# Wildlife photography Canon 7D vs Nikon D7000



## nuefox (Sep 7, 2012)

Hello there, 


For someone who is starting to wildlife photography i need an advice. I'm going to buy either one of them tomorrow so i'll appreciate if you give me some ideas.
I used both of them(7d and d7000) for like 2-3 hours, they both feel great. It's easier to grip 7D..Fits my hands better..d7000 looks more solid..also feels nice but a bit small for my hands..i can use battery grip to solve that problem..also going to use tripod so that might not be a huge issue.
d7000 is 6 fps and 7D is 8 which isn't a big deal since i'm not into flying birds 
What do you think? D7000 is bit cheaper so i can spend that money to lenses...
What's really bugging me is, while i was reading about some wildlife photography articles, most of the photographers seem to be using Canons..I saw 7D..i saw Mark II and III...with that huge 400mm lenses..
But i never saw any Nikon D7000....
why do you think i need to buy 7D and why would you prefer D7000..thanx a million..this is really important for me.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

7D hands down.  I recently got one myself and I am in love with it.  I love Nikon, started with Nikon, but the 7D beats the D7000 and the D300s both in my opinion....but that's just my opinion.

the increase of 8fps does not sound like much, but trust me, it is a great thing.  It does not always fire off at 8fps, as the d7000 wont always hit 6, settings dependent.  that fast action is great for wildlife, not just birds.  Shooting a moose, deer, etc....frame up, fire em off and you catch little twitches, ear movement, eyes...mouth open or closed...things like that.  that extra 2 or 3 frames may contain the winner.

that's just one example.  there are too many to even get into.  I'll just say this.  Buy the 7D, and once you learn it, you will never second guess yourself.

all simply my opinion...so take it for what it's worth.  ;-)


----------



## jaomul (Sep 7, 2012)

There are also third party lenses like the sigmas for both canon and nikon. The d7000 supposedly has better image quality, canon seem to have a slightly better telephoto range. I have a 7d and think its a very good camera, if it feels better in your hands you have your answer, but both would serve you well


----------



## KmH (Sep 7, 2012)

** Thread moved to an appropriate Camera Forum*&#8203;. ***

Based on the results of an independent testing lab, the D7000 has better image quality (no other features are compared) - http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/619|0/(brand2)/Canon

I would venture your wildlife photography sample set was to small to determine that more wildlife photographers use Canon over Nikon.
The vast majority of wildlife photographers I know, prefer Nikon (10 of 12) .


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

we have a customer with a canon 100-400 on hers.  call her the "moose whisperer".  her moose and duck shots are outstanding.  as with most, tools only get ya so far....the rest is up to you.


----------



## KmH (Sep 7, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> tools only get ya so far....the rest is up to you.


Quoted For Truth (QFT)


----------



## Derrel (Sep 7, 2012)

Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.



Isn't that simply opinion though?  Sure someone found a study, but for every "study" we can find 10 other "studies" that say the opposite.  

Personally, I'd find it hard to believe the IQ on a D7k better than a 7D.  all things considered equal...lenses, shooter, etc.  but that's just me.

also how "better" is "better" at those levels anyway?


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

I will also ask this...this based on personal use not studies...the 7D has a better sensor, more megapixels, faster framerate, a better metering system (the first thing I was impressed with was canons metering system on the 7D over Nikons), a quicker more accurate and reliable AF system.  

So all of these things listed are things I personally noticed.....not something I simply read about.  Leaves me wondering what is it on the D7000 that makes it have better image quality?


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 7, 2012)

Figure out what lens(s) you will want/need (can afford to purchase) and work backward from there.  For wildlife photography, I'd venture that the lens is much, MUCH, more important than the difference between the 7D and the D7000.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 7, 2012)

Don't forget your buying into the system...  Nikon and Canon have different lens options.

(*gritting teeth as a D7000 owner*)

I'd get the 7D.....  

Nikon gives you one $2.4k 70-200mm f/2.8 (and its awesome!).. while Canon has four 70-200's from $680-$2.4k (f/2.8 with IS and without... f/4 with IS and without).

Canon has the great 400mm f/5.6 for $1.3k.. Nikon has the $9k 400mm f/2.8..

(*deep breath... deep breath*)


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> Figure out what lens(s) you will want/need (can afford to purchase) and work backward from there.  For wildlife photography, I'd venture that the lens is much, MUCH, more important than the difference between the 7D and the D7000.



I was kinda hinting to that earlier, glad ya posted it as I forgot to clarify.  lol.  I really think lenses and user abilities come into play at those levels of camera more than the small differences between them.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 7, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.



Not only that, but you don't have to remember which wheel performs which function depending on which mode you're in.  Who's bright idea was that!?  Ergonomics/controls are MUCH better on the D7000 IMO among other things.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.
> ...



I'll give you that.  I do love the ergonomics on Nikon better.  It was annoying at first to have to learn canons silly ways.  but now that I have, it's really a non-issue now.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 7, 2012)

In one of my current runs of my DSLR class, there are two 7D users and at least one D7000 user.  I will say that the complexity of the 7D cameras are a bit of an issue.  One one hand, it's great that you can customize just about anything on the camera.  On the other hand, there is a rather steep learning curve trying to figure it all out.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 7, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.
> ...



This is an OBJECTIVE LABORATORY test that leaves OPINIONS at the door: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

To answer your question, as you can see from the OBJECTIVE test results, the D7000 has Higher Color Depth, more than 2Ev Higher Dynamic Range, and performs better in High ISO.



Ernicus said:


> I will also ask this...this based on personal use not studies...the 7D has a better sensor, more megapixels, faster framerate, a better metering system (the first thing I was impressed with was canons metering system on the 7D over Nikons), a quicker more accurate and reliable AF system.
> 
> So all of these things listed are things I personally noticed.....not something I simply read about.  Leaves me wondering what is it on the D7000 that makes it have better image quality?



I have and use on a regular basis both bodies and based on MY personal use, not studies, the D7000 has a much better sensor, a lower resolution but PHYSICALLY LARGER sensor, a framerate that is nearly irrelevant to me, and a better metering system.  I dont know how anyone could say that a system that meters ONLY in black and white (Canon 7D) would meter better than a system that meters in full color (Nikon D7000).  The differences in AF system perfermance between the two, unlike what you've said, are negligable between speed and accuracy, in my personal experience.  The lens attached to the body will make more difference than anything.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 7, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Go for the better image quality. Nikon D7000.
> ...



No,it's NOT an opinion. You know what? Not too long after it was introduced, a buddy called me up to help him light a series of product shots for a small "all-natural" herbal supplement medicine company. I have a LOT of studio lighting gear, and we're old college buddies, so I brought over some stuff, and we commenced to shooting with his then brand-new EOS 7D, tethered to a Macintosh system. THe clients were there, the company's two owners, and they were interested in seeing the shots as they cropped up, and we cross-checked actual photos with their logos and text overlays, and so on. The funny thing was, as we used ISO to bracket, at ISO 160, my friend leaned over close to me and whispered, "What the hell is that? Why is that looking so noisy in the shadows, we're only at ISO 160..." Uh, yeah....

And you know what...the 7D's sensor has TWO FULL F/stop's LESS dynamic range than the D7000 has. TWO STOPS LESS DR....probably THE most-critical, and most-useful metric to have rank "high" on a d-slr.

I have never, ever been impressed with the 7D's sensor. And DxO Mark's objective tests PROVE that the image's technical quality out of the 7D is substantially lower than that of the D7000. I myself have examined a few hundred 7D .CR2's...and I am *not* impressed. The Nikon D7000 has a better sensor. And no, that's not opinion. It's based on empirical data.DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 7, 2012)

I beat you to it Derrel


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

Well, I'm sure some die hard 7D lovers would and could chime in to reply...I don't have enough knowledge to do so at this point, based on my limited experience.  Regardless of studies and your folks opinions...it does not change the differences I have noticed personally with usage.  I find it odd that something that is that much better is about 700 bucks less.

Anyway, lots of good information has been presented for the OP, which was my initial reason for even chiming in, lol...get a little "Vs." replies going and good info usually gets put out.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

and about the noise...sorry but someone was doing something wrong.  I have shot many shots with high iso and the 7D performs superb.  my avatar was taken at 6400 iso actually....and you can't see noise anywhere.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 7, 2012)

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

In regards to this.. seems like they are missing quite a lot of specs on the 7D... Makes me wonder if that played into the score at all...


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> In regards to this.. seems like they are missing quite a lot of specs on the 7D... Makes me wonder if that played into the score at all...



Kinda why I stick to personal opinions based on usage.  I hold those of higher merit and weight.  Nothing to do with this specific study/comparison as i did not even read it.  I made the decision years ago as a personal trainer that I won't get involved in "studies" and "reports" and debates or discussions of them.  Kids read things and they think they are pro and I hit the weights and was stronger than them and their read knowledge....lol.  

so yeah...ya never know


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 7, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> In regards to this.. seems like they are missing quite a lot of specs on the 7D... Makes me wonder if that played into the score at all...



