SANParks.org Forums

Hi Canon Fans,
I am interested in getting an EOS 7D. Can anyone give me some feedback for this camera. obviously it would more than suffice for some quality images of the Big 5 the many other animals in the parks, but would like to know if it has the features that beat some of the other cameras around??? ie: D300s
Canon is very good and so are the lenses - no stress about the product just looking for what others thoughts are.
And has anyone had a Canon 18-200 lens?? - as that would be a handy lens as part of the kit.

I look forward to the others advice.

1 times keen Animal Fotographer

Welcome to the forums!

Why the 7D???
The 50D is way cheaper (50D = 710 euro, 7D = 1260 euro) and aside from a small difference in pixels the only real difference is the max ISO the 7D gets. (3200 vs 12800).
As you say both will more than suffice for the photography in the parks.

This page has them (and the 1D mark IV) side by side for comparison.

Hi there are some issues with the 7D take a look at the forum topic on http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za" if not set up properly you wont get the results you are looking for is the one thing that has definitely emerged. it is not as easy as previous canon's to get going with.

The 18-200mm has some issues as soft on both end but fine in the middle, as will any wide range zoom, for such a body (7D) I would be inclined to go with 70-200 or 100-400 and a 17-85 kit lens .

Thanks for the replies. yes, DuQues, i agree with the 50D to 7D Difference but have thought that Canon has gone for the Mega Pixel Size while actually discounting the straight forward funtionalities of a SLR. More Mega Pixels requires more light for the photo to be sharp and balanced with colour saturation. I may be wrong but that has been what i have picked up from others out there.
Yes, i have heard of some little issues with the 50D & 7D and thats what prompted me to post this query. I actually am a full Canon Fan but looked at a Nikon D300s and am so far suitably impressed with the whole feel of that camera and the way it menus are set out. In terms of the 18-200 - it would be a versatile lens but am not sure that it is suited to wildlife needs. i would still be glad of any replies about the Nikon D300s. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with their lenses either.

Hi Animalmad
I have recently swopped to the dark side and having used the canon 40D/50D with the 18-200 IS and 100-400 IS and now the D90 with 80-400 VR and would like to try the 300mm with converters, with the D300S it depends what you want to do with this camera as it is similar to the D90 the main differences is the shutter speed D90 restricted for 4fps D300S 7 fps and the focal points D90 11 D300S up to 51 the D300S has a slightly better processor, if birds in flight or high speed shooting is not a requirement the D90 will do and you can spend the extra on the glass, in this department in the area of the 100-400 compared to 80-400 the quality of both picture wise is identical but the nikon is of the old spade driven motor so is slower focusing, (this is apparently due upgrade soon).
From what I have been told, read and seen definitely the primes are the way to go for clarity and sharpness on the lens side even with 1.4, 1.7, converters and the new 2x converters they out perform the zooms which is probably why it is almost immpossible to buy a second hand 300mm prime in SA.

I changed as I preferred the picture the nikon produces and dont like spending hours post processing and find the nikon produces a better quality picture from the start, but the main reason was the physical shutter noise, I find the nikons far quieter where as with the canons when close up to birds and wildlife they would start to look to see where the noise was coming from. (I know this will probably cause a whole lot of comments about servicing but I tried that). It is a matter of personal choice at the end of the day both systems are as good as each other, its what you personally prefer so take a couple of cards down to your local store and try the cameras out then go back look at the pics and then decide after sleeping on it.

I have used the 7d since October and find it perfectly good (replaced my 50d and aging 1DIIn). The noise is a bit obvious compared to the 1 series cameras but is better than the 50d (just) and the AF is significantly improved.

My Baas has the Nikon D300s and that is also a very good camera. The noise is better than my 7d but it lacks sheer resolution (12MP vs. 18MP). If you have a decent collection of lenses the change from Canon to Nikon can hurt cost wise.

Robbie

If I were you I'd go for the 50D and invest the balance in a lens like the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS USM, I bought one during this past week and must say that it is an amazing lens and delivers crystal clear pics. (That is my 10 cents worth anyway )

Robbie,
I have to agree with you. I'm using the 7D since November and is getting great results, but above 500 ISO the noise is a bit obvious. I use it on a 300mm f2.8 and when shooting birds I put the 2x converter on. Movement can be a problem but I get sharp images handheld. The lightmeter I have to say is spot on everytime! The autofocus is faster than the 40D. The file size can be an awesome 50MB which is great for printing but not so great when have to store all these pics!
Vanga Flycatcher @ 250 ISO

Pygmy Kingfisher @ 640 ISO(visible noise)

AnimalMad,

I bought the 7D about a month ago and absolutely love it. I had previously used both th 30D and the 40D. I kept the 40D to use as a second body, but the 7D is phenominal. It is a sturdy body with a very good feel to it. I think the greatest advantages over the 50D are the HD video capabilities and the upgraded autofocus. I am by no means anything more than an amateur with some pretty good equipment, but I would highly recommend the 7D. I use a 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens and a 300mm 2.8 IS lens with the camera and the pictures are great, even with my limited photographic knowledge. I have also spoken with several professional photographers here in the US who have said the 7D is currently the best deal on the market for the money.

I hope this helps and good luck with your decision!

Daron

Thanks for the replies everyone. i think i am now perhaps a bit more as both cameras are good and just depends what you like and feel i guess.

I am trying to nut it out that while Nikon dont have the MP they have the coulr balance that many say Canon do not have but yet if you had to enlarge a photo from either camera to say A3 they would both be perfect, or at least perhaps a bit better on the Nikon because of its noise reduction features. I think i better go and have a really good try of the cameras and go from there.
I would also be taking a number of landscape shots too which is why I am after the colours maybe more than the MP.

