simonella_viru wrote:
man, i still have a large place reserved in my heart for ol' canon (post getting rid of my stuff cuz of 1d III). there's a part of me that still likes their:
- cheaper prices for most things
- better availability
- larger used market
- newer tech (most lenses have ultrasonic motors)
- 85/1.2, 35/1.4, 65mpe, 300/4 IS, 100-400 IS, etc., just a more complete overall kit that is modernized for awesomeness
canon is still a strong player, don't let their 1d-series "screw-ups" (i put it in quotations cuz it's still likely arguable) throw you off. i still think the nikon and canon systems are very complementary and i'd still have both systems if i had the money to support both.
even if RG is right: remember he's measuring these systems up to a yard stick that most of us won't/ can't reach. most of these cameras are more than good enough for each of us....Show more →
"Cheaper prices"....I've always found you get what you pay for.
No one is saying that Canon isn't a player.
"remember he's measuring these systems up to a yard stick that most of us won't/ can't reach" ?? He's measuring them by the statistics they themselves are claiming.
"most of these cameras are more than good enough for each of us", Then why buy them? Get a Rebel.
Bottom line is there are problems, it doesn't matter how much you like the brand, they should be fixed. Actually they should not happen.
If the Canon users would spend as much time taking the manufacturer to task as they do defending a flawed product, maybe Canon would think twice about releasing something without some serious testing.
But then again if people keep buying the product, what's their incentive to do it right?
I don't doubt RG's experience, but he may be expecting too high a keeper ratio for a predictive AF based upon 10 FPS at 16 mpix/frame. I would wait until we have more info here on FM with people out in the field who do sports and BIF. If there is an issue, it can probably be corrected with new firmware.
Although RG shoots with Canon, I'd like to see his more detailed review of the D3s since that is what he's comparing it against.
rhyder wrote:
Bottom line is there are problems, it doesn't matter how much you like the brand, they should be fixed. Actually they should not happen.
If the Canon users would spend as much time taking the manufacturer to task as they do defending a flawed product, maybe Canon would think twice about releasing something without some serious testing.
But then again if people keep buying the product, what's their incentive to do it right?
1Dmk4 is not flawed. It is just not perfect but no AF system is perfect. Yes, not even the D3s. I have read and re-read RG's article, he says that it is better than 1Dmk3. That to me means that it has the best AF of any Canon camera made so far.
It is possible that 1Dmk4 AF is not as PREDICTABLE as D3s AF. That doesn't mean that the 1Dmk4 is "broken."
Remember, D2x AF was never as responsive as the 1Dmk2 AF for fast action (sports, etc.). Nobody ever said that it was broken. Everybody accepted that that was state-of-the-art for Nikon back then.
Nobody ever said the 1Dmk4's af wasn't responsive, they said it didn't perform as it well as the D3s did. It's all very well being super fast to lock on, but if you can't deliver the goods, well, you get the idea.
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
Nobody ever said the 1Dmk4's af wasn't responsive, they said it didn't perform as it well as the D3s did. It's all very well being super fast to lock on, but if you can't deliver the goods, well, you get the idea.
Don't think it is fair to say "it doesn't deliver the goods." Better to say, it doesn't deliver the goods sometimes. No AF system can deliver the goods everytime. Just so happens from RG's testing that D3s has a better batting average.
I've shot with the D3s and Mark IV and the D3s is a better camera for shooting sports...hands down.
I found that out...on my own...before Rob came out with his report. I was really hoping that Canon's Mark IV would have been a MAJOR improvement over the Mark III and would be equal to or better than the D3 or D3s with regards to AF and ISO performance so I could justify keeping my remaining Canon equipment.
I agree with what he said about the Mark III and Mark IV and don't understand why the hard-core Canon guys can't admit the camera may be flawed...and still isn't the equal of the D3s.
With the new AFS 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and D3s, I don't believe there's a better combination for photographing fast-action sports...especially basketball and hockey.
I use Nikon gear for most of my work now but still own a Mark II, Mark III and several Canon L lenses and other accessories.
For my sports photography business, Nikon makes a better camera with more accurate focusing and high ISO performance.
I don't take it as a personal insult that Rob Galbraith's tests showed the Mark III and IV were lacking in AF performance. After I tried out a D3 last year, it was painfully obvious ( in the wallet ) that Nikon had overtaken Canon in the AF and ISO race...by a wide margin.
The D3s just widens that gap a bit further.
I use what gets the best results and brand loyalty has nothing to do with it.
These guys really use their gear. You can tell they respect RG and his opinion. As RG said the D3s and new Canon where good and bad depending on the situation.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Huh? I'm not bashing Canon in the slightest, if anything I wish them well. I happily shot them for 15 years. Saying the MkIII was faulty isn't bashing, it's honest truth. Canon issued multiple fixes to the body, the blue dot, the sub mirror replacement, firmware updates etc... If you're excited about the MKIII and looking forward to one, power too you. Best wishes.
My justification for purchasing equipment is making a paycheck.
Yeah, and you really think you can't get a paycheck with Canon ... mmmmm not sure at all... million of people have got paycheck with the MarkIII... And I have seen the MarkIV look even better lol But my wife is limiting me to the MarkIII
The Canon AF system mustn't work for sure. So while attending the Olympics tonight and last night I was blown away by the number of white lenses on the hill and at the oval. When did Nikon come up with an adapter for Canon 300's and 400's?
