Canon 60D vs Nikon D7000

afroAnt

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
155
2
I'm looking for a new DSLR camera and I stumbled upon the Canon 60D and Nikon D7000. I love both of them! I have looked at many comparisons and tried them out at the shops but I can't decide (though I slightly like the Nikon more). Which one do you guys recommend? I love shooting in low lights, sport shooting and landscapes. I also wanted to know is there much of a difference in quality between the two LCDs (I forgot to check that when I was testing the cameras). I know the canon has 1 million screen dots and the nikon has 921,000 but is there really a difference?
 

firestarter

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2002
5,501
122
Green and pleasant land
What lens(es) are you planning to buy for the cameras?

If you're just starting with the kit lens, what is the next lens you want, then the lens after that? What flash would you buy?

It's useful to project your future purchases over a year or two. Both are very similar cameras - but you may find that one or the other either doesn't have the accessory you want, or it performs less well, or it's a lot more expensive.

If they both come out equivalent - then flip a coin.
 

harleymhs

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2009
501
35
I bought the Nikon D7000 and LOVE it! Post card pics on Auto setting.. Great LOW LIGHT pics as well! Also I love the Dual SD slots! You can configure them to do so many things ( one slot RAW one slot Jpg, back up the 1st sd slot, one for pics one for movies) etc etc .. Nikon the way to go!
 

rcepek

macrumors newbie
Jan 18, 2012
15
0
Cleveland, Ohio
Nikon All the way

I own the D7000 great camera, I love mine - I can't say anything bad or good about Canon but I can tell you that I'm very pleased with the performance of the D7000
 

mulo

macrumors 68020
Aug 22, 2010
2,267
5
Behind you
Owning the 60d, I'd say buy the d7000. Especially since you like shooting at night, that low noise at high iso and 39 af points will help you tons!
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,682
70
Sendai, Japan
I know the canon has 1 million screen dots and the nikon has 921,000 but is there really a difference?
Please don't base your decision on something as non-sensical as this. In these discussions, the specs of the cameras are so good that they effectively don't matter (unless you have very special needs, but then you already know what to look for). I typically recommend to people to get the camera that feels better in their hands. To some that's a Canon, to others it's a Nikon.

Personally, I own the D7000 for almost a year now and by far, it is the most capable camera I've ever owned. I upgraded from a D80 and the two things I like best about it are its AF system (I have a lot more keepers now), the professional user interface (no more waste of space on the mode dial) and the quiet mode.
 

rebby

macrumors 6502
Nov 19, 2008
308
1
MN
Please don't base your decision on something as non-sensical as this. In these discussions, the specs of the cameras are so good that they effectively don't matter (unless you have very special needs, but then you already know what to look for). I typically recommend to people to get the camera that feels better in their hands. To some that's a Canon, to others it's a Nikon.

Personally, I own the D7000 for almost a year now and by far, it is the most capable camera I've ever owned. I upgraded from a D80 and the two things I like best about it are its AF system (I have a lot more keepers now), the professional user interface (no more waste of space on the mode dial) and the quiet mode.
Best advise thus far. This is the direction that I usually send people who are comparing Nikon to Canon as well.

FWIW, I went with Canon.
 

pigbat

macrumors regular
Jan 18, 2005
219
0
I ended up in the Canon camp and after years it's difficult to switch from one to another. So difficult I tend to ignore most Nikon announcements; there's little value in understanding their offering once you have lenses, flashes, etc.

That said, you are investing in a system. I've owned several camera bodies over the years but have collected and used the same lenses. Spend a little time figuring out which one you like and don't look back.

I do like my 60D and bought it primarily for video. I keep my 50D around for stills and feel like it's a better camera than their "upgraded" model in the still category.
 

tmagman

macrumors 6502
Nov 7, 2010
413
1
Calgary AB
like everyone else is saying, the choice is up to you, which one feels better.

I personally find the canon interface both on screen and button-wise a lot more intuitive and less busy than the nikons. I've had people ask me why they're so slow using their nikon (when changing settings), whereas I'm fast with the 7D. Experience aside (we both have had lots) definitely the interface makes a difference IMO. Go to your camera store and play around with them, see how fast you can switch from a full auto shot to manual, fine tuning all sorts of settings beyond aperture and shutter (ISO, white balance, metering, etc.)
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
This is a never ending debate.. Canon or Nikon.. you will hear the same things from everyone. If you listen to everyone you will end up with the camera that the most respondands to this threat will tell you. If there are more nikonians its nikon if more Canonians then its gonna be Canon.

Personally I would go after the glass. Arguably Canon has the lower end entry f4L models which produce great shots and are a relatively cheap upgrade. Nikon does not have the L vs non-L difference. With Nikon it is the gold ring on the front of the lens (most of the time) and those lenses are pricey... spectacular.. but pricey.

If you go purely from a camera body alone, I would also vote for the D7000 simply because from what I have seen, IT IS a better OVERALL camera (my opinion based on MY feel and MY experience from shooting in a camera shop).
Either way I think you will take a long time to outgrow either one of the bodies..
 

Bocheememon

macrumors regular
Mar 1, 2006
127
0
Fertile, MN
Yeah, whatever feels best.

I echo earlier sentiments--buy the camera that you feel comfortable using.

I've invested in the Nikon system for years and owned a Canon 60D for video. I set my partner up with the Canon T3i as well. Since my first DSLR in 2004, it's always been a Nikon/Canon debate.

It took me years to realize that it doesn't matter which tool is better. What matters is which tool will get the job I need done. I do essay work and portrait work. I use manual lenses so I was able to plop them onto my 60D. I could use either system (800's on slave mode work with the 60D's flash! It's not that either is better at photo-taking; you can't lose out. Our cameras are amazing!

If you buy a camera, you are investing in a system (lens, flashes, batteries). If you buy a camera with a kit to resell it later, then choose whatever you like.

I have spent a lot of time with the D7000 because I was looking for a backup camera with video capabilities. Image-wise, I find the low-light performance of the 7000 beats my 60D hands down. However, if you are doing long exposures, the differences will not be a big issue.

If you care about video (sports and narrative portriature), the D7000 doesn't have the flexibility of the 60D but the video quality is great. It should be noted I bought the 60D for its video performance (what's the best tool for a job), which I found the 7000 lacking in certain areas of manual control (can't dial down settings in D7000 without exiting or setting it on auto-exposure) and metering (histogram during live-recording).

Since you are shooting low-light and sports, you may appreciate the D7000's performance. I find both LCDs to be similar. You might like the articulating LCD for over-the-head shots. If you do sports, this would help with vantage points, should you have access to the team after a victory or loss. Also, the dual SD cards might be nice for a backups when out in the field or the ability to designate one card for video capture.
 
Last edited:

afroAnt

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
155
2
Thanks everyone! I'm moving towards the D7000 but I'm going to have to go back to the camera shop and try them out again. Also for the D7000 what are good lenses for my needs? Though keep in mind I don't want to hurt my wallet.
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
Thanks everyone! I'm moving towards the D7000 but I'm going to have to go back to the camera shop and try them out again. Also for the D7000 what are good lenses for my needs? Though keep in mind I don't want to hurt my wallet.
Loads of people recommend the 35mm 1.8 because it is cheap and very sharp. I never have owned one but either that or the 50mm 1.8 for sure. Then, since you mentioned landscape, some wide angle (Tokina 11-16 is spectacular but also pricey.. kinda)

Personally, if I am on a budget and shooting what you want to shoot I would get the following line up
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Nikon 35 or 5mm f1.8 (probably the 35mm)
Nikon 70-300VR for those long distance sports things...

This mean you have no normal zoom length and if you are on a budget and can still afford it get the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

I know those are 3rd party manufacturers but a) those are probably their best lenses and are REALLY good and b) you are on a budget and this should give a really good base.

I know Nikon has the 55-300VR as well but in comparison, I would take the 70-300 ANY day.
 

afroAnt

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
155
2
Loads of people recommend the 35mm 1.8 because it is cheap and very sharp. I never have owned one but either that or the 50mm 1.8 for sure. Then, since you mentioned landscape, some wide angle (Tokina 11-16 is spectacular but also pricey.. kinda)

Personally, if I am on a budget and shooting what you want to shoot I would get the following line up
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Nikon 35 or 5mm f1.8 (probably the 35mm)
Nikon 70-300VR for those long distance sports things...

