At some events, apparently Canon has bought exclusive rights to the display of camera logos. In other words, even if there were more Nikons, you couldn't advertise that fact. I am not saying this is the case here, but there is clearly more going on than just counting white lenses. Oh, the Nikon teles are also available in light grey, btw.
Not to you know put down some kickass photographers or anything... but let's get real.
11 photographers shooting 35000 photos of a 2 hour game? With those numbers the indian wedding that I shot a little while ago would have resulted in about 350,000 photos.
I'm pretty sure that if I shot 350,000 photos at that wedding I would probably have gotten enough keepers even out of a Canon 5D mark 2 using the worst of the outer focusing points
Yeah... seriously.... 35,000 photos of bunch of dudes in tights? For reals? Ha Ha Ha.
Anyway... as soon as I start having clients book me for weddings to be shot on the field of fully lit superbowl stadiums I'll gladly switch back to the 5D mark 2.
Of course that's not to say that those photogs were actually using the 5D2... but I'd be confident enough to do it... now tell me who has the bigger balls
lisy78 wrote:
1DS mark 3 was not going to make my 24-70 any better
I've had a 1D3 and let's just say I was not willing to play the lottery again.
Besides... if I were willing to pay for a 1DsMark 3... Nikon's 3Ds in my opinion KILLS IT in every metric THAT MATTERS TO ME , at a significantly lower price point. Hint... when Canon was about to come out with a replacement for the 5D I was expecting several improvements... NONE OF THEM had anything to do with DOUBLING the sensor's resolution.
agree with the last part,I think chasing MPs is silly myself,I do wish Canon would make a D700 equiv. at the same prica point as a Nikon D700 but they screwed the pooch with the price point of the 5D mark2.I have a 5Dc I love it to bits but,I see pics from a D700 and kinda get envious same res ect but the body of the D700 equals Canons 1 series in build ect.
digitalbug30d wrote:
btw you can get one used for 4000-5000 and the LCD has nothing to do with its image quality.
You can get a used D3 for $3K too. Still better at high ISO, faster frame rate, and equal if not better AF. Fewer megapixels, sure, but also a couple fewer megadollars.
Couple of questions, Can you use a 5th battery on an sb-900 like on the sb-800? Is there any equivelent of the 'C' mode on a 5D/II on Nikon bodies? Do the Sigma 50/85 have the same focusing issues as on canon? Thanks!
I had a 1DsIII, georgous ergonomics, wonderful to use, georgous tonality, wouldn't focus right even after 4 trips to CPS, lost me $1000 in value over those months with just one wedding shot with it. I went back to my 5D originals which are less noisy anyway for all their age..
i'm shooting canon 1d and 1ds I, II and III forever.
and never ever had a single problem with AF.
didn't even microadjust a single lens.
have to assume: mostly user error.
or i'm just a lucky guy.
i'm not.
Ah yes, the old if "I am not having a problem, then everyone else is stupid" attitude. Gotta love it. I notice that the two biggest AF failures from Canon, 1DIII and 1DIV, are not on your list.
You seem to have lost your way. Here is a link to a whole bunch of people who have not yet switched to Nikon. I am sure you would be better received over there:
That he isn't having a problem isn't being questioned. Not every Canon is a dud. The trouble is his ridiculous conclusion about other people who *are* having problems. Btw, the "I'm not" has been quoted out of context.
TomKayser wrote:
i'm shooting canon 1d and 1ds I, II and III forever.
and never ever had a single problem with AF.
didn't even microadjust a single lens.
have to assume: mostly user error.
or i'm just a lucky guy.
i'm not.
Yeah, the extremely well documented 1D Mark III and Mark IV AF issues are mostly user error. You should tell all the pros who have switched to Nikon over it that they probably just don't know what they were doing.
DrPete wrote:
Yeah, the extremely well documented 1D Mark III and Mark IV AF issues are mostly user error. You should tell all the pros who have switched to Nikon over it that they probably just don't know what they were doing.
Some top sport shooters complained about Mark 3 focus issues. For it to be user error, these pros' skills must have gone south simultaneously. Besides I thought Canon admitted it had some focus issues.
Having said this, there are many who never had focus issues, but, I don't know if they were shooting the same type of subject movement.
Final point, many pros switched and no longer complained about focus issues. I wont speculate on the reason.
Re: Tom Kayser
There is a photographer named Thomas Kayser, but he is not a sports photographer and they were the ones with the biggest issue. So, Tom may not have had the same experiences as many pros who switched.
This thread is a wealth of knowledge for those who wish to switch from C to N..This place is great! I am now convinced that from my EOS 40D i will advance to a D700. All this talk of the D3s and D700, and while they are rumors, the D800 if it lives up to the hype, will be one of the best cameras we've seen yet. I would much rather a D400 as i like the "extra reach" with the crop bodies..but it looks like i will be waiting a while for that one.
+1 to all those who have taken the time to make these enormously long, info filled posts..they really helped me out!
carstenw wrote:
Ah yes, the old if "I am not having a problem, then everyone else is stupid" attitude. Gotta love it. I notice that the two biggest AF failures from Canon, 1DIII and 1DIV, are not on your list.
You seem to have lost your way. Here is a link to a whole bunch of people who have not yet switched to Nikon. I am sure you would be better received over there:
1d and 1ds I, II and III means: 1D Mk 1-3 and 1Ds Mk 1-3.
Mark 4 is not on my list, indeed.
I have been shooting those bodies professionally for years, maybe 25 bodies over the time, two 1D Mk3 and two 1Ds Mk3 right now. No failure nowhere. Am I just lucky? That would be incredible luck.
But i'm shure: you know it better than me ....
Mar 03, 2011 at 03:35 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
carstenw wrote:
Ah yes, the old if "I am not having a problem, then everyone else is stupid" attitude. Gotta love it. I notice that the two biggest AF failures from Canon, 1DIII and 1DIV, are not on your list.
You seem to have lost your way. Here is a link to a whole bunch of people who have not yet switched to Nikon. I am sure you would be better received over there:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Since when is the 1D4 the biggest AF failure ? With a comment like that I'm pretty sure you never even have used the camera............
I think three links found in a minute or two are enough to show that the 1DIV clearly doesn't fix everything. Sometimes it is great, sometimes not. I saw somewhere a comparison with the D3s where the Nikon clearly comes out on top (on AF and high ISO), but I guess you can use Google as well as I can.
Look, I am not saying that high-end Canons are all duds in all ways, but Nikons are clearly better in certain areas: high ISO (D3 and D3s) and autofocus (D700, D3, D3s, D3x). If you work in such a way that you don't hit these problems, then I am sure you could be perfectly happy with your Canon and even wonder what all the fuss about, but for those who have hit the issues, a (highly visible) fraction have simply ditched Canon and gone to Nikon. Such a switch is not undertaken lightly.
