Can any one tel me what's the diffrenc between Canon mark5III and nikon7000 and which's better
1667449
The Canon 5D Mark III is a full frame sensor vs the crop sensor in the Nikon D7000. Also about $2300 between the two bodies. Really depends on your budget and what you want to do. If you are asking this question you most likely don't need to spend the money on the 5D.
324305
Terrific. I can not say how much better or worse it is compared to the D 3000, I had the D 7000 before and the D7000 was remarkable already. The D 7100 is even better. Never shot with anything better. Combine that with a nice light sensitive prime lens and you are in heaven.
1512724
Kind of depends on what your looking for. I personally think in power a few other features that it's comparable to the sb900 in power output and features which I personally wanted but the sb700 also has some nice features. You might want to check out this site. http://speedlights.net/2010/09/16/nikon-sb-700-flash-specs-vs-sb-600-and-sb-900/ to get a better idea.
1697749
@Jeffrey... I will agree with you that the Nikon D3100 feels better than the T3 in the hand. Actually the most solid-feeling entry-level DSLR out there right now is the Pentax K-r but that's beside the point. It does have more intuitively laid-out controls. However I have shot with both the D3100 and the T3 and had a much more enjoyable shooting experience with the T3 than the D3100. The T3 seems faster in just about every aspect than the D3100, it has a better viewfinder, and despite its screen being low-res, I actually didn't think it was that bad and it's better than the D3100's. And it has impressive photo quality (even with the kit lens). I think Canon was smart to only have the sensor @ 12mp. So I think overall the T3 is the better DSLR. However, I think Canon should be worried about the Nikon D5100 as a competitor to their T3i.
1617974
Wow I never have Spoken to an actual goddess before. So I better get this right:)To be very honest I'm not sure of everything. But I know it has higher resolutions and more points of aim. The high speed shutter rate is faster. Reading some of the other reviews people have said that the motion tracking is much better on this one. But I've never used the 65.Hope it helps.
702488
J. Perez -- There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse. If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion. Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to windows desktops. First decide if you use your camera more for sports or portraits then decide if you want the canon or nikon.
1866179
My friend has both... I asked her which one she likes better and she said that the Rebel is easier to use, but the Nikon takes better pictures. I am going to get the Nikon. It is cheaper too.
1983248
You should be able to compare the specifications and reviews and decide what fits your photography needs. There are obvious differences in size and the number of dials/buttons for example. Being an A700 user, ergonomics is one of the reasons I went for the A77. There are others that I thought important such as the better AF module, but you may not care about it. The bottom line is, if you can't look at the specification list of the A77 and immediately identify some things that you need, then you don't need the expense of the A77. You may also wish to look at the A57 and soon to be announced A37.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
1771454
I owned a K3 for a month, then bought a K5IIs. IMO, the K5IIs takes sharper photos more often. The K3 is a very unforgiving camera. You will discard the majority of your shots, where the reverse is true for the 5IIs. K3 software is much better, esp focus peaking, but that does not overcome its very steep learning curve and requirement for meticulous technique on every shot. IMO, the sweet spot is 16 megapixel on aps-c.
1247237
The D7000 can auto focus both the AF-S and the older AF-D lenses. If you want to save money, get the 50 1.8 AF-D, better yet a used one to save even more money. But the 50 1.8 AF-S has better bokeh and slightly bettter image quality, so if you want the absolute best image quality, get the AF-S version. I have the AF-D and am very happy with it.
1949917
yeah the D5100 is a better deal if you aren't too picky. If it got the same sensor as the D7000 (which it seem) then it is better then the Canon in low light and higher ISO. Well the D7000 vs D5100 6fps vs 4fps: advantage d7000 Fixed screen vs tilt: D5100 Maganisum body vs. plastic: D7000 More manual controls vs menus: D7000 1080p 24fps vs 1080p 30fps: D5100 Sensors: tie (if it is the Sony cmos like the D7000, D3100 used Nikon Cmos) Lenses selection: D7000, the D5100 still lack th ebody motor for older Nikkor lenses. Nikon CLS wireless flash: tie, both have it I not sure if the 3100 does (for speedlight without buying a trigger and using i-ttl off camera). 39 vs 11: D7000, but I only use the single point focusing (like manual on the camera) so no really advantage unless you do thing fully automatic. Or focus and recenter, same thing. All in all the D5100 is a better deal for consumer. For enthusiast the body and control of the D7000 is much better and faster to change settings to get a good shot. The d7000 defaults were soft and designed for portrait. You have to use the submenu to jack up the sharpness and contrast to look vivid on the D7000 to look like the unnatural Canon defaults.
1296628
Compare them and when you do, bear in mind that the Nikon was 50% more.http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/675|0/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28brand2%29/Nikon
1580334
Although many camera gear review sites give the edge to G12 over P7000, the difference is just that, a small edge, even with P7000's known flaws regarding slow RAW write times and focusing issues. Since I'm a Nikon DSLR user, I can use my Nikon Flash on P7000 to give me more flexibility in using this camera. Otherwise, I would have gone with G12 as I think Canon does P&S cameras better than just about everybody else. However, that was the thought process when the camera prices were comparable before the huge price drop on P7000 AND the necessary firmware update (version 1.2) from Nikon. At this price ($229) along with firmware update, it's almost a no-brainer in picking P7000 over G12. For the price of P&S slightly above the economy model, you are getting a fantastic, albeit previously flawed, high-end P&S camera.
1116911
Mkii is a good camera, but if we talk about AF, of cause 5d mkiii is better, much better, too much better to believe. I don't talk about 61 focusing points, exellent af settings for different sports. And when i shoot stars, now with new af on mk3 i can focus on stars.
525780
It's an excellent camera. But, if you are budget restrained and would like more bang for your buck. I recommend the 5D Mark III. Also a little expensive, but both are worth the price. The D5 Mark III, would allow you to purchase a lens or two and stay in the price range of the 1D-X body only. If you think you will be photographing wildlife along with other subjects. The 5D Mark III is much more wildlife friendly. It has a silent shooting mode that is really more quiet than any of the cameras I presently use. Good luck and enjoy whichever you choose.
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought