mogul wrote:
Why are you defending 2 cameras with beta releases that aren't even available for sale or review?
Since when has that stopped anyone in these kinds of 'discussions?'
Indeed nostalgia for ~2015...
In any case, my experience with Canon is that their "beta" (preproduction) equipment is usually extremely close to final release by the time it is in the hands of people who are posting content online, such as those using the cameras now at the Olympics.
This is pretty interesting, looks like with Canon having the better autofocus over the Nikon at present. I can nurse my two Canon lenses along a bit longer. Both are deadly sharp at f/4.. I am a bit old school. I like the F/4 lenses. Not sure how I will like the Mirroless cameras, but time to bite the bullet and try one.
lighthound wrote:
None whatsoever. In fact, many reports indicate the R3 paired with any of Canon's great whites is unmatched for speed. This is going to be even more evident with the R1's cross-type AF system.
Also, it's worth noting that in Nikon's case, they still haven't figured out how to AF properly. However, being they depend on Sony to make their sensors for them, it's no surprise that Sony would cripple their competitor sensors like that.
Having shot Canon for years and now shooting Nikon the Nikon requires more setup with the AF system to get the best results--whereas with Canon and Sony it's pretty much ready to go straight out of the box. To be clear the Canon is a little bit better when it comes to their AF - but to make the claims that you are is just ridiculous. Also there's no discernible difference in lens AF speed between Canon and Nikon when pairing the R3 + RF 400mm 2.8 or Z9 + 400mm 2.8TC. I honestly don't get where you come up with this stuff.
Oh and by the way, Sony semiconductor is a highly regarded company and in no way, shape or form would they "cripple" a sensor they make for other companies.
I would also like to say that AF results are situation and settings dependent and you can find online various comparisons that put the different brands in different orders depending on how they are used and what the subject and situation is. Personally I've photographed weddings, figure skating and other people related events with Nikon Z (Z8 and others) with > 99% of the shots in focus and this is typical in my photography of people (including subjects such as figure skating, concerts, academic events and portraits). But I don't typicallyshoot with my cameras in auto-area mode (one exception is gimbal-based video in situations where there is a clear one subject); instead, I apply AF settings as needed to get the results (the AF is highly customizable in the newer Nikon Z cameras). It's not even that difficult to get near-100% focus keeper rate; one just has to know what one is doing with the camera and understand the subject, and not purposefully try to fool the camera (which can be done but makes no sense to do if you just want to get the photos).
One important and very useful feature in the Z9/Z8/Zf/Z6 III is the custom wide-area AF area mode which allows one to customize the width and height of the AF box. Together with subject detection this allows one to select which part of the frame the subject's eyes are likely to be and this very useful as it gives just the needed amount of compositional freedom while the camera finds the intended subject's eyes and focuses on them. It's especially useful for sports where there can be multiple athletes in the frame but generally to use it requires the photographer to have the ability to think ahead and plan for the shots. I am sure the other manufacturers also have favorite AF settings which give the best results on their platform. The photographer just needs to learn the system to make the best use of it.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Having shot Canon for years and now shooting Nikon the Nikon requires more setup with the AF system to get the best results--whereas with Canon and Sony it's pretty much ready to go straight out of the box. To be clear the Canon is a little bit better when it comes to their AF - but to make the claims that you are is just ridiculous.
Oh and by the way, Sony semiconductor is a highly regarded company and in no way, shape or form would they "cripple" a sensor they make for other companies.
robert_in_ca wrote:
I honestly don't get where you come up with this stuff.
I take his overly optimistic/enthusiast Canon support as an intentional counter to the overly optimistic/enthusiastic Nikon/Sony supporters posting here. For all their posts, take with many grains of salt.
gkinard1952 wrote:
This is pretty interesting, looks like with Canon having the better autofocus over the Nikon at present. I can nurse my two Canon lenses along a bit longer. Both are deadly sharp at f/4.. I am a bit old school. I like the F/4 lenses. Not sure how I will like the Mirroless cameras, but time to bite the bullet and try one.
