In my mind, the D300s doesnt offer any REAL reason to spend the extra money, since I can theoretically (and technically) get the same images from both cameras? Better focusing, some extra buttons, better construction, really worth the extra money?

You're right--the 5D and 5D Mark II are full-frame bodies; but they are based on the roughly $350 film-era Elan 3 body design, according to a notable camera expert whose opinion I trust. I own a 5D, the 12.8 MP model--the autofocus is weak,and very centrally-located with a VERY tight, 9-point diamond array. The 5D-II is nowhere near comparable to a D700 body in focus, weathersealing, AF system, and the 5D-II lacks a built-in flash which serves as a multi-flash Commander. The 5D series are not "speed" cameras,and not built for action/PJ/sports work--not at ALL. The 5D series is a great sensor in a cheap body design that is quite old in its heritage. I have a 5D and really,really like its images. It has a great sensor. And FF.

The D90 has a simplified 11-area AF system. The D300 was updated to the D300s because better electronics and a slightly tweaked AF performance make the D300s better than the D300. The D300s has 51-point AF with 15 cross-type sensors and focus tracking: the D90 does not have those identical features.

Is professional-level autofocusing in a D300s worth the money over consumer-level autofocusing in a D90? What about two card slots in the D300s, so you can use a Wi-Fi-enabled SDHC Card and upload files wirelessly to your school's FTP server from the field, without a latptop--just swing by a WIFI hotspot. For "simple" shooting, simple AF systems are acceptable. When the conditions are difficult, the professional-level AF systems are worth their weight in your reputation. Do you want to compete with shooters using pro-level AF by using a D90?

Keep in mind, the 7D is Canon's *first* really serious effort at a class-leading semi-pro camera; Canon slightly neglected the semi-pro APS-C segment for almost five years with the 20-30-40-50D cameras; the 7D is their *first* effort to compete with the 2007 Nikon D300, which has been replaced by the D300s, with the slightly better AF algorithms, the second card slot, video capture, and better read electronics to keep noise lower, boosting high ISO capabilities a bit. So, Canon users, and Pop Photo writers, are pretty excited about the 7D, because it represents a more capable body than they 20D to 50D era cameras sold from 2003 to 2009. The 7D is Canon's first effort to make a real class-leading "semi-pro" or "pro-backup" body that does not cost $4,500. So, that *is* exciting!

Canon took all the things that were missing before, and made a semi-pro body with several Canon firsts: the built-in flash with remote commander, really high-speed shooting, a more-sophisticated AF system with 19 AF points,not 9, color-aware light metering like Nikon has had since the mid 1990's, and they have produced it at a very attractive $1700 price point.

No two ways about it--the Canon 7D is an exciting, newly-engineered camera for Canon. They've never had an APS-C camera with several of its features. Repeat: the Canon 7D is an exciting camera with new engineering!

Canon and Nikon have been producing different cameras for quite some time now. The D300 was a huge seller for Nikon,and a lot of Canon 40D owners were kind of dismayed. Keep in mind too, the D300s is a placeholder for the upcoming D400 body. Canon could not keep forcing consumers to accept the huge gulf between the 40D-50D and the 1-series: the D300 and D700 were angering Canon users who wanted pro-like features without the 1-series $4,500 price. Only you can make the decision for yourself. There are a lot of factors to consider. You definitely ought to try a 7D before buying one.

I regret how some of these recent Canon-Nikon-choosing threads have become all-out flame wars; I love cameras,and I love lenses, and I love photography. I enjoy discussing aspects of equipment much more than many people. I have a lot of opinions--but the only opinion that matters is YOURS.

 

[Sam6644]

Thanks man, I really appreciate all your input. It's the the best, least biased information I've been able to get from anyone, while still offering some fantastic information that I can tell is based on experience and not opinion or magazine reading.

Its decisions like this that make me understand why my photojournalism professor uses Leica M series and B&W 35mm exclusively.

 

[MrLogic]

Canon keeps the 1.3x crop body around because it's popular with PJ's and other people who want to maximize the "reach" of their lenses. Very few people who use the 1D's 1.3x sensor hate it, most actually prefer it over full-frame as it's a nice compromise between 1.6x crop and full frame...

How does a 1.3x crop body maximize the "reach" of a lens? The "reach" is exactly the same, except you get the bottom / top / sides of the image chopped off.

But if that's your thing (and you don't want to crop in Photoshop)... what's the advantage of a 1.3x crop body over a full frame body that has a similar pixel density and a 1.3x crop option?

Yes, FF file sizes would be far larger, given a similar pixel density. But a high frame rate shouldn't be an issue in 2009 / 2010. (Yes... I know the D3X and 1Ds Mk III are not lightning fast. But could they have been? Hell yes.)

 

[Sam6644]

Canon keeps the 1.3x crop body around because it's popular with PJ's and other people who want to maximize the "reach" of their lenses. Very few people who use the 1D's 1.3x sensor hate it, most actually prefer it over full-frame as it's a nice compromise between 1.6x crop and full frame...

How does a 1.3x crop body maximize the "reach" of a lens? The "reach" is exactly the same, except you get the bottom / top / sides of the image chopped off.

But if that's your thing (and you don't want to crop in Photoshop)... what's the advantage of a 1.3x crop body over a full frame body that has a similar pixel density and a 1.3x crop option?

Yes, FF file sizes would be far larger, given a similar pixel density. But a high frame rate shouldn't be an issue in 2009 / 2010. (Yes... I know the D3X and 1Ds Mk III are not lightning fast. But could they have been? Hell yes.)

a 1.3 crop factor means your focal length is multiplied by 1.3.

In essence, a 50mm lens when attached to a 1.3 crop sensor is actually closer to a 65mm lens.