I have used the 7D recently on a weekend shooting pied and malachite kingfishers diving for fish in Malelane. Although the noise was evident it is very manageable even at ISO settings as high as 2000 or 3200. Having used the Nikon D300s and D3s recently their noise control is much better, but the 18.8mp image resolution really gives you a lot of options.

I am planning to change over to Nikon eventually for their awesome high ISO performance and sharp optics, but until I scrape that amount of cash together I am seriously contemplating getting a 7D this week for my upcoming safaris as the 18mp combined with my 100-400 will give me a bit more reach than usual in the Kgalagadi.

See this shot taken at ISO 2000 with the 7D:


And this one at ISO 1250:


I ran noise reduction on the image backgrounds but not on the birds. Obviously larger subjects like mammals will make the noise even less evident, and viewing at these small resolutions also minimises noise.

Hi AnimalMad,

Choosing between a Canon and a Nikon is like comparing an Apple and a Banana. Both are fruit, taste good, fill you up and at the end of the way the only thing that differentiates them is the taste of the person eating them.

My best friend uses the Canon 7D, mainly for wedding photography, and swears by it after upgrading from the 20D. Myself, I'm upgrading to the D300s in the next few months.

Most people really only choose one over the other because they already use one of the two systems and it would be costly to replace all their lenses.

As far as megapixels go, it doesn't really count (depending on how large you print). The human eye looking at a standard photo size print can't see past 2 megapixels. One of the reasons Nikon has such great performance when it comes to light/contrast is because they opted for lower megapixels. Doesn't make sense...

Yes it does. The overall sensor size between Canon and Nikon are approximately the same size. Each megapixel require it's own light capturing sensor. Having less megapixels means the individual sensors can be larger and that in turn means less light is required to fall on them in order to capture an accurate picture. Hence Nikon's great high ISO performance, and the same reason you can't capture a half decent picture on a 2MP Cellphone Camera.

At the end of the day Canon and Nikon both make great cameras. One will always supersede the other, until the other brings out their new model that is .

My advice... if you haven't bought into Canon yet, then carefully consider the two (7D and D300s). If you have already got Canon lenses then go with the 7D and kick yourself for not going Nikon (sorry I'm biased).

If you're still struggling and you really like both, then look up which camera NASA sends with their astronauts into outer space and to the ISS. Hah, trump that one Canon lovers .

Morkel is a photographer who I admire his work so if he says it is worthwhile I believe it.

I am interested, however, in which lenses he would get for a Nikon system and why?

Just curious....

I think both systems have their benefits and as Bushnuts mentioned, one will always try and trump the other.

Having used the D300s - I think it's a fantastic camera. But noise-wise there isn't that much difference between the photos I took with the D300s and the 7D. Therefore in that class-range of camera I will go for the 7D due to the 18megapixels versus 12megapixels. I get what you said about the eye not being able to really distinguish, but when I'm in KTP with only 400mm focal length, the extra 6mp goes a long way in giving me quality usable pics even if cropped 50% (which will make the resulting photo still come out at a whopping 9mp!) This also helps when photographing small birds that aren't sitting right next to you.

As mentioned I am planning to one day move over to Nikon - it might be soon but at this stage it's unclear. When I move I will not settle for less than the D3s and the 200-400mm f4 lens which is about as tack-sharp as any prime I've seen. But that is big money. My ideal Nikon kit would be:
Nikon D3s
Nikon D300s (backup body and for using 1.5x crop on the 200-400mm lens for longer distances)
Nikkor 200-400mm f4 VR II for general wildlife and birds
Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR II for close-up wildlife and birds
Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 for wide angle landscapes
Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 for general landscapes and portraits
and hopefully one day a Nikkor 600mm f4 VR II for birds and long-distance wildlife

But yes, that is a lot of money and probably wishful thinking.

I have already ordered my 7D plus battery grip, and a Canon 10-22mm wide angle lens plus polarising filter as I need a better camera NOW before my next trips, and as BushNuts mentioned I have some lenses already. I can always sell my stuff if/when I move over. But I will by no means discourage people from buying Canon cameras and lenses. From various reports/reviews I've read it also seems that Canon lenses get more dynamic colour range from an image/scene than Nikon lenses, although the Nikons seem to have the edge in sharpness.

If I stick with Canon I would like to move to the following kit:
Canon 7D/Canon 1Dmk4 for wildlife
Canon 5Dmk2 for landscapes
Canon 600mm f4 L IS for birds and long-distance wildlife
Canon 100-400mm L IS for wildlife and birds
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS for close-up wildlife and birds
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L for wide-angle landscapes
Canon 24-70mm f2.8 for general landscapes and portraits

Canon are getting better at the high ISO capabilities of its cameras and the AF on the 7D/1Dmk4 is already right up there. It would be interesting to see if Nikon take the megapixels up to 16 or so in the D4 and D800, and keep their ISO performance so stellar.

I hope this makes sense?

I guess it all comes down to what you want the camera to do.
Obviously if budget is no proble, its the 1DS MK4 ! A little under R 100 000 ~! Add to that a fixed 800m lense with tele...and Ur a for away. Unfortunately, that would require winning teh lotto.

I have not used the 50d or a 7d, erely read abotu them.
I think teh 7d has a per second rate of about 6-7 fraes in RAW.

For half teh price, you can get teh 550D, which has expandable ISO (unless you are shooting for a newspaper, 800ISO is rarely called for).
It has 18megaixels, and a digic 4 processor.

Canon has always been the leading brand in cameras, however, with Nikon D300 series, and D3 / x and S canon are not having it all thier own way.

If your going to spend that much, rather go to teh shop, and see if it is cofy in the hand first. Alamboghini is sweet, but a fat dude wont fit in...

Let e know what you decide. I have a 450D, and a looking to upgrade in a year or two.