No.  This is not a score based on specs and documentation but rather a score based on testing.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 7, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> ...



Based on the weighting system of DxO seems to heavily favor ISO and the ability of noise reduction.  However for most animal photography that I've shot, it's been in the daytime as finding animals at night, generally is more difficult.  So ISO should be in the low ranges.  If you were seeing ISO quality at 160 - makes me think the laptop you were using wasn't calibrated properly, or something was wrong with the individual camera you were using.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> ...



Well I see their scores, not sure if that's the best measure of this.  Im not going to debate it.. the company dxo is french.  I don't trust the french.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

IQ issues in the way of noise at iso 160 sounds like an underexposed image to me.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 7, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> the company dxo is french.  I don't trust the french.




lmao


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 7, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > the company dxo is french. I don't trust the french.
> ...


 :thumbup:

To me - unless you're shooting for national geographic... getting into the nitty gritty of comparison models like this (once again to me) is like arguing over a 3 HP difference in a suzuki vs a honda.  Very few of us have the skills necessary to make those extra little things count, so find one you like, and go with it.


----------



## Overread (Sep 7, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> Figure out what lens(s) you will want/need (can afford to purchase) and work backward from there.  For wildlife photography, I'd venture that the lens is much, MUCH, more important than the difference between the 7D and the D7000.



+1 to this

Camera bodies come and go and heck there is always going to be the case that one company will upman the other for so long until the next round of bodies come out. Half the time this ends up nitpicking because, honestly, neither Canon nor Nikon fail at making camera bodies and both get to a very high standard. 


Lenses are more important for wildlife work - mostly because good quality and long reach means expensive. Getting good long glass is important for wildlife photography unless you're Steve Irwin good at getting close to things (even then if you are working at a distance is perferable!). 
Both Canon and Nikon make extensive professional grade series of lenses, but they do cost - a lot. Setting you back between £1K and over £10 per lens. You'll have to decide on which range can most suitably give you quality reach at an affordable price. Canon does have an edge here having a 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L and 100-400mm IS L lens in a similar price bracket over around £1000. Each one of them is hotly debated over and each one is a good solid choice for specific circumstances. 
Nikon only has a 300mm f4 in that price bracket - but they do have some older lenses which can be used instead whilst retaining good functionality - I can't comment on those however as I don't know the older Nikon range well enough. 

In addition don't forget Sigma who make some very good quality long range lenses. A 50-500mm, 150-500mm series of zooms can be more affordable and give you some long reach; whilst they've also a cheaper 120-400mm. Of course cheaper long lenses won't have the same power that top end ones will and most of the long zooms you'll want to use a stop closed down on the aperture when at their long end to help preserve sharpness. However they do provide ideal options for getting varied reach. 

From there you can jump up to 120-300mm f2.8 OS from Sigma - a heavy and expensive, but cheap way to get to 300mm f2.8 (a popular range for using with teleconveters). 


The second hand markets can also be good to use, however with high grade long lenses you won't get huge discounts second hand - so long as the optics are good they'll still sell at a very high price.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 7, 2012)

Either one is a great camera and very close in terms of features. As others said, you are buying into a system as well, so take a look at lens selection as well. Personally, I shoot with the 7D. If I was starting out and had to pick between the two, I would probably go with the 7D. While most other things are fairly equal and the D7000 has better IQ (although slightly lower resolution), Canon has the 400mm f/5.6L available for around $1300. That would sway me if I was shooting wildlife, especially birds.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 7, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> In regards to this.. seems like they are missing quite a lot of specs on the 7D... Makes me wonder if that played into the score at all...



Yeah...it's always cool to cast doubt on RIGOROUS testing....read up on how DxO Mark actually performs its tests...the battery of tests they do is comprehensive and EXHAUSTIVE. I know, it's hard to believe that a Canon might get its butt kicked by a newer, better-designed Nikon...weird, huh...the 7D is showing the limitations in sensor performance that have allowed Nikon to pull substantially ahead since 2007 and 2008. The 7D's performance at higher ISO's is one in which color depth suffers quite badly. It's nowhere near state of the art in terms of sensor performance. The BODY in the 7D has a lot of nice features though, but it's technical image quality is just not as good as the Nikon and Pentax cameras using NEWER, and better sensors. It's still "good", but that does not in any way,shape or form, mean that it is a "best-in-class" imager. Fanboi types often scream pretty loudly when objective, independent laboratories down-rate their pet toys.


