Actually, I am one of those folks who now feels his 1D III works fine. I think it's significant that those who insist that the 1D III is irretrieveably screwed as a camera are people who haven't had (or didn't wait around for) the most recent AF fix. Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand why one would get frustrated & give up - especially if professional reputation is at stake. But I do find it strange that many of those same people seem to be incapable of accepting that some people - people who are not fools, incompetents, or uncritical fanboys - have been pleased with the results of the latest AF fix.

globalkiwi wrote:
Actually, I am one of those folks who now feels his 1D III works fine. I think it's significant that those who insist that the 1D III is irretrieveably screwed as a camera are people who haven't had (or didn't wait around for) the most recent AF fix. Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand why one would get frustrated & give up - especially if professional reputation is at stake. But I do find it strange that many of those same people seem to be incapable of accepting that some people - people who are not fools, incompetents, or uncritical fanboys - have been pleased with the results of the latest AF fix.


I'd very glad to hear that its improved with the recent firmwares. Its a fine camera had it been able to focus a bit better.

However, how long of process was it to get it to the point where it was usable ? I simply couldnt shoot all of last years football season with gear that didnt perform. I switched to Nikon before the season started and got the best results ever.

A working 1D mkIII would of done the job as well, dont get me wrong, but the D3 would still have the edge in terms of high ISO performance for night games etc

For those that could stick with their Canon gear as I said, I'm very happy to hear your now satisfied, but you have to understand that some people simply couldn't put up with gear that didnt work correctly for over a year while Canon tried and tried to sort out the bugs

parsons wrote:
just thinking about the comments above regarding the mk3 canon,
whilst watching wimbledon this week and todays final, from about 60 photogs on the side lines and in the upper areas,
id say 85% where canon super teles atached to the mk3. with a few black nikons in between!

so iam guessing that focus issues arent a real problem any more

s


Where you in the media room though seeing how many slightly OOF frames those shooters were getting ?

I used a mkIII for a full year of sports before going to the D3. Even with its issues it got the job done, just gave me way more missed frames that I would of liked. Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc

Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.

with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol

As I said before, switching to the D3 from Canon was a luxury not everyone can do. Lots of people have to suck it up and use what they've got.

Given the newspaper industry do you really think that many papers that are laying off 30% of staff are really going to switch to all new Nikon gear ?

Places like SI of course had that luxury.

Just because you see people still using something doesn't mean its the best. I know people at smaller papers who still shoot with Nikon D100's. A pretty bad camera overall, and far inferior to whats on the market now but its all the more some people got.

We'd all love the latest and greatest but aren't all in a position to justify it.

keithreeder wrote:
orangefirefish wrote:
1) Bodies- The 1d mark III gives great image quality but can't focus on crap.

Horsesh1t and you know it - you might not be able to get it to focus, but most folk seem to do just fine...



Keith,

Why the anger? This is a Nikon forum. Nikon's take a beating on the Canon side. Misinformation about both brands abound on both forums...

Enjoy the fireworks in the night air,

jr

millsart wrote:
For those that could stick with their Canon gear as I said, I'm very happy to hear your now satisfied, but you have to understand that some people simply couldn't put up with gear that didnt work correctly for over a year while Canon tried and tried to sort out the bugs

Entirely agree (which is why I wrote "I can completely understand why one would get frustrated & give up - especially if professional reputation is at stake"). It was a frustratingly long time coming.

My post was more aimed at those who for whatever reason seem compelled to insist that a fix has not been achieved & that those of us who are happy with our 1DIII's are somehow delusional. We aren't.

I had made the switch before the 1D problems arose, just for the UWA zoom, but honestly I felt sorry for the apparently many Canon shooters having problems, and Canon's seeming intransigence in fixing these problems.

And as most big companies' legal staff won't let them openly admit errors (and this could have been Nikon too, under different circumstances) the apparent intransigence becomes entrenched. We should all make thanks for the internet and sites like this and Rob's.

Last point is that I don't expect this non-disclosure tendency to go away, either: it is characteristic of al big business whose primary responsibility is to protect shareholders (one of the big downsides in listed companies). Just a thought.

Does Canon's relative size vs. Nikon have anything to do with how it handles things? Canon's reach goes well beyond photography, while Nikon is primarily known for its photography equipment (I know they have other branches, but it's photography that most people know them for). Someone can be very familiar with Canon without ever having picked up a camera body.

If Canon has a problem with a camera body, their other divisions are completely unaffected by this. If Nikon has a problem with a pro-level camera body, it seems like it could be a bigger deal. If Nikon's not selling camera bodies and glass, what do they have left to sell to mainstream consumers?

millsart wrote:
parsons wrote:
just thinking about the comments above regarding the mk3 canon,
whilst watching wimbledon this week and todays final, from about 60 photogs on the side lines and in the upper areas,
id say 85% where canon super teles atached to the mk3. with a few black nikons in between!

so iam guessing that focus issues arent a real problem any more

s


Where you in the media room though seeing how many slightly OOF frames those shooters were getting ?

