Canon D7 M2 or Nikon D7200

[MissWeniki]

• My husband and I are looking to purchase our first DSLR. Mainly to take pictures of family events, family portraits, kids games, recitals and travel. We also want to really take photography as a hobby (hey you never know where this will take us… maybe a side business to do family pictures, maternity pics and kids sessions.)
  
  With that being said we are looking at a few DSLRs (Canon 7D Mark ii and Nikon 7200, and now that you mention it maybe the Nikon 5500).
  
  My first choice would be the Canon 7d M2, because of its speed, but not sure how important 10fps is in what we want to do. We also like the auto focus for videos and crisp pictures. We like that it’s made of weatherproof material and I like the touch screen too. The dislikes are the lower megapixels, no wifi, and the weight, feels clunky.
  
  The NikonD 7200 would be a second close runner up. We like the way it felt when we held it, the greater megapixels, built in wifi and slightly lower price . We found that it did not have the same speed nor touchscreen, which we feel would make taking pictures easier.
  
  So what would be a great starter camera? We want to not only take great pics and video but have the opportunity to learn and as photographers. We want a camera that would be a great second camera should this hobby go anywhere.
  
  We also can’t decide if we want a Canon or Nikon. I’m partially bias to Canon… Why? Not sure, as I’ve seen great pictures taken with Nikon as well… But I realize we should make a choice now as we start. If we want to upgrade to a better camera later on, sticking to a brand will be more cost effective. Any tips on how to devise? Both seem to have pros and cons.
  

 

[jaomul]

Honestly unless you really need a 7d2 you don't need a 7 d2. Either a d,7200 or canons 70d would be my thoughts. I used a 7d2 the other day, I own a d7200. Both are great, 7d2 def more pro, but I don't think it's complexity is for everyone, a 70d is same image quality in a cheaper more user friendly package.

You know what they say about opinions

 

[robbins.photo]

Well unless your capturing very, very fast action a lot 10 FPS vrs 6 FPS probably won't be as big a deal as you might think. It might get you a shot or two that you may have missed otherwise. If you were doing a ton of photography where you were trying to capture high speed action this might be worth looking at, but really for most folks 6 FPS is more than adequate. I do some wildlife photography and honestly I've never needed more than that. As for megapixels, really the difference there will usually only matter if your doing a lot of cropping on your images, so if you don't need to crop so much you probably won't see a huge difference between 20 and 24 mp.

The 7d Mark II does have some advantages, but it is about $1400 wheras most 7200's run for less than $1000. If you are going to go that route I'd probably look at a used or refurbished Nikon D610 or D800 - both of which can be had for about what you'd pay for a 7d Mark II - and both of those are full frame cameras which will give you much better lowlight abilities.

So really if you want my opinion Canon/Nikon isn't really going to matter that much, what will make the biggest difference in the end results is learning how to use whatever equipment you ultimately buy. The end results will be based more on your skills rather than the equipment. Sure, better equipment makes some things easier, but when it's all said and done the linkage between the camera and the ground is the most important factor.

 

[MissWeniki]

Honestly unless you really need a 7d2 you don't need a 7 d2. Either a d,7200 or canons 70d would be my thoughts. I used a 7d2 the other day, I own a d7200. Both are great, 7d2 def more pro, but I don't think it's complexity is for everyone, a 70d is same image quality in a cheaper more user friendly package.

You know what they say about opinions

Thanks for the reply!

 

[goodguy]

First correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure the 7D II doesnt have a touch screen!
Its a very good camera but it really is designed to be a sports/wildlife camera.
If you are not a serious user for one of these 2 events then the one main capability of this camera is going to be wasted on you.
What you want is a general use camera and I think the D7200 is a better general use camera and is cheaper then the 7D II
The auto focus on the D7200 is not as comlex as the one on the 7D II but it is Nikon's current best AF system and its a darn good system, I have it on my D750 and its awesome, working in near to no light situation and is very accurate.
It has one big advantage over the 7D II and thats dynamic range, as far as I remember the only camera that has slightly better dynamic range is the D810 and that on to itself speaks volumes.
Low light capability of the 7D II and D7200 is about the same.
D7200 can shoot 6FPS or 7FPS in 1.3 crop mode, this really is more then enough for a general user.
I dont think the extra resolution of the D7200 is such a big deal but I guess its nice to have.
D7200 also has weather sealling and Nikon say its matches the D810 in that. Is the weather sealing on the 7D II better ?
I dont know but there is weather sealing on the D7200.

Overall I think for general use both cameras are extremly capable but due to the better dynamic range and lower price I think the D7200 is easily the better choice.

