Canon guy thinking of a Nikon.

ecphotoman

I currently shoot Canon, all my gear is Canon. I've been thinking of buying a second camera body, but some of the offerings in my price range from Nikon are looking better. This will be a secondary camera for me, unless Nikon wows me and I ditch Canon lol. Right now I've been browsing Adorama and KEH and found a few things I like. I'm not planning of making a huge initial investment, I kind of just want to test the waters.
I've found the Nikon D40X(used-EX), D60(used-EX) and D3200 from both stores to be cheap starters.

Any advice on which of these 3, or flame on me for buying into two systems lol. Any feedback is appreaciated.

ziggy53

What do you have now?

What about the camera are you looking to change or improve?

What is it about these Nikon bodies that you find attractive?

How much have you budgeted for new lenses? (Canon lenses will not fit Nikon bodies.)

ecphotoman

I'm shooting with a 550D. I like the ergonomics and low light performance of Nikon. I'm looking to keep my initial investment at about 800.

Matthew Saville

Having pretty extensive experience shooting with both systems, I find that the whole "dual system" thing is a bit more of a "collector" thing and far, far less practical in real-world shooting. Why? Because the buttons are in different places, simply put.

Yes, you can get used to the differences within minutes if you're very well-practiced with both systems. I know Canons like the back of my hand just as well as I know Nikons, and the things like focusing and zooming going in opposite directions don't bother me at all after about 30 seconds of use. But the controls like ISO and playback and other functions are always annoying to have to switch back and forth from.

It all depends on the "intensity" of your shooting. If you shoot landscapes or architecture, you could probably switch back and forth between both systems all day long and never feel more than a slight annoyance. However if you shoot weddings or sports, and you're grabbing cameras left and right to try and capture action and moments, ...chances are you'll be cursing your different functions rather often.

So unless you have a very good plan, I would stick with one system. ("A very good plan" might include, I dunno, using one system for video and the other for stills, or using one system for landscapes and the other for action sports, or maybe just one system for wide angles and one system for telephoto?)

Personally, I do prefer Nikon's control layouts and functionalities, but that is only once you get to the high-end bodies such as the D700 / D800, versus the Canon 5D mk3 etc. And even then, the latest generation Canon bodies have added quite a few features that I had previously bragged about only my Nikons having, so the playing field is quite level now.

So honestly it just depends on how high you plan to take your photography aspirations. Do you plan to own a high-end full-frame system some day? Or maybe a lighter weight, more versatile high-end crop-sensor body such as a Canon 7D or the Nikon D7100 / D300s series?

=Matt=

Mitchell

Well, I'll flame you. Pretty silly idea to venture into Nikon from Canon if you are only looking to spend $800. The old Nikon bodies you are looking at (D40 and D60) are not known for their stellar low light performance. Plus, you likely don't own any Nikon glass.

Don't waste your time and your money. Stick with Canon and upgrade from their if you need. If you want to really make the leap to Nikon, plan on spending more than $800.

ziggy53

The Nikon D40X and D60 are pretty old, and around the same age as the Canon 400D/XTi. Regarding ergonomics, yes, they (Nikon) are very different to handle and to use. (Truth be told I like Pentax best, for body feel, user interface and feature set.)

Regarding noise levels at high-ISOs, I think that you will find the D40X to have more noise than the D60, and the D60 appears to be in a similar class of noise signature as the Canon 400D/XTi.

DPReview says, "The difference between the D60 and the Canon EOS 400D isn't huge (the Canon does slightly better at high ISO settings) ..."

The Nikon D3200 is a "very" modern body with a much better sensor, but at ISO 3200 (and above) and with default RAW-ACR processing I do like the reds better on the Canon T2i/550D (remembering that red response also affects skin tones) URL="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/20"]from the DPReview of the Nikon D3200[/URL.

EphTwoEight

Seriously. Wouldnt own any of them. Better off with a G-15, P7700, or even that little EOS M.

ecphotoman

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Having pretty extensive experience shooting with both systems, I find that the whole "dual system" thing is a bit more of a "collector" thing and far, far less practical in real-world shooting. Why? Because the buttons are in different places, simply put.

