Should I buy a Canon 5D or a Nikon D7000?

[andylynn]

<p>The Nikon, mostly because that Canon's more than 5 years old and that's a very long time in digital. I do not base my opinion on Nikon vs. Canon, which is really a personal preference thing. And another thumbs-up for the Voigtlander 58mm, assuming you don't mind manual focus - it's an excellent focal length for portraits on DX cameras, works out to about 85mm equivalent.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"The reason? Lens to subject distance will be shorter w/ FF" - That's not the reason at all! Sorry to be pedantic, but I really can't stand to see misinformation like this being perpetuated on the web, and besides, the above quoted statement makes absolutely no sense.</p>

<p>The real reason that FF gives a shallower depth of field (for a given angle of view and with the <em>same</em> lens to subject distance) is simply that the lenses needed are longer in focal length, and therefore the physical aperture sizes are bigger for a given F-stop. The out of focus circle-of-confusion at the image plane is directly related to the actual physical diameter of the aperture - not its F-number. The magnification of the image is also greater with FF, and when you plug all those numbers into a depth-of-field formula you find that for any given F-number, DoF decreases as the format (and ergo lens focal length) increases. There's roughly one stop difference in DoF between the DX and Full-frame formats.</p>

<p>For example: If you were shooting at f/2.8 on FF, you'd need to open up to f/2 on DX to get the same restricted DoF. And since most lenses perform better at f/2.8 than they do at f/2, the image quality on FF will be better, even though the DoF remains the same. At the other end of the scale the DX format suffers from diffraction softening of the image one stop earlier than for full-frame.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>While I do have a couple D7000s, they have an exposure issue once in a while as mentioned in other posts. It's for real. Also keep in mind that most complaints about Sigma lenses come from photographers that have Canon bodies. I have lots of Sigma lenses and don't seem to experience problems like the Canon users experience.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Johnny, for portraits, a full frame camera will give more background blur, if all other factors are the same.</em></p>

<p>This is often cited, but not really valid. Technically it's true but practically you often have to stop down a bit with portrait lenses on crop to get enough DoF. DoF is razor thin wide open with my Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 85 f/1.8 on crop.</p>

[andrew_harto]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Andy L</strong>: The Nikon, mostly because that Canon's more than 5 years old and that's a very long time in digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's you. For me, I would still get that used (in good condition) full frame over a brand new cropped sensor camera for the same amount of money. It doesn't matter that the 5Dc's sensor and chip technology are last generation...it's still a very capable camera by today's standards.</p>

[pierrearnaud]

I own the 5d classic, and I believe they are among the best bargains you can get on the used market. Newer cameras

will give you higher iso, video, higher frame rate, but the 5dc will give you outstanding files with excellent resolution

and very subtle tones, up to 1600 iso, at a price that is hard to beat. Isn't it all you really need for portrait

photography? You should try one before making a final choice.

[johnny_m1]

<p>I wish I could try one. I don't know how I'd go about doing that though with a five year old camera.</p>

[johnny_m1]

<p>I wish I could try one. I don't know how I'd go about doing that though with a five year old camera.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I'm a Nikon guy but I really like Canon lenses. They offer some things Nikon doesn't for example:</p>

<p>17-55 f/2.8 has IS and is cheaper<br>

50 1.2L<br>

400 5.6L (Nikon only has 80-400 zoom)</p>

<p>However the Nikon bodies are just way ahead in my opinion and the Cam 3500 AF system is why I use Nikon cameras.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>I assume, 5D has no AA-filter and has indeed, has finer details of <em>pixe</em>l resolution. It has much smaller pixel density and would not stretch the picture so much and the optics blemishes would not be as much evident (CA... etc). Speed, anti-dust protection, AF are on D7000 side. Compare their colour rendition and skin-tones side by side. </p>

[andrew_harto]

