# Nikon D7000 for Sports and Fast moving objects



## darkcloud154 (Sep 28, 2012)

I currently have a Nikon D3100. Im thinking of upgrading to a Nikon D7000. I used it over the weekend at the SGP F1 and really impressed with its picture quality and speed.

But i wanted to know over a longer term period, is the nikon a good performing when it comes to sports and fast moving objects with its AF points and 6fps. The reason why i ask is i want that in my camera for when i go to the f1 and i read mixed reviews of it against the Canon 7D. I hear the AF points are better on the d7000 - and better at focusing on moving objects but the burst rate can be lagging compare to 7D.

Any thoughts? Otherwise i'm won over by the d7000.


----------



## jaomul (Sep 28, 2012)

Firstly the af on the 7d is excellent and it has a bigger buffer than the d7000. IQ is reputedly better on the nikon but it is not really a very fast camera. The af is fine but the buffer may limit you. A recent review in digital camera placed the 7d on top with the D7000 quite far down the list but many think it is a canon biased magazine. If I were you i would seriously consider the d300s before the d7000. Both are fine cameras but the 300 is more geared for speed.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Sep 28, 2012)

Nikon V1 has great AF and 10 fps or something like that... Or one of the newer Sony Alpha cameras have high FPS, but I dont remember reviews about the AF. Or you can save up $6k and get the D4.


----------



## darkcloud154 (Sep 30, 2012)

jaomul said:


> Firstly the af on the 7d is excellent and it has a bigger buffer than the d7000. IQ is reputedly better on the nikon but it is not really a very fast camera. The af is fine but the buffer may limit you. A recent review in digital camera placed the 7d on top with the D7000 quite far down the list but many think it is a canon biased magazine. If I were you i would seriously consider the d300s before the d7000. Both are fine cameras but the 300 is more geared for speed.



Do you have the magazine in question? I will look at the d300s, but very tempted to jump ship to Canon based on the reviews and the images i have seen online.


----------



## darkcloud154 (Sep 30, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Nikon V1 has great AF and 10 fps or something like that... Or one of the newer Sony Alpha cameras have high FPS, but I dont remember reviews about the AF. Or you can save up $6k and get the D4.



Not keen on those new smaller Nikon's. Not sure of the Sony Alpha SLT technology. D4 would be in an ideal world....any other traditional SLR's in the Nikon range that can suffice a high fps, d7000 would have been perfect but i watched a review and the buffer suffered after 3 secs or so, whilst the Canon 60D just kept going.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 30, 2012)

Nikon D300s would be better than the D7000 for that. and you can get the battery grip for the D300s and make it 8fps. it also has better AF than the D7000, bigger buffer, and better built.


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 30, 2012)

I shoot the 7D every day for work and the D7000 is my personal camera.  Here are my thoughts:

The D7000 is noticeably better in low light.  It is both less noisy at high ISO and has better color at high ISO.  The 7D noticeably, drastically desaturates after ISO 3200 and loses a lot of contrast.  The images are still sharp, and can usually be fixed in post with a saturation bump and a curves adjustment, but they never quite look right.  ISO 6400 is only usable if the medium you're going to be publishing to is pretty low quality on the 7D.  The D7000 on the other hand is usable up to ISO 6400 and doesn't lose very much color and I don't think it really loses any contrast.  It is much less noisy at all ISOs from 1600-6400.  

This is fairly important in sports because of how often you have to shoot in low light.  A mid day race, its probably not an issue.  A race under the lights or even around dusk, it could be the make or break issue.

6 fps and 8 fps is an issue, as is the buffer size and the write speed of CF cards v. SD cards.  The 7D shoots faster bursts for longer periods.  Now, if you need to shoot a continuous burst for more than a second, you probably don't understand what you're shooting, but I'll be honest, when I've had to cover sports I've not been as familiar with, and thus had a harder time capturing 'the moment' the 8 fps burst that could run for several seconds was a help to get something that was usable.  The D7000, if you know what you're shooting, is probably fine at 6 fps with a shorter burst duration though.  

The D7000s auto focus is better.  Better in low light, better overall.  Less jumpy.  When shooting the 7D, I'll probably have one out of every 8 frames where the 7D decided it needed to focus on some random patch of grass between the players legs that's 8 feet behind the action.  I pretty rarely get focus errors on the D7000 unless it's something unavoidable like a ref running in front of the action.  The D7000's follow focus mode (can't remember what its called off the top of my head) is way 'smarter' than Canon's servo mode.  It's like comparing Einstein to Snooki.  

The 7D is built better.  The 7D is like a tank, and if you have average male sized hand, will feel better in your hand.  Especially with the big lenses sports shooting requires.  The D7000 almost always feels awkwardly balanced when it has a big lens on the end.  The 7D feels like a full frame camera in your hands.  

