Which Camera Nikon D300s or Canon 7D

[inTempus]

The 1D3, even despite its problems, still out performed the D3 and it's AF system.

Canon 1D MKIII vs. Nikon D3 Sports Autofocus Showdown - Pro Photo HOME

Even without the sub-mirror fix for the 1D3 it smoked the D3, which scored a 48% out of focus score (damn near 50%).

To be fair, the 1D III "smoked" the D3 by performing miserably, just not as much. There were (also) many Canon users who questioned how this "test" was set up. I can dig up the quotes if you wish.

OMG, someone questioned a technical review on the internet and you can - GASP - provide quotes? Wow, I never would have imagined.

It wouldn't be a technical review if it didn't ruffle a few feathers and cause each camp to go on a tirade about how invalid it was.

 

[TJ K]

7D #1 Weather Sealing

Wow. Also in the pic "showing the camera at work" - - there just happens to be a seal the foreground about to take a chomp out of a tripod leg, completed uncommented upon, almost as if that were usual. . .

You've never been to that region of the world. It's only notable when the thing being chomped on is a human limb... otherwise it is business as usual.



I noticed that too and laughed pretty hard at the image.

Wow i just noticed it haha. Pretty darn funny with that huge seal going for the gold
TJ

 

[Derrel]

The 1D3, even despite its problems, still out performed the D3 and it's AF system.

Yeah--using Center point ONLY AF--Canon's strength. The guy who conducted the test is obviously unaware that Nikon has SRS and color-aware and distance-aware light metering and autofocusing, which the Canon 1D-III does not have. The 1D-III is totally color-blind.

So, hey, some amateur web blogger took a 51-point AF system in a Nikon D3, and turned off 98 percent of the AF points and shot a jogger in a white T-shirt running toward him as being representative of a "sports" scenario???


That is absolutely hilarious--wasting 98 percent of the advantage of color-aware and distance-aware autofocusing by using ONLY the center AF point, and disregarding the 50 other AF points the D3 has?? No, the "real" test of sports performance was when people like Robert Hanashiro, the FOUNDER of Sports Photography and Photojournalism for Professional Photographers and Photography | SportsShooter.com, abandoned Canon for the Nikon D3...as did the entire staff at USA Today, and many of the guys at Sports Illustrated. Why? They wanted a full-frame camera with killer AF, killer high ISO, and Nikon's entire line of new lenses; 14-24, 24-70, 200 f/2, 300/2.8, etc.

When some web blogger can't figure out how to use a camera it's one thing: when many of America's finest professional sports shooters switch to Nikon, it's another thing entirely.

Wow==whose car can go faster in FIRST gear??? Hilarious! Center-AF only is like ignoring how a car drives in 2nd,3rd,4th,and 5th gear!

 

[inTempus]

Derrel, can you show me a single technical review that isn't just someones opinion that the D3 out performs the 1D in AF, or visa versa? Is there such a test?

So are you saying the D3's color aware metering doesn't work with a single point selected? Are you saying that the single AF point on the Canon is superior to the single point on the D3? What are you saying?

How do you think the 1D4 with its 45 cross-type sensors will stack up to the D3 and it's 15 cross-type AF points?

Can you provide a definitive technical review that shows the color aware AF system of the D3 makes it more accurate, faster or in any way better than the 1D's AF system? When I google a comparison between the D3 and the 1D AF systems almost every single article that comes up (and it's nothing more than opinions of course) says Canon has the edge in AF performance.

Are you trying to imply all companies have switched or secretly want to switch to Nikon and Canon rarely sells a new 1D to an action shooter or company that shoot sports? The last time I attended a Bears game in Chicago there were far more white lenses than black ones to be seen... I mean FAR more. I'll see if I can't get a picture the next time I'm there. The same with the Cubs and Sox, a sea of white. I guess they didn't get the Nikon memo in the Chicago area.

 

[djacobox372]

For $2500 you could buy a refurbished (good as new) nikon d700, and have enough left over to buy a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens.

 

[inTempus]

For $2500 you could buy a refurbished (good as new) nikon d700, and have enough left over to buy a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens.

$2169 from Adorama:

25444B Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

 

[saurabh]

For $2500 you could buy a refurbished (good as new) nikon d700, and have enough left over to buy a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens.

$2169 from Adorama:

25444B Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

Hi Guys many thanks to all who have come to help me out make a decision. As far as the used or refurbished one is concerned its out of question as in India its difficult to buy good used or almost impossible to get a refurbished one.
I never wanted to start an argument between Nikon and Canon users I reckon unintentionaly I just did...So accept my apologies.

 

[schumionbike]

Just get whichever that is more readily or cheaper. The technical differences between these two cameras are not major enough to allow you to blame on cameras deficiencies for not getting your pictures lol.

 

[MrLogic]

OMG, someone questioned a technical review on the internet and you can - GASP - provide quotes? Wow, I never would have imagined.

It wouldn't be a technical review if it didn't ruffle a few feathers and cause each camp to go on a tirade about how invalid it was.

Okay, let's assume for a minute that the review is valid and "representative of a sports scenario" ...then it shows that you can't depend on either camera -- the 2 class-leading bodies at the time the review was written(?) The 1D performed horribly and the D3 did even worse.

Okay... I guess.

I never wanted to start an argument between Nikon and Canon users I reckon unintentionaly I just did...So accept my apologies.

No need to apologize. You didn't start the "argument" and it's just entertainment, pretty much. It's not that serious.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a 7D or a D300s if my budget was somewhat limited. Better to invest in glass, IMO. If you're into wildlife photography, the Canon 100-400mm L may be a good place to start. I'd try to get a "new" Canon 40D if at all possible. That should be within your budget.

That's just me, though. Good luck with your decision.

As far as the used or refurbished one is concerned its out of question as in India its difficult to buy good used or almost impossible to get a refurbished one.

eBay is your friend. Plenty of good deals / respected sellers there.

 

[Sachphotography]

For $2500 you could buy a refurbished (good as new) nikon d700, and have enough left over to buy a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens.

$2169 from Adorama:

25444B Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

You know I have to say. For someone who has an army of Canon Equipment you seem to keep a sense of reason about you. Its nice to see someone take things at face value and back up fact with logic rather than bias opinion.

 

[inTempus]

You know I have to say. For someone who has an army of Canon Equipment you seem to keep a sense of reason about you. Its nice to see someone take things at face value and back up fact with logic rather than bias opinion.

Thanks. That's because I like cameras - not just Canon. I wound up with Canon, but you know what? I would have been just as happy with Nikon. I bought Canon when I got started because I knew the company and had owned their products before. I continue to buy Canon (although I've seriously considered buying the new D3s) because they give me exceptional results.

If I were just starting out today, I would have a very difficult time choosing between the two brands.

I would buy a D700 over a 5D2. If I were buying a semi-pro crop, I would be torn between the 7D and the D300s. Between the two it's a little tougher decide as one doesn't have the clear advantage over the other as with the D700 and 5D2. I honestly can't say which I would buy...

Below the D300s and 7D (T1i/5000), I would go with the D5000 over the T1i. Below that (Rebel / D3000), I would go with the Rebel.

At the pro level, again... it would be a tough call. I believe the new 1D4 will be the body to have for AF. Since the announcement of the 1D4 the Nikon multi-cam 3500 AF system became the old fart on the block. I suspect Nikon will be forced to rethink their AF system on future top level bodies if they want to remain competitive with Canon. As for image quality, I think the D3s will have the slight advantage in both dynamic range and in high ISO performance given it has a full frame sensor and only 12mp. I don't think the IQ will be vastly superior, most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two in real-world shooting. So that leaves me with the AF system... something the 1D4 promises to truly excel at.

With all of that said... I still can't give you an honest answer which one I would buy if I were starting over. Heck, you can't even get your hands on a D3s or 1D4 yet. My opinion could very well change once my 1D4 arrives here shortly.

It's an interesting time for camera buyers. The raging war on features and advancements in high ISO performance (vs. mega pixels - finally!) is awesome. No matter which system you buy, you're getting a world class performer.

 

[inTempus]

Okay, let's assume for a minute that the review is valid and "representative of a sports scenario" ...then it shows that you can't depend on either camera -- the 2 class-leading bodies at the time the review was written(?) The 1D performed horribly and the D3 did even worse.

Horrible as compared to what? That could very well be the best that technology today can provide. Given there's no other option that I'm aware of on the market, 31% OOF is notably superior to 48% OOF.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[bhphotography]

Personally I would go with the Nikon, as they seem to have better glass.

 

[Wolverinepwnes]

here's a solution!!! that will stop all this: get a pentax!

 

[inTempus]

Personally I would go with the Nikon, as they seem to have better glass.

Generally speaking? I disagree. They both have hits and misses. If you're talking about consumer lenses, yes - Nikon has the advantage in some cases. If you're talking about professional grade lenses... that's another story. It depends on who you ask.

Example: Canon versus Nikon lenses

Canon has more lenses in its line up and many of its offerings are considered superior (again, depending on who you ask) to the Nikon equivalent. Making sweeping generalizations about lens quality is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. Now, if you single out individual lenses, then you can say who has the better lens for that particular application.