Yes, you can get used to the differences within minutes if you're very well-practiced with both systems. I know Canons like the back of my hand just as well as I know Nikons, and the things like focusing and zooming going in opposite directions don't bother me at all after about 30 seconds of use. But the controls like ISO and playback and other functions are always annoying to have to switch back and forth from.

It all depends on the "intensity" of your shooting. If you shoot landscapes or architecture, you could probably switch back and forth between both systems all day long and never feel more than a slight annoyance. However if you shoot weddings or sports, and you're grabbing cameras left and right to try and capture action and moments, ...chances are you'll be cursing your different functions rather often.

So unless you have a very good plan, I would stick with one system. ("A very good plan" might include, I dunno, using one system for video and the other for stills, or using one system for landscapes and the other for action sports, or maybe just one system for wide angles and one system for telephoto?)

Personally, I do prefer Nikon's control layouts and functionalities, but that is only once you get to the high-end bodies such as the D700 / D800, versus the Canon 5D mk3 etc. And even then, the latest generation Canon bodies have added quite a few features that I had previously bragged about only my Nikons having, so the playing field is quite level now.

So honestly it just depends on how high you plan to take your photography aspirations. Do you plan to own a high-end full-frame system some day? Or maybe a lighter weight, more versatile high-end crop-sensor body such as a Canon 7D or the Nikon D7100 / D300s series?

=Matt=

I eventually do want to upgrade to an Fx body, probably a higher end crop and then full frame. One thing that is really bothering me about my canon is that I purchased it with two ef-s lenses and I'll never be able to use it with a Fx body. I like that the modern Nikon lenses are fully interchangeable. I'm also a little ticked that I bought the 550D for 800 a year ago and now its released 2 more successors after the 600D. The fact that Nikon's D3200 is about half the price has me annoyed with Canon as well lol.

Thanks for the reply Matt I really admire your work.

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

cab.in.boston

ecphotoman wrote: »

I like that the modern Nikon lenses are fully interchangeable. I'm also a little ticked that I bought the 550D for 800 a year ago and now its released 2 more successors after the 600D.

They're not really interchangeable. Yes, you can mount DX lenses on an FX body without causing damage, but they are only designed to cover a DX image circle, so they may or may not give you an image you can use if you put it on an FX body. Typically you'll get lots of light falloff in the corners if it even gives you anything at all, and even if it covers the circle enough for you, it probably won't at all apertures.

Don't hold crop lenses against any manufacturer. They're made for a specific reason, and both C & N do it. On Nikon's FX bodies, they have a DX crop mode, but they you're losing a lot of the benefit (and more than half of your resolution) of having an FX body. So when you buy an FX/FF body, don't plan on using crop lenses. Better to use your current crop body and upgrade your lenses to FF, then go for the body when your lens collection is better equipped for it.

And the low-end DSLRs are iterated on just about a yearly cycle, for both Canon and Nikon. The D3000 came out in 2009, D3100 in late 2010, D3200 in early 2012, and the replacement is probably expected in the next couple of months. So I wouldn't hold that against them, either. Consumer electronics are a moving target, don't expect something to remain on the cutting edge for long (if at all) once it's released.

ecphotoman

cab.in.boston wrote: »

They're not really interchangeable. Yes, you can mount DX lenses on an FX body without causing damage, but they are only designed to cover a DX image circle, so they may or may not give you an image you can use if you put it on an FX body. Typically you'll get lots of light falloff in the corners if it even gives you anything at all, and even if it covers the circle enough for you, it probably won't at all apertures.

Don't hold crop lenses against any manufacturer. They're made for a specific reason, and both C & N do it. On Nikon's FX bodies, they have a DX crop mode, but they you're losing a lot of the benefit (and more than half of your resolution) of having an FX body. So when you buy an FX/FF body, don't plan on using crop lenses. Better to use your current crop body and upgrade your lenses to FF, then go for the body when your lens collection is better equipped for it.

And the low-end DSLRs are iterated on just about a yearly cycle, for both Canon and Nikon. The D3000 came out in 2009, D3100 in late 2010, D3200 in early 2012, and the replacement is probably expected in the next couple of months. So I wouldn't hold that against them, either. Consumer electronics are a moving target, don't expect something to remain on the cutting edge for long (if at all) once it's released.

