Anyone jumped ship to a Nikon D7000?

The only real reason I would have switched is because Nikon has a TON of great, low-cost, wide, fast, primes.

Sorry for being ignorant, but could you expand on that?

I really don't know Nikon lenses and currently don't know of any good lens archives (ie somewhere to look at images taken with a specific lens)

Ta.

John_N wrote in post #13530903
Sorry for being ignorant, but could you expand on that?

I really don't know Nikon lenses and currently don't know of any good lens archives (ie somewhere to look at images taken with a specific lens)

Ta.

http://www.dpreview.co​m/products/nikon/lense​s

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/reviews/showcat.p​hp?cat=12

Not to mention older manual focus lenses from the pre-AF days of film....(see some in my sig)

I dont see how someone would actually try to argue the D7000 sensor isn't better than the 7D but whatever. Lower noise and performs massively better at raising shadows.

That said, I owned the D7k, great little camera if the ergonomics fit you. I still prefer the feel and output of my 5Dc though. I'm hoping canons next crop sensor is a huge success as I wouldn't mind adding a crop camera to my roster, but for now extremely pleased with my setup.

I would have but the ergonomics suck for my hands.

kitacanon wrote in post #13531295
Not to mention older manual focus lenses from the pre-AF days of film....(see some in my sig)

I don't know if the manual lenses are relevant as they work just as well on Canon EF mount with use of a simple and cheap adapter (As you are most likely doing now with your own).

Bananapie wrote in post #13530877
The only real reason I would have switched is because Nikon has a TON of great, low-cost, wide, fast, primes.

Uh, which ones would those be? I certainly can't find a single example.

They have the 35mm f1.8, which is quite nice and inexpensive, but not wide on DX cameras. One lens is hardly a "TON", though.

+1. If you like lenses stay with Canon, sure some lenses are missing 14-24, 200-400, etc but in general Canon still has the upperhand.

tkbslc wrote in post #13531930
Uh, which ones would those be? I certainly can't find a single example.

They have the 35mm f1.8, which is quite nice and inexpensive, but not wide on DX cameras. One lens is hardly a "TON", though.

I got hold of a couple of Raw files from a D5100 (just the kit lens), one was very nice, the other - the one with high ISO - was a lot rougher than I was expecting given the comparative examples I'd seen

This has given me second thoughts and I'm wondering if what I'm trying to do is beyond the capabilities of my skills - nothing clever, just get a decent shot indoors (my front room) without either the noise being as rough as a rhino's butt or resorting to flash which is somewhat intrusive.

I can see myself setting up a second thread for this, but I tried last night with the 5D and its one annoying failure (no auto ISO, so set to 800) really jumped out to me as I try to focus, which was slow to the point of my daughter legging it before I could take a shot - then I managed to get the jump on the toddler (set to aperture priority 2.8) and it took 1/6s as you can imagine its a mess.

I tried another before that using manual settings 1/60s, f2.8 (forgot about ISO at that point and it was at 200), needless to say it was very dark, once levels were applied however iy revealed a lot of noise, which even lightroom couldn't touch.

ISO 800 and 2.8 are not going to cut it at all for indoors. Consider getting a flash. Used properly it is not intrusive at all.

I actually have a couple, I just find them a hassle to get - when the kids do something cool its hard enough to get a camera & the correct lens without setting up a flash too.

I just had a crack at some high (for the 5D) ISO shots - 1600 and "H" (3200) and while the speeds aren't great 1\15 to 1\30 the results were acceptable for snaps, especially give I had the 100mm on at the time.

Each camera mfg has different approaches to sensor tech. I can't comment on either. So I rather not regurgitate from some wild interweb comments.

But i can comment that the d7000 feels like a toy compared to a 7D. Buttons galore. Ergonomics just isn't for me. It just felt kludgy to get used to. The D300 is much nicer to use. More intuitive in its interface.

It is not in the same class as the 7D but more of a 60d/Rebel. Just doesn't have the robustness of its D300s brother which is in need of an update.

The advice I got when I ought my first DSLR was buy into the lenses not the body. The theory being the bodies change all the time and your lens collection remains with you. Arguably the best body at the moment may be a Sony A77 so why not go for that? I personally think comparing Nikon and Canon is wasted energy as it's splitting hairs on which is better so get what meets your needs and use it to the fullest capabilities.

Thank you all, I've had a re-think and your comments and suggestions have been a big part of that - so congrats, I'm usually pretty hard to shift viewpoint on!

Switching brand is a pretty big move, so if high ISO/AF etc is my goal, the first thing I need to do is recognise my kits limits - if I find it is lacking then theres always the 7D II or 5D3

Flashes are essential for what you're trying to do, which is to focus and get decent lighting in a fairly dark environment.

Frankly I'd slap that 85 1.8 you have on your 5Dc and the flash and go to town. Even if you don't use the flash output, the autofocus assist beam on the flash is really useful, assuming your flashes have that feature.

Even without the flash, if you say you're getting 1/30 at ISO 3200 with your 100 2.8, the 85 should let you easily double that speed if you're wide open.
(edit : or the 50mm you have)