Nikon D7000 versus Canon 5D Mk11

[gregbradley]

The Nikon D7000 seems to get a hot review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

Apart from the fact its an APS sized sensor it seems it outperforms a 5D Mk11.

But how important is it to have a 35mm format sensor?

I know my first EOS film camera had great depth of field with its 24-105mm lens. The later DSLRs 20 and 40D took great photos but lack that depth of field that makes so many shots look great.

Perhaps its wiser to wait for the 5D Mark 111 which should be out in the next few months.

I want a camera to do landscape shots as well as time lapse videos.

Alex is the reining champ and he uses a Nikon D3 I think.

Comments?

Greg.

[Paul Haese]

Go full frame mate. I have the D3 and love the beast.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Being an out-and-out Canon fanboy, I would say that it is immensely unfair to compare 2011 sensor technology to 2008 sensor technology.

The 5D Mark II is a joy to use. It is worth noting that it is not designed to be a point and shoot system, or a sports camera. Where it excels is in landscapes and portraiture (studio and/or otherwise). The right tool for the job, and so on.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the way Nikon systems render skin tones.

The 5D Mark III and 1Ds Mark IV should be out at some stage next year and will be awesome.

H

[alexch (Alex)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

The Nikon D7000 seems to get a hot review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

Apart from the fact its an APS sized sensor it seems it outperforms a 5D Mk11.

But how important is it to have a 35mm format sensor?

I know my first EOS film camera had great depth of field with its 24-105mm lens. The later DSLRs 20 and 40D took great photos but lack that depth of field that makes so many shots look great.

Perhaps its wiser to wait for the 5D Mark 111 which should be out in the next few months.

I want a camera to do landscape shots as well as time lapse videos.

Alex is the reining champ and he uses a Nikon D3 I think.

Comments?

Greg.

Greg, for astro-landscapes my vote goes for the full frame too. Main reason - wide angle is wider with the larger sensor. 14mm gives you 114 degrees diagonally on 35mm and 91 with APS-C. For time lapses I find the wider - the better.

I use Nikon D700 (D3 in a smaller body), D3S is one f/stop better in noise department. My main argument in favour of Nikon is the Nikkor 14-24mm lens. Nothing like it exists with competitors, however you can use it with an adaptor. Also I don't see any reason to go higher than 12MP for night time landscapes because there is no high-frequency detail there to utilise higher resolution (just my view).

D700 is going cheaper now awaiting a new (most likely higher MP) model.

Cheers,
Alex

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

The Nikon D7000 seems to get a hot review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm
.
.
Comments?

Greg.

LOL....Ken Rockwell, nuff said.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Yeah, Andrew, there's that, too.

H

[RB (Andrew)]

[DavidTrap (David)]

You could wait for the much anticipated D800 (replacement to D700) - it's been expected for about 2yrs now. Apparently, Nikon delayed all new releases after the tsunami affected production.

The D700 with it's larger pixels is appealing for Astro-work, but the newer sensors leave the old ones for dead - even H is calling it unfair to compare a 2008 vs 2011 sensor (let alone Canon vs Nikon). The rate of improvement is astonishing.

I used a D700 for a photography workshop recently. I was contemplating getting a D7000, but I'll wait for the D800 as I've spent the money on expensive glass to suit the full frame sensor, so why compromise by buying the APS sensor.

DT

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Go full frame mate. I have the D3 and love the beast.

Yes I think basically nothing beats full frame. All the gadgetry can't make up for the lack of the full frame sensor.

Originally Posted by Octane

Being an out-and-out Canon fanboy, I would say that it is immensely unfair to compare 2011 sensor technology to 2008 sensor technology.

The 5D Mark II is a joy to use. It is worth noting that it is not designed to be a point and shoot system, or a sports camera. Where it excels is in landscapes and portraiture (studio and/or otherwise). The right tool for the job, and so on.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the way Nikon systems render skin tones.

The 5D Mark III and 1Ds Mark IV should be out at some stage next year and will be awesome.

H

I'd be more interested in its use for time lapse and landscape as well as general photography so skin tones would come into it but nowhere near the importance you would need it for with your wedding photography.