 

[beagle100]

a 70d is same image quality in a cheaper more user friendly package.
You know what they say about opinions

yes, the Canon 7D2 and other models have 'advanced' features but the older models still produce "crisp" pictures, --- image quality and the choice of lens are still important!

a old Canon 60D ....... only $400 (refurbished)

 

[Didereaux]

For the money, and what you said you wanted my suggestion would be a Canon 6D and a Canon 24-105mm l series lens. Tremendous low light capabilities, lightweight. We use a 6D and a 7D(10fps) for landscape, wildlife, sports and birds. Also with the 6D you get full frame and thus full value at the wide angles. The sensor is the same as the 5DmkIII but with a little more sensitivity. You will here gripes about its slow frame rate (4.5fps) and its few in number autofocus points...if you are not shooting for Nat'l Geo, or Sports Illustrated both are bogus complaints.

 

[Derrel]

For somebody in your position, I'd go with the D7200 over basically, ANY other manufacturer's APS-C sensor sized camera. Why? Simply put, significantly higher dynamic range, due to a better sensor, made by Sony. This gives the user more leeway in processing the raw files, and correcting for the single biggest actual problem faced in many situations: extreme lighting conditions which would be GREAT to shoot using fill-flash, buuuuuuut, but which are for one reason or another, actually shot in a less-than-optimal way, shot with no flash, and no supplementary lighting like reflected fill light.

For the newer shooters, like you and your husband, you're sacrificing several other shooting strengths the D7200 has in exchange for what the 7D-II offers. You'd be choosing an "action" and "speed" camera instead of a general-use camera that's geared to higher image quality, and wider dynamic range, and the ability to really "push" the raw files for exposure correction.

 

[MissWeniki]

Well unless your capturing very, very fast action a lot 10 FPS vrs 6 FPS probably won't be as big a deal as you might think. It might get you a shot or two that you may have missed otherwise. If you were doing a ton of photography where you were trying to capture high speed action this might be worth looking at, but really for most folks 6 FPS is more than adequate. I do some wildlife photography and honestly I've never needed more than that. As for megapixels, really the difference there will usually only matter if your doing a lot of cropping on your images, so if you don't need to crop so much you probably won't see a huge difference between 20 and 24 mp.

The 7d Mark II does have some advantages, but it is about $1400 wheras most 7200's run for less than $1000. If you are going to go that route I'd probably look at a used or refurbished Nikon D610 or D800 - both of which can be had for about what you'd pay for a 7d Mark II - and both of those are full frame cameras which will give you much better lowlight abilities.

So really if you want my opinion Canon/Nikon isn't really going to matter that much, what will make the biggest difference in the end results is learning how to use whatever equipment you ultimately buy. The end results will be based more on your skills rather than the equipment. Sure, better equipment makes some things easier, but when it's all said and done the linkage between the camera and the ground is the most important factor.

Well unless your capturing very, very fast action a lot 10 FPS vrs 6 FPS probably won't be as big a deal as you might think. It might get you a shot or two that you may have missed otherwise. If you were doing a ton of photography where you were trying to capture high speed action this might be worth looking at, but really for most folks 6 FPS is more than adequate. I do some wildlife photography and honestly I've never needed more than that. As for megapixels, really the difference there will usually only matter if your doing a lot of cropping on your images, so if you don't need to crop so much you probably won't see a huge difference between 20 and 24 mp.

The 7d Mark II does have some advantages, but it is about $1400 wheras most 7200's run for less than $1000. If you are going to go that route I'd probably look at a used or refurbished Nikon D610 or D800 - both of which can be had for about what you'd pay for a 7d Mark II - and both of those are full frame cameras which will give you much better lowlight abilities.

So really if you want my opinion Canon/Nikon isn't really going to matter that much, what will make the biggest difference in the end results is learning how to use whatever equipment you ultimately buy. The end results will be based more on your skills rather than the equipment. Sure, better equipment makes some things easier, but when it's all said and done the linkage between the camera and the ground is the most important factor.

Thanks for the reply!!!

 

[robbins.photo]

No problem, of the two camera systems I prefer the Nikon myself, I shoot a d7100 and have found it suits my needs very well.



Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk

 

[JacaRanda]

The 7dM2 does not have touchscreen.

Don't underestimate that you have already decided the 7dm2 feels clunky to you. Pretty important point if you are spending that kind of cashola.

 

[MissWeniki]

The 7dM2 does not have touchscreen.

Don't underestimate that you have already decided the 7dm2 feels clunky to you. Pretty important point if you are spending that kind of cashola.

Very true. Going back this week for the D7200

 

[robbins.photo]

The 7dM2 does not have touchscreen.

Don't underestimate that you have already decided the 7dm2 feels clunky to you. Pretty important point if you are spending that kind of cashola.

Very true. Going back this week for the D7200

I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed. I love my 7100, and from what I hear the 7200 includes some very nice improvements.

 

[jaomul]

D7200 is nice. I am biased so don't believe me