# D7100 or 7D



## Bevo (Mar 28, 2013)

My wonderful daughter took my D90 to school without telling me of course and promptly lost it, we looked everywhere including the subway but its gone!

She only lost the body and prime not my other two lenses.

Shopping today I was looking at the D7100 with all it's great features but I keep coming back to the 7D, it just feels nice and comfortable.

Spec wise the Nikon is a better camera but the Canon is not far behind. For my uses there is no way I would use all the features of the Canon and not near the Nikon at all.

Dollar wise they are very close and the Canon comes with a decent lens, once I sell my Nikon lenses I would be ahead with the Canon.
My concern is the Canon is older at the end of the run and a new better one will come out soon blowing this 7D away.

Comes down to this, better tech in the Nikon or better more comfortable feel and ease of use in the Canon?


----------



## Khoi (Mar 28, 2013)

I guess you could say the Canon 6D is the "successor" of the 7D, as an entry level full frame camera. I would personally go with that, seeing how the 7D is a crop sensor, and if you wanted to eventually upgrade to a 5D or better, you'd make a better investment with the L lenses designed for full frame cameras.

But to answer your question, I'm a Canon fan, so my vote goes for a 7D


----------



## Furtive Glance (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm actually on the market for a new camera right now and have been looking at the 7D forever. It's rock solid, but yeah it's a bit "old" now but it'll still take some ridiculous photos. As Khoi said, there's the 6D out now too, but I read some reviews and I don't know if I could justify the 700$ jump to that body.

That being said, since I don't have any investment lens-wise, I read reviews for the Nikon D600 and it seems to be my next choice, _on paper_. I'm going to check out both and decide in the next few months.

Sucks that your daughter lost your camera. I'd be absolutely livid and make her pay for it. Unless she's like, what, 10? *sigh


----------



## Bevo (Mar 28, 2013)

I hit her where it hurts, right in the Blackberry!!
She is 17 and was told not to take it because she did before, she said she didn't but didn't delete the pictures lol!

She lost her phone and can only use it when she goes to school, I think she would of preferred me to belt her and lock her in a room..

For age I keep thinking of my D40 which is from what 2002?
It takes great pictures as long as its not action and still works pretty damn good for an 11 year old. Thinking that way the 7d a few years old yet will still be a new camera when I buy it could last at least that long and still work great.

My last thought is the 7D is a way way better camera than the D90 which was actually ok just not great for fast action......I see where this is going.....


----------



## Khoi (Mar 28, 2013)

there will reportedly be a 7D Mark II, so you should definitely wait until that comes out:

Canon 7D Mark II « Canon Rumors


----------



## Wretched (Mar 28, 2013)

Yeah, love my 7D. Still deciding whether to buy a second 7D body as a backup or jump up to a 5D MkII while they're still around and cheap.


----------



## Bevo (Mar 29, 2013)

I took a look at the Canon rumours page and from what the changes are going to be it won't impact me to much. None of the shooting I do is what I would call technical so these upgrades are wasted on me.

Thanks for the link!

I think I will pick it up tomorrow!!


----------



## Furtive Glance (Mar 29, 2013)

Ooh, didn't know there was a 7D II. Thanks for posting that!

The situation gets trickier.


----------



## soliloquy (Mar 30, 2013)

i'm gonna throw a curve ball at you. feature wise, quality wise, weight and everything else wise, the pentax K-5 or the K-5 II or even the K-5-IIs are really hard to beat.

this is the comparison between the d7100 and 7d
Canon 7D vs Nikon D7100 - Our Analysis

as you can see, they are pretty close by. they both would take amazing pictures and are quality cameras. 

and here is the comparison between 7d vs a K-5
Canon 7D vs Pentax K-5 - Our Analysis

the K-5 vs the D7100
 nikon d7100 vs pentax k-5

again, the k-5 comes on top. though this time, ever so slightly. 

plus, under the 'pentax' name you dont have too many lenses when compared to nikkor/nikon and canon. however, pentax can use majority of sigma, tamron, some nikon, canon, some minolta/sony, and several others too. plus, you can use all the pentax lenses ever created from the 40's to present.


----------



## Bevo (Mar 30, 2013)

Thanks for all the help guys, it helped make my decision easier although it involved a huge amount of homework.

So end of the day I picked up a new 7D and a 50 1.8 prime cheap lens just so I can use the camera. I found a local shop here with it on sale and bestbuy matched it and took another 10% off so I got the body for $1,125 new and the lens for $90 so overall I am happy!

Its still charging but I will get some pics up once I learn how to use it.

In the mean time please recommend me some lenses for longer distance and a carry lens in the 18-200 mm range.

Thanks!


----------



## Wretched (Mar 30, 2013)

The Canon 10-22mm EF-S is a fun lens. Not known for its stunning quality, but I use it on every shoot I do for print publication and love it. Super wide.