<p>AFAIK, all current Canon DSLR has anti alias filter built-in.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>I assume, not sure, this filter must me weaker in 5D (although it is not a <em>current</em> model), and I (and every Olympus shooter whom I know) do not like JPEG quality of 7000D. Dpreview shows this. Shooting RAW 7000D is able to show fine details. The latter is more universal camera. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>The D7000 is a great little camera. It has a better, larger, higher rez LCD. The D7000 offers better resolution and higher dynamic range. It offers dual SD slots. For pretty much everything except extreme shallow DOF, the D7000 is superior. If you get the Sigma 30 f1.4, Sigma 50 f1.4 and Nikon 85 f1.4, you'll have a great set of primes for the the D7000.</p>

<p>Oh, and there is no such thing as the "5D Classic." Canon never made a "Classic" 5D....it's just a 5D. I don't see anyone here calling the 1Ds the "1Ds Classic." As well, the 5D does indeed have an AA filter, albeit a weak one. Thus, you're more prone to moire and specular artifacts than with the D7000.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>@John Why did you switch?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At the time, our primary camera(s) were Canon 40Ds, having starting out with the 10D. Over the years, we went from the 10D to the 20D to the 30D to the 40D, with an occasional Rebel thrown in as well. I would process weddings from Nikon and Fuji shooters as well during that time and it seemed to me that the Nikon glass was sharper. However, at the time, the low-light/high ISO performance of Nikon/Fuji was horrible. During out time with the 40D, I was getting upset with thee camera's AF performance and it's inconsistent meter- especially when flash was involved. We typically shoot manually with the flash in TTL and in hindsight, our flash output was all over the place. Then Canon introduced the 50D. Did it have better metering? No. Did it have a better AF system? No. And about that time we had done a collage graduation ceremony and took a money shot of three girls, arms around their waists, one showing their diploma. The three filled the frame taken with the 40D and the 24-70 f/2.8. Nothing to back focus on, nothing to front focus on, yet the shot was out of focus. For me, that was the last straw: I got tired of battling the camera to get a picture. And Canon gave us the 50D: more mega-pixels. I didn't need that. I needed a <em>better</em> camera. And even the 5D essentially had the same metering and AF system as the 40D, so no improvement there. So we picked up the D90: better metering, better AF, and most importantly: more consistent especially where TTL flash was concerned. Shortly after that, we got our fist D300. At that time, Canon didn't have anything that competed with the D300. I fell in love with that camera: many of the controls are on the camera body. I suddenly found myself <em>using</em> the camera more. I wasn't fighting the camera. One example, changing a focus point. On my Nikon's I use the dial to move left, right, up, down or press the center to take me back to the center. On the Canon, I had to scroll one way or the other through all the focus points (of course on the 40D there were only nine compared to 51 on the D300!), to change focus points. Changing the focus point on the Canon just wasn't as easy. Setting a custom white balance isn't as easy. Setting up bracketing isn't as easy. Changing your AF mode or your metering mode isn't as easy. Again, with one camera I was fighting the camera, and with the other I wasn't. And BTW, my number of out-of-focus shots has dropped <em>considerably</em> since we switched. Sure, it happens every now and then, but one thing I remembered in the beginning: if the Nikon doesn't think it has focus, it simply won't take the picture. The Canon tended to be a bit more liberal.</p>

<p>Now, all of that said, Canon finally released a camera to compete with the D300 when it introduced the 7D about one-year after the 50D. The 7D was Canon's game changer: better AF and better metering (according to Canon's literature). As well as 39-focus points and some other improvements as well. It just came to the game too late for me: I am quite happy with my Nikon's.</p>

<p>But between a 5D and a D7000, it really boils down to what system you want to invest in. The pull of full frame is enticing in terms of "blurring" the background. And while that is a very nice advantage, it is the <em>only</em> advantage the 5D enjoys or a D7000. And heres the thing, Nikon from the D300s and up, Nikon uses their "best" systems: AF, metering, etc. Historically, on Canon, their best is reserved for their top two bodies. Meaning you look at the current 5D Mark II: essentially the same system found in the "xxD" series only full frame and more megapixels (which can be important if you need them). Whereas the Nikon D700 uses Nikon's best systems in a full frame camera that is smaller than their professional cameras. I much prefer that mentality myself.</p>

<p>In any event, that is why I switched: AF, metering, better consistency shot to shot. And then I fell in love with <em>how</em> I could use the camera.</p>

