The Canon Fallout

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2009 · The Canon Fallout

ryan stewart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · The Canon Fallout

I tried out the Nikons because my Canon film bodies were to old for the new mount and Nikon's system seemed to be more flexible. I liked the ergonomics and the menus so I switched.

I still have the old Canon film body and I shoot it on occasion but Im probably just going to pick up an old F4 to mess around with when I want film.

Mar 12, 2009 at 01:32 PM

Elan II
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · The Canon Fallout

Justin Huffman wrote:
Come on Avi, this wasnt meant to be that kind of thread....

Really? Then why did you end it with "Flame on?"

Mar 12, 2009 at 01:48 PM

panos.v
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · The Canon Fallout

Justin Huffman wrote:
Several shooter buddies of mine are all canon guys....and have beat on me for years about how their system is better and why do i shoot with nikon as its junk.....I used to try and rationalize on the merits of both but it always ended in dribble.

Canon is not failing. Nikon is just catching up after being left behind in the early digital race. Each system has some strengths and weaknesses. In the past Nikon had a few weaknesses that measurberators and people who use cameras as penis extensions would use to win pissing contests like "my camera is better than yours looooooooser, Dee Pee Review says so, just look at the ISO 3200 tests of their famous bottle of Martini and other silly props". Then they'd go on to shoot some crap photos of their kids playing football with a plastic fantastic 70-300 and would marvel at the wonderful slightly out of focus, slightly badly white balanced, slightly crap photos.

But if you look beyond the childish locker room behaviour, there is an equal number of gifted photographers shooting both. For every big name Canon shooter there is a big name Nikon one and vice-versa.

The "exodus from Canon" is just a balancing move that will equalise the exodus from Nikon when Canon was making cameras like the 1Ds and the 5D and Nikon was still sleeping. That and the fact that on the low end, Nikon offers more features for the money. And on the low end people don't care about systems, they are happy to dump their D40/XTi and kit lens every few years and get the latest and greatest that will give them "nice" photos in full auto mode.

Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos.

Mar 12, 2009 at 02:20 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · The Canon Fallout

Mar 12, 2009 at 02:24 PM

Chris Dees
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · The Canon Fallout

panos.v wrote:
Justin Huffman wrote:
Several shooter buddies of mine are all canon guys....and have beat on me for years about how their system is better and why do i shoot with nikon as its junk.....I used to try and rationalize on the merits of both but it always ended in dribble.

Canon is not failing. Nikon is just catching up after being left behind in the early digital race. Each system has some strengths and weaknesses. In the past Nikon had a few weaknesses that measurberators and people who use cameras as penis extensions would use to win pissing contests like "my camera is better than yours looooooooser, Dee Pee Review says so, just look at the ISO 3200 tests of their famous bottle of Martini and other silly props". Then they'd go on to shoot some crap photos of their kids playing football with a plastic fantastic 70-300 and would marvel at the wonderful slightly out of focus, slightly badly white balanced, slightly crap photos.

But if you look beyond the childish locker room behaviour, there is an equal number of gifted photographers shooting both. For every big name Canon shooter there is a big name Nikon one and vice-versa.

The "exodus from Canon" is just a balancing move that will equalise the exodus from Nikon when Canon was making cameras like the 1Ds and the 5D and Nikon was still sleeping. That and the fact that on the low end, Nikon offers more features for the money. And on the low end people don't care about systems, they are happy to dump their D40/XTi and kit lens every few years and get the latest and greatest that will give them "nice" photos in full auto mode.

Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos.

Best answer since long time

Mar 12, 2009 at 02:33 PM

svenjosh
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · The Canon Fallout

I do not think Canon is falling or failing. I recently made a move to nikon. My reasons were related to canon camera heirarchy where the less expensive models were definitely featurewise inferior or delibrately crippled of features to protect the higher market segment product. Currently if you need good weather sealing and excellent AF then in canon the only option is the 1 series. The 40D/50D are so far away from 1 series in this regard. I did not want to carry the huge 1 series camera just for my routine needs. I wanted a smaller, lighter camera with pro features. Looking at Nikon the D300 and d700 fit the needs well and nikon does not cripple cameras for the sake of it's pro series. The 5d mk II is also crippled to protect the 1D series. This is what compelled my move. Having used nikon's consumer zooms like the 70-300 VR I am impressed by Nikon was giving superb, comparable optical quality compared to pro glass. The difference is primarily build quality and fast aperture but optical quality is the same. Certainly canon keeps the consumers lenses well away from pro lenses.

