Nikon D7100 or Canon 70 D for birding/wildlife?

[HappyShotz]

I'm new to the forum, but I've been a photo bug for quite a few years. My main interests/subjects are birds and wildlife (some backyard, farms/ranches, some at state parks, open fields, lakes/water, etc.), as well as flowers, bugs, etc. I am not interested in people portraits, nor architecture. I am also not really interested in video capabilities.

I've done some research, watched videos, side-by-side comparisons, etc. and have narrowed it down to the Nikon D7100 and the Canon 70D. Both look like very good cameras, but what I haven't seen is anything indicating if one camera is actually more suited for birding/wildlife. I know Canon has more fps, larger buffer, while Nikon has a filter removed for sharp pictures, more focus points, and 6 fps with a slightly smaller buffer. I seriously doubt I'd use live view for the type of photography I do.

Can any of you wildlife/birding photographers give me some insight as to the suitability of either of these cameras for this type of shooting? Which one has better focus speed or capabilities, better image quality, less mechanical problems, etc?

I prefer not to go full frame b/c of cost and size. I am an avid amateur, not a professional.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm new to the forum, but I've been a photo bug for quite a few years. My main interests/subjects are birds and wildlife (some backyard, farms/ranches, some at state parks, open fields, lakes/water, etc.), as well as flowers, bugs, etc. I am not interested in people portraits, nor architecture. I am also not really interested in video capabilities.

I've done some research, watched videos, side-by-side comparisons, etc. and have narrowed it down to the Nikon D7100 and the Canon 70D. Both look like very good cameras, but what I haven't seen is anything indicating if one camera is actually more suited for birding/wildlife. I know Canon has more fps, larger buffer, while Nikon has a filter removed for sharp pictures, more focus points, and 6 fps with a slightly smaller buffer. I seriously doubt I'd use live view for the type of photography I do.

Can any of you wildlife/birding photographers give me some insight as to the suitability of either of these cameras for this type of shooting? Which one has better focus speed or capabilities, better image quality, less mechanical problems, etc?

I prefer not to go full frame b/c of cost and size. I am an avid amateur, not a professional.

Well I shoot a Nikon D5100 myself with a 70-300mm VR Nikon lens, at the bottom of this message you'll see a link to my Flickr photostream take a look at it for some samples of the type of image quality the Nikon can produce - the 7100 actually has a better sensor than my D5100 so the image quality will actually be better than mine. One of the things I've found makes a huge difference is the speed of your SD Card - I use a 64 gb Sandisk Extreme Pro that reads/writes at 95 mbs. As a result even though the camera has a smaller buffer the faster card allows it to keep up pretty well.

The 70d fires 7 frames per second as compared to the Nikon's 6, and does have a little bit larger buffer. The Nikon on the other hand has better image quality and dynamic range - the additional detail will allow you to crop and resize with better results, and in wildlife photography that can be a big consideration. Of the two I'd probably recommend the D7100, the two cameras are pretty comparable in most areas but for me I'd rather have the better image quality than slight bump in shooting speed. Just my preference of course, your mileage may vary. Honestly either camera would be very good for wildlife photography, big thing to consider really is the lens.

Here's a nice side by side breakdown of the two bodies, I find this can be helpful when comparing cameras: http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-70D-vs-Nikon-D7100

 

[HappyShotz]

Nice shots! Love how the birds are all so crisp and clear.

Is one quicker than the other in focusing? I tried them both at a Best Buy, and the Canon was much quicker to AF than the Nikon. The Nikon was very slow to focus, unless maybe something was wrong with it, as it was at Best Buy and I'm sure a lot of folks had been playing with the cameras.

 

[robbins.photo]

Nice shots! Love how the birds are all so crisp and clear.

Is one quicker than the other in focusing? I tried them both at a Best Buy, and the Canon was much quicker to AF than the Nikon. The Nikon was very slow to focus, unless maybe something was wrong with it, as it was at Best Buy and I'm sure a lot of folks had been playing with the cameras.

A lot of it will depend on the focus mode the camera is setup for - some modes are a whole lot faster than others. I generally use the AF-C (Autofocus Continuous) Mode and either Autofocus area (usually for smaller birds or critters that move pretty quick) or a lot of times Single Point for bigger, slower critters. I've found both are very fast as long as I have enough light, my lens is a bit of a limiting factor since it's max aperture is 4.5 - but in good to moderate lighting conditions it's still very zippy to focus. Generally when I press the shutter button to the halfway point the focus is so fast that it's ready to shoot before I am. This actually applies to both cameras of course, turn down the ISO and set it for a different focus mode and the Canon would be just as slow to autofocus. It's not so much the brand but rather the camera settings and lens that really make the difference in focusing speed.

