Epp,
I am glad you actually went to a store and triedout some equipment, but I have to hand it to Blash who noted that your results could be characterized as
"1) Pairing a crap body with a pro lens and getting crap
2) Pairing a nice body with a crap lens (D300 w/55-200) and getting crap
3) Pairing a pro body with a pro lens and getting awesomeness"
Expanding a bit on Jerry's post right above mine, noted Nikon expert Thom Hogan's D700 review
Nikon D700 Review by Thom Hogan
noted the following differences between the D3 and D700:"note that when you're in non-white light--some fluorescent and sodium vapor, for example--this system seems to not work anywhere near as well, probably because the color tint from the lighting is polluting the skin tones the camera is trying to detect. On the D700, recognition of the colors of an object is clearly taken into account in Auto Area focus mode and somehow dealt with even when that object goes out of the autofocus sensor area! The question everyone wants to know is whether the D700 is closer to the D300 or the D3 autofocus system. For those not yet in the know, the D300 autofocus system uses a slightly less beefy CPU and tends to have a bigger hesitation prior to locking in initial focus than does the D3. The answer is that the D700 seems much more like the D3 than the D300, though it clearly seems to be between them in performance. My D3 snaps into initial autofocus faster than my D700, which does so faster than my D300. In terms of following subjects, the D700 and D3 seem to be equal there, with the D300 being very slightly less capable. With practice, all three cameras have perfectly fine autofocus. But if you move between the cameras, as I do, be prepared for slightly different initial acquisition speeds. Once an object is tracked, the D700 and D3 are uncanny in following it, the D300 slightly less so (but still arguably very good)."
I'm wondering if the camera store had fluorescent lighting that might have slowed down the color-sensing abilities of the cameras you tried.
I'll tell you a little story,based on my personal experience. I shoot both Nikon and Canon systems, and have a FEW good Canon lenses. The Canon 20D with the 70-200 2.8 L IS or the 85 1.8 50 1.4 or 135 f/2 L can not focus fast enough or well enough for sports like track and field,using those lenses, but the "old" Nikon D1h and the "old" Nikon D2x have very good AF systems that are quite capable for sports use. Initial acquisition speed seems to be your complaint with Nikon....understood....but the real need is more often the ability to follow focus on a moving target and to focus on off-center targets. If you want to talk about the superiority of Canon's autofocus, look at the absolutely horrible AF problems Canon's 1D Mark III has had, for over two years now at
Rob Galbraith DPI: An analysis of EOS-1D Mark III autofocus performance
Make sure you download some of the zip files, and see how poorly Canons "sports/action/photojournalism" camera focuses using a pro-grade sports lens like the 300 f/2.8 Canon EF. The camera has EXCELLENT initial acquisition speed and excellent intitial acquisition acuracy on the FIRST shot--but most bodies can NOT FOCUS on sequential action,and the problem seems to be worse under bright,contrasty light. For a FEW sports, like volleyball, speed/accuracy of initial focus acquistion is critical, but for sports like track and field,football,swimming,cycling, the ability to follow focus is much more critical than being able to get one shot in focus, and then have 70 percent of the sequence out of focus.
Download the 1D Mark III zip files,and see how very,very badly that Canon does on sports shooting. It even has problems focusing on STILL subjects! I laughed a bit at the shot of the dog jumping over the bar at the agility drill as being an example of how a Canon 5D can shoot "sport". I own a 5D and it is a very slow-reacting camera in all respects, but one can get used to its very long shutter release lag times and its weak AF system. A single shot at a pre-determined place, like a dog jumping over a red and white bar is not proof of a camera's suitability for shooting sports....I could nail that shot with a manual focus Nikon F2...a sports camera has fast response time,and short mirror black out time and a high FPS rate. A single, pre-focused shot of action happening at one,specific,exact distance proves absolutely nothing. A camera that can focus on a pole vaulter running toward you,pulling accurate focus at 5 to 8 frames per second, from the start, down the runway,at the plant of the pole,as the pole launches the runner upward, and as the vaulter clears the bar,and then pushes the pole away from the bar as he clears it....24 to 30 good frames....THAT is a camera that can "shoot sport",and that is the kind of AF performance you can get with a Nikon D2 series body. ANY camera can catch peak action of a dog hopping over a red and white bar--just prefocus and wait and know your camera's lag time.
As far as speed of acquisition, it's good to be fast on the draw, but it's much,much more important to hit the target accurately. Epp's original post almost sounds like he doesn't know much about autofocusing systems,or about Nikon cameras, and his Nikon equipment listed in his profile is all beginner-level stuff. Perhaps if he had some experience with top level Nikon bodies and lenses, and some experience shooting sports on assignment (like I do), his conclusions would be different. A wedding photographer's impression of AF speed is different from a sports shooter's; at a wedding the bride and groom come down the isle at a slow,measured pace; in the 100 and 200 meters, the athletes are moving approximately 25-30 times faster than a bride and groom walking down an isle in a church. A runner heading for first base is moving very,very rapidly, and those are the types of situations where the professional lenses like the 70-200VR, 200 f/2 VR, and 300 f/2.8 ALL focus amply fast enough for frame after frame after frame of correctly-focused shots, even using an old clunker like a Nkon D1h or a now-$950 used Nikon D2x. But not with your 18-55 kit lens or your 55-200 kit zoom.
But to say that for example the Canon 20D's AF system is adequate for sports....it's marginal, even with the 70-200 2.8 or 135/2 L....it's a very simple AF system that is too slow at acquisition and too slow at follow focus for track and field,and the off-center AF coverage of Canon's diamond array bodies is extremely poor for focusing off-center; this is an area where Nikon handily beats Canon at the low and mid-level bodies. I grew up shooting in the era prior to AF, when a 55mm f/5.6 lens or a 145mm f/5.6 would have been absolutely laughed at--those lenses admit the absolute *minimum* for good AF performance. What's sad is that Canon had an amazing AF system in their 1D Mark II and Mark IIn, but they futzed up the AF system in the Mark III very badly.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36643-92fe0dd9e247722bfefe299cd8a549f5.jpg?1734169157)