That makes sense.

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

Matthew Saville

cab.in.boston wrote: »

They're not really interchangeable. Yes, you can mount DX lenses on an FX body without causing damage, but they are only designed to cover a DX image circle, so they may or may not give you an image you can use if you put it on an FX body. Typically you'll get lots of light falloff in the corners if it even gives you anything at all, and even if it covers the circle enough for you, it probably won't at all apertures.

Don't hold crop lenses against any manufacturer. They're made for a specific reason, and both C & N do it. On Nikon's FX bodies, they have a DX crop mode, but they you're losing a lot of the benefit (and more than half of your resolution) of having an FX body. So when you buy an FX/FF body, don't plan on using crop lenses. Better to use your current crop body and upgrade your lenses to FF, then go for the body when your lens collection is better equipped for it.

And the low-end DSLRs are iterated on just about a yearly cycle, for both Canon and Nikon. The D3000 came out in 2009, D3100 in late 2010, D3200 in early 2012, and the replacement is probably expected in the next couple of months. So I wouldn't hold that against them, either. Consumer electronics are a moving target, don't expect something to remain on the cutting edge for long (if at all) once it's released.

Mostly true, however I do find it convenient to be able to mount pretty much ANY lens on my Nikon bodies. I have a few old manual focus film lenses from the 80's that I still use today, and I also frequently use crop-sensor DSLR lenses on my full-frame bodies when I need to.

For example, if you're looking to save a TON of weight and $$$ on a 70-200 2.8 equivalent lens, with a D600 or D800 from Nikon you can use the Sigma 50-150 2.8 in DX crop mode, and still get ~15 megapixel images from a full-frame quality sensor.

Of course since I'm talking about a Sigma lens, it's important to mention that Canon EF-S lenses are the ONLY crop-sensor lenses that can't be mounted on a full-frame Canon body; Sigma and Tamron and Tokina crop-sensor lenses can all be mounted just fine on full-frame Canon bodies. Many people use the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 at 16mm on full-frame, with great results!

(I wrote an article on this subject, here: http://www.slrlounge.com/how-to-use-a-crop-sensor-lens-on-a-full-frame-dslr)

Having said all that, I do usually recommend buying the lenses that match the system you have, or plan to have in the near future. Also, I recommend sticking with a single system unless you're truly rich and simply want to own both for the fun of it.

If you think that the features and functionality of Nikon cameras would suit you well in the long run, then just switch entirely. But there are many pros and cons to both systems, so you should weigh them all before deciding...

ecphotoman

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Mostly true, however I do find it convenient to be able to mount pretty much ANY lens on my Nikon bodies. I have a few old manual focus film lenses from the 80's that I still use today, and I also frequently use crop-sensor DSLR lenses on my full-frame bodies when I need to.

For example, if you're looking to save a TON of weight and $$$ on a 70-200 2.8 equivalent lens, with a D600 or D800 from Nikon you can use the Sigma 50-150 2.8 in DX crop mode, and still get ~15 megapixel images from a full-frame quality sensor.

Of course since I'm talking about a Sigma lens, it's important to mention that Canon EF-S lenses are the ONLY crop-sensor lenses that can't be mounted on a full-frame Canon body; Sigma and Tamron and Tokina crop-sensor lenses can all be mounted just fine on full-frame Canon bodies. Many people use the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 at 16mm on full-frame, with great results!

(I wrote an article on this subject, here: http://www.slrlounge.com/how-to-use-a-crop-sensor-lens-on-a-full-frame-dslr)

Having said all that, I do usually recommend buying the lenses that match the system you have, or plan to have in the near future. Also, I recommend sticking with a single system unless you're truly rich and simply want to own both for the fun of it.

If you think that the features and functionality of Nikon cameras would suit you well in the long run, then just switch entirely. But there are many pros and cons to both systems, so you should weigh them all before deciding...

Matt, so what your saying is that my sigma 50-200 will work on a FF body?

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

Matthew Saville

ecphotoman wrote: »

Matt, so what your saying is that my sigma 50-200 will work on a FF body?

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

The Sigma 50-150 2.8 EX DC (as well as the new OS version) work great on full-frame cameras, if you care to crop the full frame image down to get rid of the vignetting. On a D800, for example, the DX crop mode is 16 megapixels. On a Canon, however, you would have to do all your cropping in post-production and it would be kinda annoying.