I hope the 5D 111 is out before next year.

Originally Posted by alexch

Greg, for astro-landscapes my vote goes for the full frame too. Main reason - wide angle is wider with the larger sensor. 14mm gives you 114 degrees diagonally on 35mm and 91 with APS-C. For time lapses I find the wider - the better.

I use Nikon D700 (D3 in a smaller body), D3S is one f/stop better in noise department. My main argument in favour of Nikon is the Nikkor 14-24mm lens. Nothing like it exists with competitors, however you can use it with an adaptor. Also I don't see any reason to go higher than 12MP for night time landscapes because there is no high-frequency detail there to utilise higher resolution (just my view).

D700 is going cheaper now awaiting a new (most likely higher MP) model.

Cheers,
Alex

Yes good point about FOV. I want one of those 14-24 Nikkors too.

Originally Posted by RB

LOL....Ken Rockwell, nuff said.

Why whats the matter with Ken? The reviews seem OK?

Originally Posted by Octane

Yeah, Andrew, there's that, too.

H

You must know something I don't.

Originally Posted by RB

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

You could wait for the much anticipated D800 (replacement to D700) - it's been expected for about 2yrs now. Apparently, Nikon delayed all new releases after the tsunami affected production.

The D700 with it's larger pixels is appealing for Astro-work, but the newer sensors leave the old ones for dead - even H is calling it unfair to compare a 2008 vs 2011 sensor (let alone Canon vs Nikon). The rate of improvement is astonishing.

I used a D700 for a photography workshop recently. I was contemplating getting a D7000, but I'll wait for the D800 as I've spent the money on expensive glass to suit the full frame sensor, so why compromise by buying the APS sensor.

DT

The D7000 is the latest. But I see a D800 is anticipated along with a 5D Mark 111 soon.

I'll probably continue the wait for the 5D Mk111 or maybe pick up a 5D Mk11 which are now cheaper here than in the US -can you believe that?

Greg.

[gregbradley]

I meant this to be posted in the equipment section. Sorry about that I must've clicked the wrong link.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

So what did we conclude - that full frame rules and what the Canon or the Nikon is better? (let the flames begin heheehe).

Greg.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Ken Rockwell is without doubt a good reviewer, but has an unashamed bias toward Nikon.
A full-frame sensor is unquestionably the way to go for landscapes, portraits, "scenes" and the like. The 5DII is a lovely beast and with 'L' glass, pops-out beautiful sharp images with agreeably neutral but vibrant tones (it says here in my notes )
I use an old Hi-8 for time-lapse so I can't comment there.

I shoot Canon, but have always preferred Nikon ergonomics if that's any consideration.
I usually agree with 'Octane', but I can't say I've noticed a huge difference in the way Nikon render's skin-tone. Maybe a little more "tanned"?

Where Nikon does seem to have the edge is in low-light performance. I have noticed much less noise in Nikon images at ISO 200+ in dark scenes.
I doubt you'd be disappointed with either camera though.

[Paul Haese]

Neither are any better than the other really Greg. I don't agree with what H said about skin tones. Being a Canon fan boy has tainted his unbiased point of view.. Alex is right about the 14-24. That image I posted recently of the milkway over Clayton obs was taken with that lens. Using pretty high ISO and 50 second single sub gives you an idea what the Nikon gear is all about now. For astro work I reckon both the high end backs are worth looking at now. For years Canon had the edge but that is pretty well over now. So you have a greater choice now. Mind you I have been a Nikon user since the early 80's so I have a slight bias myself.

[Steffen]

The D7000 is exceptional, Nikon really hit the spot with this one. In order to get a better camera you'd have to spend substantially more. For the Nikon fan it also has some endearing pro features, such as the ability to use Ai lenses.

Cheers
Steffen.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Ken Rockwell is without doubt a good reviewer, but has an unashamed bias toward Nikon.
A full-frame sensor is unquestionably the way to go for landscapes, portraits, "scenes" and the like. The 5DII is a lovely beast and with 'L' glass, pops-out beautiful sharp images with agreeably neutral but vibrant tones (it says here in my notes )
I use an old Hi-8 for time-lapse so I can't comment there.

