Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which would you suggest? (Canon 7D or Nikon D7000)

ijohn.8.80

ijohn.8.80

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 7, 2012
1,246
2
Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
Howdy All,

As a newb to DSLR's I bought the cheapest I could, just to see if I enjoyed it or not. Well, I'm hooked! I've taken near on 2,300 shots in the 5 or 6 weeks I've had my 1100D.

My query is, now that I'm ready to invest in a better camera, but wanting to do it for under $1,000 (body only), which would you go for?

7D or 1DS II?

I want to do a wide range of photography, from nature shooting (birds mainly) to architecture, to portraits, to landscapes, to the quirky stuff that grabs my attention along the way.

I can easily grab either of these cameras for well under $1,000, but have no idea which would really suit me better in the long run.

I don't do video, never will, and I'm not blowing my shots up for a wall either.

Thanks for all opinions.
John
 
Last edited:
Well, if you are shooting birds, then I think you would probably benefit from the 1.6x crop factor of the 7d. Will sort of give you "free" extra reach with your telephoto lenses. And, it will be what you are currently used to.

Also, personally I would prefer the lighter, smaller, faster, higher ISO sensitivity of the 7d.

I have no experience with full frame though, so maybe I am missing something. But, I doubt it.

Heck, maybe save even more and get a T3i or T2i and put the extra towards lenses?
 
I understand a 1100d isn't the "best" camera but I doubt your skillset has exceeded it's limitations in less than 2 months. I recommend investing in some better glass before upgrading your body.
 
I'd go with the 7D . It's got better high iso capability , newer electronics , and a 'self cleaning sensor' . Probably less wear , too , assuming equal amounts of annual usage . Only reasons I can see for getting the 1DS2 is if you really want a full frame sensor , or need the weatherproofing and heavier build . Or , like TheDrift , mikepro and breezie said , go for better glass and stick with your old body for a while.
 
Last edited:
I would say keep the current body and invest in some more lenses.
Once you feel that your camera body cannot stretch enough to use the full potential of your lens collection (and that would take while), then replace your body.
Good thing is, you will still be able to use all the lenses you have accumulated and have mastered the use of till now.
 
Personally I would have never gone with the 1100d to start with as for not much more you can get a much better camera in the 550d/600d/650d.

For this I would recommend upgrading to the 7d. What is your current kit and are you willing to share some shots and give us some examples of where your current kit is letting you down?
 
ijohn.8.80 said:
Howdy All,

As a newb to DSLR's I bought the cheapest I could, just to see if I enjoyed it or not. Well, I'm hooked! I've taken near on 2,300 shots in the 5 or 6 weeks I've had my 1100D.

My query is, now that I'm ready to invest in a better camera, but wanting to do it for under $1,000 (body only), which would you go for?

7D or 1DS II?

I want to do a wide range of photography, from nature shooting (birds mainly) to architecture, to portraits, to landscapes, to the quirky stuff that grabs my attention along the way.

I can easily grab either of these cameras for well under $1,000, but have no idea which would really suit me better in the long run.

I don't do video, never will, and I'm not blowing my shots up for a wall either.

Thanks for all opinions.
John
Click to expand...

6 weeks and youre already moving along!

I'd love to see some pictures you take!

Anyways, if I were you, go with 7D. New sensor, video capabilities(might come in handy!) Better ISO control. Same fps as 1D2. (8vs 8.5fps)

Better support.

If still unsure, POTN is a great place to ask questions.

http://photography-on-the.net
 
I think you have to prioritize your shooting styles. The 7D is great for Birds and Sports (it has a high frame rate with fast auto focus) If you are serious about portraits, landscape, architecture you may want to go with a 5D1. Its full frame so you will get wider shots, and shallower DOF. You might not be able to use the same lenses though.
 
For what it's worth, I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. I got my T3/1100D last Christmas and it didn't take long before I was longing for something more powerful. I've set my sights on a 5D Mk. III (one day) but know I won't have that kind of money for a good long while. So while I wait/save up little by little, I've invested in expanding my lens collection, instead.

The EF-S 18-55mm kit lens still serves me well, as does the EF-S 55-250mm. Those two form the backbone of my lens collection so far because they cover the full range of my camera's "reach".

My first additional lens was the EF 50mm f/1.4 which on the 1100D produces some really nice shots-- great for making subjects fill up the frame-- but was still a little close for some walking around shots and especially indoor locations.

My most recent lens was the EF 35mm f/1.4L which I absolutely adore. Great bokeh, great colors, great image quality. Good field of view. It's getting left on my camera more and more. (Admittedly it can cost more than the bodies you're looking at.)

Which brings me to the key thing to consider between the 7D and 1DS II, and that's which lenses do you own? If, like me, half (or more) are EF-S mounts, they won't work on the 1DS II, which means that in addition to the body you'd also have to rebuy some glass. If I did that, I'd be left with only the 50mm and 35mm to play with and while they'd be great, I'd lose the 18-250mm range almost completely.

If they're mostly EF lenses, though, then you have a more even pro/con list.