Yeah, and you really think you can't get a paycheck with Canon ... mmmmm not sure at all... million of people have got paycheck with the MarkIII... And I have seen the MarkIV look even better lol But my wife is limiting me to the MarkIII
Of course he can. He just decided to buy the best Canon AF upgrade available today
michael49 wrote:
Honestly, this matters to only a small minority of us. Very few of us on these forums are shooting speed skaters or professional soccer. For Christ sake I shoot portraits of people who are still, flowers and landscapes - does this really affect me?
As a former 1D MKIII shooter, it really doesn't matter what subject you're shooting. For that kind of money you should expect better and that's really the point, IMO.
Savarin wrote:
The Canon AF system mustn't work for sure. So while attending the Olympics tonight and last night I was blown away by the number of white lenses on the hill and at the oval. When did Nikon come up with an adapter for Canon 300's and 400's?
Counting the number of white lenses doesn't mean that they happen to be attached to a MK III or MK IV body. You might be really surprised how many MK II and IIn's are still in service today.
leewoolery wrote:
I've shot with the D3s and Mark IV and the D3s is a better camera for shooting sports...hands down.
I found that out...on my own...before Rob came out with his report. I was really hoping that Canon's Mark IV would have been a MAJOR improvement over the Mark III and would be equal to or better than the D3 or D3s with regards to AF and ISO performance so I could justify keeping my remaining Canon equipment.
I agree with what he said about the Mark III and Mark IV and don't understand why the hard-core Canon guys can't admit the camera may be flawed...and still isn't the equal of the D3s.
With the new AFS 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and D3s, I don't believe there's a better combination for photographing fast-action sports...especially basketball and hockey.
I use Nikon gear for most of my work now but still own a Mark II, Mark III and several Canon L lenses and other accessories.
For my sports photography business, Nikon makes a better camera with more accurate focusing and high ISO performance.
I don't take it as a personal insult that Rob Galbraith's tests showed the Mark III and IV were lacking in AF performance. After I tried out a D3 last year, it was painfully obvious ( in the wallet ) that Nikon had overtaken Canon in the AF and ISO race...by a wide margin.
The D3s just widens that gap a bit further.
I use what gets the best results and brand loyalty has nothing to do with it.
Much success,
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo
...Show more →
I have to agree with you 100% on this Lee. As someone who went from Nikon to Canon and the back to Nikon I'm certainly no flag-waving fanboy. While it pained me to switch to Canon MK II's years ago, I did it because Canon just offered me something better at that time for the work I was doing. I upgraded to the MK III and really wanted it to work and kept convincing myself that it did. It wasn't until I tried the D3 that I realized the MK III wasn't the camera for me.
While I have no problem attributing a certain amount of OOF and soft images to user error, the keeper rate for me using the D3 was just that much more significant that I could no longer overlook the obvious.
I still do have two MK II bodies that I use along with my D3's but only because I do have a Canon 400mm f2.8 lens. Once I find a reasonably priced Nikon 400, it's good bye Canon. I will say though that with its superlative image quality, I'm finding that in many cases my D3 with a 300 f2.8 is quickly replacing the MK II/400mm f2.8 combo.
There's also a 1DIIn and a 5DII in the studio, and not all that long ago sold the 40D.
I have an Olympus E3 with a 12-60mm lens. The E3 is the fastest camera to grab initial focus I have every used. The Nikon and Canon guys have no idea what fast is!
When you use multiple systems, you get a a feel for what one does well over another. In that same vein, the manufacturers know what's possible and what can be even further improved.
RG knows what's possible too.
He said the Nikon wasn't perfect, it could be even quicker off the mark for instance. That's just life.
Steve Ickes wrote:
As a former 1D MKIII shooter, it really doesn't matter what subject you're shooting. For that kind of money you should expect better and that's really the point, IMO.
Same here...I went from Nikon to Canon now back to Nikon as my primary income producing system.
Having used the Mark IV and D3s in real-world testing on the sports subjects I have to shoot, it was pretty obvious that the Nikon was a clear winner. I couldn't have agreed more with Rob in all of his findings...even the minor shortcomings about the Nikon focusing system.
The Mark IV is certainly the best Canon body ever produced and is an improvement over the Mark III but...from my tests...neither camera is as good for shooting the sports I routinely cover as the D3s or D3.
I would have been disappointed if Rob Galbraith claimed the Mark IV was the new champ and I'd be thinking he was bought-and-paid-for by Canon...much as the pro-Canon supporters claim he's a Nikon man.
Much success,
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo
Feb 16, 2010 at 08:57 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Oh my ... you counter a known quantity like RG with an unkown quantity on an internet forum. Yea, the pictures in the thread are good and the guy obviously has some skill, but basketball is but one situation and the guy was using but one camera. RG testing FIVE cameras in a variety of situations and compared directly to the Nikon counter parts.
Your fanboyism is old and stale. Admit it, Nikon is kicking a$$ right now in the same way Canon was 5 years ago. Who knows what will happen in another 5 years.
