Switch to Nikon??

[havoc315]

A new full frame from Canon is coming, whether it's a 5D Mk IV, or a new line 2D, 3D or 4D, I'm not sure, but the price drop tells me they're going to fill the hole between the 5D, and 1DX with something.

IQ is a was between the Sony, and the Canon, the Canon has much better AF, Optical Viewfinder, no semi-translucent mirror, and a better lens line-up (although the A mount line isn't bad, it's not on par with CaNikon), but the Sony is cheaper, but the Canon will come down in price as well.

Iq is actually a bit better in the Sony -- especially dynamic range at low ISO.
AF is possibly a wash or slight edge to the Canon.
The translucent mirror is an advantage to the Sony -- as it allows a vastly superior live view, not even close in that regard.
The optical viewfinder is a disadvantage for the Canon, but it's pretty subjective. I changed from Sony to Nikon -- I'm happy with the change, but I miss the Evf quite often. For 90% of shooting, EVF is just better.
Canon does have a much better lens lineup, but among Aps-c lenses, it's actually pretty close.
And the Sony can do 12 fps, though with some limitations.

So advantages of the Canon 7dii:
Possibly slightly better tracking af. Slightly better lens lineup. Optical vf better for tracking action. Gps.
Advantages for the a77ii: slightly better iq. Far better live view. Great EVF, which I find better for everything except tracking action. Slightly faster burst rate, but only with auto exposure (same burst rate otherwise). Wifi. Fully articulating lcd. And half the cost.

For "general purpose" shooting, I'd take the a77ii -- for the Evf, higher image quality, superior live view, and cost saving.

For sports specialization, I'd take the 7dii for slightly better af, better sports lenses, and for ovf which is better at tracking action.

 

[SkaGoat]

Iq is actually a bit better in the Sony -- especially dynamic range at low ISO.
AF is possibly a wash or slight edge to the Canon.
The translucent mirror is an advantage to the Sony -- as it allows a vastly superior live view, not even close in that regard.
The optical viewfinder is a disadvantage for the Canon, but it's pretty subjective. I changed from Sony to Nikon -- I'm happy with the change, but I miss the Evf quite often. For 90% of shooting, EVF is just better.
Canon does have a much better lens lineup, but among Aps-c lenses, it's actually pretty close.
And the Sony can do 12 fps, though with some limitations.

So advantages of the Canon 7dii:
Possibly slightly better tracking af. Slightly better lens lineup. Optical vf better for tracking action. Gps.
Advantages for the a77ii: slightly better iq. Far better live view. Great EVF, which I find better for everything except tracking action. Slightly faster burst rate, but only with auto exposure (same burst rate otherwise). Wifi. Fully articulating lcd. And half the cost.

For "general purpose" shooting, I'd take the a77ii -- for the Evf, higher image quality, superior live view, and cost saving.

For sports specialization, I'd take the 7dii for slightly better af, better sports lenses, and for ovf which is better at tracking action.

I love discussions like this, because there is no right answer, and it's all very subjective to the user. Things you say are disadvantages, I find to be advantages (optical viewfinder).

on the AF tracking, the 7D MkII is leagues better then the a77ii, it's much more programmable, it uses colour info to track subjects, it's got a higher hit rate, and it's based on pro level tech from the 1DX.

 

[havoc315]

I love discussions like this, because there is no right answer, and it's all very subjective to the user. Things you say are disadvantages, I find to be advantages (optical viewfinder).

on the AF tracking, the 7D MkII is leagues better then the a77ii, it's much more programmable, it uses colour info to track subjects, it's got a higher hit rate, and it's based on pro level tech from the 1DX.

Agreed, much is subjective.
But not sure about some of your objective conclusions -- the af on the a77ii I believe to be just as programmable. It uses full sensor readout for tracking. Not sure why you concluded it has a higher hit rate, I haven't seen any comparative testing yet. The 7dii does have more af cross points, which is why I suspect it has a very slight af edge.

Ovf vs Evf -- much comes down to subjective preference but there are objective measures as well. I think many people who claim they prefer ovf, they simply haven't tried a good Evf, or they have a sentimental attachment to ovf.

Objectively -- Evf lags at high burst shooting, so clear advantage of ovf.
Objective advantages of Evf: a bright properly exposed view even in low light, where my ovf is basically black. Being able to chimp shots in the viewfinder as opposed to shifting your view to the lcd. Judging exposure, white balance, clipping, histogram -- in the viewfinder before you even take the shot. Magnified manual focus, focus peaking. Face detection. Video through the viewfinder. 100% view large viewfinder.

So a long list of objective advantages of Evf.

I love my Nikon d750. But if I could change 1 thing, I'd ditch the ovf and put in a good Evf.

 

[CT Disney]

So...quite spontaneously today I went out and bought a camera. I ended up getting one that I wasn't even really considering until this morning, so I'm counting on you all to tell me if I made an OK choice.

I ended up with the Nikon D7000. I got it for $629 and that included the 18-140 mm VR lens, a camera bag and a memory card.

I wasn't really planning on going with "older" technology, but this seemed like a great price for a good camera.

For $375 more I could have gotten the Nikon D5300 (with the same lens bundle). Or, for twice the price I could have gotten the Nikon D7100 (same lens bundle as well).