If you're committed to a new body, I'm thinking 7D might suit you better (assuming the EF-S lenses). Overall, though, I'm another advocate of lenses making the difference moreso than the body-- even on an 1100D.
 
I have the 7d and a 400mm lens for wildlife and it's a good combo. To shoot wildlife with a full frame camera you need a 600mm lens at the least. The price difference between a 400 and 600 L lens is around $11,000. Honest...

Dale
 
Easily the 7D. You will need the 7D's AF if you're photographing birds. The 1DS II AF isn't horrible, but it's more of a portrait/wedding/landscape camera. Plus, considering the 1DS is a bit older, you will get more of the newer features in the 7D than you would in the 1DS (ie. better dynamic range, live view, bigger LCD, self cleaning sensor).

Ultimately, the decision is up to you since both camera bodies are great, but I would lean more toward the 7D if I were you.
 
Howdy All,

Thanks heaps for the honest responses. I won't respond individually, it'd just take too long.

When I got my camera it was on special for $400 with the 18-55mm lens, so it was a bargain.

Lessons: I'm taking pretty intensive lessons at the moment.
I'm doing the following course right now, I'm up to week 4 next week. http://www.urcreative.com.au/course.php?course=1
I'll be going on with Course 2, Course 3 and Course 4
Unfortunately this camera doesn't have good low light capabilities, spot metering or self cleaning, and I would like a faster continuous shoot, but I'm sure there will be more things that come up as inadequacies of it as I progress through the courses.

I had wondered about lenses and expense of wider lenses for the 1DS, thanks for the warning there.

Current lenses are the nifty fifty, the stock 18-55mm and the 55-250mm. I want something longer for bird shots though, so that will be my next purchase after the courses finish. I'm a member of a bird watching group and have just joined a local photography club, the majority of members are film freaks though! Those with DSLR's use them on holidays and at family events, not really for anything too creative, but I'm yet to meet them all.

Click on my name and take a look at my postings in the weekly contests and the daily shots for an idea of my progression thus far.

I'm leaning more to the 7D now, the weight alone of lugging the 1DS around all day is a bit off-putting.

Thanks again all, it's appreciated.
 
Last edited:
ijohn.8.80 said:
Howdy All,

Thanks heaps for the honest responses. I won't respond individually, it'd just take too long.

When I got my camera it was on special for $400 with the 18-55mm lens, so it was a bargain.

Lessons: I'm taking pretty intensive lessons at the moment.
I'm doing the following course right now, I'm up to week 4 next week. http://www.urcreative.com.au/course.php?course=1
I'll be going on with Course 2, Course 3 and Course 4
Unfortunately this camera doesn't have good low light capabilities, spot metering or self cleaning, and I would like a faster continuous shoot, but I'm sure there will be more things that come up as inadequacies of it as I progress through the courses.

I had wondered about lenses and expense of wider lenses for the 1DS, thanks for the warning there.

Current lenses are the nifty fifty, the stock 18-55mm and the 55-250mm. I want something longer for bird shots though, so that will be my next purchase after the courses finish. I'm a member of a bird watching group and have just joined a local photography club, the majority of members are film freaks though! Those with DSLR's use them on holidays and at family events, not really for anything too creative, but I'm yet to meet them all.

Click on my name and take a look at my postings in the weekly contests and the daily shots for an idea of my progression thus far.

I'm leaning more to the 7D now, the weight alone of lugging the 1DS around all day is a bit off-putting.

Thanks again all, it's appreciated.
Click to expand...

John,
If you are worried about the weight of the camera with lenses please look into something like either the Cotton Carrier system (http://www.cottoncarrier.com/), or my personal favorite for affordability, the Opteka Carrier Harness Holster (http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-MCH-25-Carrier-Harness-Holster/dp/B00746O3X8). These systems make it much to walk or ride around with your camera ready to photograph whatever you happen to come upon. You can keep all your other equipment like a poncho or tripod in a smaller backpack if necessary.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I suggest a good basic lens set for is: 17-40 (16-35 if you want extra speed), 24-105 (24-70 II if you want extra speed), and 100-400. You can put these on a crop body and later use them with a full frame body. These are the kinds of lenses you purchase once in your lifetime. You can always add a 100 or 180 macro later.

You can get refurbed lenses from Canon USA for signficantly less. I have purchased several refurbed lens for the wife and I without any problems.
 
joshualee90 said:
I think you have to prioritize your shooting styles. The 7D is great for Birds and Sports (it has a high frame rate with fast auto focus) If you are serious about portraits, landscape, architecture you may want to go with a 5D1. Its full frame so you will get wider shots, and shallower DOF. You might not be able to use the same lenses though.
Click to expand...


Having owned the 7D and both the 5DmarkI and markII, I would recommend AGAINST buying a mark I. The 7D was and is a great camera. If you need the full frame then spend the $ on a Mark II. The crippled autofocus on the Mark I is reason enough to go w/either of the other cameras.
 
7D gets my vote mainly for the 1.6 crop factor and your love of birds. Good glass is good glass anytime you can get it so you have to weigh one against the other.
 
