# Camera for Professional Use: Nikon D7000 vs Canon 7D



## doubleoh7 (Jun 24, 2011)

I recently purchased a Nikon d7000 in an effort to jump to the "professional" side of photography.  I of course have a lot of practicing to do with the new camera and in that process over the last 3 weeks (i've been shooting for several years with nikon) I've run across a lot of other "pros" at various events that seemingly all used Canon cameras.  Is there any validity to Canon's being the professional choice or am I just encountering buyers remorse?  Thanks in advance -


----------



## Formatted (Jun 24, 2011)

> Nikon d7000 in an effort to jump to the "professional" side of photography.



The D7000 isn't a pro camera and buying a "nicer" camera isn't going to improve your photography as much as understanding, what makes a good photo.



> Is there any validity to Canon's being the professional choice or am I just encountering buyers remorse?



This question has been brought up before and I'm going to avoid answering it because how I answer it will cause a Canon vs Nikon war; instead I'm going to say why you would ask such a question. This idea is only really brought up, when the OP (you) doesn't understand what makes a good photo. Just because they have big nice shiny lenses, big cameras and lots of people using the same stuff, doesn't mean if you have it you'll take nice photos to.

Its practice, makes perfect (or close as to)


----------



## flea77 (Jun 24, 2011)

doubleoh7 said:


> Is there any validity to Canon's being the professional choice or am I just encountering buyers remorse?  Thanks in advance -



Well that depends.... Does the professional drive a Ford or Chevy? Do they use a Mac or PC? And lastly, but most importantly, do they put mustard or mayo on their hamburgers?

If you drive a Ford, use a Mac and put mayo on your hamburger you have to buy a Canon or you just will never be able to create professional pictures, unless of course you put mustard and mayo on your burgers, then you might be able to use Nikon, maybe.

Allan


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 24, 2011)

Does the MotoGP pro ride suzuki, yamaha, ducati, kawasaki, aprilia, or honduh?  If you don't know the answer perhaps join me at photography school and bring the D7000, I'll have mine with me? 

By the time we graduate the D800 will be out for us anyway


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 24, 2011)

Comparing the proverbial apples to oranges...

...but to even expound further (where do i come up with these words?) ... what makes a pro a pro?

Clearly you are a little ways off so i wouldn't stress on it too much


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2011)

YES!!! Canon is the pro camera of the 1990's and the decade of the early 2000's!!!!

Here, check out this PDF file from the developers of the Pocket Wizard flash triggering system, detailing exclusive benefits for Canon 580 EL-II flash users!

http://lpadesign.com/580EXII.pdf


----------



## doubleoh7 (Jun 24, 2011)

Truly profound answers / comments - and I had it coming.  Why then though do many folks ask what type of equipment I'm using followed by the why not a Canon comment?


----------



## Formatted (Jun 24, 2011)

> Why then though do many folks ask what type of equipment I'm using followed by the why not a Canon comment?



The people you hang around clearly know nothing....


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 24, 2011)

Formatted said:


> > Why then though do many folks ask what type of equipment I'm using followed by the why not a Canon comment?
> 
> 
> 
> The people you hang around clearly know nothing....



+1


----------



## Texas Parrothead (Jun 24, 2011)

Simply tell them because you prefer Nikon......and because our amps go to 11!


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 24, 2011)

Nobody ever asks me why I don't shoot Canon...but I have an answer ready


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 24, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> Nobody ever asks me why I don't shoot Canon...but I have an answer ready



I don't care what the answer is! The real significant question has been mentioned Mayo or Mustard?
If it's any answer but Mayo then don't want to waste any more of my time on this! 

But yep like others mentioned I rarely concern myself with what others are shooting. To busy worried about if I brought the right gear vs will I have to up the iso when those clouds roll in kind of issues. And am I in the optimal position,angle for the kind of composition I want to do. And I would never take a job if my equipment or my skills aren't up to what is required to do it right. Then worry what other's are shooting. As for me it always due to finances worrying on how to work around and with my limited equipment and limited skills to achieve the Best image possible. And upgrading my skill set is always needing a constant upgrade and non-brand dependent.
.