 

[Juga]

Snapsort is a joke. With that being said I don't know about the Nikon D7100 but I was impressed with the 70D while using it as a second body. The AF was quick and very accurate. Also it handled high ISO very well despite what Snapsort says. As for the speed I didn't test it to see how many shots in a row I could get but I had no issue shooting in bursts of 5-6 shots without it slowing down with full RAW files. The question is really subjective...just do some good research and get a good feel for them hands on if you can.

 

[robbins.photo]

Snapsort is a joke. With that being said I don't know about the Nikon D7100 but I was impressed with the 70D while using it as a second body. The AF was quick and very accurate. Also it handled high ISO very well despite what Snapsort says. As for the speed I didn't test it to see how many shots in a row I could get but I had no issue shooting in bursts of 5-6 shots without it slowing down with full RAW files. The question is really subjective...just do some good research and get a good feel for them hands on if you can.

I don't pay much attention to their rating system but I do like the ability to look at the camera's stats side by side. If you have an alternative that gives you the same info side by side, by all means let us know.

 

[Derrel]

Compare cameras side by side - DxOMark

Here's a screen cap I made a few seconds ago.

You might also check out the "Epic Shootout" video between the D7100 and the 70D.

 

[Juga]

Snapsort is a joke. With that being said I don't know about the Nikon D7100 but I was impressed with the 70D while using it as a second body. The AF was quick and very accurate. Also it handled high ISO very well despite what Snapsort says. As for the speed I didn't test it to see how many shots in a row I could get but I had no issue shooting in bursts of 5-6 shots without it slowing down with full RAW files. The question is really subjective...just do some good research and get a good feel for them hands on if you can.

I don't pay much attention to their rating system but I do like the ability to look at the camera's stats side by side. If you have an alternative that gives you the same info side by side, by all means let us know.

CNET will often compare similar models. The problem I have with Snapsort is dynamic range, noise, etc. When I was researching to buy a full frame the 6D consistently performed better than the D600 at higher ISO which was the biggest factor for me. Seeing the stats side by side is nice but I don't like how they portray the stats.

 

[robbins.photo]

Snapsort is a joke. With that being said I don't know about the Nikon D7100 but I was impressed with the 70D while using it as a second body. The AF was quick and very accurate. Also it handled high ISO very well despite what Snapsort says. As for the speed I didn't test it to see how many shots in a row I could get but I had no issue shooting in bursts of 5-6 shots without it slowing down with full RAW files. The question is really subjective...just do some good research and get a good feel for them hands on if you can.

I don't pay much attention to their rating system but I do like the ability to look at the camera's stats side by side. If you have an alternative that gives you the same info side by side, by all means let us know.

CNET will often compare similar models. The problem I have with Snapsort is dynamic range, noise, etc. When I was researching to buy a full frame the 6D consistently performed better than the D600 at higher ISO which was the biggest factor for me. Seeing the stats side by side is nice but I don't like how they portray the stats.

I generally just look at the actual stats themselves without paying much attention to the commentary or rating systems on the subject. I generally use it for a quick comparison, I don't generally rely on them for in depth information.

 

[coastalconn]

Well I throw a few thoughts on the table. I shoot Nikon, but in the past three months I have shot a canon 7d, 70d and a 5dm3. On the Nikon side I have been shooting with a pair of D300s and I just picked up a D7100 and I have also shot with a D7000 and a D600 in the past month. So I have experience with both sides and I am a birder. Feel free to check my flickr..

First, which one felt best in your hands? Do you have any friends that shoot Nikon or Canon? I would still recommend the 7d over the 70d if your primary goal is birding. The construction feel more solid in my hands and it is also a fast and reliable camera. You can find them used/refurbished for less than the 70d. The 70d's big selling point is video and the on sensor video AF is very impressive indeed but it doesn't help you shooting stills through the viewfinder. The touchscreen is actually very good and quite handy on the 70D. The 70D also didn't introduce any huge leaps and bounds over the 7D sensor other than the on sensor AF. I personally do not like the ergonomics of Canon, but that is just me with shutter placement and I thought the menu system was more complicated than Nikons, but again that's just me.

I actually just got the D7100 this morning but it is very encouraging. I have been shooting with the D300 for the past 15 months and it is still a very good camera and awesome for wildlife, but the sensor is getting long in the tooth and comparing it to my preliminary results it shows in dynamic range and ISO performance. I felt the Nikon AF system actually tracks slightly better than the Canons did.

The truth of the matter is you can't really go wrong with any of the newer cameras or on a tight budget the D300 is still very viable.

The other thing you need to spend more time thinking about is glass. Canon makes a very good 400 F5.6 prime that is relatively cheap and is a go to lens for birds in the Canon lineup and I think you can pick them used in the 1-1.2K (US) range. I guess it all really depends on your budget. Bird photography ain't cheap as they say!

 

[Juga]

Well I throw a few thoughts on the table. I shoot Nikon, but in the past three months I have shot a canon 7d, 70d and a 5dm3. On the Nikon side I have been shooting with a pair of D300s and I just picked up a D7100 and I have also shot with a D7000 and a D600 in the past month. So I have experience with both sides and I am a birder. Feel free to check my flickr..

First, which one felt best in your hands? Do you have any friends that shoot Nikon or Canon? I would still recommend the 7d over the 70d if your primary goal is birding. The construction feel more solid in my hands and it is also a fast and reliable camera. You can find them used/refurbished for less than the 70d. The 70d's big selling point is video and the on sensor video AF is very impressive indeed but it doesn't help you shooting stills through the viewfinder. The touchscreen is actually very good and quite handy on the 70D. The 70D also didn't introduce any huge leaps and bounds over the 7D sensor other than the on sensor AF. I personally do not like the ergonomics of Canon, but that is just me with shutter placement and I thought the menu system was more complicated than Nikons, but again that's just me.

I actually just got the D7100 this morning but it is very encouraging. I have been shooting with the D300 for the past 15 months and it is still a very good camera and awesome for wildlife, but the sensor is getting long in the tooth and comparing it to my preliminary results it shows in dynamic range and ISO performance. I felt the Nikon AF system actually tracks slightly better than the Canons did.

The truth of the matter is you can't really go wrong with any of the newer cameras or on a tight budget the D300 is still very viable.

The other thing you need to spend more time thinking about is glass. Canon makes a very good 400 F5.6 prime that is relatively cheap and is a go to lens for birds in the Canon lineup and I think you can pick them used in the 1-1.2K (US) range. I guess it all really depends on your budget. Bird photography ain't cheap as they say!

I think if you drop the 'bird' the statement still applies.

OP, take coastalconn's word for it.

 

[lonewolfsx]

I'd go for the 7100 just by default because of the 51 point AF system. That'd be killer for tracking birds across the sky, the 19 of the canon won't be able to keep up with that for sure.

 

[Juga]

I'd go for the 7100 just by default because of the 51 point AF system. That'd be killer for tracking birds across the sky, the 19 of the canon won't be able to keep up with that for sure.

That is a bit critical...especially considering the Nikon has 15 cross type compared to 19 of the 70D. I haven't been birding but I would put money on the 70D being able to do the job.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'd have to agree with Coastalconn as well, really you can't go "wrong" with either camera. My preference is for the Nikon's, I've compared the images I can get from my D5100 with images from some of even the newer Canon's and I prefer the pictures I get with the D5100, but I guess you can do so much in post processing anymore that the differences are probably not as huge provided you shoot in raw. I'd also agree that the lenses are really something you need to think about carefully. As CoastalConn mentioned you can get a really good 400 mm for the Canon pretty inexpensively (well, inexpensive for a 400 mm).

That's the other nice part about the 7100 as well, since it has the built in autofocus motor you can use some of the older Nikon glass with it - you aren't limited to the newer AF-s Lenses with the built in autofocus motors. As a result you can get some really, really nice glass pretty cheap.

As far as autofocus systems is concerned either the 70d or the 71000 will most likely suit your needs just fine.

 

[goodguy]

I think you got most of the info already and I will not add anything if I will tell you both cameras will suit your needs.
Me personally I would go with the Nikon D7100, I think for pure stills photography it is the better tool.
You also have the 1.3 crop mode that will give you that extra reach if you need it, I found this very useful when I went shooting in the Toronto Air Show.
2 SD cards is a ncie bonus and the in body AF motor will let you buy older, cheaper but yet excellent old Nikon lenses that will cost much less then their modern sisters.