AF showdown! 40D vs D300 vs 1DMkIII vs D700

kini62

I mainly interested in AI Servo performance as it pertains to tracking humans. Younger children as of now.

I currently have a 40D and 70-200/2.8L and while I get a fair share of keepers, I feel I don't get as many shots as sharp as I know the lens is capable of. Also I've resorted to using the center AF point only. While this works OK when the subject occupies the majority of the VF it is difficult to keep on the subject at longer distances.

In addition I'm not entirely satisfied with the camera's ability to track. Even with 8 year old girls it often lags and results in BFed shots.

So of the above mentioned cameras with equivalent lenses which has the better, faster and more reliable predictive AF? And which can be used best with some type of multiple AF point arrangemt such as 21pt dynamic or ring of fire type settings?

Thanks
Gene

ziggy53

Gene,

AF speed and accuracy is a reasonably complicated business and if you truly have fast focussing lenses then advanced AF sensors and faster image processors will make all the difference.

In Canon only the 1D/1Ds series has the advanced AF sensors and faster image processors. The 40D is not bad but the 1D/1Ds are just so much better.

In Nikon the D300 and D700 have the same MultiCAM3500 designation as the D3 except that the D3 and D700 are called "MultiCAM3500 FX" and the D300 is called "MultiCAM3500 DX" and I am not sure the 2 systems are identical in performance.

In Nikon there is also the AF-S versus AF screw debate and some great Nikon lenses still use the AF screw mechanism and there is anecdotal evidence of the better Nikon cameras having a more robust internal AF motor than the lower end Nikons.

swintonphoto

I would also look at the Olympus E-3 with one of the new Supersonic Wave Drive lenses. Olympus documents that the combination gives the fastest autofocus of any camera in the world. Here are the newest supersonic wave drive lenses (it is a 2x crop factor on Olympus cameras):
14-35mm f2.0
12-60mm f2.8-4.0
50-200mm f2.8-3.5

I have tried the combination of the 12-60 with the E-3 and let me tell you it is lightning fast.:jawdrop

Go to this link and click on the "Speed" link on the left: http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/index.asp

TonyL

swintonphoto wrote:

I would also look at the Olympus E-3 with one of the new Supersonic Wave Drive lenses. Olympus documents that the combination gives the fastest autofocus of any camera in the world. Here are the newest supersonic wave drive lenses (it is a 2x crop factor on Olympus cameras):
14-35mm f2.0
12-60mm f2.8-4.0
50-200mm f2.8-3.5

I have tried the combination of the 12-60 with the E-3 and let me tell you it is lightning fast.:jawdrop

Go to this link and click on the "Speed" link on the left: http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/index.asp

I have the E-3, and with the 12-60 nothing comes close IMHO. Unfortunately, I didn't think it was worth double the price of the 14-54mm at the time so I went with the 54mm (before I got the E-3).:pissed

kini62

Thanks for the info so far. But I'm really looking for some real world usage. Like from someone who may have used both Canon and Nikon systems.

I've demoed the E3 and 12-60. Yes the AF is fast, a little faster in S-AF mode than my 40D and 24-105. Noticeable but not dramatic. I have no idea how it is in predictive AF tracking which is my main concern. Plus the Oly lenses just don't have shallow enough DOF for me.

Anyway, I know about the various lenses AF motors etc... My question is which of the a fore mentioned cameras with equivalent lenses will track best shooting sports like soccer and track and field.

Thanks again,

Gene

TonyL

kini62 wrote:

Thanks for the info so far. But I'm really looking for some real world usage. Like from someone who may have used both Canon and Nikon systems.

I've demoed the E3 and 12-60. Yes the AF is fast, a little faster in S-AF mode than my 40D and 24-105. Noticeable but not dramatic. I have no idea how it is in predictive AF tracking which is my main concern. Plus the Oly lenses just don't have shallow enough DOF for me.

Anyway, I know about the various lenses AF motors etc... My question is which of the a fore mentioned cameras with equivalent lenses will track best shooting sports like soccer and track and field.