A lot of photojournalists kinda dig the crop factor on APS-C cameras because you can get away with 200mm lenses a lot more often because you're really getting between 260 and 320mm depending on the crop factor of your camera and that comes in real handy on the long end of things.

It sucks when you're looking for something cheap, wide, and prime though.

 

[inTempus]

How does a 1.3x crop body maximize the "reach" of a lens? The "reach" is exactly the same, except you get the bottom / top / sides of the image chopped off.

All it's doing is cropping the image, but with an APS-C or APS-H sensor you have a higher pixel density, so you're putting more pixels on target. Cropping in Photoshop isn't the same as cropping in camera. There are novels written on the subject by birders and even sports photographers.

Here's an exmaple.

From the ariticle:
The crop factor is a huge bonus for anyone using telephoto lenses such as wildlife and sports photographers. Fitting a lens like Canon's EOS 70-200mm f2.8L IS on your 450D or 50D body is like shooting with a 112-320mm f2.8 image-stabilized zoom. Such a lens, if produced by Canon, would cost about the same as a small car!

But if that's your thing (and you don't want to crop in Photoshop)... what's the advantage of a 1.3x crop body over a full frame body that has a similar pixel density and a 1.3x crop option?

It's not "my thing", it's the "thing" of countless birders, sports shooters and PJ's. We can 'what if' a bunch of scenarios I suppose, but right now Nikon puts 12mp sensors in it's FF bodies with the exception of the DX3 which has 24mp.

The 16mp APS-H sensor of the 1D4 has a much higher pixel density than the 12mp full frame Nikon sensor. The Nikon system of being able to switch from the FX to the DX format isn't the same thing as having a higher pixel density crop sensor - it's all about pixel density. That is, unless you can devise a way to increase the pixel density when you switch to DX format.

Yes, FF file sizes would be far larger, given a similar pixel density. But a high frame rate shouldn't be an issue in 2009 / 2010. (Yes... I know the D3X and 1Ds Mk III are not lightning fast. But could they have been? Hell yes.)

So it's your contention that Nikon and Canon could make a full frame body for a reasonable price that shot faster than 9fps if they wanted to, but they're just sandbagging us?

I guess stranger things have happened.

The D3S can shoot 9fps at 12mp while the D3X can only shoot 5fps at 24mp. It would appear that one of the limiting factors of high continuous speeds is the file size. The other is the mirror box. As long as we have a mirror in there (kind of key to the whole SLR concept) we're going to be somewhat limited in speed.

I agree, I would rather have a FF body that shot 10fps. I believe FF is the way of the future but right now technology just isn't there yet to give us 24mp at 10fps. So we make compromises.

 

[MrLogic]

Didn't I mention "pixel density" in my post? Yes -- "it" is all about pixel density (and speed). I'm just talking about "reach," of course. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

So it's your contention that Nikon and Canon could make a full frame body for a reasonable price that shot faster than 9fps if they wanted to, but they're just sandbagging us?

That's what I was told. Have these "knowledgeable" people been lying to me?

(Point taken.)

a 1.3 crop factor means your focal length is multiplied by 1.3.

In essence, a 50mm lens when attached to a 1.3 crop sensor is actually closer to a 65mm lens.

The "equivalent" focal length (FF) is 65mm, yes. The real focal length is still 50mm, though. All it's doing is cropping the image, like inTempus said.

In essence, a camera with a higher pixel density gives you extra "reach," not a crop factor. A Nikon D3X (FF) gives you more "reach" than a Canon 1D Mk III (APS-H), or a Nikon D70 (APS-C), for example. (Yes, you have to crop it in Photoshop, and yes, a D3X is not really suited for action photography. But the point stands.)

 

[inTempus]

Actually, the D3X has a pixel pitch of 5.9 µm.

The 7D has a pixel pitch of 4.3µm.

Even the 50D has a pixel pitch of 4.7 µm.

The 1D4 has a pixel pitch of 5.7µm.

That means that even the D3X with it's 24mp sensor doesn't have the same pixel density as either the 7D or the 50D (or even the 1D4 really). So, when shooting at birds and going for those long distance tight shots, the 7D and 50D are still better for those types of shots in the eyes of birders and sports shooters. The 1D4 doesn't have quite the advantage its little brothers do, but what it does have is a modest pixel density (comparable to the D3X's) with a very fast continuous mode (10fps).

 

[Village Idiot]

Also keep in mind if you get a 7D with non FX lenses, and later upgrade to a FX camera, those lenses wont work.

Canon goes by mount and not format. There's no such thing as an FX Canon lens, just EF-S mount and EF mount.

That being said, there's only 6-7 lenses out of the 60+ in the Canon line up that are EF-S mount, which is their APS-C specific mount. Only maybe 2 of them are worth purchasing if you're using a 7D and those two hold their value very well.

 

[MrLogic]

Actually, the D3X has a pixel pitch of 5.9 µm.

The 7D has a pixel pitch of 4.3µm.

Even the 50D has a pixel pitch of 4.7 µm.

The 1D4 has a pixel pitch of 5.7µm.

That means that even the D3X with it's 24mp sensor doesn't have the same pixel density as either the 7D or the 50D (or even the 1D4 really). So, when shooting at birds and going for those long distance tight shots, the 7D and 50D are still better for those types of shots in the eyes of birders and sports shooters. The 1D4 doesn't have quite the advantage its little brothers do, but what it does have is a modest pixel density (comparable to the D3X's) with a very fast continuous mode (10fps).

Actually... what? I never claimed otherwise.

I never said that the D3X had a higher pixel density than the 50D, let alone the 7D. Hell, it doesn't even have the pixel density of the 40D (though it comes close).

I also said that the D3X is not suited for action photography (while the 1D III obviously is)

Just that the 1D III doesn't have as much "reach" as the D3X.