02-15-2011, 02:33 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297774323' post='6128']
At least, in the tested scenario.
[/quote]
Which must be a strange scenario, since their findings completely contradict my own experiences.
Anyway: what good is a "superior" AF if it doesn't even cover the areas we're all most interested in (the rule of thirds intersections)?
As I said, it's the complete package, the sum of all features, that made the D300 attractive at that time. Certainly for anyone who had hoped for a "3D" from Canon. Except for sensor size, the D300 came closer to that wish than any Canon camera. If Canon had something similar at that time (or something similar to today's 7D) I would not be shooting Nikon today.
Oh, and just for the record: it's not the grip that lifts a D300's (or D700's) frame rate, it's the larger batteries with higher current that you can use in that grip.
-- Markus
At least, in the tested scenario.
[/quote]
Which must be a strange scenario, since their findings completely contradict my own experiences.
Anyway: what good is a "superior" AF if it doesn't even cover the areas we're all most interested in (the rule of thirds intersections)?
As I said, it's the complete package, the sum of all features, that made the D300 attractive at that time. Certainly for anyone who had hoped for a "3D" from Canon. Except for sensor size, the D300 came closer to that wish than any Canon camera. If Canon had something similar at that time (or something similar to today's 7D) I would not be shooting Nikon today.
Oh, and just for the record: it's not the grip that lifts a D300's (or D700's) frame rate, it's the larger batteries with higher current that you can use in that grip.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com