I don't really have a clue either way - thus my query. I've heard some people claim that the Canon 1D Mark II and the S version of that has awesome AF abilities. My D2h couldn't track well enough for almost any wildlife work. And of the cameras I've used out and about none of them could AF worth a hoot if in any kind of foliage density. So they were limited to maybe a cow standing in a field or something. And reading as I occasionally do over in the Wildlife section here, I see my suspicions verified from time to time with some of the best shooters swearing by MF.
So people just voted based on the camera they happened to own? Strange...
Nikon has their classic 200mm F4.0 AF Micro Nikkor said to rival even the Canon 185mm F3.5 Macro. Both lenses are super IQ and you can't go wrong with either.
Bifurcator wrote:
So people just voted based on the camera they happened to own? Strange...
spdntrxi wrote:
why would that be strange... if you have done your research figured out which is better for "you"
dont know about you but I try to buy cameras I like
If you got "the best camera in the world" made the same year you purchased it without any compromises on any level then you are a rarity yourself and quite strange.
But you already thought of that and were just trolling for a response right?
Bifurcator wrote:
If you got "the best camera in the world" made the same year you purchased it without any compromises on any level then you are a rarity yourself and quite strange.
But you already thought of that and were just trolling for a response right?
I got the best camera "for me" that what counts. Camera's are full of compromises..never said the current one was perfect. If this question was asked 3 years ago or so, my answer would have been different.
as for trolling.. you started as soon as you made the statement that " you would sure like to see Canon owners explain themselves"
Bifurcator wrote:
Well "Wildlife and Macro" is about as specific as it gets IMO. Either camera can do macro equally well. The Olympus 38mm f/2.8 is same or better quality than the MPE. And there are other bellows lenses with the same sort of qualities at same high magnifications for about the same price ($600 - $900). Very few people who have gone around the block a few times seeking the ultimate macro lens would disagree I think.
So I'm guessing the over 3:1 votes for Canon have to do with one or more of the specific Canon model's AF and tracking performance. At least I can't think of another reason for the poll to be in this state.
I sure would like to hear those who voted Canon explain why they did so.
Myself, I totally don't think it matters as I don't think there is an AF system nor an AE for that matter, currently in existence that's any good for wildlife - nor macro actually, come to think of it. Both those IMO are areas where manual focus and manual exposure really cut the cake! Still, I'd like to read what others have to say and why they voted the way they did (Nikon or Canon). So far the discussion doesn't match the poll results.
Bifurcator wrote:
Well "Wildlife and Macro" is about as specific as it gets IMO. Either camera can do macro equally well. The Olympus 38mm f/2.8 is same or better quality than the MPE. And there are other bellows lenses with the same sort of qualities at same high magnifications for about the same price ($600 - $900). Very few people who have gone around the block a few times seeking the ultimate macro lens would disagree I think.
So I'm guessing the over 3:1 votes for Canon have to do with one or more of the specific Canon model's AF and tracking performance. At least I can't think of another reason for the poll to be in this state.
I sure would like to hear those who voted Canon explain why they did so.
Myself, I totally don't think it matters as I don't think there is an AF system nor an AE for that matter, currently in existence that's any good for wildlife - nor macro actually, come to think of it. Both those IMO are areas where manual focus and manual exposure really cut the cake! Still, I'd like to read what others have to say and why they voted the way they did (Nikon or Canon). So far the discussion doesn't match the poll results.
You can't go wrong with either brand if you have their best stuff. But I would say Canon have a small advantage in the long lenses. They have just released all their new MKII versions of the long tele lenses. Which are a little bit better than any other brand. They also have a longer lens than the other brands (800)
Most reviews and tests also say the Canon 1DX have even faster AF than the Nikon bodies
