What is the best dSLR camera out there right now?

[Postman158]

If you're a beginner and drop $2,000 on a camera, what good is that to you? You have to know how to use that $2000 camera before you produce images that look like they came out of a $2000 camera. If you spend $2000 on a camera body, you're going to want to put professional glass in front of it, so add another (minimum) $1000 for a versatile lens.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

So 7D is worse than D7000?

Yes. Metering, flash metering and the Nikon family of lenses all make the D7000 the better choice for 99% of photographers who aren't stubbornly loyal to an inferior product.

But then again, the same could be said for ANY Nikon V. Canon decision with comparable bodies. Canon has no answer for the CLS or the color metering system.

 

[Overread19 7]

If you're a beginner and drop $2,000 on a camera, what good is that to you? You have to know how to use that $2000 camera before you produce images that look like they came out of a $2000 camera. If you spend $2000 on a camera body, you're going to want to put professional glass in front of it, so add another (minimum) $1000 for a versatile lens.

One beauty of DSLRs is that once you ignore the auto edit functions for JPEGs and some of the bells and whistles a top of the range DSLR and an entry level DSLR still work exactly the same way. Aperture, ISO and shutter speed - the same modes (aperture and shutter priority, bulb mode, full manual, program and full auto).
About the only thing you lose are a handful of pre-set auto modes on the entry level (eg sports/landscape/macro modes) and to be honest if you're dropping the kind of money that a "serious" DSLR costs chances are you are a bit more keen and thus you'd have fast grown out of those handful of modes very fast anyway (and if you don't you've still got program and auto).

 

[belial]

Yes. Metering, flash metering and the Nikon family of lenses all make the D7000 the better choice for 99% of photographers who aren't stubbornly loyal to an inferior product.

But then again, the same could be said for ANY Nikon V. Canon decision with comparable bodies. Canon has no answer for the CLS or the color metering system.

It's highly debatable if the Nikon family of lenses is better than the canon family. I could easily name several canon lenses that Nikon can't compete with and vise versa. When you really break it down both have great lenses just not all in the same areas. Uwa zoom? Go Nikon. Tele primes? Canon tends to win.

 

[belial]

Canon has no answer for the CLS or the color metering system.

Canon indeed came up with their own color sensitive metering a couple years ago that competes with Nikon and if I'm not mistaken it is present in the 7d

 

[rexbobcat]

Canon indeed came up with their own color sensitive metering a couple years ago that competes with Nikon and if I'm not mistaken it is present in the 7d

Oh my gosh, I had to Google it but the 7D really does have color sensitive metering :O

 

[Skylab]

I like my D7000. It's my first DSLR.
Hindsight, I could've gone with Canon as they have a broader selection of telephoto lenses. 300mm isn't quite enough for surfing shots. It's decent, and I'm sure I'll figure something out.

 

[ChuckV]

The 7D and D7000 are both great cameras, but what sort of photography are you into OP? If you have need for telephoto (especially zoom telephoto) lenses, Canon has more that might be in your price range. Otherwise, Nikon is probably the better bet at this point in time(coming from a Canon user). That said, which company has the "best" camera in a given price range has historically fluctuated over time, so it's tough to suggest buying into a system based on that. Nikon has certainly had the advantage in many respects recently, but the difference is not so great that you'd be gimping yourself going with Canon.

There's also something to be said for going into a brick and mortar store and handling cameras. That

Getting a starter DSLR and spending a bit more on lenses is another option, as opposed to getting an enthusiast level DSLR with controls and features that you might not fully take advantage of. With $2k you could set yourself up with a macro lens, and two OKish zoom lenses covering different ranges if you went for a slightly lower end DSLR (that would still take good pictures if you used it correctly).

 

[Arkv]

Better camera doesn't mean that your pictures will be better. Right now , You're a no0b & Buying the "best camera out there" won't do you any good. A DSLR is not like a point and shoot one , and It won't do any good if you use it as Point and Shoot. First of all , I suggest you buy a midrange cam , buy a decent lens , and you're good to go.

 

[IUNBOL]

Hello, I'm going to buy a DSLR camera! And thinking between Nikon and Canon!
I like Nikon D7000+18-200lens but lately my friends told me about Canon that makes difference and much better than Nikon!
So my Q is for the beginner of shooting, Canon or Nikon., what will you recommend? I know It's sounds like Addidas or Nike! But need some advices from you!

 

[MLeeK]

Hello, I'm going to buy a DSLR camera! And thinking between Nikon and Canon!
I like Nikon D7000+18-200lens but lately my friends told me about Canon that makes difference and much better than Nikon!
So my Q is for the beginner of shooting, Canon or Nikon., what will you recommend? I know It's sounds like Addidas or Nike! But need some advices from you!

Nikon has the edge in camera bodies right now.
It's really like Addidas or Nike. There is one that will fit you and one that won't. That's all there is to it.
What are they telling you is so much better than Nikon? Maybe a certain body is better than another? But in general? They're full of sh!t. As a dedicated Canon Shooter I've really considered the switch-that's how much Nikon bodies have the edge.

 

[Overread19 7]

Eh a few years back Canon were top for camera bodies - these days its Nikon - another year it could be Sony or Pentax or Canon again. Camera bodies, even the top rate DSLRs are disposable fast changing parts of the setup (at least compared to parts such as tripods, flash units and lenses - ie eveything else).

In all honestly the differences are more marginal than many like to suggest, yes Nikon has an edge, but its just an edge it is not a night and day difference (if it were Canon and Nikon would not share near equal divides of the majority of the camera market between them).

What should drive your choices are your intentions. Your budget, what you want from the camera, what you hope to take pictures of, what kinds of situations, subjects etc.... You have to put your criteria on teh table, only then can you honestly compare the specifications and the offerings from each system on offer to choose the one that will best suit your needs.
If you've really not many criteria at all to put on the table then either brand is about equal, there isn't a single subject or situation where one brand can do something the other can't* so you will not be limiting yourself in any way by choosing either one.

Note also that 18-200mm lenses are great all in one lenses, however the massive zoom range that they cover means that they are very poor optically speaking. At the 200mm end they will be noticeably softer. They do have a purpose and if you're really not sure what you want to do with photography they can be a great choice to get a wide range of focal length experiences. That said I would warm more toward a regular kit lens supplied with the camera and a 70-300mm zoom camera. The combo will give you a bit more quality over a wider range of focal lengths, and whilst the 70-300mm still suffers from the softening at the long end it does give you a bit more reach and thus a bit more potential diversity to work with.




* the only major difference is that Canon has the MPE macro lens which is a highly specialist tool which very few people actually use. Even then the performance of this lens can be replicated with other options so, again, its still not a field of photography that is closed to Nikon (or indeed any other brand).