----------



## KmH (Jun 24, 2011)

doubleoh7 said:


> I've run across a lot of other "pros" at various events that seemingly all used Canon cameras.  Is there any validity to Canon's being the professional choice or am I just encountering buyers remorse?  Thanks in advance -


You're sample size is likely way to small to be statistically valid.

I wouldn't call it buyers remorse, and as mentioned you didn't buy a pro camera, you bought a top-of-it's-category entry-level camera.

Nikon's pro cameras are the D3s and D3x.


----------



## Hardrock (Jun 24, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> Nobody ever asks me why I don't shoot Canon...but I have an answer ready



Well...lets hear it!:greenpbl:

To the op I doubt you will ever be able to tell in a magazine weither they shot canon, nikon, or whatever. A lot of times the glass on the end of the camera is what makes the difference. You have a great camera so go out and use it!


----------



## doubleoh7 (Jun 24, 2011)

Case closed - sticking with the Nikon thanks TPF contributors !!!


----------



## KmH (Jun 24, 2011)

The wetware operating the camera is what counts the most.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2011)

KmH said:


> The wetware operating the camera is what counts the most.



Well, "sort of."

A well-known Los Angeles paparazzo who shoots a Canon d-slr:


http://cdn03.cdn.egotastic.com/wp-c...-skirt-heading-to-bad-teacher-premiere-01.jpg


http://cdn03.cdn.egotastic.com/wp-c...-skirt-heading-to-bad-teacher-premiere-02.jpg


http://cdn03.cdn.egotastic.com/wp-c...-skirt-heading-to-bad-teacher-premiere-03.jpg


Notice the blown-out, overexposed exposures, due to color-blind light metering and sickly Canon skin rendition.

***************
Another photographer,at the same photo opportunity, using another brand and model of camera: the noise profile makes it look "older". Quite possibly a digital P&S. Notice the entirely different skin rendition and different, "smarter" light metering.


http://cdn03.cdn.egotastic.com/wp-c...-skirt-heading-to-bad-teacher-premiere-09.jpg
http://cdn03.cdn.egotastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cameron-diaz-short-skirt-heading-to-bad-teacher-premiere-10.jpg

Notice that in this second exposure, the camera has picked up another shooter's off-camera flash, as you can see on her face and the edge of the doorway that is open.


----------



## Overread (Jun 24, 2011)

After two years I have only one question - Derrel - just how many Canon Voodoo dolls do you get through a week?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2011)

Overread said:


> After two years I have only one question - Derrel - just how many Canon Voodoo dolls do you get through a week?



I don't know. But, as a Canon OWNER AND USER,which I am, but one with only a little over $10,000 in Canon gear, I recognize how a Canon d-slr can easily blow a fast-breaking photojournalism or action/outdoors photo opportunity because of Canon's color-blind light metering....and I recognize it from the way it has let me down over the years...

Look at the pics above...color-blind metering from a Canon...horribly blown-out skin tones....


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 24, 2011)

Derrel said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The wetware operating the camera is what counts the most.
> ...



It should be a crime shoot substandard pics of such legs


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 24, 2011)

Derrel said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The wetware operating the camera is what counts the most.
> ...



I call BS, the FACE in the first photos look perfect, its just her nasty legs that are over exposed LOL.
And with the second photos 'using another brand and model of camera', they look really noisy in comparison. You sure the 2nd wasnt a canon shooter aswell? XD

Edit: Also look at the background of the ugly woman, one has way more skin-tone-ish color in the background, a nice neutral color, not a huge dynamic range if you will. If you checkout the first photos, you got these white ass legs, with a black ass background.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 24, 2011)

prodigy2k7 said:


> I call BS, the FACE in the first photos look perfect, its just her* nasty legs* that are over exposed LOL.
> And with the second photos 'using another brand and model of camera', they look really noisy in comparison. You sure the 2nd wasnt a canon shooter aswell? XD
> 
> Edit: Also look at the background of the* ugly woman*, one has way more skin-tone-ish color in the background, a nice neutral color, not a huge dynamic range if you will. If you checkout the first photos, you got these *white ass legs, with a black ass background*.



3 reasons for my first 'ignore.'


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 24, 2011)

Just tell them that white lenses aren't good for a ninja.





Then disappear and go get the shot.


----------

