Nikon D7000 or Canon 60D... or forget DX altogether?

[hassiman]

I have the money for either a D7000 or a 60D (7D too heavy with similar image quality) and I have been having a devil of a time deciding.  I would like to get a 5D MIII but that looks a long way off.

Can either the D7000 or the 60D deliver high quality image (RAW) files to print up to 20 X 30 un-cropped or is that stretching it?  I have zero interest in video with a still camera even though that seems to be all the rage today...

Anyone care to give me some much needed guidance?  Anyone here used both and can Cnad C?  read all the reviews but it's users who really know.

[degrub]

You provide the composition. Lenses provide the image. The body only records what it gets.

What are you using now ?

[bill t.]

I've got a D7000 and a 5DMkII.  Pictures taken with either camera with an excellent lens in good focus can be blown up to 20 x 30.  Seen side by side, the 20 x 30's from the 5D would win almost every time, even at high ISO's.  However, the apparently greater depth of field available from the 2/3 size sensor on D7000 has some real advantages for landscape work and is sometimes a good tradeoff for the noticeably higher noise in the D7000 images.

Bottom line...well exposed, well processed D7000 images shot in decent light with a good, properly focused lens used around f8 can do 20 x 30 with ease.  And as always, crummy technique can really show up on a 20 x 30, you gotta do it right or not at all.

And 20 x 30 is a peculiar size.  In some ways it's more demanding than say 30 x 45 in that people are forced to view the larger size from a distance, whereas they can still put their noses up to a 20 x 30.  Viewing distance obscures a lot of image problems, and 20 x 30 just short of being big enough to force people to back off.

[nightfire]

I'd buy a Canon with full-frame lenses, since you'd only have to sell the body once the 5D Mk3 hits the market. With a Nikon, you'd have to sell both the camera and the lenses.

[aeduard]

I'm in the same situation, I was waiting for the 5DIII, but now I decided to buy a 60D (tomorrow), and 24-105 lens. After the release of the 5D I will sell the APSC body and buy the FF.

[torger]

If resolution is important to you, I would not go for APS-C (although ok as a temporary solution while waiting for 5Dmk3 or something). Pixel sizes on top end APS-C (16 - 18 megapixels) is so high that they outresolve most lenses with a bit. This is no disaster of course (it is kind of good that the sensor does not set the resolution limit). However in practical prints you'll find that about 12 megapixel fullframe makes as sharp prints as the 16-18 megapixel APS-C, when using the sharpest lenses. When using less sharp lenses 12 megapixel fullframe will even be sharper in comparison.

Concerning prints, good printers/software are nowadays very good at hiding pixels, that is you can print (almost) as large as you want and you won't see any significant pixel artifacts (that is you don't see individual pixels when looking close), the print just gets a bit less sharp. How unsharp prints you can accept is a matter of taste. APS-C on 20x30 will look "good", but 21 megapixel fullframe with lens will be sharper. Personally, I would think APS-C is too unsharp for that size. 20x30 will only get ~160 ppi, and for APS-C those pixels are not very sharp either. With APS-C I would recommend not to print larger than A4 for book prints (really close and critical viewing distance) and A3 for framed prints (a bit less critical). Larger than that you will compromise quality, but if printed right it will not look "ugly" just fuzzy.

People have very different opinions on resolution needs of prints though. I'm one of those that prefer rather high resolution, and would actually want medium format 40 megapixels or more for prints as large as 20x30.