No I am not expecting consumer grade cameras and lenses to be equal to the pro level ones but please do not cripple a camera just to widen the gap. There are easy ways to create this distinction just like Nikon. Maybe It is this Canon philosophy that makes people move to nikon.

Svenjosh

www.prakashphotography.blogspot.com

Mar 12, 2009 at 03:01 PM

Mike Mohrmann
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · The Canon Fallout

Jammy Straub wrote:
Canon isn't failing, Nikon is just now offering more competitive choices. Which is a good thing. There is more than enough room for more than one top tier professional camera maker.

I agree. There are pros/cons to both systems. I just wish I would could afford to own both (D700 + 5D2 would be great for my needs).

Mar 12, 2009 at 03:18 PM

lisantica
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · The Canon Fallout

It does seem to me that there has been an increase in threads stating that the poster is considering a switch to Nikon as of late.
I still have my feet in both camps. I'm down to two Canon DSLR items. A Canon 1D, the original, and a Canon 300mm 2.8 non-IS. Those are the two hardest items for me to sell.

Lisa

Mar 12, 2009 at 03:30 PM

Wickedfn4u
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · The Canon Fallout

Chrono1081 wrote:
brucemuir wrote:
not this *hit again.

+984835048508340858
Sorry OP but this thread is 100% pointless. Canon is not failing in the least. Infact I know more people switching from Nikon to Canon since the 5D Mark II. Canons QC doesnt suck, just more people buy Canon so the numbers look bigger. I used to sell cameras and would see it all the time where someones photography skills are lacking so they blame the gear and return it. Happens all the time. If the gear genuinely is bad, guess what, it happens. Nature of electronics. Happens on every single electronic item you buy.

What I find funny too how people started complaining when Canon issued a voluntary fix to the 1D M3 and 1DsMark III. Funny how noone seemed to notice a problem (especially with the 1Ds Mark III ) but are all of the sudden mad at Canon. hm...

Well you missed the mark on this one. Even with all the updates and the sub mirror fix I never felt the Mk3 was fixed or worked as well as its predecessor. Since complaints fell on deaf ears I sold it and moved to Nikon. The reason people don't talk about it is because people like you coming out and saying it is their skills and not the camera gets old. When Canon does announce a attempt to update/repair the problem then they feel someone vindicated that it is the body not the person.

As to the point of this thread? I see nothing wrong with asking why. I switch because of the lack of support from a company I invested in. I made a purchase based on their reputation and past products and was grossly let down and the customer service was horrid. I would never stick with a company that did that to me whether it was a car or a camera. I do see a lot of QC issues with things Canon has released lately, some of that I know is over analyzing what a body or lens was intended for but still I see far more grumbling on the Canon forums than in the Nikon ones. Now granted I have come to Nikon late, since the D300/D3 but I have not seen major complaints about the 4 bodies they have released in the last couple years. Do these kind of threads bring the forum IQ down, give me a break these areas are to discuss topics of interest if it does not interest you move on. But if someone was looking around for information about non-technical aspects of a camera or company (Should I buy Canon or Nikon) some history or background never hurts. When someone walks up and asks why you shout X you give them your opinion not facts.

Mar 12, 2009 at 03:50 PM

thedigitalbean
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · The Canon Fallout

Mar 12, 2009 at 04:06 PM

MajinHurricane
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · The Canon Fallout

I don't know. I recently switched to nikon, (mostly for the 105 f/2) I've been a canon shooter for 4 years now, and I've never had a problem with any of their bodies. The only exception is the 5d Mk II. I picked one up from craigslist and I have to say, I feel there is very little differences between the mark II and the regular 5d. I decided to switch over to nikon due to a couple of primes, but I've been pretty impressed with a d300 and the d700. Too bad the d700 doesn't have vdieo because it's actually a pretty cool feature that would be neat while travelling.

Mar 12, 2009 at 05:28 PM

rkinz
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · The Canon Fallout

"Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos."

Sorry, but the proof will only be in the photos if the person you are arguing with shows you "all" the photos he's taken with his camera, not just his best ones. Having to take 10 shots with your Canon to be assured of getting one or two in focus proves nothing to anyone (other than that your camera's autofocus system stinks... ). I moved to Nikon after using virtually all the non-pro Canon cameras over the years (XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D, XSi) because their autofocus systems are not reliable. You "will" miss shots you would not with Nikon D300 or D700 (using their cross point sensors) if you use any non-pro Canon camera, and this includes any shots that require focusing, including stills. This has been proven to me time and again in my own personal experience over multiple camera platforms. And if you want to have an argument, I will show you the "proof" in the photos... all out of focus of course.