[andrew_harto]

<p>@ Dave Luttman, thanks for splitting the hair on the nonexistence of the "classic" 5D.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>"Oh, and there is no such thing as the "5D Classic.""</p>

<p>:-) The word "classic" is the one word I never want to see or hear in connection with digital electronics. It's a euphemism for 'obsolete'. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...if the Nikon doesn't think it has focus, it simply won't take the picture."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, it's been awhile since I handled a D90, but there should be an option to switch to AF with shutter release priority rather than focus priority.</p>

[ruslan]

<p><em>"...if the Nikon doesn't think it has focus, it simply won't take the picture."</em><br /> That was in the control back MF-26 (don't remember its exact model number) of Nikon F90, back in 1995.<br>

<em>"I would process weddings from Nikon and Fuji shooters as well during that time and it seemed to me that the Nikon glass was sharper". </em><br /> No, 135/2L, 85/1.4L, 35/1.4L are very sharp, the first is sharper than 135/2DC of Nikon, you won't detect this or judge from wedding PJ photos, in the lab only. For that, there are <em><strong>lenstip </strong></em>and<em><strong> dpreview</strong></em>.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>5D Mk 2 is studio-landscape oriented camera, IMO, so beloved by wedding shooters.</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>A Nikon D3100 will blow away 5D in IQ ,only my opinion though you can't crop as you could with full frame.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>John, it's been awhile since I handled a D90, but there should be an option to switch to AF with shutter release priority rather than focus priority.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There is is. I was merely pointing out my experiences using Canon vs Nikon. When we used Canon, we had a lot of out of focus images and it was annoying. When we switched to Nikon, that issue virtually went away. I would say that the Canon system focuses <em>faster </em>(splitting hairs) but the Nikon system focuses more <em>accurately</em>. Again, that is just my user experience (and I prefer accuracy).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No, 135/2L, 85/1.4L, 35/1.4L are very sharp, the first is sharper than 135/2DC of Nikon</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, almost <em>anything</em> is sharper than the DC lenses! My experience with DC lenses is that they don't start to shine until you get to at least f/5.6. It is just a different type of lens. And I am not suggesting that Canon doesn't have sharp glass, especially when you start bringing up better glass. But apples-to-apples (or as close as you can come), when I processed Nikon or Fuji images, they, overall, were sharper images. I realize this is somewhat vague, but I might be looking at 1000 images from a wedding shot with a Fuji or 1000 images from a wedding shot with a Canon and <em>overall</em> the Fuji images would be sharper. There would have been a variety of lenses used in both cases. Also note that while, IMHO, the Fuji images were sharper, I very much disliked Fuji's Raw files. In the case of weddings, very little headroom compared to Canon or Nikon. So much so, IMHO, I wouldn't shoot with a Fuji camera. And back in those days, a Nikon or Fuji camera had horrible ISO 1600 performance compared to Canon. Today, the table has turned and Nikon enjoys a better high ISO performance. In any event, those are my experiences, so as they say, your mileage may vary.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Agreed Luke. I don't know where this "classic" comes from. It's just an old 5D....nothing classic about it. I guess I can say I had a 1D2 Classic and 1Ds Classic. </p>

[andrew_harto]

<p>Dave, you're discussing useless semantics about a made-up designation that help differentiate between the old 5D and the current 5D Mark II. It's meant to help with the flow of discussion so as to spare other posters asking the question "Which 5D are we talking about?" It's used by many other posters as well, and readers intelligent enough should know the purpose of the made-up designation and spend less time arguing about the non-existence or the etymology of the "classic" designation.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Andrew....you can't be serious. </p>

<p>Try this...... I have a Canon 5D. I have a Canon 5DMk2. Can you tell them apart?</p>

<p>The only reason people use the "Classic" term is because they feel it's something special. It isn't. It's a 5D. It doesn't help the flow of conversation. Rather than making up a name for a camera...just use it's name.....it makes for less keystrokes!</p>

[johnny_m1]

<p>I disagree. It's simply to tell them apart. It's more natural than writing 5dmk2 or 5dmk1. classic is easier.</p>