Camera options

theedge · 10 Aug 2016, 1:11 pm

Currently debating whether I go for Nikon or still stick with Canon after my L series 70-300mm lens and a 15-85mm had some tiny lifeforms (ie: fungi) growing inside! I should check and take care of my stuff more (last used a month back) but did expect better esp for an L lens.

Nikon D750 looks good but bit too much. Or I could forget the full frame and get Nikon 7200.

On the oth I was interested in the canon m series. But I've always hated the lack of canon zooms and the Slr bodies are heavy. Appears also nikon has more zoom lenses to choose from.

Thoughts?

In the meantime I'll probably be lugging my 40D and a 35mm prime till I get everything serviced.

dodger · 10 Aug 2016, 1:52 pm

Are you servicing your 7d as well?

If you're switching systems then I would recommend Sony full frame. They're excellent, small and their lens range has increased significantly in the past year or two.

If you're not switching systems, the Canon 6d is a good option too. (I was deciding between the Canon 6d or Sony last year when I was replacing my Canon 50d.)

Dross · 10 Aug 2016, 5:59 pm

Honestly its probably not worth switching sides unless you're really set on something nikons offering. Both company's make great cameras.
If you can wait, a 6d mkII probably isnt that far off. This would also mean 6d mki prices would drop making them quite affordable.
D610 could also be a good option if the 750 is out of price range. Really the biggest difference compared to a 610 is the 750s af system.

If you want to go mirrorless i would look else where than canon. olympus/panasonic, fuji and sony all make good offerings.
Sony a7i's can be had stupid cheap for a full frame nowadays.

theedge · 11 Aug 2016, 6:57 pm

I primarily picked the 7D to get into wildlife photography years back and I had existing canon stuff.

The problem with the 7d is that it is too heavy to take anywhere. The 70-300mm is about 1.6kg and 7D is nearly 1kg. Then there is the 15-85mm. So if you are walking for a while to get somewhere, this weight does wear you down.

Also my 7d body AF is a bit erratic in low light or tracking fast moving objects. 4/5 shots are spot on. I took it to canon a few years back and there was nothing they found wrong. So I've just learnt to live with it, but it is annoying rechecking the pics to make sure they're not blurry when doing challenging subjects. So obviously it is a bit disappointing it can't do what it says out of the box.

If I look at the other options, Nikon seems to fit the bill and I should include the D500 which is lighter than the 7D. It's that or upgrade to a 1D which my friend has - he's now doing wildlife photography after winning a few awards (and he did not need to resort to HDR like you know who here

). But then the 1D is heavier so need to scratch that. The 6D is a bit more appealing - the low light focus on my friends one is quite good. But not sure if it can handle fast objects well.

Anyway I talked to the camera repair shop and they think the lenses should be ok. But any coating on the glass will be damaged although it will have little effect on the pictures.

The 7d needs a service too. I will probably mention the AF issues and see if there's anything they can find.

But overall it means my equipment isn't a write-off yet. So I will stick with the lenses for now.

The image of the frogmouth is the last time I used the 7D + 300mm + 580EX combo to the fullest potential back in May. I think the lens was fungi free back then. Just a disclosure I had to edit out the redeye.

Midget · 17 Aug 2016, 3:37 pm

The D500 or D750 is a much better choice than any current Canon equivalents for the sheer available dynamic range in the files. I suspect AF would be quite similar unless you chose to get the 7D2 instead. Canon M series is utterly useless, and that's coming from me who couldn't drop his Canon kit until very recently. The Sony A7 series is possibly the best choice for any type of photography that does not require speed, I use one everyday and while the AF system is underrated and blown up in proportions online, it is still not at the level of a good phase detect system.

theedge · 19 Aug 2016, 11:44 pm

Some good points. I wish I could use Canon glass on a Nikon body. From what I hear Canon lens is still good and I've seen the sharpness when the 70-300+7d works properly. I'm just going through the digital picture site comparing the Nikon 80-400 versus the Canon 100-400mm mark II and it seems to confirm that. Obviously canon is heavier. But those tests mean nothing. The only way to know is to hire a nikon with the same setup, test it out and see how good the results are vs the canon at somewhere like Dubbo Zoo or Centennial Park. And it's the only way to test out the quality control of both.

But the Sony A7RII looks good if only I could find the dough...

Just got my camera and lenses back. Wouldn't even know it had fungus now. But I have to work tomorrow. Ah well.

Midget · 24 Aug 2016, 10:30 am

The A7RII is amazing. It's basically a generation ahead of the current A7II and A7SII, despite it being a "Mark 2". Backlit sensor and crazy AF system. Not to mention that it has similar noise levels to the A7SII after down-sampling the files.