Kai has tested all 3 FF DSLR systems... Check it out here
Nikon D600 vs D800 vs Canon 5D Mark III - Head-to-Head - YouTube
Nikon D600 vs D800 vs Canon 5D Mark III - Head-to-Head - YouTube
EOS M: M for Mirrorless
- Thread starter dolina
- Start date
Actually, if we look at recent history, Nikon's AF system is always a tad better, it is until recently that Canon managed to catch up and as many would like to say (I have my reserve though) 'surpass' the Nikon. However that is phase autofocusing. And historically, Canon is not as good in contrast focusing, she still need some time.
And if the slow focusing in the EOS-M can be rectified by a simple firmware upgrade, then it should be relatively easy to implement, however if it was the hardware that is limiting, then I think guys who bought the EOS-M will just have to live with that AF speed. because I believe not all the time AF speed can be increased by firmware updates (eg. Look to Olympus previous PEN series - EPL1, EPL2, EP1 and EP2)
rhino123 said:
If it would be feasible Canon would have done that already between the time the camera went into mass production and now, certainly a few months have passed since then.
Sorry, this is TOTALLY wrong.
Actually, up till Nikon D3/D300, Nikon AF has always lagged Canon, not by a bit (like 1D3 vs D3), but by a HUGE margin (like 11 AF points on D1 & D2 vs 45 AF points on 1D/1Ds; like hopelessly bad AF tracking on Nikon D1/D2 vs Canon 1D/1Ds/1D2/1Ds2). They caught up and surpassed Canon with the D3/D300 partly because of Canon's own design flaws.
Personally, I think all AF sensors should be designed like the one on 5D3/1DX, lots of cross AF sensors on the side. Even the D3/D4/D800/D300 AF sensors lack this important capability.
Yes. That was my point.
If a simple firmware upgrade could solve the slow AF problem, I believe Canon would already have done that... same goes for earlier generation of Olympus PEN. If it was the hardware that is limiting the performance of the camera, then there really is nothing anyone could do unless they change the entire module... which I doubt was possible at this moment.
I do mention 'recent' history, didn't I?
I think you and I have a very different idea of 'recent'. Now... let me be more detail.
Canon's 1DmkIII and to 1DmkIV all had 45AF points, Canon's 1DmkIII had many complains on AF not being very accurate (I read these from the net), Nikon from its D300s onwards had 51AF points, even the D7000 which was a replacement for the D90 had 39AF points which trump even the Canon's APS-C flagship 7D.
If you go down history, Nikon's D2H which was released earlier than Canon's 1DmkII, did also have 11pts AF system, might be equal to even Canon's older 1D.
Especially with the recent models. One of the Nikons that had excellent af point coverage was the d300/s though!
Last edited:
The word 'recent' needs to be carefully qualified. Don't forget Nikon's D2Hs was announced on Feb 16, 2005 and Canon 1D2 in early Feb, 2004. Some, like me, may consider 2004 and 2005 as being rather 'recent'. :bsmilie:
However, it's not just a simple matter of having more AF points that gave Canon its great AF reputation in the early digital imaging age (pre-2007). Since you read from the net, you should also know the 39 AF point sensor in D7000/D600 is often bashed for its rather mediocre performance. Number is no guarantee of performance. These 7D images of birds in flight (also many, many other images) reveal something too...
Last edited:
Wif d advancement on the technology... I wun be surprised it has already happened but these makers just wun release it as it will jeopardize their DSLR line up... LOL
Thoth said:
In the future cameras will bee implanted into our eyes so we can take photos at the speed of our eyes blinking n that sharp..and upload through our brain waves
Heard and read many reviews about people ranting M's af performance. However it just gives me an impression that M may not designed primarily for us photo and gear enthusiasts but maybe for beginners and casual shooters who just want to snap photos. I may be wrong but it gives me an impression that the design is more catered to female customers (I am not saying females are casual shooters). Probably that's why they decide to omit the af part rather than they don't have the technology to do so, to sell it at a more reasonable price (yet earning huge profits).
Similar threads
