[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

The only thing that seems appealing to me from Pentax is their built-in vibration reduction. Instead of being in the lens, it's in the camera body itself. I have no idea how it works and whether it's effective or not, but it's a good idea that I hope Nikon and Canon will pick up in later generations.

Doesn't Sony's line have something similar?

I went Canon because most of the people I knew shot Canon. Figured it would be best to talk gear with similar equipment. I was really tempted to switch to Nikon until the 5D mkII came out. I've found true <3 with the 5D.

[rodi]

why does the 40D and 50D have a better AF module than the 5D and 5D2?

[rodi]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Doesn't Sony's line have something similar?

I went Canon because most of the people I knew shot Canon. Figured it would be best to talk gear with similar equipment. I was really tempted to switch to Nikon until the 5D mkII came out. I've found true <3 with the 5D.

nice photos on your flickr. you've got a good eye.

how you liking the dinan exhaust? love those black/etched tips!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by rodi

why does the 40D and 50D have a better AF module than the 5D and 5D2?

I suspect it's the cost of building that into the sensor. The 1D MkIII has much better AF performance, but at a much higher cost. They seemed to bring the 1D features into the 5D, with this being a major exception, which I suspect is cost related.

Dave

[rodi]

it just seems to be a huge mistake on canon's part. they knew pro's would be using the 5D2, but they left the same AF module from the 5D, which was already pretty shitty and entry-level. their pro-level camera (1d series has a better AF but a sensor worse than the 5D2).

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by rodi

it just seems to be a huge mistake on canon's part. they knew pro's would be using the 5D2, but they left the same AF module from the 5D, which was already pretty shitty and entry-level. their pro-level camera (1d series has a better AF but a sensor worse than the 5D2).

As a practical matter, I have no problems with the 5D2's AF in actual use. If I were doing pro hockey assignments, then it would be a different matter, but for cars, kids, landscapes, flowers, panoramas, HDR, etc. it works so well that I don't notice it.

Of course, everyone should realize that I'm "old school" and used a 200 mm "preset" lens for decades and shot Daytona and Sebring in the 1960s by knowing depth of field and speed needed before I even put the camera to my face. Also, I my longest lens is 400 mm (with the 2X converter) so I don't have the AF concerns of a super-tele.

Dave

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by rodi

it just seems to be a huge mistake on canon's part. they knew pro's would be using the 5D2, but they left the same AF module from the 5D, which was already pretty shitty and entry-level. their pro-level camera (1d series has a better AF but a sensor worse than the 5D2).

I think the camera was crippled intentionally to separate the models. If the 5D had no faults, who would ever buy their flagship cameras?

[rodi]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I think the camera was crippled intentionally to separate the models. If the 5D had no faults, who would ever buy their flagship cameras?

exactly. but even still, with the better sensor in the 5D2, why buy the (current) pro-level cameras?

just food for thought.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by rodi

exactly. but even still, with the better sensor in the 5D2, why buy the (current) pro-level cameras?

just food for thought.

I wonder if it was a reaction to something that Nikon offered. Sometimes you have to "screw" your existing customers to offer features for new customers. Its like the 335 being as powerful as the e46M

[lyndon_h]

You Nikon guys need to start telling the truth. You got Nikons just because Aston Kutcher was the spokesman for the brand!

[rodi]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

You Nikon guys need to start telling the truth. You got Nikons just because Aston Kutcher was the spokesman for the brand!

no, i got my D3 because that's what Tom Cruise uses.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by rodi

no, i got my D3 because that's what Tom Cruise uses.

[forza1976]

Originally Posted by rodi

no, i got my D3 because that's what Tom Cruise uses.

I'm surprised he can actually hold that camera considering what a short weirdo he is.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Around a lot of professional photographers, every day, and different ones all the time.
And again, nine times out of ten, they are shooting with Canon.
I'm not a professional photog myself, but most say the Canon lenses are just better. Quieter, faster and from what I hear sharper.

Watch a sports event and look at the photogs on the sidelines.
Once in a while you get a good close up of a line of them and the majority of the time, the vast majority of them have Canon's with the canon straps around their necks.

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

Or white lenses, HAHA!



I count about 4 Nikon guys. The guy with a single white strip on his lens is using a Canon. The lens is a Sigma. High res: http://dforum.de/Fotos/galerien/originale/03-foto07.htm

I've always wondered why Canon users outnumber Nikon out in the field... and I still don't know why.

Reviving an old thread here. I was at the doctor's office today waiting for a friend. As usual, the selection of magazines consists of the typical 6 month old Sports Illustrated's and Ladies Home Journal. I grab a random SI (happens to be 12/22/08) and I flip through and come across the following photo.

(Photograph by Gouthier-Hahn-Nebinger, ABACAUSA.com)

It doesn't say the sporting event though. I count 11 Nikons (all visible) and 11 Canons (10 visible, plus one strap).

For the Nikon guys, what is the lens that most of these guys are shooting? The one with the huge objective....

[TWiTCHY]

OH GOD! That's a ton of money right thurr. Must be some giant prime.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by Arizona_Steve

Voted Nikon. Neither is better, both take excellent pictures. The most important part is the twelve inches or so behind the camera.

Originally Posted by solefald

if you know how to use *any* camera, you would be able to take killer shots with anything.

i do prefer nikon though.

Originally Posted by Tedesco

been canon since 2003. i love them, but even if i wanted to go nikon it would be too damn expensive to switch at this point. regardless of what you shoot, you will get great photos with both bodies.

-Chris

Wow, three common-sense posts in a row on a Nikon vs. Canon thread. It's all about which one is most comfortable for the photographer. It's a little bit the fiddle, much more who holds the bow. Both Nikon and Canon make damn fine fiddles

[ohaywood]

Originally Posted by solefald

1. Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Actually from my experience it is completely opposite.
2. Same. Bullshit
3. Even bigger bullshit
4. Whatever. I do both. And use Nikon

EDIT: And i can't stand Canon interface. This was one of my main turn-off when i was shopping for a camera.

I second that. I have a Nikon D80 and a 17" iMac with Photoshop CS3. Perfect setup.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

OH GOD! That's a ton of money right thurr. Must be some giant prime.

Yeah, I'm thinking 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8? 22 lenses at around $7k per pop = $154,000!! And that doesn't even include the bodies, monopods, etc.



And hey, Twitchy is screwed! He voted Nikon, but switched to the "white" side! Hahahahaha-hah!

[rodi]

Originally Posted by scollins

For the Nikon guys, what is the lens that most of these guys are shooting? The one with the huge objective....

most of them have the 200-400 or the newer 400 2.8 and 500.

here's a better look at the 200-400, shooting para-sailers and gliders last summer:

[TWiTCHY]

Originally Posted by scollins

And hey, Twitchy is screwed! He voted Nikon, but switched to the "white" side! Hahahahaha-hah!

Aha...haha...

[scollins]

Originally Posted by rodi

most of them have the 200-400 or the newer 400 2.8 and 500.

here's a better look at the 200-400, shooting para-sailers and gliders last summer:

You've got a 200-400? Nice! Bastard!!!

I might have to rent one, just so I can play around with it a little bit. When I was shooting some race cars, there were times when more reach than 200mm would have been really nice, even on my 1.5x cropper.

[TWiTCHY]

It even has its own neck strap!