Did I make an OK choice...or should I have gone with the up-to-date technology? I haven't opened the box yet, so honest opinions please!

 

[Pooh2]

So...quite spontaneously today I went out and bought a camera. I ended up getting one that I wasn't even really considering until this morning, so I'm counting on you all to tell me if I made an OK choice.

I ended up with the Nikon D7000. I got it for $629 and that included the 18-140 mm VR lens, a camera bag and a memory card.

I wasn't really planning on going with "older" technology, but this seemed like a great price for a good camera.

For $375 more I could have gotten the Nikon D5300 (with the same lens bundle). Or, for twice the price I could have gotten the Nikon D7100 (same lens bundle as well).

Did I make an OK choice...or should I have gone with the up-to-date technology? I haven't opened the box yet, so honest opinions please!

I love my 7000. You got a great deal! I paid more than that for just the body!

 

[SkaGoat]

D7000 is a great camera, you'll get lots of great photographs with it.

 

[havoc315]

So...quite spontaneously today I went out and bought a camera. I ended up getting one that I wasn't even really considering until this morning, so I'm counting on you all to tell me if I made an OK choice.

I ended up with the Nikon D7000. I got it for $629 and that included the 18-140 mm VR lens, a camera bag and a memory card.

I wasn't really planning on going with "older" technology, but this seemed like a great price for a good camera.

For $375 more I could have gotten the Nikon D5300 (with the same lens bundle). Or, for twice the price I could have gotten the Nikon D7100 (same lens bundle as well).

Did I make an OK choice...or should I have gone with the up-to-date technology? I haven't opened the box yet, so honest opinions please!

The d7100 is only incrementally better than the d7000. Still the same basic technology. Biggest difference is that the newer Nikons have higher resolution. But the d7000 has a few more years before it's really outdated. And being a higher level body, it has many advantages over the d5300. Use it well.

 

[xlxo]

I'm counting on you all to tell me if I made an OK choice.

I ended up with the Nikon D7000. I got it for $629 and that included the 18-140 mm VR lens, a camera bag and a memory card.

I agree, the D7000 is a great choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joQ5l-PnhiQ

With an intro price, you can see in the coming months how far you want to want to go with DSLR's. As you acquire more lenses, having a second body will be handy to minimize lens swaps.

Welcome to Nikon...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVQiN568izQ&hd=1

 

[CT Disney]

I love my 7000. You got a great deal! I paid more than that for just the body!

D7000 is a great camera, you'll get lots of great photographs with it.

The d7100 is only incrementally better than the d7000. Still the same basic technology. Biggest difference is that the newer Nikons have higher resolution. But the d7000 has a few more years before it's really outdated. And being a higher level body, it has many advantages over the d5300. Use it well.

I agree, the D7000 is a great choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joQ5l-PnhiQ

With an intro price, you can see in the coming months how far you want to want to go with DSLR's. As you acquire more lenses, having a second body will be handy to minimize lens swaps.

Welcome to Nikon...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVQiN568izQ&hd=1

Thank you everyone! I am feeling pretty good about my choice

The good news is that we are heading down to Disney on Christmas Day, so it's the perfect time to take my new camera for a test drive. And, I figured, if it doesn't work for me I still have the option to return it within 30 days.

My thought is that I can use the D7000 for the next few years, and make sure I like Nikon without feeling like I made a huge investment. And, assuming I love Nikon, I can upgrade at that point. I was a little leery about spending $1300 on the D7100 when it doesn't have the video capabilities that the Canon 70D has at this point. Maybe by the time I'm ready to upgrade, the D7200 will be out, slightly discounted, and have better video technology.

Thanks again for your help everyone! I learned a lot just from reading what you all had to say!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

It's the old Ford v. Chevrolet argument to me.

I'm heavily vested in Canon glass (Which is the major place where Canon has a slight advantage, IMHO.) and I love my new Sony a6000 (Thanks DVCMike!) so I'm investing in glass options for that too.

My point is that I've thought about jumping ship a hundred times. Most people have; from both sides of the isle, At the end of the day, there isn't 10 cents difference between them other than the interface you learn. Maybe that's just my opinion too, but I've seen literally hundreds jump back and forth on the forums for years. There just doesn't seem to be a clear cut reason for either one except the initial and ongoing investment you make after your initial purchase.

I have a 6D, a 70D, and and a6000 and I couldn't be happier. I've got the super zoom Canon (40?) and probably 10 PnS's. They're all just cameras. If I was half the photographer my cameras could be in talented hands, the camera wouldn't matter very much anyway.

Enjoy your new toy. The good news is that in today's market, you simply could not lose.

Just MHO.

 

[boBQuincy]

It's the old Ford v. Chevrolet argument to me.

My point is that I've thought about jumping ship a hundred times. Most people have; from both sides of the isle, At the end of the day, there isn't 10 cents difference between them other than the interface you learn.

Yep, that's my opinion too. If we can't get the photos we want with a Canon, we probably can't get them with a Nikon/Sony/Panasonic/Olympus/etc either!

Not that I am against trying to make up for talent and hard work by spending $$$ but it just doesn't work.