From my experience, there has been zero downside transitioning to current Canon mirrorless cameras with existing EF glass, in respect to overall AF performance, compared to DSLRs. You will get better focus tracking consistency and higher hit rates (but it still remains dependent on subject and lighting conditions) and all it will cost you is a camera and the mount adapter. IMO it's the best AF upgrade you can make for the least amount of money. It will get you within ~95-100% of the competition. Based on your profile, your old glass is v2 and after ~2012, therefore the camera will achieve peak fps rates in EFCS/mechanical. And if that is not fast enough, at least Canon's mid-tier mirrorless cameras (R5/R6II) have decent e-shutter performance (and stacked ~1/125-1/160 with the R5II). In my case, with the R6II and 200-400/4, which is a post-2012 model that is fully supported, AF on all of the R mirrorless cameras I have evaluated (R3, 5, 6, 6II, 7), outperformed the 1DXII. The 200-400 even keeps up with the R6II's 40 fps photographing sports. Therefore I don't think you will be disappointed in the current state of Canon's mirrorless AF capabilities. Additional capabilities in the form of subject detection and tracking just make it all that much better. If you're considering the R5II, I'm confident its AF will be another step above the current models (3, 5, 6/6II, 7, 8).
The EVF will be a personal thing. It has pros and cons compared to OVFs. The R5's EVF is definitely better than the R6/R6II's in respect to brightness and displaying the wider dynamic range of high contrast scenes and by all accounts the R5II is improved. The downside, if going with a non-stacked sensor camera (R5/6/6II) will be the slight EVF lag when shooting sequences, which can be minimized but not totally eliminated by using e-shutter. Here the R5II will be an improvement but we still need actual user feedback to determine how smooth its EVF response is to direct competitors such as the Z8.
rscheffler wrote:
I take his overly optimistic/enthusiast Canon support as an intentional counter to the overly optimistic/enthusiastic Nikon/Sony supporters posting here. For all their posts, take with many grains of salt.
I think even a child > 10 years of age understands that one cannot counter a false claim with another falsehood and expect success; only by giving objective facts and speaking the truth can false claims be successfully refuted.
robert_in_ca wrote:
I honestly don't get where you come up with this stuff.
rscheffler wrote:
I take his overly optimistic/enthusiast Canon support as an intentional counter to the overly optimistic/enthusiastic Nikon/Sony supporters posting here. For all their posts, take with many grains of salt.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I think even a child > 10 years of age understands that one cannot counter a false claim with another falsehood and expect success; only by giving objective facts and speaking the truth can false claims be successfully refuted.
Unfortunately this appears to be the current direction of the world we live in...
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I think even a child > 10 years of age understands that one cannot counter a false claim with another falsehood and expect success; only by giving objective facts and speaking the truth can false claims be successfully refuted.
I posted two videos as proof of what I wrote in regards to Nikons lackluster AF system. All I see from the rebuttal crowd here is their personal opinions with no facts to back it up. It's not my responsibility to teach you how to believe what you can clearly see with your own eyes in those videos.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.
lighthound wrote:
I posted two videos as proof of what I wrote in regards to Nikons lackluster AF system. All I see from the rebuttal crowd here is their personal opinions with no facts to back it up. It's not my responsibility to teach you how to believe what you can clearly see with your own eyes in those videos.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.
One video doesn't prove anything either. Let's just agree to disagree.
lighthound wrote:
I posted two videos as proof of what I wrote in regards to Nikons lackluster AF system. All I see from the rebuttal crowd here is their personal opinions with no facts to back it up. It's not my responsibility to teach you how to believe what you can clearly see with your own eyes in those videos.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.
Having extensive experience with all three major systems, I can say that the hyperbole isn't helpful. We have yet to see how the R1/R5II perform though as a general rule, the R5/R3 are very capable cameras with excellent AF capabilities. The Sony A1 and A9III are extremely good in all applications that I've trialed so far. Likewise, the Z8/Z9 AF extremely well for video as well as stills with two exceptions namely bird/water strikes (read Osprey/Eagles moving through the catches) and in some circumstances portraits where the eye detect seems to FF on other parts of the face. In one specific application, I've found the Z8/Z9 superior to the current Canon/Sony iterations and that is aircraft recognition. My experience is that these cameras nail cockpits on a wide array of aircraft better than what I was able to achieve with the other systems. So, my response is that your blanket dismissals are not realistic nor informative.