Or, you could just shoot in conditions where totally black corners aren't that big of a deal, such as stage / theater where there is already plenty of pitch-black stuff going on. I use the Sigma 50-150 2.8 on my Nikon D700, without cropping from the full-frame, all the time to shoot theater work and I just leave the corners black. But of course in any other sort of condition, cropping will be necessary.

Of course again like I said, if you're going to shoot with a crop sensor lens such as the Sigma 50-150, you might as well just shoot with a crop sensor body too like the D7000 or D7100. The advantage gained by using a D800 in crop mode is not as huge as people make it sound.

Honestly for many, many different types of photography I would much rather just have a good crop sensor body and crop sensor lenses; they're so much lighter, smaller, and more affordable. Really the only reason to upgrade to full-frame is for depth of field at medium and wider angles, or of course high ISO performance.

If you listen to the internet, it seems like the difference between crop sensors and full-frame (or the difference between Canon and Nikon, for that matter) ...has either ruined or saved every single photo ever captured. Obviously, the truth is that we all create whatever photos we can by using whatever gear we can afford, whatever is in our hands at the time...

=Matt=

ziggy53

ecphotoman wrote: »

Matt, so what your saying is that my sigma 50-200 will work on a FF body? ...

It will safely mount on a FF body. Whether it will work for your photographic application depends upon your intent and your use.

For instance, the Sigma 55-200mm F4-5.6 DC will not fill the frame of a Canon 5D MKII, but it will give you the same coverage and FOV as a Canon 30D body and the same 8 megapixels as the 30D body (which is a crop 1.6x sensor).

The kicker is that Sigma designs their "DC" crop lenses to work on 1.5x crop sensor bodies, so, mounted on a Canon 5D MKII, you can crop to 1.5x in postproduction and get around 9.5 megapixels.

If you use a modern Photoshop with ACR and Bridge interface you can even build a simple preset for the shots to automate the crop as part of the RAW conversion process, and cropping causes very little extra load on any modern computer and no perceptible delay.

Aiming the lens and making sure that your subject is properly framed for the 1.5x crop can be challenging, so I don't recommend this as a standard practice, but you do see the scene with vignetting in the viewfinder.

form

I'm in a completely different price and work league for camera equipment, but I am also a long canon user who tried Nikon. I went back to Canon. My first reason was the look of the images - especially the bokeh. I liked Canon's lenses better than Nikon's. However, my experience was limited by the fact that I use primes, 35mm and 85mm, as the most important lenses in my kit, and Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 is recognized as having both some intermittent focus issues and a slower focus acquisition than other lenses.

My second reason for staying with Canon was that the 5d3 had cross-type outer points, while the Nikon system only has cross-type center point and the 4 directly above and below center. My third reason was...Canon's live view is much better. My fourth reason...I liked Canon colors better.

Plus, I tried a D800 - which is actually extremely good at low light performance - after using 5d2s. I sold the D800 about a month ago.

In favor of Nikon...the sensor was great. Dynamic range at low ISOs simply far better, it would take an absurd amount of pushing to make the shadows look noisy on an underexposed area of the image. If my Canon stuff could do this, I'd never have given Nikon a second thought.

Crop sensors are a different thing entirely...I don't know about the newer ones, but the D7000 had similarly good shadow lifting/dynamic range. besides that, I think Canon and Nikon are generally closer in crop sensor performance than in full frame performance for noise traits.

From the perspective of someone still not feeling limited by a rebel-series camera, I can't imagine what one brand would have over the other to justify switching.

ecphotoman

form wrote: »

I'm in a completely different price and work league for camera equipment, but I am also a long canon user who tried Nikon. I went back to Canon. My first reason was the look of the images - especially the bokeh. I liked Canon's lenses better than Nikon's. However, my experience was limited by the fact that I use primes, 35mm and 85mm, as the most important lenses in my kit, and Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 is recognized as having both some intermittent focus issues and a slower focus acquisition than other lenses.

My second reason for staying with Canon was that the 5d3 had cross-type outer points, while the Nikon system only has cross-type center point and the 4 directly above and below center. My third reason was...Canon's live view is much better. My fourth reason...I liked Canon colors better.

Plus, I tried a D800 - which is actually extremely good at low light performance - after using 5d2s. I sold the D800 about a month ago.

In favor of Nikon...the sensor was great. Dynamic range at low ISOs simply far better, it would take an absurd amount of pushing to make the shadows look noisy on an underexposed area of the image. If my Canon stuff could do this, I'd never have given Nikon a second thought.

Crop sensors are a different thing entirely...I don't know about the newer ones, but the D7000 had similarly good shadow lifting/dynamic range. besides that, I think Canon and Nikon are generally closer in crop sensor performance than in full frame performance for noise traits.

From the perspective of someone still not feeling limited by a rebel-series camera, I can't imagine what one brand would have over the other to justify switching.

What got me started thinking about the whole thing is that Nikon has a lot of mid range cameras whilst Canon has the bottom of the barrel, one or two in between and the cream of the crop. However, that could just mean good marketing and have absolutely nothing to do with performance.

If I were to stay the course with Canon, and I save my money till I have about 1000-1200 lying around would my next step be the 7D or the 60D?

ziggy53

ecphotoman wrote: »

... If I were to stay the course with Canon, and I save my money till I have about 1000-1200 lying around would my next step be the 7D or the 60D?

The Canon 7D is still the top of the crop sensor Canon bodies. It has the best AF section of any Canon crop 1.6x body, although in low light the 60D AF is very similar.

The sensors of the 60D and 7D are somewhat similar, with the same pixel count and basic technology, but the 7D has more readout channels, commensurate with the faster overall performance capabilities of the 7D. The 7D also has a viewfinder with 100 percent coverage, vs 96 percent coverage for the 60D.

The 7D uses CF cards, while the 60D uses SD cards. The 7D has a magnesium chassis and body while the 60D is an aluminum chassis with a reinforced polycarbonate body. The 7D has 2 - image processors, versus 1 processor in the 60D.

With the new 2.x firmware the 7D can shoot up to 130 JPEG Large/Fine and 25 RAW images at 8.0 frames per second, while the 60D can shoot up to 58 JPEGs, 16 images RAW @ 5.3 fps.

For sports/action I recommend the 7D, but the 60D is plenty capable for most other kinds of photography.

ecphotoman

ziggy53 wrote: »

The Canon 7D is still the top of the crop sensor Canon bodies. It has the best AF section of any Canon crop 1.6x body, although in low light the 60D AF is very similar.

The sensors of the 60D and 7D are somewhat similar, with the same pixel count and basic technology, but the 7D has more readout channels, commensurate with the faster overall performance capabilities of the 7D. The 7D also has a viewfinder with 100 percent coverage, vs 96 percent coverage for the 60D.

The 7D uses CF cards, while the 60D uses SD cards. The 7D has a magnesium chassis and body while the 60D is an aluminum chassis with a reinforced polycarbonate body. The 7D has 2 - image processors, versus 1 processor in the 60D.

With the new 2.x firmware the 7D can shoot up to 130 JPEG Large/Fine and 25 RAW images at 8.0 frames per second, while the 60D can shoot up to 58 JPEGs, 16 images RAW @ 5.3 fps.

For sports/action I recommend the 7D, but the 60D is plenty capable for most other kinds of photography.

Ziggy, how important is the number of focus points?
I noticed that the D5200 has 39, but the 7D only has 19
How important is the number of points?

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

puzzledpaul

ecphotoman wrote: »

Ziggy, how important is the number of focus points?
I noticed that the D5200 has 39, but the 7D only has 19
How important is the number of points?

Number of AF points is only part of the issue ... also got to factor in / consider type of points + layout shape / area covered.

7D layout shape is still essentially the same as the 9 point 'diamond' shape found on many other Canon bodies (exceptions being 1 series and 5Dm3)

Depending on what you're shooting (and how) such issues can be important.

pp

ziggy53

ecphotoman wrote: »

Ziggy, how important is the number of focus points?
I noticed that the D5200 has 39, but the 7D only has 19
How important is the number of points?

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Number of AF points is only part of the issue ... also got to factor in / consider type of points + layout shape / area covered.