----------



## TwoTwoLeft (Sep 7, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> and about the noise...sorry but someone was doing something wrong.  I have shot many shots with high iso and the 7D performs superb.  my avatar was taken at 6400 iso actually....and you can't see noise anywhere.



You're avatar is TINY... It's not like you're going for a 20x30 print... Not hate'n, just say'n.....


----------



## enzodm (Sep 8, 2012)

As a Canon owner, I'm envy of the new Sony sensors used by all except Canon (I trust DXOmark for sensor evaluation). When I bought my first dSLR, Canon 1000D was better than Nikon D3000, but after that, some gap appeared still to be filled (sooner or later will be, of course). It seems to me that Canon is concentrating more on video. 

On the other side, the whole system is complex (sensor, body, lenses, price, photographer...) so that one point is just one point -as a component of the whole system, I'm still the bottleneck for quality   , so I upgraded to 60D even with such envy. And remembering that pixel peeping is the activity where those differences appear more than on printing.


----------



## Ernicus (Sep 8, 2012)

TwoTwoLeft said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > and about the noise...sorry but someone was doing something wrong.  I have shot many shots with high iso and the 7D performs superb.  my avatar was taken at 6400 iso actually....and you can't see noise anywhere.
> ...



the avatar was shrunk for avatar purposes, the original file is without noise.   ;-)


----------



## jaomul (Sep 8, 2012)

Nikon seems to kill canon in these tests. If I was using Nikon I would probably be quite happy, being canon not so much. I wont argue the point only to be wrong, but will post a link to a website that has fabulous photos taken with all kinds of canon cameras from older to new, admittedly all with expensive lenses stuck on the front. This site more than anything else I have read makes me think it is the lens that is more important and that most cameras now are probably performing to a level that makes it hard to point at one and say the image quality is bad (by the way I am in no way saying that a nikon set up could not do these or maybe better)

JuzaPhoto - Juza


----------



## KmH (Sep 8, 2012)

DxOMark uses industry standard testing protocols and procedures.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> ...



As I said later.. dxo is french.. I don't trust the french.  Give me a US survey that says the same thing and I'll agree with it. 

I've had no problems with 7D, use it regularly in low light situations at the MMA events I shoot while they are walking down to the ring.  In the ring my ISO is always low becasue they have tons of lights.

I like the 7D.  I'm not a fanboy.  I see canon and nikon as the same thing basically.  Only reason I went canon, is my dad shoots with canon, so I had access to lenses I couldn't afford when I just started shooting.  Not a fanboy in the least.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 10, 2012)

i hear the sony a99 has a "buffalo tracking" feature you might be interested in.


----------



## danadana (Dec 19, 2012)

Choose the Canon over the Nikon - On the advice of others, I bought the Nikon d7000 because they said that the system would be familiar to me (I'm used to nikons) and I was told that canon and nikon are essentially similar quality cameras.  So go with what you know was the wisdom.  What a mistake.  I like to photograph birds and canon is way better for this purpose than nikon for the following reasons:  1)  the viewfinder on the canon 7d is WAY brighter than on the nikon.  So I can focus in on things like eyes at a distance and actually see them on the canon.  With the nikon d7000 I was vaguely aiming for the eyes without seeing them through the viewfinder.
2) The Canon 7d prime 400mm lens is sharp and quick focussing and relatively light compared to the nikon 80-400mm lens which ways more and sluggish when focussing.  That's terrible for birds in flight.  I couldn't find an affordable, good quality nikon lens that I could lift easily.  I'd need alot more cash and a cheerful help of a sherpa to stick with the better nikon lenses.
3)  the Canon 7d has fewer focus points (19) but they are all cross hairs and therefore more accurate; the nikon d7000 has 39 focus points but only 9 have cross hairs.  So, you get alot more value and use out of the canon focus points than the d7000
4)  to track a bird at a distance I needed to use 9 points in a block whereas the canon just needed 1 point for tracking accuracy.
5) the nikon d7000 feels great to hold I really like the way it feels in the hand.  The canon 7d feels very good but is slightly more chunky.
Don't make the mistake I made.  I wasted alot of time and money going with the nikon but have since made the change as I primarily do bird photography.


----------



## STIC (Dec 19, 2012)

...


----------



## dubaiphotography (Dec 20, 2012)

Thanks to share this information.




Best Event Photography Dubai  l Event Videographer Dubai l Dubai Events Photographer


----------