And while perhaps not something directly related, I prefer the top end L glass for sports to the top end Nikon glass.  IMHO the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L is a great workhorse lens that blows away anything nikon offers, as far as shooting sports goes.  It is a speed demon focus speed wise, razor sharp across it's entire focal length and aperture ranges.  I also thing the huge f/2.8 primes from canon are better than their nikon counterparts as well, again, specifically when it comes to sports. But this only matters if you're able to afford absolute top of the line L glass.  

On the whole it's a near toss up to me for sports:

Sports pros of the D7000: Better in low light, better auto focus, very slightly better image quality, cheaper
Sports pros of the 7D: faster burst mode, longer duration of burst mode, better build quality

Edit: and as a day to day use camera, I think the D7000 is a better camera than the 7D.  It's just in sports specifically where the burst mode and beefier build really helps the 7D pull back to a dead heat.  In day to day shoting, where the 8 v 6 fps burst isn't much of an issue, the better low light performance, and better overall image quality, to say nothing of the cheaper price, means the D7000 is a clear winner (in my opinion) for generalized shooting.


----------



## KmH (Sep 30, 2012)

Canon's 7D is a prosumer grade camera, while Nikon's D7000 is Nikon's best entry-level grade camera. The 7D is an older design and has been on the market longer. So a comparison is difficult becuase there are features a prosumer camera will have that entry-level cameras don't have, and the D7000 has re-defined what to expect from a top-of-the catergory entry-level grade camera.

Judging image sensor performance alone based on independent lab testing, and no other camera features, the D7000 trumps the 7D - DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 30, 2012)

here is  another link that compares some of the other features of both cameras. you will have to decide which features are best suited for your needs. 

Canon 7D vs Nikon D7000 - Our Analysis


----------



## owlxxx (Sep 30, 2012)

I've shot rodeos, mx and off-road racing(baja 500 stuff) with my d7000.  If you know what you're anticipating, it'll do just fine.  But if you're hoping to to just hold the shutter down for the duration of a 8 second bullride, or a whole football play, then you will come across buffer issues shooting in .raw.  I don't know how it would do shooting in .jpg.   But I love my d7000, it has pretty much done everything i've needed it to do.  I'm just giving you a hint of my experience with the camera, I don't know how it compares to a 7d...


----------



## TonysTouch (Sep 30, 2012)

If you would like to save a couple of pennies, you can look into the D300 and use the money saved to buy a grip and a couple EN-E4(a) batteries. It doesn't have video, but if you keep your current camera that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## darkcloud154 (Oct 1, 2012)

@fjrabon. Thanks for your in depth view. Since writing this, I've realized that actually 7D for its pro's has gone out of my list and i feel the 60D would be more adequate based on its age etc. I know its doesn't have the same burst rate but as you said i have also read some not so great reviews on 7D image quality.

Noise is important, especially say for example the Formula one in Singapore at night, with the artificial lighting 1600 ISO is a min. So the noise handling of the D7000 is vital. I have experienced this at first hand using it myself a few weeks back.

I've known what i am shooting and have anticipated and know what direction the cars are coming so i can use the AF to track and then shoot. Like you say i don't really need continuous burst for long, a few seconds and a handful of images would suffice my needs so i think the d7000 covers this. I like your analysis of the AF, sounds good.

The only thing you have stumped me on is the Canon high end lenses, with the f2.8 70-200 which i had in mind. I would rent this lens at sporting events rather than buying but having this option would be great. I considered borrowing the Nikon equivalent to use at events and have seen others do this, but not as prevalent as Canon. This makes me think whether its worth switching to Canon over Nikon....

Overall your analysis has provided a great insight and i'm in a mind of d7000 fulfills my needs for everyday photography with the added advantage of being able to take great pictures at sports events, i just need to be more focused on the images i'm trying to get and to use the fps adequately and maximize the buffer limitations. If i think about it, i only normally take 4-5 frames continuously for my needs, after that i don't bother and by then i have got what i need. I did this for a recent event.

I just need to ponder the Canon lenses at the high range and whether its worth switching, but it would only be for events 2/3 times a year - is that really justified to move away from some lenses i already have with Nikon - these are mid range, not super expensive or good.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

darkcloud154 said:


> @fjrabon. Thanks for your in depth view. Since writing this, I've realized that actually 7D for its pro's has gone out of my list and i feel the 60D would be more adequate based on its age etc. I know its doesn't have the same burst rate but as you said i have also read some not so great reviews on 7D image quality.
> 
> Noise is important, especially say for example the Formula one in Singapore at night, with the artificial lighting 1600 ISO is a min. So the noise handling of the D7000 is vital. I have experienced this at first hand using it myself a few weeks back.
> 
> ...



