Updated (October 2009): Compare the Canon EOS 7D vs Nikon D3S

Nikon D3S vs Canon EOS 7D

Winner
Nikon D3S

131

Canon EOS 7D

91

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3S

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
3,253 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
82.0
Great color depth
Color depth
23.5 bits
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.70x
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 7D

Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
131 ms shutter lag
Thickness
Thin
2.9"
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
External flash not needed

galleries

Explore our gallery of 43 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 7D.
Explore our gallery of 48 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3S.

competitors

Nikon D3S Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,499 - $1,897 body only

$2,150 - $2,397 with 24-120mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Autofocus Video autofocus
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Nikon D3

Nikon D3

Pro DSLR

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Low light performance Significantly more noise at high ISO
Nikon D500

Nikon D500

Pro DSLR

$1,699 - $1,997 body only

$2,597 with 16-80mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Battery life Much shorter battery life

Canon EOS 7D Competitors

Canon EOS 70D

Canon EOS 70D

Pro DSLR

$615 - $899 body only

$850 - $999 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$1,178 - $1,499 body only

$1,730 - $1,899 with 24-105mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Color depth Better color depth
Cross type focus points Significantly fewer cross-type focus points
Canon EOS 60D

Canon EOS 60D

Pro DSLR

$800 body only

$1,349 with 18-135mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Color depth Better color depth
Weather sealed No weather sealing

discussion

Nikon D3S
D3S
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 7D
EOS 7D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments