What's new

Wildlife photography Canon 7D vs Nikon D7000

Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.

Isn't that simply opinion though? Sure someone found a study, but for every "study" we can find 10 other "studies" that say the opposite.

Personally, I'd find it hard to believe the IQ on a D7k better than a 7D. all things considered equal...lenses, shooter, etc. but that's just me.

also how "better" is "better" at those levels anyway?

This is an OBJECTIVE LABORATORY test that leaves OPINIONS at the door: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

To answer your question, as you can see from the OBJECTIVE test results, the D7000 has Higher Color Depth, more than 2Ev Higher Dynamic Range, and performs better in High ISO.

I will also ask this...this based on personal use not studies...the 7D has a better sensor, more megapixels, faster framerate, a better metering system (the first thing I was impressed with was canons metering system on the 7D over Nikons), a quicker more accurate and reliable AF system.

So all of these things listed are things I personally noticed.....not something I simply read about. Leaves me wondering what is it on the D7000 that makes it have better image quality?

I have and use on a regular basis both bodies and based on MY personal use, not studies, the D7000 has a much better sensor, a lower resolution but PHYSICALLY LARGER sensor, a framerate that is nearly irrelevant to me, and a better metering system. I dont know how anyone could say that a system that meters ONLY in black and white (Canon 7D) would meter better than a system that meters in full color (Nikon D7000). The differences in AF system perfermance between the two, unlike what you've said, are negligable between speed and accuracy, in my personal experience. The lens attached to the body will make more difference than anything.
 
Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.

Isn't that simply opinion though? Sure someone found a study, but for every "study" we can find 10 other "studies" that say the opposite.

Personally, I'd find it hard to believe the IQ on a D7k better than a 7D. all things considered equal...lenses, shooter, etc. but that's just me.

also how "better" is "better" at those levels anyway?

No,it's NOT an opinion. You know what? Not too long after it was introduced, a buddy called me up to help him light a series of product shots for a small "all-natural" herbal supplement medicine company. I have a LOT of studio lighting gear, and we're old college buddies, so I brought over some stuff, and we commenced to shooting with his then brand-new EOS 7D, tethered to a Macintosh system. THe clients were there, the company's two owners, and they were interested in seeing the shots as they cropped up, and we cross-checked actual photos with their logos and text overlays, and so on. The funny thing was, as we used ISO to bracket, at ISO 160, my friend leaned over close to me and whispered, "What the hell is that? Why is that looking so noisy in the shadows, we're only at ISO 160..." Uh, yeah....

And you know what...the 7D's sensor has TWO FULL F/stop's LESS dynamic range than the D7000 has. TWO STOPS LESS DR....probably THE most-critical, and most-useful metric to have rank "high" on a d-slr.

I have never, ever been impressed with the 7D's sensor. And DxO Mark's objective tests PROVE that the image's technical quality out of the 7D is substantially lower than that of the D7000. I myself have examined a few hundred 7D .CR2's...and I am *not* impressed. The Nikon D7000 has a better sensor. And no, that's not opinion. It's based on empirical data.DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
 
Well, I'm sure some die hard 7D lovers would and could chime in to reply...I don't have enough knowledge to do so at this point, based on my limited experience. Regardless of studies and your folks opinions...it does not change the differences I have noticed personally with usage. I find it odd that something that is that much better is about 700 bucks less.

Anyway, lots of good information has been presented for the OP, which was my initial reason for even chiming in, lol...get a little "Vs." replies going and good info usually gets put out.
 
and about the noise...sorry but someone was doing something wrong. I have shot many shots with high iso and the 7D performs superb. my avatar was taken at 6400 iso actually....and you can't see noise anywhere.
 
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

In regards to this.. seems like they are missing quite a lot of specs on the 7D... Makes me wonder if that played into the score at all...

Kinda why I stick to personal opinions based on usage. I hold those of higher merit and weight. Nothing to do with this specific study/comparison as i did not even read it. I made the decision years ago as a personal trainer that I won't get involved in "studies" and "reports" and debates or discussions of them. Kids read things and they think they are pro and I hit the weights and was stronger than them and their read knowledge....lol.

so yeah...ya never know
 
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

In regards to this.. seems like they are missing quite a lot of specs on the 7D... Makes me wonder if that played into the score at all...

Kinda why I stick to personal opinions based on usage. I hold those of higher merit and weight. Nothing to do with this specific study/comparison as i did not even read it. I made the decision years ago as a personal trainer that I won't get involved in "studies" and "reports" and debates or discussions of them. Kids read things and they think they are pro and I hit the weights and was stronger than them and their read knowledge....lol.

so yeah...ya never know

Based on the weighting system of DxO seems to heavily favor ISO and the ability of noise reduction. However for most animal photography that I've shot, it's been in the daytime as finding animals at night, generally is more difficult. So ISO should be in the low ranges. If you were seeing ISO quality at 160 - makes me think the laptop you were using wasn't calibrated properly, or something was wrong with the individual camera you were using.
 
IQ issues in the way of noise at iso 160 sounds like an underexposed image to me.
 
the company dxo is french. I don't trust the french.


lmao
:thumbup:

To me - unless you're shooting for national geographic... getting into the nitty gritty of comparison models like this (once again to me) is like arguing over a 3 HP difference in a suzuki vs a honda. Very few of us have the skills necessary to make those extra little things count, so find one you like, and go with it.
 
Figure out what lens(s) you will want/need (can afford to purchase) and work backward from there. For wildlife photography, I'd venture that the lens is much, MUCH, more important than the difference between the 7D and the D7000.

+1 to this

Camera bodies come and go and heck there is always going to be the case that one company will upman the other for so long until the next round of bodies come out. Half the time this ends up nitpicking because, honestly, neither Canon nor Nikon fail at making camera bodies and both get to a very high standard.


Lenses are more important for wildlife work - mostly because good quality and long reach means expensive. Getting good long glass is important for wildlife photography unless you're Steve Irwin good at getting close to things (even then if you are working at a distance is perferable!).
Both Canon and Nikon make extensive professional grade series of lenses, but they do cost - a lot. Setting you back between £1K and over £10 per lens. You'll have to decide on which range can most suitably give you quality reach at an affordable price. Canon does have an edge here having a 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L and 100-400mm IS L lens in a similar price bracket over around £1000. Each one of them is hotly debated over and each one is a good solid choice for specific circumstances.
Nikon only has a 300mm f4 in that price bracket - but they do have some older lenses which can be used instead whilst retaining good functionality - I can't comment on those however as I don't know the older Nikon range well enough.

In addition don't forget Sigma who make some very good quality long range lenses. A 50-500mm, 150-500mm series of zooms can be more affordable and give you some long reach; whilst they've also a cheaper 120-400mm. Of course cheaper long lenses won't have the same power that top end ones will and most of the long zooms you'll want to use a stop closed down on the aperture when at their long end to help preserve sharpness. However they do provide ideal options for getting varied reach.

From there you can jump up to 120-300mm f2.8 OS from Sigma - a heavy and expensive, but cheap way to get to 300mm f2.8 (a popular range for using with teleconveters).


The second hand markets can also be good to use, however with high grade long lenses you won't get huge discounts second hand - so long as the optics are good they'll still sell at a very high price.
 
Either one is a great camera and very close in terms of features. As others said, you are buying into a system as well, so take a look at lens selection as well. Personally, I shoot with the 7D. If I was starting out and had to pick between the two, I would probably go with the 7D. While most other things are fairly equal and the D7000 has better IQ (although slightly lower resolution), Canon has the 400mm f/5.6L available for around $1300. That would sway me if I was shooting wildlife, especially birds.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom