Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?
Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.
That's a dangerous question to pose on this forum without starting a flame war, but I'll do my best!
If people were honest, they'd admit that the D7100 has the image quality advantage; it is superior on most metrics. The point of argument would be how much better it is and how important the image quality advantage is compared to other features. I would say that the D7100 is the better all round stills camera, with its weakness being buffer depth, plus a bit of build quality compared to the 7D. That being said, one doesn't buy a camera body in isolation, but as part of a system. I wouldn't say that anything that Nikon has to offer is compelling enough to offset the changeover costs, if one has a decent collection of EF mount glass. If one doesn't own any glass from either manufacturer, then deciding which lenses one is likely to need is a factor. To be honest, unless you're into wildlife or sports, I'm not sure that either manufacturer has the most compelling lens line-up for their APS-C cameras and I might be tempted to look elsewhere (e.g. m4/3rds or Fuji).
Im not sure how this thread ven got to three pages.
7d's problems are detailed and noted across the internets. It is simply not a good buy. The Af has problems & the iso is bay far the worst of any canon camera i have seen sicne the 450d. I HAD to dispose of my 7d. i loved the body.
Well documented by whom? I've not come across huge amounts of material substantiating this claim. There was a bit of a hoo-ha when it first came out, partly because of the "crazy megapixel number" (note how when Nikon went to 24 megapixels, no one batted an eyelid) and partly caused by a review from Darwin Wiggett that found the 7D to produce a very soft output. To be honest, I respect Darwin and regularly read his blog, but his was the only comparison I've seen where the 7D's file looks that soft compared to other cameras; I haven't seen anyone else find this result.
Trust me, im going through the same with a SECOND 6d, and its the most frustrating thing in the world. I have yet another canon body that i cant use to to Af issues. softie images and af misses at f4...enough of this mess already.
I just joined CPS gold so hopefully they can help. If not, im scraping for a 5dmk3.
Plenty of people find the AF system of 6D fine, if used within its capabilities. The 5D Mk3 is very good, but I'm not sure really how necessary such a sophisticated AF system is for non-sports/wildlife specialists (myself included). I'm wondering whether I'd have been as well served by a 6D and saved the extra money; heck, even a 70D might have sufficed most of the time as all the 5D Mk3 seems to have done is made me more fussy about noise!
If you cant find all of the discussion on 7d complaints then you are not simply looking hard enough. I admit i didnt see 'enough' of it before i bought the body. It was only after a year when the af module went wacky- all of a sudden i could find it all. When the Af worked,I was able to take some great photos.
For the 6d- sounds like your being "nice" in your description of the cameras AF. no one was happy when the af unit was announced. Ive noticed the more positive trend as more people acquire the camera (especially after the great black friday sales) but it sounds more like just being happy to have anything decent at all for this price. My Af problems have extended to things that dont move- like charts, household items, statues, etc. And its just not great.
I will tell you this- My t2i has outperformed the AF of the 7d i had +2 more recent 6d bodies. Thats sad/insane. And I use the camera with a 70-200 2.8 II to shoot moving people, urban landscape, studio portrait, etc. Its not even a comparison.
Im now testing the 6d in the field before i send it to CPS tomorrow.
Im around other photographers with serious equipment at Fashion week- and they ask me what camera i have.
t2i. Kicking AF ass and taking names.