I'm wondering if anyone knows how to Canon 7D would compare to the Nikon D700 for landscape photos?
I've been thinking of swapping to the D700 for a while as it has fast autofocus, fast frame rate, full frame sensor and really great build quality. The 5D MII has the full frame sensor but is slow and not as well built as far as I know.
Since the 7D came out I have been curious if this might be a good option. I just can't see the smaller sensor outperforming the full frame, or could it
This camera will be used for sports, landscape, macro and a whole host of other things.
I had a D700 and now have a 7d. I can tell you the D700 is an excellent camera. So is the 7d. Remember you are comparing a FF camera to a 1.6 crop camera. Only lens for the 7d that can get a "almost" as wide as the Nikon 14-24mm is a Canon 10-22mm. The Nikon 14-24mm lens is a very highly rated lens. Review the weight of each. The D700 with a 14-24 or 24-70 is heavy. Then of course consider the D700 at 12MP and the 7d at 18MP. 7d is cheaper leaving some $$ for a lens. Nikon lenses are expensive. If you already have Canon Lenses, I'm not sure it is worth the swap.
Keep in mind that you are not only buying/using a camera body but you are buying a system, complete with lenses, etc. I am sure you have heard that cliche before . Generally, I agree with what suljt posted above. As long as you are not shooting sport or any fast action photography for a living, the 5D Mark II is actually not bad and is a very capable camera. If your budget allows, why don't you add a 7D to that and with the two bodies, you will be set to do pretty much everything.
I have both a 7D and 5DII. I must say build quality and feel is very similar. So are the user interface/controls. The differences are minor: 7D wheels (QCD, etc.) are slightly stiffer and it spots a few more buttons. Perhaps the 7D has a little heavier rubber on the grip. In my hand both camera feel solid and I can't tell them apart unless I look. Canon claims both have sealing at the same level of the old EOS 1N. Whatever, they make a great duo and complement one another well. And, as much as I like the 7D, the 5DII is much better for landscapes and has better all around IQ.
Anywho, the 4FPS of the 5DII is more than enough for the fastest landscape!
The D700 wouldn't be my first choice (or even second or third choice) for landscape work - even within the Nikon system. It suffers from a modest pixel count combined with an overly strong low-pass filter, a combination which makes it very challenging to retain fine details in landscape images. The D700 has many positive attributes, but none of them really help it in the landscape department.
If you want weather sealing, full frame, and AF speed for sports, while at the same time want the camera to do a good job with landscapes, I think you need to look at the D3x, 1Ds Mark III, or 1Ds Mark II
D300s for sports and macro
D90 for landscapes... yes, seriously... this cam produces sharp, detailed files with nice colors and contrast (for landscapes)... it is cheap too
That gives me a lot to consider, thanks everyone. What makes the decision hard is that I already have a set of Canon lenses and it will be expensive to swap. I used to shoot Nikon with the D200 but changed for Canon's better noise properties and availability of the full frame sensors. I also managed to get the Canon system quite cheap, otherwise I may not have ever swapped over. Canon no longer hold advantages in these areas and I still love the wonderful rock solid feel of the Nikons and the very intuitive handling.
I'm not hugely worried about having less pixels in the D700. Nikon's 14-24, 24-70 and new 70-200 are all damn fine looking lenses and much newer than the Canon alternatives. We had a look at these yesterday and my fiancé was keen on the D700 for shooting sport. The 5D MII would be quite useless in this aspect. Of course a 1Ds MIII would be a great alternative but maybe stretching the budget a little too far and may be a little big for my fiancés little hands.
Another thing I'd like to ask. Is Canons QC really as bad as it seems on web? There is no end the the threads of people saying they needed to buy 3 or more lenses before they got one within spec or needing to send them in to Canon for calibration.
It's because Canon users are anal..perfectionist...every new camera will be baptized by fire ..
pahrens wrote:
Another thing I'd like to ask. Is Canons QC really as bad as it seems on web? There is no end the the threads of people saying they needed to buy 3 or more lenses before they got one within spec or needing to send them in to Canon for calibration.
Whenever someone asks how good a lens is here they're always directed to photozone. If you listen to their review this is stated in the conclusion:
"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within specs - this is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. If you´re lucky enough to get a decent sample you can expect a very high performance level, especially when stopped down a bit."
"I've been thinking of swapping to the D700 for a while as it has fast autofocus, fast frame rate, full frame sensor and really great build quality. The 5D MII has the full frame sensor but is slow and not as well built as far as I know."
"I love the wonderful rock solid feel of the Nikons and the very intuitive handling."
"I'm not hugely worried about having fewer pixels in the D700."
"Nikon's 14-24, 24-70 and new 70-200 are all damn fine looking lenses and much newer than the Canon alternatives."
"My fiancé was keen on the D700 for shooting sport. The 5D MII would be quite useless in this aspect." ...Show more →
It sounds like you're waiting for someone to say "Get the Nikon," especially since you seem more concerned about fast frame rate and autofocus than high resolution-- not exactly typical preferences "for landscape photos," as you characterized your needs in the first line of your initial post.
So get the Nikon. You've switched between Canon and Nikon before, you can switch again, and if it doesn't work for you, you can switch back again.
Ill be starting a "Switchers Anonymous" soon .. the camera-switching kind, not the other kind of switching. I too sometimes get the "What if I switch to Nikon"-itis. So, rather than expensive selling and buying, my group will just make a pool of all lenses and bodies and whoever reserves the cameras/lenses earlier gets it during that time slot. There won't be any Canon or Nikon shooters .. just Canon users and Nikon users for a few weeks at a stretch.
pahrens wrote:
Whenever someone asks how good a lens is here they're always directed to photozone. If you listen to their review this is stated in the conclusion:
"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within specs - this is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. If you´re lucky enough to get a decent sample you can expect a very high performance level, especially when stopped down a bit."
I don't really know what to make of this....Show more →
That mirrors my experience as well. I also recall going thru 5 copies of the 50 f1.4 looking for one
useable wide open. Eventually I gave up. Nikon's much better in this regard but not w/o some probs.
The 105 f2 DC has been plagued by QC issues. I went with an older MF version and couldn't be happier.
Thanks Trenchmonkey. The amount of QC issues I read about I figure there must be at least some truth in it. I know it's the people who get the bad deal that complain the most but it's quite frequent on the web.
Bottom line: tough to get a camera that does "sports, landscape, macro and a whole host of other things" equally well. In the Canon world, sports needs the 7D or 1D, landscape the 5DII or 1Ds... I think the 5DII is a great walkaround camera for everything but sports / wildlife.
So it sounds like you're leaning toward sports, so perhaps the Nikon is the call (but I don't shoot Nikon so can't comment firsthand, yet my 1DIII does wonders sports shooting for me).
. Generally, I agree with what suljt posted above. As long as you are not shooting sport or any fast action photography for a living, the 5D Mark II is actually not bad and is a very capable camera. If your budget allows, why don't you add a 7D to that and with the two bodies, you will be set to do pretty much everything.
..