I think the way to look at this is that it should do no less than match the predecessor model. And so I am disappointed too, even if I dont necessarily shoot as much under the conditions that expose the AF problem as he does because it does affect the resale value of my camera.
I differ however with those who believe Canon will just ignore this issue. They either must come forward with others who confirm or counter Rob's test. If confirmed, as a mere matter of competition and future sales, they absolutely must fix or redress this problem because not only do sales of this camera depend on it but their whole sports shooter community will flock to Nikon when it comes to follow-on models.
Canon won over this community years ago when they developed a better AF system than Nikon. In a flash they could lose all that business back.
I anticipate that we will hear more one way or the other and I agree they cannot allow all the Canon pros at the summer Olympics to abandon ship.
nathanlake wrote:
The really unfortunate part about this is the effect it will have on the resale price of this camera. Even if they came out with the perfect fix tomorrow, this camera will be selling for $2000 (if not less) within a year.
If that is the case, I'll buy a second one in a year. Works great (very acceptable) for me in almost all situations...(former Mark IIN owner too).
10 FPS could be had with any shutter speed over 1/10 second, which hardly requires a "bright sunny day".
Not true.. Although it sounds like that would be the case, it is more like 1/400th or so...
BTW: On the Nikon Olympic switchover... Personally, I think you may just see a lot of shooters using both the Mark III and IIN... Not a big change over to Nikon like people are suggesting. IMHO.
I would have liked to see other tests with faster moving subjects, like motocross or something like that. A human running isn't really all that fast and to tell you the truth thats pretty sad.
ward1066 wrote:
I would have liked to see other tests with faster moving subjects, like motocross or something like that. A human running isn't really all that fast and to tell you the truth thats pretty sad.
jonbrach wrote:
comparison....the problem is with servo in hot/high temperature situations.....those
No, that issue has been addressed, that's what the sub-mirror fix was for. It's still not working as well as it should even in low temperatures. As RG said the temperature in the mirror assembly can get high even if it's not hot outside. That would have exacerbated an already present problem.