Mar 12, 2009 at 05:38 PM

panos.v
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · The Canon Fallout

rkinz wrote:
"Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos."

Sorry, but the proof will only be in the photos if the person you are arguing with shows you "all" the photos he's taken with his camera, not just his best ones. Having to take 10 shots with your Canon to be assured of getting one or two in focus proves nothing to anyone (other than that your camera's autofocus system stinks... ). I moved to Nikon after using virtually all the non-pro Canon cameras over the years (XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D, XSi) because their autofocus systems are not reliable. You "will" miss shots you would not with Nikon D300 or D700 (using their cross point sensors) if you use any non-pro Canon camera, and this includes any shots that require focusing, including stills. This has been proven to me time and again in my own personal experience over multiple camera platforms. And if you want to have an argument, I will show you the "proof" in the photos... all out of focus of course.

Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results.

As for you AF gripes, obviously some cameras have better tracking than others, so they are better for one kind of shooting than another one. No camera is suitable for every kind of shooting anyway! Some cameras are better for action, some for stills, some for low light and so on. But they can all produce excellent results for their intended purposes.

My opinion on this Canon vs Nikon thing is this: if one cannot produce good photos with any current digital SLR then they either have some specialised need and are using the wrong camera or the equipment is the least of their worries.

Mar 12, 2009 at 06:58 PM

voka_gsw
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · The Canon Fallout

David Baldwin wrote:
Where are Nikon's modern AF full frame versions of Canon lenses like 50 f1.2, 35 f1.4, and 24mm f1.4?

And the funny thing is Nikon used to make a 28/1.4 and the 58/1.2 - now those are the lenses we need back, new and improved, and with AF-S.

Mar 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Chrono1081
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · The Canon Fallout

Wickedfn4u wrote:
Chrono1081 wrote:
brucemuir wrote:
not this *hit again.

+984835048508340858
Sorry OP but this thread is 100% pointless. Canon is not failing in the least. Infact I know more people switching from Nikon to Canon since the 5D Mark II. Canons QC doesnt suck, just more people buy Canon so the numbers look bigger. I used to sell cameras and would see it all the time where someones photography skills are lacking so they blame the gear and return it. Happens all the time. If the gear genuinely is bad, guess what, it happens. Nature of electronics. Happens on every single electronic item you buy.

What I find funny too how people started complaining when Canon issued a voluntary fix to the 1D M3 and 1DsMark III. Funny how noone seemed to notice a problem (especially with the 1Ds Mark III ) but are all of the sudden mad at Canon. hm...

Well you missed the mark on this one. Even with all the updates and the sub mirror fix I never felt the Mk3 was fixed or worked as well as its predecessor. Since complaints fell on deaf ears I sold it and moved to Nikon. The reason people don't talk about it is because people like you coming out and saying it is their skills and not the camera gets old. When Canon does announce a attempt to update/repair the problem then they feel someone vindicated that it is the body not the person.

As to the point of this thread? I see nothing wrong with asking why. I switch because of the lack of support from a company I invested in. I made a purchase based on their reputation and past products and was grossly let down and the customer service was horrid. I would never stick with a company that did that to me whether it was a car or a camera. I do see a lot of QC issues with things Canon has released lately, some of that I know is over analyzing what a body or lens was intended for but still I see far more grumbling on the Canon forums than in the Nikon ones. Now granted I have come to Nikon late, since the D300/D3 but I have not seen major complaints about the 4 bodies they have released in the last couple years. Do these kind of threads bring the forum IQ down, give me a break these areas are to discuss topics of interest if it does not interest you move on. But if someone was looking around for information about non-technical aspects of a camera or company (Should I buy Canon or Nikon) some history or background never hurts. When someone walks up and asks why you shout X you give them your opinion not facts.

Sorry but I absolutely did not miss the mark. A lot of people blame their gear for their photography shortcomings. Just yesterday I had someone asking if they should sell their nikon d90 or whichever one it is because when they shoot pictures of the moon its blurry and too bright.

