AGeoJO wrote:
Is that your first hand experience or did you read that on the internet? I used them both side-by-side and at the end I sold the D700. I am not saying that the AF of D700 is worse but "far better" is definitely not the case. Let me assure you that the center AF point of the 5D Mark II is more responsive and fast and we will leave it at that.
Well...both actually... My brother shoots Nikon. I also know some photographers who have switched because of this issue...so, yeah I've used Nikon gear.
I'm in agreement that the center point of the 5D2 is excellent...in fact I've said that here at FM before. It's just frustrating not having more useful outer points...that's what I meant by 'better' with regard to the Nikon. For the money they're going to ask for the new camera don't you feel it's reasonable to expect this excellent performance from a bunch of other points so you can compose the way you want to? They can do it with the 1-series (and yes, I've owned one of those so it's not just what I read on the internet... )
ChrisRD wrote:
I also know some photographers who have switched because of this issue...so, yeah I've used Nikon gear.
How many have switched back since they found out that the grass was not so green when they got to the other side? I tried using both systems and at the end, I gave up my Nikon system. I had my reasons and they are both good but neither one is head-and-shoulder above the other. Another misconception that has been circulating is the high ISO noise of the D700 that was reputed to be better compared to that coming from the 5D Mark II. If you resize files from both into the same size, the noise characteristics are practically the same. Resolutionwise, for cropping among others, the files from the 5D Mark II are better.
Joshua, definitely different strokes for different folks--I know a lot of wedding photographers made the move to Nikon and many more continue to do so, seemingly more than from Nikon to Canon.
Matt,
A lot folks that had both systems can easily go back and forth and they could decide what system works best for them but the ones that switched completely tend to stay with one system unless there is a major issue. Switching system is a pain and.... expensive regardless which way. BTW, let me make sure that I was referring to a Nikon system centered around D700 and not the D3 or D3s.
I understand, I was just stating that it was the 5DII's lack of complete AF performance and Canon's lack of a sub 7K FF body with pro AF in combination with excellent Nikon product releases (D700, D3, D3s, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 etc etc) that drove a lot of wedding photographers to Nikon. I don't think it was the D700 solely, but it did play a seemingly large role.
arbitrage wrote:
+1 This didn't happen by mistake people.
I have trouble believing that Canon would go to all the trouble of sending someone who can't speak english to Africa, in the hope that someone would see the camera/lens, take a photo of it, remarkably have an internet presence via a blog, and care enough about new products in order to "leak" a camera.
Why couldn't they have just sent a photo anonymously to Canonrumors.com? Much easier and cheaper.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I have trouble believing that Canon would go to all the trouble of sending someone who can't speak english to Africa, in the hope that someone would see the camera/lens, take a photo of it, remarkably have an internet presence via a blog, and care enough about new products in order to "leak" a camera.
Why couldn't they have just sent a photo anonymously to Canonrumors.com? Much easier and cheaper.
The Canon technician was doing a "beta test" on the 200-400, 1Dx and 5Dx.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I have trouble believing that Canon would go to all the trouble of sending someone who can't speak english to Africa, in the hope that someone would see the camera/lens, take a photo of it, remarkably have an internet presence via a blog, and care enough about new products in order to "leak" a camera.
It certainly looks like a deliberate and controlled leak to me. I mentioned that on page 1 and 4 of this thread. For all we know, that guy's native language is English... .
Dawei Ye wrote:
Why couldn't they have just sent a photo anonymously to Canonrumors.com? Much easier and cheaper.
Now, you think as an individual . Canon is a huge company and they would not shy away from that kind of expense. For sure, they had to make it look real and therefore more plausible and believable.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I have trouble believing that Canon would go to all the trouble of sending someone who can't speak english to Africa, in the hope that someone would see the camera/lens, take a photo of it, remarkably have an internet presence via a blog, and care enough about new products in order to "leak" a camera.
Why couldn't they have just sent a photo anonymously to Canonrumors.com? Much easier and cheaper.
I don't believe he was sent there with the sole purpose to be recognized--I believe it was more a case '...and if someone see's you, let them'. Otherwise why the heck would he be shooting out in the open like that?
I see where you guys are coming from - not entirely convinced but definitely plausible
Dawei Ye wrote:
I have trouble believing that Canon would go to all the trouble of sending someone who can't speak english to Africa, in the hope that someone would see the camera/lens, take a photo of it, remarkably have an internet presence via a blog, and care enough about new products in order to "leak" a camera.
Why couldn't they have just sent a photo anonymously to Canonrumors.com? Much easier and cheaper.
AGeoJO wrote:
Now, you think as an individual . Canon is a huge company and they would not shy away from that kind of expense. For sure, they had to make it look real and therefore more plausible and believable.
I have trouble accepting this -
Are we talking about the same Canon that changed the white lens mount alignment dot on the 18-55 IS from a small plastic square to a painted square to save maybe 5 cents per lens?
The same Canon that changed the font colour of the gold "Ultrasonic" lettering to black lettering, on lens boxes to save maybe 5 cents printing costs per box?
Yes, the same company that feels the pressure by the possibility of a replacement of the D700 that may lure who-knows-how-many photographers away to the other camp.
Hmm my $9999 was optimistic. What absurd insanity if true. I guess that $5K TC must give you an extra stop of light rather than take it away. 280-560 f/2.8 would be worth $11K
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Hmm my $9999 was optimistic. What absurd insanity if true. I guess that $5K TC must give you an extra stop of light rather than take it away. 280-560 f/2.8 would be worth $11K
yikes! and canon used to be the one to go to because their long glass was so much less expensive than nikon!
Mr.Lindy wrote:
Rumors has the Canon 200-400mm f4 launching at $11,000 USD$.
Just $5,000 more than Nikon's 200-400mm f4 though the Nikon comes with no built in 1.4x.
At that price I will just continue to attach my Nikon G - Canon adapter and manually focus the Nikon 200-400 on my Canon camera.
Mr.Lindy wrote:
Or I suppose you could autofocus it on your D700
The Launch prices of all the new Canon superteles are each thousands more dollars than Nikon's current VR II s.
Alas they look to be better lenses though, at least much lighter and with shorter mfd. No doubt if Nikon release VR III's they will be as expensive. And from what i've heard it's hard getting your hand on the Nikon's.
johnip wrote:
Even harder to get your hands on a Canon v2 atm.
True, but I guess we can agree the earthquake and floods and supply chain issues have meant essentially 12 months have been lost in getting these to market.
Mr.Lindy wrote:
Or I suppose you could autofocus it on your D700
The Launch prices of all the new Canon superteles are each thousands more dollars than Nikon's current VR II s.
I did yesterday. I look forward to using it on the D800E and the 5D MKIII, 5D X or whatever they call that thing when it eventually becomes reality.
Pricing the pedulum swings back and forth but always upwards. I recall when the VRIIs were initially brought out the were a lot more in price than the Canons at the time.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Alas they look to be better lenses though, at least much lighter and with shorter mfd. No doubt if Nikon release VR III's they will be as expensive. And from what i've heard it's hard getting your hand on the Nikon's.
I agree lighter and shorter mfd are very desirable.
My brother shoots Nikon. I also know some photographers who have switched because of this issue...so, yeah I've used Nikon gear. 
)
. Canon is a huge company and they would not shy away from that kind of expense. For sure, they had to make it look real and therefore more plausible and believable.
