d7000 or 7d

E

EricJo

New member
Which camera should I buy? The D7K or the Canon 7D? As far as to what I've seen there is no consistency in sample video footage of the D7K, in some samples it looks astonishing and in other it looks like crap :-( Any ideas?
 
any camera can take bad pictures, that's not very surprising. what's important is if can take good pictures, so i suggest you look at those samples instead. :-)
 
The D7000 hasn't been out that long so we will see more. I've seen some really good footage and some bad from all of these cameras...I'd almost wait for a 8D or something. Isn't it about time for a update?
But if I can get a good D7000 I'll probably buy one of them
 
I think, the next update will be on pro level for both, canon and nikon. I have nikon lenses, so for me it would have to be a huge advantage over nikon, so I would sell it all and get canon stuff. Like real pro level features (RAW video or similar, new focus pulling features with WiFi...). I don't expect canon to produce better sensors any time soon, nikon is still better with colors and noise/grain.
 
EricJo said:
Which camera should I buy? The D7K or the Canon 7D? As far as to what I've seen there is no consistency in sample video footage of the D7K, in some samples it looks astonishing and in other it looks like crap :-( Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Are you using it for video or stills? If for video, I say the 7D is an easy winner. I really don't like the fact that you can't change aperture while shooting. If you do any kind of event work, that could be a deal killer. Also, I'm just now starting to transcode some footage I have, and for some reason, if I'm using MPEG Streamclip and try to transcode more than 10 min of footage, I get an error. That's weird. I'm looking into it now. Never had that issue with any of the Canon cameras. Must have something to do with the codec. I'm using Compressor now to transcode to prores, but I'm using to having one single transcoded file. With Compressor seems like all the files remain separate. Not crazy about that.

So, that's my two cents.
 
bladeronner said:
Are you using it for video or stills? If for video, I say the 7D is an easy winner. I really don't like the fact that you can't change aperture while shooting. If you do any kind of event work, that could be a deal killer. Also, I'm just now starting to transcode some footage I have, and for some reason, if I'm using MPEG Streamclip and try to transcode more than 10 min of footage, I get an error. That's weird. I'm looking into it now. Never had that issue with any of the Canon cameras. Must have something to do with the codec. I'm using Compressor now to transcode to prores, but I'm using to having one single transcoded file. With Compressor seems like all the files remain separate. Not crazy about that.

So, that's my two cents.
Click to expand...

Neither of this things is actually true.

As long as you use lenses with aperture rungs you can adjust aperture manually within live view - just turn the ring. There are several ways to deal with lenses w/o aperture rings as well. Those are workarounds, and not so elegant. But truly, with aperture rings on your lenses, this limitation is nonexistent.

Regarding transcoding, if you want one long file (which is a workflow I am not in favor of, but to each his own) you can lay all the files in FCP or another NLE and render in the codec of your choice. I get no such errors in MPEG Streamclip, either, so it may be your system that's causing the issue, not the codec. The codec is H264, nothing special about it.
'
 
TLDR any of the other posts...sorry guys.

My 2 cents. Nikon makes solid cameras UBER DURABLE!...despite the wicked dead pixel I have on my D7000. And the D7000 is super cheap. I got mine, just the body, brand new all tax in for $1450.00 (Canadian) give or take some change. I also prefer the ergonomics of nikon cameras of cannon.
 
I'd say it also depends on what line of glass you'd rather invest in. For me, Canon seems more committed to video then Nikon does, despite a lack of higher end cameras to "protect." The new Nikon seems like a tiny baby-step forward in terms of improvements over the Canon line-up (namely, the 1080p slo-mo and HD quality digital zoom in function); simply not enough to make an investment in the Nikon line-up.

Of course, if stills are your primary concern, Nikon prolly wins.

Again, you're presumably going to have to invest far more in glass (in the long run) then you will in any one camera.
 
Glass to me is a non-issue - I've shot Nikon stills for a living, for 10-15 years, with several nice lenses. They work fine for Video on my T2i. And I like that they all have aperture rings.

