nikon vs canon AF speed

i went down to comp usa yesterday and taked to one of the cmera guys there he told me he bought a digi rebel because the canon auto focus lenses focus faster than the nikons do. he was a sports photographer for some small statewide highschool sports and life newspapper. is this true? and if so does the benefits from the d70 still make it a better buy?

mike

Ask him about the 100mm macro and the 15mm fisheye...lol. He's probably talking about long telephoto lenses since he's a sports photographer.

The autofocus for the lenses we use underwater is largely dependent on the camera body, not the lens.

Cheers

James

I've got a Canon 10D and an f2.8 100mm USM macro lens. The setup autofocuses extremely fast on land, much faster than my D100 w/70-180 macro under water. The max aperture on the Nikon 70-180 is f3.5, which probably explains its rather slow autofocus performance in anything less than good light. I really can't tell any difference in autofocus speed of the 10D, the D100 or the D70. Given good light and a fast lens, they are all extremely quick. In poor light, a fast lens will always autofocus more quickly, in my own experience, regardless of whether it's Nikon or Canon. I shoot both brands ... mostly Canon topside and always Nikon underwater. They're all good instruments capable of producing images better images than their operator!

When he says a fast lens, he means an f2.8 lens. Also, if the lens have a built in motor it will focus faster (called HSM on Canon and AFS on Nikon). Older lenses work off the screw drive on the camera body.

Cheers

James

The D100 and D70 use Nikon's Cam900 autofocus module. Nikon themselves make two faster autofocus systems - (Cam1300 on F5, F100, D1, D1X, D1H and the Cam2000 only on the D2H so far) so I would expect the Canon AF to be better.

I use the D100 along with my F100 UW and I really notice the drop in AF speed between the too. The D100 does a lot more hunting and is slower about it. But in its defence I have found the D100 to remain accurate and capable on low contrast subjects in low light.

For this shot the D100 really impressed me. Taken with a 105mm macro lens and a +4 dioptre in pretty low light and without a focus light (because IMO pygmies tend to turn away from focus lights). And of course a small moving subject. So despite the D100 AF not being the best available, even at Nikon, I have found that it rarely limits me UW.

Alex

Hi Mike,

I guess as a sport shooter he had in mind the long Tele guns.

Canon pro tele lenses have featured the lens built in USM motor for several years now and where faster than many Nikon lenses which were driven by a camera motor in the past (and still today depending on the lens).

But Nikon has also come up with their Silent Wave Lenses.

I would not make this a creteria for choosing an underwater camera. Canon Wideangles do not all feature USM (15mm fish for example) and there are still some other points influencing the AF performance.

For example a slow lens (4,5 or anything) makes it hard for the AF in certain situations to find the focus. A fast USM motor would not help if the focus simply doesn't lock.

However as a Canon shooter I of course enjoy the fast and silent USM and full time manual override :-)

regards,

Julian

Also, if the lens have a built in motor it will focus faster (called HSM on Canon and AFS on Nikon). Older lenses work off the screw drive on the camera body.

Canon's focus system is definitely not HSM, that's a Nikon acronym!

All modern Canon lenses (EOS system) have the motor in the lens, not the body.

When I last checked, there were two varieties of USM (ultrasonic motor) AF, and many lenses with non-USM which tend to be older or cheaper designs.

The main advantage of USM is full time manual focusing. Ring-type USM as found on the more expensive lenses (eg the 17-40L) is certainly very fast.

Canon's 15mm fisheye uses the older non-USM autofocus motors. You need to switch it to MF mode on the lens before focusing manually (difficult to do in a housing). i don't own this lens but I do own the 24mm f/2.8 which has a similar motor. Focusing speed is still pretty good. In general i do try and buy USM motor lenses though.

Your camera store employee's choice of Canon is somewhat irrelevant to you if you're looking at shooting underwater. If you were buying a camera for pro sports photography in 2004, you'd probably go for the 1DMk2 + some long Canon glass. Although it is a factor I suppose, i wouldn't choose my underwater system based on AF speed.

Canon's focus system is definitely not HSM, that's a Nikon acronym!

HSM is a Sigma designation. Nikon is AF-S. Alphabet Soup!

AF speed is combination of body and lens. Which is faster, Toyota or Nissan? Can't answer because I didn't include model and engine choice.