7D layout shape is still essentially the same as the 9 point 'diamond' shape found on many other Canon bodies (exceptions being 1 series and 5Dm3)

Depending on what you're shooting (and how) such issues can be important.

pp

^^^^^^^ All true. Additionally, the AF sensor design and AF sensitivity all play a part in AF effectiveness and AF accuracy.

My own concerns when I compare AF between cameras are:

1) How many AF points are cross-type? Cross-type sensor point will detect a subject's edge in either vertical or horizontal direction. A line-type sensor point only detects a subject edge in a single direction; either vertical edges or horizontal edges. For instance, if a power line is parallel to a horizontal line-type AF point, it can fail to be detected at all. (Some newer AF sensors also contain "dual-cross-type" sensor points, and those can detect subject edges on the diagonal, as well as vertical and horizontal, edges.)

2) AF sensitivity? All AF sensors use contrast differential to determine subject edges. AF steering and AF accuracy are both directly linked to AF sensitivity. In other words, in low light, AF sensitivity differences can determine differences in both AF speed and AF accuracy. To a lesser degree, AF sensitivity also affects which lenses will be successful in that small aperture lenses will be much less successful in low light than large aperture lenses, and the specific AF sensitivity determines how low is too low to autofocus. (In the case of the 7D, AF acquisition speed purposefully reduces in low light in favor of AF accuracy. Partly, this has to do with a close coupling between the AF section and the metering section, which meters in 2 colors, meaning that the 7D has a type of color-sensitive AF system.)

3) Reviews relating to AF. The specifications never tell the whole story, and professional reviews give valuable insight into AF differences.

4) Purposeful AF Customization. What I mean by this is that I greatly prefer more control over the parameters of the AF section. The 7D is second only to the 1D/1Ds professional series bodies when it comes to the ways that you can control the AF section.

The Canon 60D has a 9 cross-type vs the 7D and 19 cross-type. (Your T2i/550D has 1 cross-type, for comparison.)

The 60D and 7D have a similar sensitivity rating of -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100).

In the case of the 7D autofocus reviews I believe that the review at: "The-Digital-Picture" is fairly revealing and they say, "My subjective evaluation ... is that the 7D delivers the best AI Servo focus performance of any of the Canon APS-C sensor bodies."

The 7D customization includes:

Besides single-point AF selection, the 7D has:

• Spot AF mode reduces the size of a single AF point to focus on small subjects like an animal in a cage.
• AF Point Expansion mode uses a cluster of AF points adjacent to the selected AF point to automatically assist focusing on moving subjects, such as an athlete on the run.
• Zone AF divides the 19 AF points into five selectable focusing zones and makes it easier to achieve focus with subjects that are difficult to track with Single Point AF or AF point expansion, such as birds in flight.

AF Point Switching, which allows photographers to select and register one AF point for horizontal compositions and a second AF point for vertical shooting, ideal for studio and portrait photographers.

For a good primer on the 7D AF customization:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/whats_news_eos7d_article.shtml

Matthew Saville

ecphotoman wrote: »

Ziggy, how important is the number of focus points?
I noticed that the D5200 has 39, but the 7D only has 19
How important is the number of points?

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

Indeed, do not be fooled by the sheer number of AF points, you would do much better with a 7D's AF system than most anything else on the market in that price range, let alone cheaper.

=Matt=

ecphotoman

ziggy53 wrote: »

^^^^^^^ All true. Additionally, the AF sensor design and AF sensitivity all play a part in AF effectiveness and AF accuracy.

My own concerns when I compare AF between cameras are:

1) How many AF points are cross-type? Cross-type sensor point will detect a subject's edge in either vertical or horizontal direction. A line-type sensor point only detects a subject edge in a single direction; either vertical edges or horizontal edges. For instance, if a power line is parallel to a horizontal line-type AF point, it can fail to be detected at all. (Some newer AF sensors also contain "dual-cross-type" sensor points, and those can detect subject edges on the diagonal, as well as vertical and horizontal, edges.)

