rthompson10

Ok I'm brainstormig out loud, or on line
I'm looking to upgrade my Canon 70D- I've been using it a lot over the last year for sports and find that is lacking in a few areas
So looking at 7dMKII and.... gasp Nikon D500
FEatures I'm looking for Higher FPS and better ISO
What I've found so far: If I want to take a picture under crappy high school lights and I need to shoot 10,000 ISO then Nikon will give me the cleaner shot?
Fast focusing- Sounds like both are better than what I have but Nikon may be better?
Dynamic Range? I get the difference but will I or parents who see the shots really care all that much? I know there will be the shots that will be impacted by DR
Ergonomics: Actually went into my local store and played with both side by side- have rented MKII before. From a feel perspective they are both pretty similar to me
I love the "Q" quick adjust screen on the canon- couldn't tell-forgot to look- on the Nikon if it had something similar so I would have to plow through a bunch of button/menus to change things?
Lastly- the investment- I have the canon camera, 70-200 2.8 Tamron, 17-55 2.8 canon and 600 flash- these last 2 purchased used
Is there anything else I'm missing technically? Will the "better" pictures(mediocre photo skills being the same lol) offset the nice convenient adjustment screen on the canon?
Nikon as brand new would potentially have a longer life vs MKII? when is MKIII lol?
Been reading reviews- Read Ken Rockwell today and he though MKII was best thing since sliced bread, sort of dismissive of D500
Yes I've looked at the comparative sites

Anything else I'm missing?
Good for me to type this- helps my analysis
RT

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Give the 80D a look also, your lenses will fit and its sensor is 24mp and a newer design than 7DII, plus it's new AF system will go 27 cross type focus points at f/8 with some lenses, like the 100-400L Mk II plus the 1.4X III. Plus the 80D has the anti-flicker that really helps indoors with the lighting.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The current king of the APS-C domain is the D500. That said, how many Nixon compatible lenses do you Have?
If you already have a stable full of Canon EF mount lenses then it's really a no brainer, unless money isn't a consideration. If you have cash to burn then why cut yourself short. Get the 1DX II. Ain't nothing gonna beat it for sports or pretty much anything else for under 6 grand.
If money is a concern then you realistically have 3 choices, based on your current lenses and flash, and used 1DX, yes, I said a used one, still a bit pricy but you can't beat 14 frames per second. The 7D II of course with its 10 frames per second and ultra sophisticated auto focus system plus anti flicker mode, a must for indoor sports. There's also the 80D. It's not as fast as the 7D II, only 7 FPS but it has a whole lot going for it. It has the anti flicker mode you need for indoor sports, 24 megapixels, fast and accurate auto focus, the best DR of any Canon, maybe even the 1DX II, and it costs less than the 7D II. plus it takes really good HD video. Not 4K but frankly, most people can't tell the difference.

I own a 7D II a 70D and an 80D and I use the 80D most of those three cameras.

BIG ROB Loc: Princeton, NJ 08540

The Nikon D-500 is in a different world than the Canon camera's being spoken of. Do your research! Also, Ken Rockwell is NOT, an unbiased author, regarding Nikon vs. Canon equipment! He totally, favors Canon, at Nikon's expense, for his own, personal reasons! (Just read, very carefully, all that he says, about Nikon, in his "new" Nikon Information, and then, go back, and read EVERY WORD, that he had previously written, about Nikon! (Back when he was hoping, that they would be sending him, samples to test.) You will find, TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and CONFLICTING OPINIONS of Nikon Cameras! It is very extreme, obvious, and blatant! He now, pushes Canon, as very hard, as he possibly can!

While the Canon 7D Mark II is a fine camera, it isn't in the same league as the Nikon D-500, but rather akin to the Nikon D-7200, which I personally, chose over it, having the ability, to purchase, either one, and seeing the D-7200, to be a better camera, for my general use.