The super high end L glass is awesome, but for just a couple times a year, I wouldn't let that sway my decision too much.  Its awesomeness is more of a 'becomes apparent when you use it every day' sort of thing.  When I first started at my current job, I liked the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, but I also didn't really get the big deal about it either.  However, after using it 6 days a week for a month, I fell in love.  However, if you're not using it day in day out, as part of your job, the Nikon big lenses are excellent as well.  I just feel like Canon has an edge here.  I wouldn't say it's worth switching brands for, because Nikon has a lot of other edges too (I think right now they particularly have a large edge in bodies).

The 60D isn't a bad camera by any means, but it is a piece of junk compared to the 7D and D7000.  It's more comparable to the D5100 in my opinion, and the D5100 has better image quality (since it shares the same sensor as the D7000).  I've never met anybody who tried both the 7D and the 60D and preferred the 60D.  I wouldn't mind the 60D as a hobbyist camera, but if I had to use it every day for work, it would drive me insane.  It's slow to shoot, slow to focus (for all the 7Ds focusing issues, it is lightning fast to focus if you have good glass on the end), the controls are annoying to use if you're in a hurry (even though they seem at first glance to be similar to the 7D, they much more cumbersome).  The AF system isn't better and the image quality isn't better.  The build quality is SUBSTANTIALLY worse.  Again, this isn't to make the 60D sound like a terrible camera.  But it's just clearly in a class below the 7D (and though it rankles some hard core canonites, it's clearly below the D7000, if not the D5100).


----------



## darkcloud154 (Oct 1, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> darkcloud154 said:
> 
> 
> > @fjrabon. Thanks for your in depth view. Since writing this, I've realized that actually 7D for its pro's has gone out of my list and i feel the 60D would be more adequate based on its age etc. I know its doesn't have the same burst rate but as you said i have also read some not so great reviews on 7D image quality.
> ...



That's good to know then. I would never really use it everyday. The only investment I'm thinking of on a daily basis would be a either a 24-70 f2.8 or a 24-120 f4. Then rent a 70-200 f2.8 for events like i said previously. I think i will not bother switching based on your recommendation. I feel i can get the results i want with the kit i have and planning to purchase, in particular the body.

Haha you summed up an answer i wanted in the first sentence. 7D is too old based on technology (image, noise, ISO etc) to the D7000, and well the 60D is as you say! I did think about the 7D, but with what i have invested already and the use i have for the D7000, and what i have experienced using it before you have made my life and choice a whole lot easier, and a whole lot cheaper. I will just have to overcome the buffer issue when i shoot racing, but i can do that my focusing more on the image, where i want to shoot and taking 4-5 images in a burst rather than 10's and 10's, if even possible. Thanks for your help, its been truly insightful. Now to sell my D3100 and buy the D7000, its come back to the decision i initially had 2 weeks ago - but good i looked at all the Canon options in my price and usage range.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

darkcloud154 said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > darkcloud154 said:
> ...




Ha, I made the same exact jump a couple months back, but I actually ended up keeping the D3100 as a backup camera, because it depressed me so much to sell it for $300, which included the kit lens, which was about the going rate for used D3100s these days (even if they're in impeccable shape).  You can occasionally get $400 for one if you really find a newbie sucker, but I didn't want to do that.

It's actually come in handy a few times, as I've grown accustomed to shooting with two bodies, one with a tele attached, and one with a wide attached.  And the D3100 is so light that if you put say a 35mm f/1.8 on there, you barely notice it.


----------



## darkcloud154 (Oct 1, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> darkcloud154 said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Well i have a few buyers for my D3100. So im sure i will get it shifted. Though second thoughts having a second camera for one lens to take portrait say at an event with the other on a telephoto like you say would be great but i'm happy to interchange lens i suppose - take the time. At events I'm more concerned with the action rather than anything else. Will have a think.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

darkcloud154 said:


> Well i have a few buyers for my D3100. So im sure i will get it shifted. Though second thoughts having a second camera for one lens to take portrait say at an event with the other on a telephoto like you say would be great but i'm happy to interchange lens i suppose - take the time. At events I'm more concerned with the action rather than anything else. Will have a think.



If you shoot events, and get paid for it at all, you HAVE to have 2 bodies.  If something goes wrong on one body, you don't get to just reschedule the event as the photographer.  You lose your paycheck and you damage your reputation.  Have a body go down one time without a backup and you are known forever as the undependable idiot who ruined their memories.  

I guess if you're just shooting events for fun, it doesn't matter nearly as much.  But in any event, once you go to two bodies, you'll never EVER want to change lenses during an event ever again.  It also saves a lot of cleaning and wear and tear on your lenses and bodies to not change lenses as much.  The number one culprit of dirty sensors is changing lenses out in the field.


----------



## darkcloud154 (Oct 1, 2012)

I think on the first part for now, Im ok as i don't have aspirations to do any events or anything pro just yet. Maybe one day. 

I kind of get what you mean. There have been events where i have just confined myself to the fact i can only use one lens at an event because changing is too much of an issue and time consuming and changing outdoors could cause dirt of lense and sensor which means certains short range shots go wanting!!


----------