I shoot Canon, but have always preferred Nikon ergonomics if that's any consideration.
I usually agree with 'Octane', but I can't say I've noticed a huge difference in the way Nikon render's skin-tone. Maybe a little more "tanned"?

Where Nikon does seem to have the edge is in low-light performance. I have noticed much less noise in Nikon images at ISO 200+ in dark scenes.
I doubt you'd be disappointed with either camera though.

I see so he prefers Nikons if he had a chance.
The Nikon also has larger pixels and probably this is the reason for the better low light noise.

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Neither are any better than the other really Greg. I don't agree with what H said about skin tones. Being a Canon fan boy has tainted his unbiased point of view.. Alex is right about the 14-24. That image I posted recently of the milkway over Clayton obs was taken with that lens. Using pretty high ISO and 50 second single sub gives you an idea what the Nikon gear is all about now. For astro work I reckon both the high end backs are worth looking at now. For years Canon had the edge but that is pretty well over now. So you have a greater choice now. Mind you I have been a Nikon user since the early 80's so I have a slight bias myself.

Can you set an exposure longer than 30 seconds without needing an accessory?

I could never understand why DSLRs all seem to limit exposures to 30 seconds before needing an accessory or has that been fixed in later models?

Originally Posted by Steffen

The D7000 is exceptional, Nikon really hit the spot with this one. In order to get a better camera you'd have to spend substantially more. For the Nikon fan it also has some endearing pro features, such as the ability to use Ai lenses.

Cheers
Steffen.

Thanks for that Steffen. I also like the way Nikon allows older lenses to fit the latest camera. My first DSLR was a D70 which I liked. My first SLR was an EOS Canon and it produced many fabulous film images.

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

He he I got a D7000 ...haven't used it for astro work yet though...

MIke

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

He he I got a D7000 ...haven't used it for astro work yet though...

MIke

You chose well. It sounds like a fabulous camera.

Greg.

[RB (Andrew)]

When it comes to brand names, I'm fine with either Canon or Nikon.
I've seen great terrestrial photos taken by both brand of camera and at the end of the day you'd be hard pressed picking the difference once it's printed and personal post processing has been applied to either shot.

I have stuck with Canon because I started with the good old 300D for astro and since my subsequent lens purchases have all been Canon, I've just continued with their bodies.

I like Nikons too but since I'm so used to Canon, it is my preference to stay with them and I do like all their gear and L class lens lineup.
I still use the 20Da for astro for now.

As for Ken Rockwell, he may present a "thorough" review but having looked through most of his site and having read some of his comments, I've gone away cringing and have formed a very low opinion of him, so I take what he says with a grain of salt.
I'm like that with any fan boy opinions because there's an underlying biased that taints their ability to be objective and subsequently you'll find they become arrogant in their behaviour.
I avoid such people like the plague.

That said, it doesn't mean Nikon is better or worse than Canon, it's like the old Ford vs Holden argument.

My recommendation to people that ask is to pick your preferred lens lineup and stick with that, because bodies will come and go, but quality lenses will last you a lifetime.
I just happened to have picked the Canon lineup, so I'm happy with my 5DII, my 7D and my trusty 20Da.

Good luck in your choice Greg, and as for Ken Rockwell, he's good for a laugh but there's other much more competent reviewers out there that I'd prefer to read.

[gregbradley]

Thanks for that reply RB.

There's also DP Review which seems to be more technical in its reviews.

I'll wait until the 5D Mark 111 comes out and see what its got to offer.

Greg.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Thanks for that reply RB.

There's also DP Review which seems to be more technical in its reviews.

I'll wait until the 5D Mark 111 comes out and see what its got to offer.

Greg.

If you have Canon lenses already then I'd stick with Canon.
You could be waiting awhile but it makes sense to see what the 5D III has to offer.
Both full frame 5Ds (Classic & MkII) have been a success and you can't go wrong, in fact for landscapes I'd say a full frame sensor has it's advantages.

If you find Nikon has features you prefer then go with a full frame Nikon model.