The Canon 7D Mark II shines as a camera for sports/action/and BIF. It is not great, for general usage as the D-7200 is. Actually, the D-500 suits itself, to those same purposes as the Canon 7D Mark II, but it, will do a better job with them; as it's a superior camera.

The Canon 80D, is on the level of the Nikon D-7200, except it's image sensor, isn't as good, (yet, the 7D Mark II's sensor, is downright pathetic!)

Comparing the image sensors that are in the Canon 7D Mark II, and the sensor that's in the Nikon D-7200, this, is the actual scientific, measured data, that DXO LABS, have measured and documented, and is available for all to see on their website, at: www.dxomark.com.

The overall sensor rating, of the Canon 7D Mark II, is 70, that of the Nikon D-7200, is 87.
70, is very low and poor, 87 is up with the full frame (Nikon) camera's. The measured, maximum dynamic range of these two image sensors, is: 7D Mark II= 11.8 D-7200= 14.6 This is a horrendous difference! The highest ISO that each camera, can take an image, while keeping noise below the prescribed level: 7D Mark II= 1082. D-7200= 1333.

The D-500 hasn't been tested yet, but it will be. considerably better. than the D-7200!

The Canon 7D MK II's strength is it's FPS speed, and that it's auto-focusing system is well suited for sports/action/BIF; the Nikon D-500 even much more so. The D-7200, much better, as a general purpose camera.

The Canon 80D, a good general purpose camera, it's sensor is rated at 79 overall, 13.2 dynamic range, and 1135 low light ISO.

The D-7200 has a better image sensor. You would need to carefully compare these cameras to select one that you prefered. Yet, still, the D-500, is, in a class of it's own!

These are facts and my opinions.

















by Canon's pathetic, low dynamic range, and low ISO

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Hmmm, sounds like someone's a Nikon fan. All those impressive DXO rating numbers, what ever they mean. Here's a great way to judge camera makes that just about anyone can do. Watch any professional sporting event or major news conference on TV and look for the white lenses and red rings. For such a pathetic camera company, you will see a whole lot of white lenses and lenses with a red ring around them.

When I said I own a 7D II, 70D and 80D, I forgot to mention a D7200 also. Yep, I own a bunch of Canon stuff and a D7200 and I'm seriously considering a D500. Why? Because it's a darn good camera, but I'll probably wait until they've got its little quirks resolved. Software updates, it's a wonderful thing.

Of the 7D II, 70D, 80D and D7200, the 80D is still the one I use most often. The D7200 is a great camera, with great DR if that's what's important to you, but the pathetic Canon has much better ergonomics and it's just easier to use. Of course most folks who've used Nikon for a long time would probably say the same thing.

Ain't nothing wrong with either brand. DXO'S rating numbers don't mean anything if it's a good picture.

Bottom line, if cost is a major factor, then the D500 isn't really an option because by the time you purchased the camera and a good lens or two, you may as well have gotten a new 1DX and use your existing lenses.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

RT, I'd say you've covered all the bases that don't matter all that much.
So what are you missing....., just the big picture! The SYSTEM. You hear a lot about ISO and DR but ask yourself why more pros shoot with Canon than any other brand?
The truth is that whichever one you buy, next year there will be a better one, and the year after that a better one still and the year after that......., that's why the system is the answer!!!
SS