Thanks again,

Gene

Two people I know...one used the 40D and went to the 50D.
The other uses the D300.
If you want to see a comparison....go to my website...www.aplphoto.com
under motorsports, look under the hill climb.
exif info will tell you which ones were with the 40d and which ones were with the d300.
Or I could post a few.

kdog

cadguru wrote:

Two people I know...one used the 40D and went to the 50D.
The other uses the D300.
If you want to see a comparison....go to my website...www.aplphoto.com
under motorsports, look under the hill climb.
exif info will tell you which ones were with the 40d and which ones were with the d300.
Or I could post a few.

Yes, please post some shots that you feel are indicative of the differences. The few Canon shots I saw had the rider coming directly toward the camera, while the Nikon shots were pans. Big difference in the way the AF system handles those cases. Of course, I didn't look far enough to see if there were more apropos comparisons, as that's not easy to do on your site.

Thanks,
-joel

TonyL

kdog wrote:

Yes, please post some shots that you feel are indicative of the differences. The few Canon shots I saw had the rider coming directly toward the camera, while the Nikon shots were pans. Big difference in the way the AF system handles those cases. Of course, I didn't look far enough to see if there were more apropos comparisons, as that's not easy to do on your site.

Thanks,
-joel

For that gallery you won't get too much direct comparisons because the way we covered the event, I was covering events on the grounds, the 40D shooter was at 200 feet and the D300 was at the top of the hill.
So that's how they were uploaded. Sorry my site isn't easy for "apropos" comparisons.
If I get some time I will search for them.

kini62

cadguru wrote:

For that gallery you won't get too much direct comparisons because the way we covered the event, I was covering events on the grounds, the 40D shooter was at 200 feet and the D300 was at the top of the hill.
So that's how they were uploaded. Sorry my site isn't easy for "apropos" comparisons.
If I get some time I will search for them.

Thanks, appreciate it.
Gene

ajlipe

cadguru wrote:

For that gallery you won't get too much direct comparisons because the way we covered the event, I was covering events on the grounds, the 40D shooter was at 200 feet and the D300 was at the top of the hill.
So that's how they were uploaded. Sorry my site isn't easy for "apropos" comparisons.
If I get some time I will search for them.

One minor correction - the 40D shooter (that would be me) was at 400 feet. The D300 shooter and I were on opposite sides of the hill at about the same level most of the day and that afforded different viewing advantages.

TonyL

ajlipe wrote:

One minor correction - the 40D shooter (that would be me) was at 400 feet. The D300 shooter and I were on opposite sides of the hill at about the same level most of the day and that afforded different viewing advantages.

Thanks for the correction. I had thought you guys were on different levels. (location wise)

randrand

shooting soccer and kids sports
Predictive auto-focus will not be much use to you shooting soccer and other kid's team sports. The reason for this is that the only way to be certain you are getting great, in-focus pictures of your subject is to shoot with one center point focus. If you engage multiple focus points, the camera will focus on the wrong player (like the one without the ball who is standing next to, but slightly closer than your subject). Believe me, I've been there. All teh sports photographers I've talked to and read commentary from use one center point focus... and not multiple points.

Now, if you're shooting a motorcycle race and the racers are not bunched up, and you're shooting them rounding a curve one by one, THEN predictive autofocus could be helpful, as you CAN engage multiple focus points without the risk of focusing on the wrong "athlete."

rand

ziggy53

randrand wrote:

Predictive auto-focus will not be much use to you shooting soccer and other kid's team sports. The reason for this is that the only way to be certain you are getting great, in-focus pictures of your subject is to shoot with one center point focus. If you engage multiple focus points, the camera will focus on the wrong player (like the one without the ball who is standing next to, but slightly closer than your subject). Believe me, I've been there. All teh sports photographers I've talked to and read commentary from use one center point focus... and not multiple points.

Now, if you're shooting a motorcycle race and the racers are not bunched up, and you're shooting them rounding a curve one by one, THEN predictive autofocus could be helpful, as you CAN engage multiple focus points without the risk of focusing on the wrong "athlete."

rand

Rand, welcome to the Digital Grin.

randrand

ziggy53 wrote:

Rand, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks Ziggy. Happy to learn and contribute.

rand