2) AF sensitivity? All AF sensors use contrast differential to determine subject edges. AF steering and AF accuracy are both directly linked to AF sensitivity. In other words, in low light, AF sensitivity differences can determine differences in both AF speed and AF accuracy. To a lesser degree, AF sensitivity also affects which lenses will be successful in that small aperture lenses will be much less successful in low light than large aperture lenses, and the specific AF sensitivity determines how low is too low to autofocus. (In the case of the 7D, AF acquisition speed purposefully reduces in low light in favor of AF accuracy. Partly, this has to do with a close coupling between the AF section and the metering section, which meters in 2 colors, meaning that the 7D has a type of color-sensitive AF system.)

3) Reviews relating to AF. The specifications never tell the whole story, and professional reviews give valuable insight into AF differences.

4) Purposeful AF Customization. What I mean by this is that I greatly prefer more control over the parameters of the AF section. The 7D is second only to the 1D/1Ds professional series bodies when it comes to the ways that you can control the AF section.

The Canon 60D has a 9 cross-type vs the 7D and 19 cross-type. (Your T2i/550D has 1 cross-type, for comparison.)

The 60D and 7D have a similar sensitivity rating of -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100).

In the case of the 7D autofocus reviews I believe that the review at: "The-Digital-Picture" is fairly revealing and they say, "My subjective evaluation ... is that the 7D delivers the best AI Servo focus performance of any of the Canon APS-C sensor bodies."

The 7D customization includes:

Besides single-point AF selection, the 7D has:

• Spot AF mode reduces the size of a single AF point to focus on small subjects like an animal in a cage.
• AF Point Expansion mode uses a cluster of AF points adjacent to the selected AF point to automatically assist focusing on moving subjects, such as an athlete on the run.
• Zone AF divides the 19 AF points into five selectable focusing zones and makes it easier to achieve focus with subjects that are difficult to track with Single Point AF or AF point expansion, such as birds in flight.

AF Point Switching, which allows photographers to select and register one AF point for horizontal compositions and a second AF point for vertical shooting, ideal for studio and portrait photographers.

For a good primer on the 7D AF customization:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/whats_news_eos7d_article.shtml

Thanks Ziggy! That really helped. I think I'll stay the course with my Canon gear, no use in getting next to nothing for all my stuff and starting over again.

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

ecphotoman

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Indeed, do not be fooled by the sheer number of AF points, you would do much better with a 7D's AF system than most anything else on the market in that price range, let alone cheaper.

=Matt=

Your right Matt! I can get one refurbished for 950 which is an amazing for a semi-pro model. Thanks for all your advice!

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

Matthew Saville

ecphotoman wrote: »

Your right Matt! I can get one refurbished for 950 which is an amazing for a semi-pro model. Thanks for all your advice!

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

$950 for a used 7D? Man, my first DSLR was a $999 Nikon D70. The times they are 'a changing!

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

I'm glad you've been talked off the ledge, since you neglected to tell everyone that a Nikon would be your third system. Or does the Sony A330 in your profile belong to someone else?

Only reason to switch to Nikon right now is the D800 for landscape, pushing shadows 3 stops, and pixel peeping. Only reason for a Nikon user to switch to Canon is the 5D3 for sports and all around awesomeness. Below that level it's splitting hairs.

puzzledpaul

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Only reason for a Nikon user to switch to Canon is the 5D3 for sports and all around awesomeness. ...

+ At least one pro wildlife snapper thought the change to 1Dx etc was worthwhile ... (#240)


http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=208073&page=12

pp

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I'm glad you've been talked off the ledge, since you neglected to tell everyone that a Nikon would be your third system. Or does the Sony A330 in your profile belong to someone else?

Only reason to switch to Nikon right now is the D800 for landscape, pushing shadows 3 stops, and pixel peeping. Only reason for a Nikon user to switch to Canon is the 5D3 for sports and all around awesomeness. Below that level it's splitting hairs.

I like to think that overall marketing and market placement philosophy also plays a big role, at least for me. Nikon seems to be more well-rounded, making insanely killer lenses in all price points, while Canon often seems content to tactfully position all low-middle level gear as an enticement to upgrade to the absolute best.

For example even Nikon's new 50 1.8 AFS-G, at $200, has equal or better sharpness than the Canon 50 1.2 L, and obliterates the other Canon 50's. And you can bet Canon will take their sweet time in updating their affordable 50, 85, and other primes because they enjoy up-selling the L glass. In other words, I like how Nikon does NOT have the silly "L" qualification...

ecphotoman

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I'm glad you've been talked off the ledge, since you neglected to tell everyone that a Nikon would be your third system. Or does the Sony A330 in your profile belong to someone else?

