For sports shooting, the Canon has the least shutter lag.
For overall image quality, including handling high ISO, the D7000 (which has considerably higher ISO as well).
The D7000 ticks more of the boxes you want to have ticked.

I'm not making your decision for you, you don't get off that lightly. (8+p

Mark

I'm trying not to come across as a Nikon fanboi in this thread.
The fact of the matter is, each system has its strengths and it's weaknesses. Just as I'm sure the Pentax does, and the Panasonic and however many other manufacturer menu systems you care to mention.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Nobody made the decision for me, and rightly so.
Okenobi can make his own mind up, we can just advise and answer his questions as best we feel we are able to. (8+)

Mark

Which is why I've been saying from the beginning - try out the cameras. Different people will get on with different UIs.

If your no1 use for the camera is shooting sports then I'd be inclined to go with the Canon personally. As much as I love the K-5 its AF is apparently slower than the Canon which could make all the difference?

It's almost like I want a Canon for "work" and a Nikon for "fun".

Thanks guys I really appreciate you all weighing in. Yeah I've gotta make my own decision, but as always with these things, it's nice to be able to talk to more experienced people. I think if the D7000 was faster and had a larger buffer, I would almost certainly be buying that, but we'll see what I think of each system later today....

Thanks again

The major point I have to make is that you appear to be aiming for the most FPS from a DSLR to ensure you get 'the picture' from each set you take.

Now if you really want to get the best action shot possible from each sequence based on speed, then have you considered a camcorder? FPS are far higher than with a DSLR, and resolution on single frame capture from a recent model should be more than adequate for a decent blow up to poster size. The package is much smaller and the zoom range well in excess of a DSLR with kit lens. You have the added bonus of the package being single lens.

just to muddy the waters.

My wedding photographer used Pentax for work and Canon for fun.

Do not do this.
I've had to take frames from 1080p video shot on the Canon's at work to use for promotional stills.
To give you some idea, a 1080p frame uses about 2 megapixels.
The 550D shoots stills on about 9 times this many.

Or, you could go the other way, and get a 1Dx and shoot 5k video from stills...

Jones Lang LaSalle have auctions selling off Jacobs gear as they went bust. Might be worth a look.

It's late and I'm tired. But I've had an interesting day and I shall download the contents of my head into this thread tomorrow at some point.

On the subject of a camcorder, for all the talk of speed here, I do want other features besides spray and pray! So I won't be doing that.

See you guys tomorrow

Ok, here we go. First of all, please remember that the following comments are from a guy who (whilst having read a ton over the past few weeks) has no practical experience of the technical aspects of photography, or SLR use.

With that in mind - I held and/or fiddled with yesterday:
D200
D300
D7000
K-30
650D
60D
7D

Brief looks were had at the 5100 and 3200.

Impressions - everything Nikon felt solid and nice in the hand. The control layout of the 200/300 was very nice and I believe a second hand 300 could easily satisfy my speed and ruggedness requirements. I could probably even get away with some cheaper glass than the higher res models. The control layout seemed logical with the stuff that's available without menu access i.e. aperture, shutter, ISO, WB etc. The 650D felt like a toy after that. The 60D was marginally better in terms of the grip, but the articulated screen seems gimmicky and the buttons were all very squidgy.

To summarise this portion of my impressions. My inference on why Canon people dislike Nikons and vice versa is because at a lot of price points, and particularly historically, Nikon seems more serious to offer more control. In my view this makes sense for serious photographers and they see Canon as "amateurish" in comparison when it comes to handling. Conversely, for most of the rest of us, Canon make it easy for you on their cheaper models and as most people never buy more than the entry level (or if they do, they start with a Rebel) they like quick access to obvious things and everything else in a menu out of the way. So to them Nikon is overly complex. That's my take, be interested to hear yours

As everybody pointed out to me in each shop and as quickly became apparent to me, it's much like PC vs Mac. I would need to learn whichever system I chose, from scratch. Which in a way puts me at an advantage to experienced photographers. However, here's the interesting part. When you get to the D7000 vs the 7D, there's VERY little difference in handling! The "mode" dial on the Nikon is very similar to the Canon and actually makes both cameras feel very similar. Unlike say the D300 and 60D. Focus speed on either felt very quick to me (in the semi-sunny-indoor/outdoor-not-very-taxing conditions), with possibly a slight edge to the Canon. However, it's clear that the Nikon system is more modern and I preferred the way the viewfinder looked (again marginally) turns out those pesky black AF squares don't move once they're locked (maybe I did something wrong?).

What was more interesting was the the 7D owner in question was a Jessops employee who had learnt photography on a D300 and "upgraded" to a 7D for more speed. He felt the 7D allowed more control without menus, but he'd obviously not played with the D7000 as much as I did yesterday. They are very similar. Can't emphasize this enough. Really surprised me. I was kinda thinking that one or other brand would jump out as "for me". That didn't happen.

As for the K-30, it felt lovely in the hand. Solid, but light. Focus was quick on the kit, but not as good as the others. However, the rear LCD made a lot more sense in terms of what you can adjust there. If you're coming from compact, as I am, but you have no need for speed or more rugged build and you're not concerned about potential upgrades to FX down the line, this is THE camera to get IMO. For me, it's a little too slow to only save around £120 over the D7000.

