Didn't surprise me either. But since I have a substantial investment in Canon glass & accessories, I'm ready for Canon to go ahead and whip Nikon's ass again. Let's have some of that fantastic performance over here for the Canon users now.
I was a pro until recent health issues. Shot with Canon and Nikon back to back for several years. The most subtle issues can become irritating sometimes when you aren't doing it for fun and while I love much about the 1 series bodies the constant hyperdrive, jittery focus was not one. I found that despite all the forum talk, most guys (and myself) with Canon gear, shoot in single focus mode. That works quite well in its own way. The first time I tried a Nikon it was when I was telling a guy thinking of switching to Canon due to the 45 vs 11 focus points. So we switched as a favor to him for half a day.
I had to be a bit humble. He still shoots Nikon, and I slowly switched, despite the then much worse high iso noise (didn't need it for my niche - but I still hated to lose the all purpose aspect that it gave) and megapixel disadvantage.
Now I can't do sports so I shoot Nikon film (and a bit of digital but very little) , Leica digital (love the rangefinder) ... and I just bought a little rebel for walkaround when I'm not going to take the M8. I'm not biased against Canon and have 16 years experience with Canon. I'm just not biased FOR them, neither.
but ... wow .... a guy would have to be pretty crazy to be closed minded. Gear is closer to a hammer than a crucifix ... don't you agree?
Nikon rocks - In focus. That is all I said. When you have 18,000 bucks tied up in glass .... sometimes one performance aspect not worth an insanely expensive switch. Its just an observance to talk about over coffee ... or some forum. Ergonomics were the other factor for me, and I'm stupid with money.
Times change, and rather quickly too - next year ... canon may have the tables turned (and likely will ... before Nikon or sony perhaps ... turn them again)
I gave up several features because the small but significant focus difference, which manifested strongly IN MY WAY of shooting ... was the most important point. But, and this is a big but ( I mean ... a big however ) ... I never said that Nikon gear was "better". There is no such thing - and if you read what I said ... I said focus ... and meant, quite plainly ... and this stage with those two cams.
(don't tell any of my Nikon friends, I don't want to get flame broiled ... but I actually like Canon long lenses a bit better - because it is cheaper ... level for level. We all make our choices ... and trade-offs)
Pavel wrote:
I gave up several features because the small but significant focus difference, which manifested strongly IN MY WAY of shooting ... was the most important point.
Right! Why people (both the 1D3 apologists and the Nikon fanboys) have such a difficult time understanding that is beyond me. Different folks shoot different subjects and many even shoot the same subject differently. Because one individual finds one system to be superior doesn't mean that everyone will. FOR ME, having spent the last 7 months shooting with both Nikon and Canon I just don't see this huge AF difference. Of course I DON'T shoot sports, probably never will and don't really care to, but for MY WAY of shooting and for my subjects (wildlife), I see little difference in AF reliability and tracking. What little difference I see in tracking, true, the Nikon seems to do a little better especially against busy backgrounds. However I would never be so pretentious as to suggest to someone else that they wouldn't see a difference for what THEIR WAY of shooting.
Pavel wrote:
Nikon rocks - In focus. That is all I said. When you have 18,000 bucks tied up in glass .... sometimes one performance aspect not worth an insanely expensive switch. Its just an observance to talk about over coffee ... or some forum. Ergonomics were the other factor for me, and I'm stupid with money.
Times change, and rather quickly too - next year ... canon may have the tables turned (and likely will ... before Nikon or sony perhaps ... turn them again)
I gave up several features because the small but significant focus difference, which manifested strongly IN MY WAY of shooting ... was the most important point. But, and this is a big but ( I mean ... a big however ) ... I never said that Nikon gear was "better". There is no such thing - and if you read what I said ... I said focus ... and meant, quite plainly ... and this stage with those two cams.
(don't tell any of my Nikon friends, I don't want to get flame broiled ... but I actually like Canon long lenses a bit better - because it is cheaper ... level for level. We all make our choices ... and trade-offs)...Show more →
I thought this is what you said:
"The D700 and the D3 - simply Kill the 1 series Canons. Some may not like it ... but sadly it is true and on more and more tracks you see more and more Nikons due to this. Four years ago it was one shooter in twenty with Nikon gear, now it is roughly 40/60 (in canons favor)
You have a site musclepix? And test to back up the anecdotal hyperbole? Or ... you just don't like the evidence?
Keep in mind that when one in five cameras (just a number out of thin air) are defective ... it does not do much good to post "well, mine is perfect-it even slices bread!" ... does it."
Arrrrrrrrrrgh noooooooooooo used my 70-200 2.8 today on the MKIII, 2 pm, bright bright sun right above and many oof shots again This is the first 2 pm softball game I've had where I used the MKIII and it was bright sun. I've used the 1DsMKIII with my 300 2.8 and that combo is perfect. Will take it out again to test but man I'm pissed off!
John P Mulgrew wrote:
Arrrrrrrrrrgh noooooooooooo used my 70-200 2.8 today on the MKIII, 2 pm, bright bright sun right above and many oof shots again This is the first 2 pm softball game I've had where I used the MKIII and it was bright sun. I've used the 1DsMKIII with my 300 2.8 and that combo is perfect. Will take it out again to test but man I'm pissed off!
ArtRider wrote:
In year 2007, and Fm forum post:
"https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/585555/0#5126463"
- And finally on RG site:
"Q. I've heard of photographers whose EOS-1D Mark III focused much better after being sent in for the revised AF calibration routine. Why are they getting better autofocus and you aren't?
We've heard the same ....... explanation probably lies in the following:
* First, a different mechanical starting point. Several of the photographers who've been in touch, and included a description of the service work done, said that Canon replaced one or more bits of hardware inside the mirror box at the same time as the revised AF calibration was performed. One indicated that the entire mirror box itself was removed and a new one put in.This suggests that these photographers' EOS-1D Mark III bodies had mechanical problems instead of, or in addition to, an AF miscalibration, problems that would likely contribute to worse autofocus performance than we were seeing previously." ...Show more →
As stated eralier ... Now Canon finally rebuilt the hole AF-Chamber.
) ... I never said that Nikon gear was "better". There is no such thing - and if you read what I said ... I said focus ... and meant, quite plainly ... and this stage with those two cams.
This is the first 2 pm softball game I've had where I used the MKIII and it was bright sun. I've used the 1DsMKIII with my 300 2.8 and that combo is perfect. Will take it out again to test but man I'm pissed off!