Like I said before I used to sell cameras for a living and a good 95% of the cameras that got returned "defective" were cause the user simply did not know how to shoot.

As for Canons "shortcomings" im sorry but if you deal with them from a dealers perspective they are a ton easer to deal with then any other camera company out there. If its broke, you send it back or return it to the store and get a new one. Not sure what more people want.

As for "falling on deaf ears" I have to say you are wrong. Seems to me like they are doing the right thing and repairing the issues. Mind you they cant snap their fingers and say "ok! fix is here!" It takes teams of scientists, pr people, engineers, etc to come up with a viable fix, create a workflow for that fix, get the information out to the public, then have them send in their camera to have it fixed.

Not sure why I get worked up over these stupid troll threads. (Sorry OP but this was a trollish thread before you edited it.) I'm not in retail anymore and dont deal with the constant crying over company X's products.

Mar 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · The Canon Fallout

Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results.

+1

As the quoted member says, it is all in the picture quality. Photographers produced fabulous pictures a long time before AF was even a glimpse in anybody's eye, or auto ISO to 6400, or f:1.4, or multiple on-cam metering modes. We should all rejoice that the Canon monopoly on top-end cams has, for now, become a two-horse race with freedom for us to choose what works best for us.
The rest is just a large element of judgement/emotion getting into the picture. And that does not improve its quality

Mar 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Wickedfn4u
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · The Canon Fallout

Chrono1081 wrote:
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Chrono1081 wrote:
brucemuir wrote:
not this *hit again.

+984835048508340858
Sorry OP but this thread is 100% pointless. Canon is not failing in the least. Infact I know more people switching from Nikon to Canon since the 5D Mark II. Canons QC doesnt suck, just more people buy Canon so the numbers look bigger. I used to sell cameras and would see it all the time where someones photography skills are lacking so they blame the gear and return it. Happens all the time. If the gear genuinely is bad, guess what, it happens. Nature of electronics. Happens on every single electronic item you buy.

What I find funny too how people started complaining when Canon issued a voluntary fix to the 1D M3 and 1DsMark III. Funny how noone seemed to notice a problem (especially with the 1Ds Mark III ) but are all of the sudden mad at Canon. hm...

Well you missed the mark on this one. Even with all the updates and the sub mirror fix I never felt the Mk3 was fixed or worked as well as its predecessor. Since complaints fell on deaf ears I sold it and moved to Nikon. The reason people don't talk about it is because people like you coming out and saying it is their skills and not the camera gets old. When Canon does announce a attempt to update/repair the problem then they feel someone vindicated that it is the body not the person.

As to the point of this thread? I see nothing wrong with asking why. I switch because of the lack of support from a company I invested in. I made a purchase based on their reputation and past products and was grossly let down and the customer service was horrid. I would never stick with a company that did that to me whether it was a car or a camera. I do see a lot of QC issues with things Canon has released lately, some of that I know is over analyzing what a body or lens was intended for but still I see far more grumbling on the Canon forums than in the Nikon ones. Now granted I have come to Nikon late, since the D300/D3 but I have not seen major complaints about the 4 bodies they have released in the last couple years. Do these kind of threads bring the forum IQ down, give me a break these areas are to discuss topics of interest if it does not interest you move on. But if someone was looking around for information about non-technical aspects of a camera or company (Should I buy Canon or Nikon) some history or background never hurts. When someone walks up and asks why you shout X you give them your opinion not facts.

Sorry but I absolutely did not miss the mark. A lot of people blame their gear for their photography shortcomings. Just yesterday I had someone asking if they should sell their nikon d90 or whichever one it is because when they shoot pictures of the moon its blurry and too bright.

Like I said before I used to sell cameras for a living and a good 95% of the cameras that got returned "defective" were cause the user simply did not know how to shoot.

As for Canons "shortcomings" im sorry but if you deal with them from a dealers perspective they are a ton easer to deal with then any other camera company out there. If its broke, you send it back or return it to the store and get a new one. Not sure what more people want.

As for "falling on deaf ears" I have to say you are wrong. Seems to me like they are doing the right thing and repairing the issues. Mind you they cant snap their fingers and say "ok! fix is here!" It takes teams of scientists, pr people, engineers, etc to come up with a viable fix, create a workflow for that fix, get the information out to the public, then have them send in their camera to have it fixed.

Not sure why I get worked up over these stupid troll threads. (Sorry OP but this was a trollish thread before you edited it.) I'm not in retail anymore and dont deal with the constant crying over company X's products.