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Me again. Can't sleep, we're picking up our new Coton De Tulear puppies later this morning and the anticipation just won't let me sleep. Good thing I like coffee.
I agree with Sharpshooter 100%, the system is what makes Canon, that and they're really well made, not that Nikon isn't ; it's just something you said is stuck in my head, something about the Nikon would last longer. I'm not sure what gives you that impression or maybe I just misunderstood. My first Canon SLR was an AE-1 followed by an A-1 and I was given an AT-1. I still have all 3 and they still work and they're around 40 years old. My first Canon DSLR was a 10D I purchased when they first came out about 12 years ago. I must have taken over 100,000 pictures with that camera; still have it, still works. About 3 years later I acquired a used, but in new condition, 20D from a pro photographer friend of mine. She had just picked up whatever 1D model that was out at the time and sold me her backup 20D. I used that camera just about every day for a few years; it went on several cross country motorcycle trips and recorded a whole lot of images. Again, still have it, still works. I bought a new 50D when it came out and it took the place of the 20D. It's still in use today. I was given a 60D for a Christmas present and it's still in use today. Since I had the 10, 20, 50 and 60D bodies, just to fill in the numeric gap I picked up a real clean 30D and 40D and yes, they still work. Bought the 6D when it came out and it went everywhere with me. I still use it. My pro friend does a lot of weddings and parties and sometimes I'm her second shooter or I'll do a party or shower if she can't. Video has become very popular so I got a 70D to do video. It's worked out quite well. Since I'm an animal person, into wildlife and birds and such, I got the 7D II to stalk animals with. When the 5DSr came out I had no intention of getting one, until I tried one. OMG, I was blown away by the detail that camera records, had to have one; my Christmas present to myself last year. I was given a lens by a relative who knew as much about cameras as I do about thoracic surgery, it was a Nikkor lens. At the same time I had an opportunity to buy a D7200 for a really good price. I wanted one so I bought it. Nice camera; I have a Sigma 150-600 C mounted on it most of the time. When the 80D came out I liked what I read about it and it's a nice upgrade to the 70D for video.

Why am I telling you this? Of the 11 Canon DSLR'S and 3 Canon SLR'S I own, they all work just fine and the only one that has ever given me the slightest problem is the 40D; sometimes the dial slips if I turn it too fast. These cameras are built to last and that's what they do if treated properly.

royden Loc: Decatur, GA

Holy mackerel, rmorrisson. 14 bodies. How many lens? Other stuff?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'll give my standard answer, although I see you've read comparisons. Maybe there will be something here of value.

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

I don't understand Ken Rockwell's point, if that is the impression he gives. I had a Canon 7D mark 11 and thought it was brilliant when used for wildlife photography with my Canon 100 - 400mm mark 11 and 300mm f2.8L IS. I now have a Nikon D500 plus Nikon 300mm F4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 and, lenses aside, I rate it even higher than the 7D mark 11. It is simply incredible. It is fantastic for birds and dragonflies in flight and the combination I use is so light it compliments my Olympus EM1 cameras and lenses beautifully. If money is not an issue I would go with the D500. I have owned seven Canon cameras and four Olympus over the years but this is my first Nikon: and it is stunning.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Did you ask the hogs on whom to marry? Go with what feels good to you. Since you are already invested in Canon, I would go with the 7DII which you can buy for almost 1/2 the price of the Nikon and I don't think that you will be able to see the difference in real life images. Use the savings for some fast glass, a used 135/2.0 L lens for about $800.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

KR prefers Canon ==these days--because he doesn't like the Nikon menu system, and certain other features. The notion that he switched loyalties because Nikon wouldn't loan him samples to review is nonsense.

Bill_de Loc: US

More pros shoot Canon because they do better marketing and are typically less expensive when comparing similar products. As a business the pro needs to make a business justification, while us silly amateurs just need to want it.

The reality is {IMHO} that both brands have products that will serve any photographer admirably. So, although I shoot Nikon, I see no reason to switch brands to find something that will suit your needs.

As for a camera lasting longer, don't give it a thought. It's not like when a new improved film would give better results in a 20 year old camera much the same as in a new one. Today, unfortunately, improvements come with the newest camera because sensor and computer technology keeps improving. I sure would have saved a bundle over the years if I could have just put the newest sensor in my Nikon D1X.

--

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Other then the canon 7D II at 10 fps and the 80D at 7 fps which of these two do most think is the better overall camera....Rich

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Stay with Canon you have good lenses already why start all over.