I used a mkIII for a full year of sports before going to the D3. Even with its issues it got the job done, just gave me way more missed frames that I would of liked. Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc

Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.

with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol

As I said before, switching to the D3 from Canon was a luxury not everyone can do. Lots of people have to suck it up and use what they've got.

Given the newspaper industry do you really think that many papers that are laying off 30% of staff are really going to switch to all new Nikon gear ?

Places like SI of course had that luxury.

Just because you see people still using something doesn't mean its the best. I know people at smaller papers who still shoot with Nikon D100's. A pretty bad camera overall, and far inferior to whats on the market now but its all the more some people got.

We'd all love the latest and greatest but aren't all in a position to justify it.



well, no i wasnt there, sitting cheaply on my sofa watching, so no i cant comment on the ooooof shots perhaps, but why would so many photog`s take that risk at such a large event with sub standard equipment?

i havent owend a mk3 either nor intend to as i my mk2`s do just fine.

simon

parsons wrote:
millsart wrote:
parsons wrote:
just thinking about the comments above regarding the mk3 canon,
whilst watching wimbledon this week and todays final, from about 60 photogs on the side lines and in the upper areas,
id say 85% where canon super teles atached to the mk3. with a few black nikons in between!

so iam guessing that focus issues arent a real problem any more

s


Where you in the media room though seeing how many slightly OOF frames those shooters were getting ?

I used a mkIII for a full year of sports before going to the D3. Even with its issues it got the job done, just gave me way more missed frames that I would of liked. Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc

Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.

with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol

As I said before, switching to the D3 from Canon was a luxury not everyone can do. Lots of people have to suck it up and use what they've got.

Given the newspaper industry do you really think that many papers that are laying off 30% of staff are really going to switch to all new Nikon gear ?

Places like SI of course had that luxury.

Just because you see people still using something doesn't mean its the best. I know people at smaller papers who still shoot with Nikon D100's. A pretty bad camera overall, and far inferior to whats on the market now but its all the more some people got.

We'd all love the latest and greatest but aren't all in a position to justify it.



well, no i wasnt there, sitting cheaply on my sofa watching, so no i cant comment on the ooooof shots perhaps, but why would so many photog`s take that risk at such a large event with sub standard equipment?

i havent owend a mk3 either nor intend to as i my mk2`s do just fine.

simon


Because it gets the job done, with a keeper rate that isn't as high, and it doesn't make sense to an agency that has a whole canon super tele linup, to swap to Nikon, for the sake of a few oof shots. As others have said, if you haven't invested in the canon, or can afford the swap, then those who can, will.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Still it is very hard to resist the 5D II, despite the same old AF, which BTW is really only crappy in AI servo; it's fine in one shot mode.

I found the 5D2 AI Servo not bad at all... especially with the 6 assist points activated.

Sorry,
Can't help you. Never been foolish enough to by anything Canon makes.
Most satisfying nonpurchase I ever made.

All I know is there are an awful lot of useless Canon lenses out there that will no longer work on their current cameras, and history has a way of repeating itself.

What? That's silly. Canon makes fine cameras and glass (the 135L is a phenomenal lens), and it's highly unlikely that they would ever change their lens mount again. Further, they were a perennial also-ran under the FD mount and had the collective cajones to take a risk and change everything. The risk paid off and then some.

More companies (like, say, car companies) should be willing to do that.

The last FD product was made almost 20 years ago... as stated above, there are tons of great lenses, bodies, and whatnots from Canon. Very few people miss being able to use the FD mount, especially since everything has essentially been replaced.

I switched for a few key features, and to be permitted the use of a couple of special lenses... the other lenses I use are more or less equivalent. There is nothing foolish about buying into either system.

Luminosity: 'cajones' are 'drawers', the Spanish word you are looking for is 'cojones'

Have you never changed your drawers, especially after a close call?

ponderosabob wrote:
Sorry,
Can't help you. Never been foolish enough to by anything Canon makes.
Most satisfying nonpurchase I ever made.

All I know is there are an awful lot of useless Canon lenses out there that will no longer work on their current cameras, and history has a way of repeating itself.



I think thats a pretty darn silly argument bob. I was a Canon shooter for about 7 years, from when I first went digital with the original 1D.

There was never once a time when I was upset I couldnt use the old manual focus FD lenses, and I highly doubt many other Canon shooters are as well.

Now sure, its all well and good that Nikon did make them still able to physically mount, but they are all and all a bit useless for most shooters these days. How many consumers really want a manual focus lens with no metering and outdated optical designs ?

Now yes, there are some decent ones in the AI/AI-S lineup, but those just appeal to a small group of people.

I bought the 35mm f1.4 AI-S and it cost me about $650. It was a horrible lens with a very outdated design, purple fringing and abberations galore and manual focus. Simply not worth $600 in my book.

Only reason I think anyone likes them is because Nikon hasn't made any new fast primes.