This mean you have no normal zoom length and if you are on a budget and can still afford it get the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

I know those are 3rd party manufacturers but a) those are probably their best lenses and are REALLY good and b) you are on a budget and this should give a really good base.

I know Nikon has the 55-300VR as well but in comparison, I would take the 70-300 ANY day.
Say if I was travelling around what would be the two best lenses to use? I don't want to carry heaps of lenses and plus at the moment I only have money for the D7000 and maybe two lenses. I might get more but it would be later on in the year.
 

jeremyshaw

macrumors 6502
Oct 29, 2011
340
0
Say if I was travelling around what would be the two best lenses to use? I don't want to carry heaps of lenses and plus at the moment I only have money for the D7000 and maybe two lenses. I might get more but it would be later on in the year.
Maybe the 18-200mm VRII, since it is light (aka, plastic build), but well endowed for it's size. Though, of course, some of that may be more to personal preferance and useage. It is around 800usd, if I remember correctly.
 

firestarter

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2002
5,501
122
Green and pleasant land
Maybe the 18-200mm VRII, since it is light (aka, plastic build), but well endowed for it's size. Though, of course, some of that may be more to personal preferance and useage. It is around 800usd, if I remember correctly.
Yuck. Why get a DSLR if you're just going to slap a slow 11x zoom on it? May as well get a cheaper bridge.

Do people really need 200mm (on a cropped frame camera) as a standard part of their walk around kit, or should folks learn how to walk up to stuff?

OP - I'd get a decent shorter standard zoom and the 35 f1.8G
 

jeremyshaw

macrumors 6502
Oct 29, 2011
340
0
Yuck. Why get a DSLR if you're just going to slap a slow 11x zoom on it? May as well get a cheaper bridge.

Do people really need 200mm (on a cropped frame camera) as a standard part of their walk around kit, or should folks learn how to walk up to stuff?

OP - I'd get a decent shorter standard zoom and the 35 f1.8G
True, you could just stick with a small lens and simply walk up to the subject :p Would have more light to capture, too... At any rate, I picked out the lens with the largest range as an answer.
 

afroAnt

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
155
2
Yuck. Why get a DSLR if you're just going to slap a slow 11x zoom on it? May as well get a cheaper bridge.

Do people really need 200mm (on a cropped frame camera) as a standard part of their walk around kit, or should folks learn how to walk up to stuff?

OP - I'd get a decent shorter standard zoom and the 35 f1.8G
So the 35mm f1.8G and maybe a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
So the 35mm f1.8G and maybe a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?
yeps.. i would go for that combo right now unless you have cash to burn for a long telephoto for sports... for now, in the beginning i would get the 35 1.8 and the tamron 17-50 ... if you have left over think about memory cards, maybe a polarizer and a good backpack.

IMHO... can be wrong.
 

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
yeps.. i would go for that combo right now unless you have cash to burn for a long telephoto for sports... for now, in the beginning i would get the 35 1.8 and the tamron 17-50 ... if you have left over think about memory cards, maybe a polarizer and a good backpack.

IMHO... can be wrong.
Well if you're wrong, I'll be wrong with you :p

I'm also not a big fan of the 18-200mm lens as you're trading image quality and lens speed for the convenience of not walking. I've also found that having to "zoom with your feet" forces you (especially those beginning photography) to think about your composition some more.
 

THX1139

macrumors 68000
Mar 4, 2006
1,928
0
The Canon has better video capability, but if you're not interested in that, the Nikon is better for photography and more rugged than the Canon.
 

afroAnt

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
155
2
Thanks everyone for your help :D I'll be getting the D7000 in a couple of weeks.
 

a.jfred

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2010
390
19
Austin, TX
Well if you're wrong, I'll be wrong with you :p

I'm also not a big fan of the 18-200mm lens as you're trading image quality and lens speed for the convenience of not walking. I've also found that having to "zoom with your feet" forces you (especially those beginning photography) to think about your composition some more.

I'm a big fan of "zoom with your feet," but that really doesn't work when your subject is across that sheer drop, or there's a protective fence between you (think zoo). Just food for thought ;)

Also, even with my 105mm macro lens, I still zoom with my feet. ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.