What camera to buy (D300s, D700, 7D or 5D Mark II) ?

<p>I want to upgrade from my Nikon D40X to one of these cameras: Nikon D300s, Nikon D700, Canon 7D or Canon 5D Mark II. I only have one Nikon lens and am not married to Nikon. I have read and compared ALL of the specifications of these cameras. They are all in my price range. I am mostly a Nature/Wildlife/Landscape serious amateur photography. I have also read the last 6 months of various photography magazine reviews on these cameras. I am truly lost as to what to buy because all of them have certain features that I like. Video is not required. I will not be printing beyond 12 x 18. I would GREATLY appreciate feedback and comments from users of these cameras. <br>

Gregory</p>

<p>ok, i'll put in my two cents. i just got a 5d mark II and i love it for landscapes, but i wouldn't recommend it based on the info you've given. all that resolution is great for really large prints, but at 12x18" i don't think you'd need it. i think any of the cameras you mentioned will give you nice 12x18s...and if you're serious about the wildlife stuff you'll want something with better autofocus. i don't mean to say that you CAN'T shoot wildlife with the 5d2, just that something with a better autofocus system would be preferable...and that any of your other options would give you this. (i think the d700's provides better autofocus than the 5d2, but i'm not totally sure.)</p>

<p>i think it really comes down to your priorities as far as subject matter. the conventional wisdom is that full frame is good for wideangle stuff (landscapes) and crop sensor cameras are better for telephoto work (wildlife). if you want more reach with your long lenses, go with the d300 or 7d...you can always add a good ultrawide and have the wide end covered at the same time.</p>

<p>Gregory, if your paramount concern is image quality, you'd be well advised to get a 5D II. But you might want to read up on the respective merits of Canon and Nikon lenses. After all, your lenses will have at least as much effect on your images as will your body.</p>

<p>tough call. the problem here is that FF is better for landscape and DX is better for wildlife. i'd probably narrow it down to the 7d or d300s because of the crop and the AF and fps. the $ you save from not going FF you can put into lenses.</p>

<p>speaking of lenses, you might decide what percentage of your total budget will be put into glass and what lenses you'd choose and then choose a body based on that. you can shoot wildlife with a $500 700-300 or you can shoot wildlife with a $5000 300/2.8. so that might be the biggest variable in your equation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Look at lenses if you are undecided on bodies. Canon has a leg up on Nikon with its selection of teles. If you are interested in a 100-400 zoom, for example, Sony probably has the best and Nikon the worst. Which company has vibration reduction in a length you want and which doesn't. Which has a zoom with f4 or 2.8? etc.</p>

Canon 5D 11 sounds right up your street it will cover everything including the wide range of lenses, with a top of the range lense you can do the same with a Canon 7d having Hd to boot.

Canon 5D 11 sounds right up your street it will cover everything including the wide range of lenses, with a top of the range lense you can do the same with a Canon 7d having Hd to boot. Have a look at what a Canon EOS 450D does with a Tamron 18-200 + 70-300

<p>All of the responses from each of you are greatly appreciated. I truly appreciate each unique perspective. Many of your comments substantiate what I was thinking. I still have lots of thinking to do.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I'll get some rocks thrown at me, but oh well ... 12 x 18 prints look just fine from a 10 -12 MPxl camera to my untrained eye. I'd suggest trying the handling of the two systems. Nikon's layout of controls and menu items is quite different than Canon's. You just might fine one super convenient and logical whereas the other feels like a brick.<br>

Crop for long lenses. FF for wides as stated above. If you ever intend to go with flash, IMHO Nikon currently blows Canon away. I'd also throw in I think Nikon has better high ISO performance if you are shooting at less than ideal 'animals at dusk' conditions.<br>

Canon seems to have more wides in its lineup. But Nikon is very recently making gains in that area. And, as some have said, the lenes will be the ultimate arbiter of the image quality. You will still be using them when you buy a newer body down the road.<br>

Jim (Nikon user)</p>

<p>I am a lifelong Canon shooter.</p>

<p>The Nikon D700 is your tool (and yes I have used one).</p>

<p>It would seem to depend on what exactly those features are that are important to you personally. To throw confusion into the mix:<br>

- is there are any reason why the Sony Alpha 850 is not on your list and as others have said you will/should make a decision based on your longer-term lens needs?<br>

- any system will work for you if you want it too. See this ageing field report on an Olympus outdoor/wildlife shooter http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/information/php/2007_Reviews/Isaac/Oly510Review.php Olympus have committed this week to sticking with 4/3 so you should see successors to the E3/E30/E620 and their lenses do not have to apologise to anyone</p>

<p>Gregory,<br>

I, honestly, feel like the D700 would be the best choice for what purposes you are shooting. It will shoot the 5 fps so you can catch your wildlife and other fast moving objects but you are still getting the FX sensor so your landscapes will be fully utilized. Not only that but the sensor itself is much larger than the Canon FF sensor as well as multiple times the size of the cropped frame of the 7D or D300s. Plus it will give you the most rich color and saturation out of the bunch.</p>