Not sure about other lenses in the EF range that I think you'd be interested in, only because the other ones I use are L series and cost a bomb. But the quality is unbelievable.


----------



## Bevo (Mar 31, 2013)

I looked at the "L" lens prices and they are not bad at all, not cheap but not retarded. I think a lens set that will really work for me is the 50 prime I have - 24-105L - 100-400L.

The 24-105L used here is $600, I have not found a used 400L but new its $1600.
I think that combination of the 3 lenses will be just perfect with the 24-105L living on my 7D 90% of the time.


----------



## Kwirk (Mar 31, 2013)

Furtive Glance said:


> Ooh, didn't know there was a 7D II. Thanks for posting that!
> 
> The situation gets trickier.


There isn't. It's been speculated about for YEARS now and nothing has surfaced. 

Prices with the L series varies greatly from lens to lens. The cheapest of the bunch is probably the 70-200 f/4 non IS, which is around $700. From there, prices range up to over $10k for a single lens.

If you want a wide angle, I'd recommend the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 before the Canon. Canon feels a bit more solid and it's optics are a tad nicer, but it's almost twice as much, and doesn't come with any accessories. The Sigma comes with a hood and really nice case. I rented the Canon for a week a while back, and now I own the Sigma.


----------



## Furtive Glance (Mar 31, 2013)

Kwirk said:


> There isn't. It's been speculated about for YEARS now and nothing has surfaced.
> 
> Prices with the L series varies greatly from lens to lens. The cheapest of the bunch is probably the 70-200 f/4 non IS, which is around $700. From there, prices range up to over $10k for a single lens.
> 
> If you want a wide angle, I'd recommend the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 before the Canon. Canon feels a bit more solid and it's optics are a tad nicer, but it's almost twice as much, and doesn't come with any accessories. The Sigma comes with a hood and really nice case. I rented the Canon for a week a while back, and now I own the Sigma.



Goddamnit!


----------



## Bevo (Mar 31, 2013)

Not sure if this link works for you guys but the prices at the Canadian Bestbuy are pretty decent and they will match anyone in your City but not online.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/Search/Search...c43414e4f4e&viewall=true&targetCategory=29257


This cheap $90 prime is pretty damn good, I can just imagine how much better the higher end lenses are.
Just a couple random pics learning the camera today, I just frigging love the menu and how easy it is to use! I don't think I have spent as much time tweaking each shot before and the results are pretty amazing.

The only thing I don't like is the software they sent, it won't connect to my camera.

Just a random picture where I liked the colors and the warm look to the bricks.





[/IMG]

This one I was playing with the WB and the color really came out and the detail with the leafs.



[/IMG]


----------



## Wretched (Mar 31, 2013)

Bevo said:


> I looked at the "L" lens prices and they are not bad at all, not cheap but not retarded. I think a lens set that will really work for me is the 50 prime I have - 24-105L - 100-400L.
> 
> The 24-105L used here is $600, I have not found a used 400L but new its $1600.
> I think that combination of the 3 lenses will be just perfect with the 24-105L living on my 7D 90% of the time.



I think you'll definitely want something wider than the 24-105mm L on the crop sensor 7D, which will be more like a 40mm lens due to the APS-C sensor.


----------



## Bevo (Apr 6, 2013)

I got a stinking deal on the 24-105 USM IS lens brand new for $200 that I could not pass up!
Your right its not very wide but for what I am doing right now its fine.

Now that I know a bit more of the lenses I think I want the 24-70L lens as its the go too lens for the pros. I tried it with a few pictures on my camera at the store and after downloading it was a very obvious difference in quality.

One thing about the cheap Canon lenses is they are damn good, that 24-105 takes fantastic pictures! I shot some birds this morning, the Cardinals were about 80 feet away and were very small in the picture. Once I expanded the shot and cropped it the image was crystal clear, on my 23 inch monitor the original picture of the bird was 1/8th of an inch, after it was 3/4 of and inch.

I also used medium JPG as per Ken Rockwell.


----------



## Kwirk (Apr 8, 2013)

Bevo said:


> I got a stinking deal on the 24-105 USM IS lens brand new for $200 that I could not pass up!
> Your right its not very wide but for what I am doing right now its fine.
> 
> Now that I know a bit more of the lenses I think I want the 24-70L lens as its the go too lens for the pros. I tried it with a few pictures on my camera at the store and after downloading it was a very obvious difference in quality.
> ...


$200?? Where the hell did you find that deal? If you already have the 24-105, there's really no reason to get the 24-70 unless you're doing a lot of low light stuff. And the difference in quality shouldn't be that big between the two, unless you're talking about the 24-70II.

Also something about your post is well.. off. 24-105 is not a cheap lens.