Canon did, they've got a worldclass 35mm f1.4 EF. Razor sharp even wide open and modern USM AF.

No one was whining about not being able to use FD with great glass like the 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 etc


If Nikon comes out with some new G series primes with nanocoating such as a new 28mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, etc, I'm pretty sure no one is going to be willing to pay $3000 and up for the old AF-D 28mm f1.4

All of my "outdated" ai-s lenses meter and focus just fine on my D3, thank you very much.

Maybe Canon's FD lenses weren't worth saving, but there are many, many Nikkor gems out there that still work as good as ever.

Many are yet unsurpassed in optical quality.

They don't make em like they used to, and I guess Canon never did.

Skyehigh wrote:
Kit , I knew almost immediately that this camera was not for me after I had to send the first one back !
---
i have hardly used the D700 since I got it

www.jerrymoffatt.co.uk all shot with Canon !

Sounds like a heckuva shake-out you gave Nikon. And this is supposed to be helpful,
just to have an opinion, with this basis (not even a www... Some shots of Canon vs. Nikon)?!

millsart wrote:
...snip...
Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc

Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.

with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol



That's was exactly my experience with 1D3s, though I finally lost my patience and switched, a week before the latest Canon fix which everyone is raving about. Oh well, it didn't cost me that much, about the same price as a new body, and I am very pleased with my new Nikon rig. So all things considered, I am a very happy Nikon shooter who and am enjoying my photography alot more.

2+ years and multiple "fixes" and even a few that were raved about. i saw beyond the fog of the canon crazed and went back for product reliability and function.

A Canon user's perspective. I SERIOUSLY considered switching, even had the buy and sell ad typed up. What was luring me to Nikon was the D700. That is the PERFECT camera for what I do (family documentary and some high school sports).

Here is why I did not switch: FAST PRIMES. I primarily shoot with a 24L, 35L, and 85L (at the time on a 5D). I convinced myself that the Nikon 85 1.4 would be able to replace the 85L and I was in talks with an owner of a Nikon 28 1.4. But to be honest, I wasnt seriously impressed with the 28. Yes, it was good, but not as good as my 24L and 35L and it was THREE times the cost!

So in the end, I opted for the 5D2 and I am happy. I think the focusing issues of the 5D2 are WAY overblown.

Just my thoughts. I still maintain that the D700 is near perfection...now where are the 24 1.4 and/or 35 1.4!?

canerino wrote:

Here is why I did not switch: FAST PRIMES. I primarily shoot with a 24L, 35L, and 85L (at the time on a 5D). I convinced myself that the Nikon 85 1.4 would be able to replace the 85L and I was in talks with an owner of a Nikon 28 1.4. But to be honest, I wasnt seriously impressed with the 28. Yes, it was good, but not as good as my 24L and 35L and it was THREE times the cost!

S

The better iso performance of the D700 over anything Canon has somewhat mitigates the issue
of Canons 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L.
Then on the remaining focal lengths that Nikon does have fast primes, you would be even that much more ahead of the Canons.

ponderosabob wrote:

The better iso performance of the D700 over anything Canon has somewhat mitigates the issue
of Canons 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L.

Possibly in terms of light gathering, but high ISO is not a 'replacement' for fast apertures.
It's another approach, you can gather the same amount of light in theory, but you are giving up one level of light control for another... robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were.

In a perfect world, we have both at our disposals (enabling even MORE light gathering) and can use determined quantities of either to our likings.

Yes, but neither of those lenses are all that great at 1.4 anyway. What would you really be giving up?
And why does everybody think they need autofocus for everything. My God!

Nikon has some great large aperture AI-S lenses in those lengths.

I suppose none of Leica's M's ever could take a decent photo because they were so hamstrung by lesser quality manual focus lenses.

Canon's cameras might as well be manual focus anyway.

Lord I apologize!

FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE THE D700 IS THE PERFECT CAMERA ON THE MARKET...SEE MY POSTS ABOVE.

ok bob, i'll take the bait. so you are saying that

1. the D700 is 2 stops better than the Canon 5D2, thus mitigating f/1.4 on the 24L and 35L, correct? (i say two stops because nikon doesnt offer anything faster than f/2.8 at those focal lengths...f/1.4 - f/2.8 is two stops)

2. f/1.4 on both of those lenses isnt that good, correct? (i assume you meant sharp)

3. Canon's AF system is not good, correct?


i think i have a photo that debunks all of your assertions...

Shot with the Canon 5D2, 35L @ f/1.4, 1/60th, ISO6400:

ponderosabob wrote:
Yes, but neither of those lenses are all that great at 1.4 anyway. What would you really be giving up?
And why does everybody think they need autofocus for everything. My God!

Nikon has some great large aperture AI-S lenses in those lengths.

I suppose none of Leica's M's ever could take a decent photo because they were so hamstrung by lesser quality manual focus lenses.

Canon's cameras might as well be manual focus anyway.



Dude, stop.. please.

You're giving the entire Nikon forum a bad name.