Thanks for all your knowledge and assistance guys. I'm going to go with the 7D when I've finished the 4 courses, which will be by mid March of next year.

I've got my lenses for now, 18-55mm, 50mm & 55-250mm. I'll get a 100-400 and a 100 macro when I get the 7D also. Reconditioned from Canon USA if possible. A pity the Australian site doesn't do that.

Thanks again all.
 
I would forget about getting a new body and buy more glass and optionally a flash instead. A few lenses you should look at are the 70-200 mm f/4 non-IS (very cheap, optically top notch), Tamron's 17-55 mm f/2.8 and Sigma's 30 mm f/1.4, for instance. I don't see the point of using 18-55 mm or 55-250 mm kit lenses on a 7D. The 100-400 mm you're interested in is meh, if you need the reach, Sigma's 100-300 mm f/4 is a better option (both, in terms of optics and mechanics).
 
OreoCookie said:
I would forget about getting a new body and buy more glass and optionally a flash instead. A few lenses you should look at are the 70-200 mm f/4 non-IS (very cheap, optically top notch), Tamron's 17-55 mm f/2.8 and Sigma's 30 mm f/1.4, for instance. I don't see the point of using 18-55 mm or 55-250 mm kit lenses on a 7D. The 100-400 mm you're interested in is meh, if you need the reach, Sigma's 100-300 mm f/4 is a better option (both, in terms of optics and mechanics).
Click to expand...

OreoCookie thanks for the heads-up on these lenses.

Is anyone actually using the Sigma 100-300 f/4 ex hsm for wildlife photography? Comments on its reach for birds, and particularly its performance for rapid fire shots. Another Sigma was bagged for poor performance in this regard.
 
ijohn.8.80 said:
OreoCookie thanks for the heads-up on these lenses.

Is anyone actually using the Sigma 100-300 f/4 ex hsm for wildlife photography? Comments on its reach for birds, and particularly its performance for rapid fire shots. Another Sigma was bagged for poor performance in this regard.
Click to expand...
Reach just depends on the focal length and not on the brand. Back in the film days (or for full frame cameras), the kind of reach you get (~480 mm f/4 on full frame) was considered crazy good and you had to spend five digits to get that kind of a lens. All the Sigma's reviews I have seen so far are very positive, but I haven't used it myself.

Third party lenses are a hotly debated issue. I own several Nikon lenses, a Tokina lens and a Sigma prime. My favorite lens is my 80-200 mm Nikkor, but my most-used lens is my 30 mm Sigma prime lens. If you are willing to spend more money, third-party lenses tend to be very, very good, in some cases they outclass the equivalent »original manufacturer lens« and most of the time, they're a lot cheaper (I got the 30 mm Sigma for 1/5th of the price of Nikon's 35 mm f/1.4).
 
Ooh, tough choice.
Personally for birding the crop factor of the 7D will come in handy, but the 45-point autofocus is very attractive...
But in the end for birding the 7D would be better; in fact, if you need the reach, you have no other choice but, unless you want to invent in super tele primes, which by your budget you're not willing to do.
 
ijohn.8.80 said:
Howdy All,

As a newb to DSLR's I bought the cheapest I could, just to see if I enjoyed it or not. Well, I'm hooked! I've taken near on 2,300 shots in the 5 or 6 weeks I've had my 1100D.

My query is, now that I'm ready to invest in a better camera, but wanting to do it for under $1,000 (body only), which would you go for?

7D or 1DS II?

I want to do a wide range of photography, from nature shooting (birds mainly) to architecture, to portraits, to landscapes, to the quirky stuff that grabs my attention along the way.

I can easily grab either of these cameras for well under $1,000, but have no idea which would really suit me better in the long run.

I don't do video, never will, and I'm not blowing my shots up for a wall either.

Thanks for all opinions.
John
Click to expand...

You can't be serious about that. The biggest difference between 7D and 1D Mark II is sensor (1.6 vs 1.2 or 1.3 - I don't remember exactly). If you are going to shoot landscape, architecture,... you need 1.2/1.3 or even better 35mm. If you are going for portrait, makro and so 1.6 is just fine
 
Mito said:
You can't be serious about that. The biggest difference between 7D and 1D Mark II is sensor (1.6 vs 1.2 or 1.3 - I don't remember exactly). If you are going to shoot landscape, architecture,... you need 1.2/1.3 or even better 35mm. If you are going for portrait, makro and so 1.6 is just fine
Click to expand...

A couple of bits wrong with this.

The 1Ds is full frame and you'll find that for portraiture you'll want a FF camera.

Also if you were referring to a 1.3 vs 1.6 crop I would say the difference is minor as there is such a wide selection of lenses available today.

The difference between FF and 1.6x crop does make a differnece in terms of lens selection as a lot of lenses suddenly have different purposes which isn't so apparent on the 1.3 vs 1.6 crop.

Also EFS lenses cannot be put on a FF camera without voiding the warranty etc. youll also get some severe vignetting with most lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back