So more summarising:
Pentax are out for my application
It seems the IQ from the 5100 will be the same as the 7000; just as the IQ from the 650D/60D will be virtually indistinguisable from the 7D. What I'm paying for with the more expensive bodies are features I don't yet understand, better build/weather sealing and speed. That's it. As I'm free to choose between the systems and either one has things that make sense to me and things that don't, it seems that ultimately price is the deciding factor. I was dead set on the 7D when I went in, but the D7000 really impressed me and we did some burst shots in one shop. Both the independent and Jessops have offered for me to go back with my Class 10 Sandisk 30mb/sec card and try again if I want to confirm (which I probably will). But in short bursts with a second or two to recover, the D7000 seemed to be enough for what I want. Although the 7D will shoot all day at 8fps, I don't need or want that. I just need enough to cover say 4 skiers in a reasonably tight group e.g. 6-10 frames in a pan, pause, then another 6-10 frames etc. The D7000 seems to be able to do that, but I want to be sure.

Assuming the D7000 can cope with that, I see four options ahead:
1) Used D300. Has the speed and build and is supposedly cheaper. Although the dealer I spoke to reckoned good ones are £500-600. This isn't cheaper than the D7000 by enough IMO.
2) D7000. Should have "enough" speed, uses cheaper SD cards vs CF and will have the best low light performance and sensor size/res ratio from an IQ standpoint. May struggle with the buffer.
3) 7D. Definitely has everything I want, with a slight compromise on low light performance. Most expensive by a fair margin.
4) I've heard talk of a D600, D7100 and a 7D MKII between now and Christmas. It may all be nonsense, but as I don't NEED the camera immediately, I think waiting til Photokina at least, makes sense.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the above. But price is definitely gonna be the number one thing. So for example, if a 7D came up with everything I needed for say £1500, I'd probably just buy that. Equally, if I could get a D7000 for £1000 with everything, that would make sense.

The only other thing that is lingering in my mind a bit, is lenses. I have the option with Canon to get the f4 70-200mm IS L which is supposedly lightning fast to focus and carried by a lot of ski pros. It's half the weight and price of a 2.8 and would be ample in the sunlight/snow. Nikon don't seem to offer this "halfway house" on price and weight. It's the 2.8 or nothing.

On the other side, Nikon's 70-300mm VR is supposedly legendary for a cheap lens and Canon's equivalent is not nearly as capable. As any of the bodies I choose will likely require quality glass to make the most of them, I wonder if people have any thoughts on that. I don't really want more than 3 lenses and my thoughts for either system would be roughly a tele zoom VR/IS, a 35-50 prime f1.8 and possibly an ultra wide zoom for landscapes and creativity.

Thanks for reading guys and I look forward to hearing your thoughts....

I would still consider the K-5 alongside the D7000. It's as good in terms of image quality and has weather sealing. The 7D (and the D300s) are technically a class above the D7000/D60/K-5 enthusiast models. For me personally if not going for the 7D-class (or waiting for something new next month) the K-5 would be back in the game. Also since the 1.01 firmware update the buffer is able to hold around 20 RAWs, up from the 8 when it was first released which isn't a great deal less than the 7D.

There's an articlehere on AF performance on DP Review for the K-5, D7000 and D60.

I can't help but think whilst your post swings towards buying a D7000 the 7D and 70-300L f/4 combo is the white elephant in the room!

As for lenses if I use Pentax as an example (for obvious reasons and without spending silly money) I'd want something like:-

Wide - Sigma 8-16 or Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24
Fast Prime - Pentax 50 f1.4 or Pentax 43 f1.9 (Pentax also do cheaper/slower 35 and 50 'plastic' primes)
Tele Zoom - Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Pentax 60-250 f4

I'm really happy you got to play with the cameras. Even if you still plump for the 7D, at least it was an informed decision.

Don't forget, the ƒ/4 70-200 on the 7D will be the equivalent to a 110-320mm due to the 1.6x magnification effect of the APS-C sensor size.

I would think that might be a bit too telephoto at the wide end for your needs. It depends on how far away you expect your subjects to be. I'd be looking at something more like a 28-300 designed for the APS-C to give a good wide field at one end, and good zoom range for framing.

Otherwise, very interesting to read your findings, especially the similarities between two brands.

To answer those points raised so far. I'm also glad I had a play. What I think this highlights more than anything, is that in this day and age, there really isn't a great deal of difference between Canon and Nikon on entry level - mid bodies IF you don't have much experience of either. Even if you do have experience, making the switch is a lot easier now than previously. In my view that's where price makes such a difference in my category of buyer. I would consider myself to be just a small level up from the average man on the street who just wants great photos and to maybe fiddle a bit once he gets some practice.

It also highlighted that really the best thing to do in "normal" </Bratty> circumstances would be to buy either a 650D or a D3200, learn how to use it and then understand what you're missing and your specific needs when it comes to better body. As I don't want to buy twice, at least not within the next 12 months, and I have a specific application in mind that's a little different from most first-timers, that option is a no-go for me.

As to the K-5, I couldn't get my hands on one, although I imagine it would feel similar to the K-30. Yes it's weather sealed and I'd love a 60-250 f4. But they're £1200 vs £900 for the Canon L. There's the advantage of in-body SR which could make for some nice, cheap lenses, but the prices for the stuff you'd ordinarily want is still hideous. Also, the focus performance of the K30 wasn't as snappy as the others and I can only assume that since the K5 is considerably older, it'll be marginally worse or the same at best. All that said, if the price was right, it's back in. But at £2000 for one lens and a body.....

I haven't forgotten about crop factor, but I see little point in getting DX lenses, as they hold less value and are less useful in the long run. Plus, that reach could be immensely useful and would negate the need for anything else. But I take your point about the wide end. Nikon have a lovely 28-300 VR, but it's not as fast to focus as the 70-300 VR. Canon don't seem to have anything as good in the same range....