----------



## Bevo (Apr 8, 2013)

You maybe thinking of the L lens, this one new is around $600 in Canada.

I just seen a 70-200 L lens for $650 used, it does not have IS but a smoking deal!

Lots of great deals out there!


----------



## Imbrium998 (Apr 8, 2013)

I found that there is a 1-2 stop difference between a specific lens on a full frame body vs an APS-C. I think that you made the wise choice. 7 is a great platform, but I would strongly suggest that you try to stay away from the EF-S stuff. Not because they are bad...because they are pretty good for the money. They just are not universal. Don't try to put them on a full frame Canon...you will cause harm. If you spent that much on a new camera, you might someday talk yourself into a 5D or a 6D ( my understanding is that the 6D is a 7D construct, but full frame on a budget)

I started out on an XT and worked my way up. I hit a wall when I went to full frame with those. If you never plan to go full frame EVER...ignore what I said here lol.

I did also stop using my 70-200 L4 when I went to a 5D Mkii. That lens looses its ummph for me on a full frame. If you are interested in making a deal for one that is barely used...let me know.

Good luck!!


----------



## Kwirk (Apr 8, 2013)

Bevo said:


> You maybe thinking of the L lens, this one new is around $600 in Canada.
> 
> I just seen a 70-200 L lens for $650 used, it does not have IS but a smoking deal!
> 
> Lots of great deals out there!


I think you're talking about the 28-135 then? They don't make a non L version of the 24-105.


----------



## Bevo (Apr 8, 2013)

I double checked when I got home, your right!
Whoops!


----------



## Bevo (Apr 9, 2013)

Doing some homework on the 70-200 L lens I have a question.

On some of the super high end zoom lenses there is no IS and I would think those would be used for sports as we have all seen.
With no IS I know you need to increase your appeture and shutter speed so no shake affects the picture. This will obviously limit your options with the slower shutter speeds but for action or sport is this a big deal?

Can technique and settings overcome shake and the need for IS?

THanks


----------



## Tang (Apr 9, 2013)

Bevo said:


> Doing some homework on the 70-200 L lens I have a question.
> 
> On some of the super high end zoom lenses there is no IS and I would think those would be used for sports as we have all seen.
> With no IS I know you need to increase your appeture and shutter speed so no shake affects the picture. This will obviously limit your options with the slower shutter speeds but for action or sport is this a big deal?
> ...



Shutter speed and proper breathing can make a world of difference on non-IS lens.


----------



## Imbrium998 (Apr 10, 2013)

Bevo said:


> Doing some homework on the 70-200 L lens I have a question.
> 
> On some of the super high end zoom lenses there is no IS and I would think those would be used for sports as we have all seen.
> With no IS I know you need to increase your appeture and shutter speed so no shake affects the picture. This will obviously limit your options with the slower shutter speeds but for action or sport is this a big deal?
> ...



IS is a mechanical compensation that was developed to improve situations where action shots could be made in lower light scenarios. In my experience and advice from lots of photographers I work with suggests that you would get about a stop and a half of "extra light" Meaning...you could get the same shots between lenses of the same focal length etc but you would have an extra advantage. That advantage would come in the form of using a faster shutter speed..and so on.
BUT...IS is heavy. The difference between the 70-200 with and without IS is enough to me that it may not be worth it in certain circumstances. I bought the 70-200 L4 a bit ago and it worked great with an APS-C body because it was light (24.9 oz) The 70-200 IS 2.8 is 52.6 oz. I found that for that extra little umph, you needed a much heavier lens. I personally found myself going for a different lens at that point. Just my feeling really....but I hope you get where I am coming from.

Technique and management goes much farther sometimes. I am not putting down the 70-200 IS lenses either...LOTS of people swear by them. I just never had a personal love of them. I would prefer to run lighter and try to go with a prime instead.


----------



## Kwirk (Apr 10, 2013)

Bevo said:


> Doing some homework on the 70-200 L lens I have a question.
> 
> On some of the super high end zoom lenses there is no IS and I would think those would be used for sports as we have all seen.
> With no IS I know you need to increase your appeture and shutter speed so no shake affects the picture. This will obviously limit your options with the slower shutter speeds but for action or sport is this a big deal?
> ...


Generally using IS for sports isn't necessary anyway because ideally you should already be shooting at 1/800 or faster (for example). Most, if not all, of Canon's super zooms offer an IS version.

I don't mind the extra weight. My 7D is already gripped. With my 70-200 f/2.8 IS on it, it's around 8 pounds.


----------



## Bevo (Apr 10, 2013)

Thanks for your comments!

I picked up a 70-300 IS USM that I traded for my 70-300 Nikon VR lens.
That is is really active and just freezes the shot, I like!

I think I am set for now but will take some time to save up for a L lens in the same sizes I have.


----------