Only reason to switch to Nikon right now is the D800 for landscape, pushing shadows 3 stops, and pixel peeping. Only reason for a Nikon user to switch to Canon is the 5D3 for sports and all around awesomeness. Below that level it's splitting hairs.

I sold it about a year ago. It was the last remaining piece from my old Konica-Minolta kit. I have a respectable kit with them, I waited and waited to see what Sony would do with the Minolta brand and technology; but sadly they drove it into the ground.

ecphotoman

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I'm glad you've been talked off the ledge, since you neglected to tell everyone that a Nikon would be your third system. Or does the Sony A330 in your profile belong to someone else?

Only reason to switch to Nikon right now is the D800 for landscape, pushing shadows 3 stops, and pixel peeping. Only reason for a Nikon user to switch to Canon is the 5D3 for sports and all around awesomeness. Below that level it's splitting hairs.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I like to think that overall marketing and market placement philosophy also plays a big role, at least for me. Nikon seems to be more well-rounded, making insanely killer lenses in all price points, while Canon often seems content to tactfully position all low-middle level gear as an enticement to upgrade to the absolute best.

For example even Nikon's new 50 1.8 AFS-G, at $200, has equal or better sharpness than the Canon 50 1.2 L, and obliterates the other Canon 50's. And you can bet Canon will take their sweet time in updating their affordable 50, 85, and other primes because they enjoy up-selling the L glass. In other words, I like how Nikon does NOT have the silly "L" qualification...

It's pretty annoying that to get "the good stuff" you have to spring to the red stripe on the lends barrel. How do you feel about 3rd party glass like Tokina, Tamron or Sigma? I've been looking at the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and it seems to be really good. anyway what are your thoughts on buying 3rd party?

puzzledpaul

ecphotoman wrote: »

It's pretty annoying that to get "the good stuff" you have to spring to the red stripe on the lends barrel. How do you feel about 3rd party glass like Tokina, Tamron or Sigma? ...

Well, there's a page on fleabay about 'Canon classics' ... ie certain lenses (or particular versions of) that offer great vale for money / performance.

One of these is the 28-105 ... a particular version, in this case ... which I happened to buy (used) before knowing about the different versions.

Both of the 2 previous generations of 100mm macro lenses were non-L ... it's only the latest version (with IS) that has the bit of red paint on it.

The mpe-65 has no L either ... and I've known of Nikon macro shooters who've bought a (relatively) low-end Canon body ... just so's they can buy this lens - because it's the only such lens available - for any system.

Whilst I've never used one, by all accounts the EFS17-55 f2.8 IS offers L performance without nicking paint from the post office either.
I bought the Tamron (non IS / VC whatever) equivalent when such a focal length was needed ... and found it fine (for my purposes) ... as do many other people, apparently.

Think the main issue with most stuff (including 3rd party and used) is buy from somewhere with a good retuns policy, so if you get a 'Friday special' ... it can be exchanged.

Re buying L lenses, in general - check out used, of course - lots of people buy said gear assuming it'll make them a better snapper ... then realise there's a bit more to it.

pp

jmphotocraft

ecphotoman wrote: »

It's pretty annoying that to get "the good stuff" you have to spring to the red stripe on the lends barrel. How do you feel about 3rd party glass like Tokina, Tamron or Sigma? I've been looking at the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and it seems to be really good. anyway what are your thoughts on buying 3rd party?

Some Canon lenses I have either owned or used that offer "L" image quality:

50/1.4 - Better than my 24-70L at 50mm, I see no need for the 50/1.2.
50/1.8 - for sharpness anyway, bokeh is just ok, AF sucks, but for $120 it's a good "gateway" prime
100/2.8 Macro - biting sharpness
100/2 - stealth portrait lens
85/1.8 - stealth portrait lens
35/2 - AF is not silent, but IQ is great

L lenses that are a great value:

70-200/4L - really, a steal for what you get.
24-105/4L - if bought as part of a camera+lens kit
17-40L
135L