If Canon comes out with a video Af-capable DSLR body, I don't know how much that would even interest me, since I use a follow focus. The kinds of things I shoot with the DSLRs don't seem to call for AF.

But, my DSLR "reel" has landed me some gigs where I'll need audio and some more video-ish features. About to get an HMC-150 if things keep moving forward. Should be best of both worlds.

I too dislike Canon for still shooting after years of Nikon's excellence in ergonomics and menus - the D90 was such a stellar moment of "everything Nikon's learned" seeming to come together for a stills body. I have a puppy-dog love for that camera like I've never had for an SLR body before.
 
I rented a D7000 this weekend to try it out, and was disappointed that dpreview was wrong about its codec, it is 20Mbps, not 45 like the Canons.

That alone may be worth the extra ~$400 for the 7D.

I haven't used a 7D yet. It is as absurdly tiny and flimsy as the D7000?
 
Bitrate is only part of the equation. Look at hacked GH1's vs. GH2's. Much lower bitrate, but much higher efficiency.
 
Definitely agree, when it comes to, say, efficient 17Mbps codec vs lame 24Mbps MPEG, but when we're talking a bit over DOUBLE the data, I don't know...

I haven't used a 7D yet, though, so I could be wrong. Renting one next weekend to find out.
 
What will the primary purpose be? Stills or video....
If Video then it is the Panasonoc GH2 hands down.
I have a Nikon D200, a Canon T2i and now the GH2.
I had hoped the T2i (sensor the same as the 7D) would have
performed better for video. The moire & aliasing are a no go
for most video. I tried everything to shoot around it but
it is always there. The GH2 does not exhibit near the same
level of moire & Aliasing as the Canon. Almost any camera
will produce aliasing when shooting fine lines but the GH2
footage I have shot is the cleanest and most usable of any
of the DSLR's.
I have not been impressed with any Nikon DSLR video footage.
I use the Canon now for stills only.
The GH2 is no slouch in the still area either. It just shoots
a funky raw format and would need to upgrade to CS5 or
use the supplied Silkypix software with I will install today.
 
I'm happy with the footage I've been getting with the D7000. The footage is clean and artifact free, at least in the street footage I've been gathering. I see some minor moire and aliasing if i pixel pick but not enough to care, especially considering that its NOT a video camera. I output exclusively to web and at those sizes, I cant really see any moire or aliasing. Playback on a 46" 1080P screen is unbelievable. I choose the D7K over the 7D cause I have around 8 nikkor's that would be half as usable on the canon. grain-wise, its frikken amazing - beat my now sold FX1 in low light and is relatively clean up to 1000-1600 ISO. grain at 3200 and 6400 ISO looks great.

Lee Saxon said:
I haven't used a 7D yet. It is as absurdly tiny and flimsy as the D7000?
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you came off with that conclusion. The D7000 is as solid as my F100 and the size is perfect. I've shot with a 7D as well and I cant say there's a difference in "solidity" between the two body's. the D7000 is a fraction smaller in hand but both bodies are comfy to hold.

I would consider the 7D over the nikon only if you really really want 720 60P.
 
matthew77 said:
Neither of this things is actually true.

As long as you use lenses with aperture rungs you can adjust aperture manually within live view - just turn the ring. There are several ways to deal with lenses w/o aperture rings as well. Those are workarounds, and not so elegant. But truly, with aperture rings on your lenses, this limitation is nonexistent.

Regarding transcoding, if you want one long file (which is a workflow I am not in favor of, but to each his own) you can lay all the files in FCP or another NLE and render in the codec of your choice. I get no such errors in MPEG Streamclip, either, so it may be your system that's causing the issue, not the codec. The codec is H264, nothing special about it.
'
Click to expand...

Hey Matthew,

Just now seeing this. I wanted to reply to your excellent points.

Yes, you can indeed use lenses with aperture rings. Most people I deal with have current lenses without manual aperture rings so that's why I made that remark. But you're absolutely right.

Don't know about the MPEG Streamclip issue. I've tried it on both my MBP and iMac and ran into the same issue. I did exactly what you suggest though and dropped it into FCP and exported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top