Spec me a nikon

Matt

Matt

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
22,999
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently using a 7d, getting fed up with canon though so considering a change of system.

Lenses on my shopping list are 11-16 tokina, 17-50 tamron, but what camera and what long lens?? I don't think I want to go full frame, but want something that will perform in a similar fashion to 7d

Suggestions?
 
Matt,

It has to be the D300s or wait for the D400 really. Or if you wait then you could get a D800 and have full frame and probably 10Mpx on crop too!

It's all speculation though and who knows, it might be next year!
 
Matty, what is it that's annoying you with Canon that makes you want to switch? I don't want to start a war of course, but might just impact what are the better options for you on the Nikon / other manufacturer front :)
 
Only thing that would tempt me to the dark side is the D700 (or it's rumoured new brother)
 
If you want it now then its the D300s (Amazing camera) otherwise wait till they bring out the D400 or whatever they are going to call it. For a lens and if you can afford it the 70-200 VR2 but having said that a VR1 is not bad at all if you can find a good econd hand one
 
How long a lens do you want?

D700 or D300, depending on if you really don`t want FF or wether you would succumb to the allure.
 
the reason im looking to change..well ive not been happy with the image quality since my 20d. I look at a lot of nikon users work, and feel that there is an image clarity that just isnt apparent with my current setup. I COULD look at buying more expensive lenses, but of the lenses i have, 2 are f2.8 and 1 is F1.8, i should be getting better quality with those. It could be metering, it could be lighting...

ultimately I think that I decided before I got my 50d that I wasnt happy with the images I was getting and sadly that hasnt changed.
 
With all due respect matty... the 7D is a fantastic camera that produces fantastic quality images, and changing to Nikon won't magically fix anything...

To answer your question, D300 bodies are dirt cheap atm, and great cameras, so unless you need video, go for it.
 
Does anyone know if the D400 is going to be coming out soon or if it's all rumour?
 
itsdavedotnet said:
With all due respect matty... the 7D is a fantastic camera that produces fantastic quality images, and changing to Nikon won't magically fix anything...

To answer your question, D300 bodies are dirt cheap atm, and great cameras, so unless you need video, go for it.
Click to expand...

im pretty convinced that the lack of talent on the user side is playing a big part in this, the images ARE pretty good, but there is something that Nikon cameras produce, I cant really put my finger on it other than to say clarity?

hers an example of a shot taken with the 7d
IMG_01081.jpg


contrasting to one with the same lens on 20d
IMG_9121.jpg


i just dont feel that the images im getting now are as good. Maybe i need to borrow a couple of different lenses and have a day shooting with them and see what i can do, and a good long read of the manual..
 
How about trying the "dark side" out - surely you know someone that has some of the Nikon kit that interests you - couldn't you try theirs & see if its any better than what you already have :shrug:

:edit:

Seems that Scott has already mentioned it.... :bang:
 
Last edited:
matty to be honest i played with a friends 7d the other day and it didnt make me think vow dont know why, one of my other freinds has a pentax k5 and i love the picture quality of it, but the d300 produce awsome images and still amazes my tog friends at how awsome the images are for detail and colour,
if you want even more top quality go for a d700 it really is something else.
 
Could it be pixel density related? I always thought that 50D pictures were easy to tell apart from 40D (and that the 40D pictures were generally better).
 
Nawty said:
Could it be pixel density related? I always thought that 50D pictures were easy to tell apart from 40D (and that the 40D pictures were generally better).
Click to expand...

I thought that too. Im glad im not the only one!
 
If it was me, and I didn't have the baggage of previously-purchased DX lenses to contend with, I'd skip the crop sensor cameras and go straight to a D700...
 
Ditto the above. I've had both the D300 and the D700 and IMO the latter is easily the better camera (judged with the same 24-70 f2.8 lens).
 
Do you want to borrow a D700 and a lens or two for a while?
 
fracster said:
Do you want to borrow a D700 and a lens or two for a while?
Click to expand...

That's an offer that's too good to miss. Trouble is, you'll get D700 lust...
 
I too have both and the D700 trumps the D300 in every department. However to the OP think very carefully before jumping ships as it is an expensive do and something that will not guarantee a rise in image quality. (speaking as someone who's done it.) Although I've never regretted it as I went from a Sigma SD10 to Nikon a few years ago.
 
ive been offered use of a couple of cameras to see how i get on, thanks all for the replies!
 
I felt the same about the 7d and got slated on forums criticising my technique lens adjustment etc. My 40d, I felt produced better images. I bought a s/h d3 and 24-70 and am well chuffed with it. RAW files are Sharp colours nice at higher ISO. Just my penny worth. If you live around north London you can have a shot if you want.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't expect miracles from Nikon DX cameras. Good light, metering and glass is what you need in addition to technique. In any case DX is nowhere near as good as FX or 1.3x, be it Canon or Nikon. Try Canon 1-series and you will be surprised how good they are.
 
daugirdas said:
I wouldn't expect miracles from Nikon DX cameras. Good light, metering and glass is what you need in addition to technique. In any case DX is nowhere near as good as FX or 1.3x, be it Canon or Nikon. Try Canon 1-series and you will be surprised how good they are.
Click to expand...
in what regards is a dx no way near as good as a 1.3x crop.
 
