02-15-2011, 04:34 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1297780402' post='6130']
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
[/quote]
It was a very normal scenario, a car at a quite high speed, same track every time, a couple of runs per camera, all cameras set on focus priority (when available) and continuous shooting, testing each with all AF points active and just the center point, all with 70-200 lenses when available. On an overcast day ensuring the same light conditions.
To me a very not so strange scenario, which beats anecdotal stuff.
It is a myth that the "higher current" is needed for the faster FPS with the grip. It is just regulated in firmware... with grip, 8pfs. Without, 6.
This ie beautifully demonstrated by a bug in the firmware, which allows you to fire the stutter at 8fps at very specific circumstances, without the grip. That 6/8fps setting was just put in place to make people fork out for the grip.
6 fps is plenty fast usually, of course. Just that the D300 does not give a consistent 6fps with focus priority enabled <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
http://natureandwildlifephotography.blog...-grip.html
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
[/quote]
It was a very normal scenario, a car at a quite high speed, same track every time, a couple of runs per camera, all cameras set on focus priority (when available) and continuous shooting, testing each with all AF points active and just the center point, all with 70-200 lenses when available. On an overcast day ensuring the same light conditions.
To me a very not so strange scenario, which beats anecdotal stuff.
It is a myth that the "higher current" is needed for the faster FPS with the grip. It is just regulated in firmware... with grip, 8pfs. Without, 6.
This ie beautifully demonstrated by a bug in the firmware, which allows you to fire the stutter at 8fps at very specific circumstances, without the grip. That 6/8fps setting was just put in place to make people fork out for the grip.
6 fps is plenty fast usually, of course. Just that the D300 does not give a consistent 6fps with focus priority enabled <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.http://natureandwildlifephotography.blog...-grip.html