I haven't read all of the posts but this is an easy question... the 7D is much better because it is what I needed. The D300 lost out immediately because it doesn't take Canon lenses. Sound silly? It isn't. What good is 51 AF points if you can't put your lens on the body in the first place.
Why argue about this stuff? Either the 7D works for you or it doesn't. Just because one body has this feature or that doesn't make it the right body to buy and doesn't make it "better" when one ignores the reality that many of us are working with and have to be concerned about camera systems, not just bodies.
I shoot with both, and I find the AF to be better on the D300, the 7D struggles at times. That said, I prefer the files from the 7D, despite the ever present noise(which I don't consider a big deal). As far as controls and layouts go, the 7D is better in some ways, and the D300 in others. Easy win for D300 as far as the battery grip goes. IMO of course!
talexander wrote:
I know... you read that topic expecting some thread with SS's and detailed point by point comparison's but I'm talking about in general... why isn't the 7d better?
Because it doesn't have to be according to Canon's business model ... a model that has been highly successful at making a profit while offering (to equipment geeks only) "just enough" features/performance to trigger existing-customer upgrades and pretty decent commercials on TV to attract new customers (I mean really, how can a guy say "NO" to Maria Sharapova).
As long as Canon's desired ROI goals are met then the business model is not about to change. Now "if" Nikon actually came up with a killer (as versus darn good) camera then Canon might possibly reconsider their camera line-up but even then it's doubtful.
Well, if Canon took the 7D, and didn't change a single thing except giving it a full frame sensor and a 3D badge on the front, then we would have a camera I would sell my Granny to buy!
Seriously I can't see that the D300 has anything much over the excellent 7D, so lets keep our powder dry and see what Nikon do to counter Canon. The Nikon seems to me to be from an exalted but older generation, the 7D is bang up to date.
I tend to agree that both Canon and Nikon make great tools and there's no reason why someone would not do well with either. Canon makes very great, tough, and pro bodies like the 1D line. Canon came out with the first affordable DSLR, the Rebel, which I bought, loved, sold, and moved on and tried other cameras and brands, and settled on Nikon. It was a personal preference for me, I just greatly appreciate the colours, IQ, and ergonomics I get with Nikon, and it seems that Canon (aside from their more pro tools) is really into producing a lot of gimmickry. Where as in my eyes, Nikon is producing cameras with fantastic IQ and ISO performance, for photogs. I also have a simple Olympus Stylus Epic 35/2.8 point n shoot that I think kicks ass.
macdougall wrote:
I tend to agree that both Canon and Nikon make great tools and there's no reason why someone would not do well with either. Canon makes very great, tough, and pro bodies like the 1D line. Canon came out with the first affordable DSLR, the Rebel, which I bought, loved, sold, and moved on and tried other cameras and brands, and settled on Nikon. It was a personal preference for me, I just greatly appreciate the colours, IQ, and ergonomics I get with Nikon, and it seems that Canon (aside from their more pro tools) is really into producing a lot of gimmickry. Where as in my eyes, Nikon is producing cameras with fantastic IQ and ISO performance, for photogs. I also have a simple Olympus Stylus Epic 35/2.8 point n shoot that I think kicks ass....Show more →
Not really sure what the gimmicky stuff canon has been producing you are talking about? Do you mean video..cause the D90 did it first..canon just did it right and much better quality.
Didnt know megapixles where a gimmick..I find it pretty good canon was able to put 18MP in that sensor and have it have equal or better high ISO then the D300 with only 12