I have seen some people on other forums who've had bad 7D's that need calibration to produce sharp results. Not focus calibration, but simply that the sensor produced soft results from some reason and needed something fixing.
Seemed to be particularly common in the earlier batches.
They all either returned it for another one or sent it to canon and were satisfied once it was fixed.
Maybe yours has the same issue?
 
scottthehat said:
in what regards is a dx no way near as good as a 1.3x crop.
Click to expand...

Nearly 2x smaller sensor and incidentally far too many lower quality pixels in that space.
 
Matty either rent or borrow a 70-200/4 IS for a week and see what you think of the camera after that. There's no escaping the fact that the 7 is fairly demanding both in terms of lens quality and post production to get the best out of it, but when you unlock the formula it's capable of some amazing stuff.
 
Matty, just how much performance do you want the potential new camera to mirror that of the 7D - high ISO capability? Megapixels? FPS?

The thing I see instantly is that if you move to Nikon there isn't a direct rival to the 7D in the Nikon line-up. If High ISO performance isn't key then I'd look at the D2Xs just for sheer user-friendliness and build, although some will argue that the AF system might not rival the 7D's for tracking etc.

If you want a more modern equivalent in a smaller body then the only option is the D300/300s. Rumours of the replacement say the D400(?) will be miles better - or at least people hope so - but that camera doesn't exist so unless we have a firm release date, you could be waiting ages to get your hands on it. Personally, I'd go for a D300s because it'll do just about everything your 7D will do, albeit with fewer megapixels but with a less compromising crop factor when it comes to the wider lenses.

As for a long lens, on a budget (£500-£600) go for a used AF-D/AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8, or if you're flush, get a used 70-200mm VR1 for around the £950 mark. Truly exceptional IQ and build quality. Other than that, unless you want to spend a small fortune on something like a 300mm f/2.8, get a 300mm f/4 for around £900 used.

The other two lenses you've highlighted are good choices on DX :)
 
FWIW, when I wanted to upgrade my D200, I debated for a long time whether to get a D300 or go full frame to D700 (the 700 had only been out a month or two). As I only had the siggy 30/1.4 and the nikkor kit 18-70 lens that were crop only, I justified the jump to the 700 as my other lenses didn't vignette too much on full frame.

Sure, I miss the extra reach for wildlife, but the majority of my shooting is close range or candid stuff where I prefer the light magnet of the FX sensor.

Anyway, going off topic!

Matty, where are you based? More than welcome to meet up and you can have a play with my d700 and some lenses :)
 
Couple of questions:

Have you checked out photos on flickr taken with the 7D?

Why did you choose Canon in the first place?

If you check out pictures taken on other 7D's and see the kind of picture quality you're after, you'll know it's either user error, poor quality lenses or poor calibration.
 
I've had my 7D since October 2009 and my relationship with it has had its ups and downs. However, whenever I set up some sort of controlled test I can find nothing wrong with the performance. This suggests to me that I am the problem, or at least I have been. People say the 7D rewards (or requires?) better glass. Well, I agree with that, but it also rewards (or requires) better photographic technique too. If I screw up the camera makes it obvious. Of course, it won't matter when comparing images at the same size, but it matters when pixel peeping at 100%.

As for IQ, I downloaded raw sample files from the DPReview site, comparing files at 400 ISO and 3200 ISO from the 7D, 60D, D7000 and D300S. I used Lightroom 3.3 for the comparison. At both 400 ISO and 3200 ISO I felt the 7D images had the edge on noise and definition. What I found really surprising was that the 7D beat the 60D at both ISO values. That was my impression, trying to be as unbiased as I could, and turning off file names and EXIF that might give the game away. Your mileage may vary.
 
If the 7d is set up correctly it can produce some stunning results, mind you...... if you actually use the 7d you'd get used to it :runaway:

The 20d spoiled you
 
matty said:
im pretty convinced that the lack of talent on the user side is playing a big part in this, the images ARE pretty good, but there is something that Nikon cameras produce, I cant really put my finger on it other than to say clarity?

hers an example of a shot taken with the 7d
IMG_01081.jpg


contrasting to one with the same lens on 20d
IMG_9121.jpg


i just dont feel that the images im getting now are as good. Maybe i need to borrow a couple of different lenses and have a day shooting with them and see what i can do, and a good long read of the manual..
Click to expand...

The second photo looks warmer, but other than that it is very difficult to see if there's a difference at this size.

I have found the 60D (same sensor as 7D) needs a bit more sharpening in RAW than say the 30D or 40D, but the results are still great when the camera / pp is set up the way I like it :)
 
7D range... I don't own any of them, but wouldn't a D7000 be an option? It's a really nice body. And performs just like the 7D if not better according to what I've read.
 
You know what, I'm not a very fast runner. Perhaps I should try a different brand of running shoes.
 
Matty, have you looked at. 5D2 ?

The reason I ask is because you seem to be looking for a body that will will produce warm colour filled images which is something the large pixels of a full frame body seem to do. As you already have the Canon system .I'm guessing that you have a number of lenses that are not "crop only" and the move to a FF Canon maybe a less expensive option.

Whilst I do have issues with what I produce from my 7D, I look at what others produce and put it down to user error. My Lens range is more than adequate (Canon 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8, and a Sigma 10-20) so I'm convinced it's me, and I have produced some shots that I am really pleased with, so I know that the equipment can do it.....

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top