Read this, http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967 and tell me it was operator error. I can show you a ton of pictures that look just like this. 2 years and still trying to fix is not fixed. They knew before it was released it had a focusing issue and still released it.

This is not a troll thread and that is an easy thing to throw around when you don't agree with someones view or question. It was the same type of question I asked myself before I switched. Simply did canon (in this case) take there eye off the ball?

Mar 13, 2009 at 02:39 PM

sjms
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · The Canon Fallout

"Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results."- panos.v

i'm sorry that is the absolutely lamest reasoning i have ever heard. i purchased one for it to help me be more productive and efficient. canon promoted the 1D3 as the most sophisticated accurate fastest precise camera it made. the only thing missing there was the truth.

Mar 13, 2009 at 02:46 PM

panos.v
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · The Canon Fallout

sjms wrote:
"Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results."- panos.v

i'm sorry that is the absolutely lamest reasoning i have ever heard. i purchased one for it to help me be more productive and efficient. canon promoted the 1D3 as the most sophisticated accurate fastest precise camera it made. the only thing missing there was the truth.

The 1D3 situation is different as the camera was clearly sold as a fast AF tracking camera yet there is clearly a fault with the equipment.

What is lame, is saying that a XT or 5D are useless as image making machines because they cannot track well, when they were never sold as such.

Anyways, enough with this troll thread.

Mar 13, 2009 at 03:01 PM

Wickedfn4u
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · The Canon Fallout

Mar 13, 2009 at 03:10 PM

kane513
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · The Canon Fallout

My cousins wedding is a perfect example. Wedding photographer was shooting a 1DsmkIII, and I was just casually snapping around with my d40 and 18-55VR. The wedding shots came back, and there were like 2 in focus. I made a book for them, in which my amateur photos turned out better than a seasoned veteran. WITH A D40!

Mar 13, 2009 at 03:25 PM

TWoK
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · The Canon Fallout

kane513 wrote:
My cousins wedding is a perfect example. Wedding photographer was shooting a 1DsmkIII, and I was just casually snapping around with my d40 and 18-55VR. The wedding shots came back, and there were like 2 in focus. I made a book for them, in which my amateur photos turned out better than a seasoned veteran. WITH A D40!
I wouldn't blame the gear on him sucking. He could have always manually focused.

Mar 13, 2009 at 04:27 PM

rjk55425
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · The Canon Fallout

Its a variety of factors; apparent quality issues, perceived failure to take ownership and poor customer service/relations.

But foremost in my mind is their refusual to give customers what they want from a feature standpoint. Being number 1, they likely feel they can err on the conservative side and still protect their position. That has proved false by evidence of sale loss to Nikon for a certain important segment of the DSLR market. They are still formidable but this is a costly loss nonetheless.

Mar 13, 2009 at 05:11 PM

rkinz
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · The Canon Fallout

Who said anything about AF tracking being the only thing deficient with Canon? Canon AF stinks on motionless subjects too as sometimes it hits and sometimes it doesn't (and you never know unless you zoom to 100% on the camera LCD, and who has time for that except landscape photographers). I shoot people, and crappy AF is a fact with the 5D for me, and I've owned 3 of them. I have the proof if you want to see it, but I'm guessing you'd rather just like to go on believing your right instead of admitting Canon AF does not compare to Nikon's on any camera platform. I now have a D700 and all my focus problems are gone. Oh well, just coincidence I suppose.

Mar 13, 2009 at 10:01 PM

sjms
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #25 · The Canon Fallout

panos.v wrote:
sjms wrote:
"Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results."- panos.v

i'm sorry that is the absolutely lamest reasoning i have ever heard. i purchased one for it to help me be more productive and efficient. canon promoted the 1D3 as the most sophisticated accurate fastest precise camera it made. the only thing missing there was the truth.

The 1D3 situation is different as the camera was clearly sold as a fast AF tracking camera yet there is clearly a fault with the equipment.

What is lame, is saying that a XT or 5D are useless as image making machines because they cannot track well, when they were never sold as such.

Anyways, enough with this troll thread.

and so then they installed the identical AF system in the 1Ds3 and said there was no issue with it. and that is turning out to be a less then truthful statement too.

as to the XTi and 40D i said that they were some of the best image makers i had from canon. they were more consistant performers then any of their upper line.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

XTi/70-200 2.8IS at 1600iso

Mar 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end