I don't believe there is a perceptable difference by brand.

more of this

Canon ultrasonic motor (expensive ring type motor and cheap micro motor) = USM

Nikon Silent wave = AF-S

Sigma ultrasonic for Canon mount = HSM

Sigma ultrasonic for Nikon mount = HSM

Sigma HSM for Canon = also full time manual focus without switching

Sigma HSM for Nikon = don't know, do you have to switch?

Oops, should have said it's a Sigma acronym, you're quite right. :oops:

Anyway, Nikon and Sigma are pretty much the same thing. I mean all these Nikon shooters are rushing to buy SLR/n's, and they're just Sigma cameras. And neither Sigma or Nikon make genuine Canon lenses, so they're both 'third party' I guess.

You mean SLR/c right Rob? Have you had your coffee yet?

Cheers

James

Slr/c and Slr/n are both sort of ugly, so I was sort of thinking that the designers at Sigma had a hand in both...but I guess when I think of it the SLR/n is based on the 14n body, so Sigma may not be so responsible after all.

No, no coffee yet, just a long flight to Alice Springs (definitely too far from the ocean) and several beers.

I believe Sigma is involved. They had intended to built DSLRs with foreign mounts. But due to the lack of authorization they had to find another way … . The guy from Sigma did not want to detail this further. Just a very clear smile when I mentioned the appropriate cameras.

However a SLR/n with a Sigma lens is a very nice Sigma setup and the SLR/n MkII with FOVEON will be a great camera for sure.

Jolly, the SLRn is a Nikon F80 based-body. It's the SLRc that is Sigma-based.

Cheers

James

Hence the problem of getting the Canon mount version housed (yet again). If it were based on the same body with just a different mount, the SLR/c would be a great choice for Canon users. Oh well....

Anyone have any idea why they went with two different bodies? Was there some need to collaborate on the project with Sigma?

I think Kodak would have used a Canon body if they could. But I don't think Canon would license their body to Kodak. So Kodak went to Sigma, who has reverse engineered the Canon mount.

I'm not sure if you could put a Canon mount on a Nikon body as they are pretty "different animals."

Cheers

James

I'm assuming you're right on this one James, that the mounts are too different, otherwise I would have thought Kodak would have just licensed the Canon mount from Sigma instead of the whole body.

It's been a long time since Kodak built a Canon-mount body, and I suspect they needed Sigma's expertise for the reverse engineering.

Housing support is likely to be poor, if my estimate of sales is anywhere near correct. 1Ds and 1DMk2 housings are not exactly thick on the ground, and those cameras are relatively common. I'm actually suprised there's not more lower-end support for the Canon 1-series DSLRs.

It would be nice to have the option of housing the Slr/c, but it doesn't fill a void in the model lineup in the same way the SLR/n does. Personally I'm hoping to start shooting above water with the updated 1Ds in about 6 months and am hoping someone will build me a cheapish housing around then. Aquatica? Ikelite?

I'm actually suprised there's not more lower-end support for the Canon 1-series DSLRs.  

Three problems. Capacity, demand, and size. Most of the smaller shops don't have the capacity to do more than 1 or 2 housings at a shot, and they rightfully focus on the higher volume ones first (which covers capacity and demand). Case in point, Aquatica.

As for size, the 1D series is just plain bigger than most. Ikelite is looking at a MkII as we speak to see if it will fit in the MD housing, if not, there's a much smaller chance they will be able to provide a housing for it.

Uk-Germany, who seems to have the ability to knock out housings left and right for a generally reasonable cost has priced their 1D housing at about $4k USD from the best info I can get, which I don't see as affordable.

Who knows what support will be for the SLR/c. All I can say is that it's not going to be as good as if it were the same body as the SLR/n.

I do see the SLR/c as filling a void, simply because it's substantially cheaper than the only other Canon mount full-frame body. Many 1D MkII buyers seem to be going for the MkII because it's a compromise between an APS sized sensor and the 1Ds. Some of these at least will go to the SLR/c simply based on it being FF, especially those who don't shoot fast action or need high ISO performance.

Most pros will stick with the proven 1Ds even though it's more expensive if they need full frame or megapixels. I don't think Kodak's canon-mount experiment will succeed, but it will be interesting to see. I'm hoping for/expecting a cheaper, better Canon full frame camera later this year.

Uk-Germany housings don't impress me much from what I've seen and I'm certainly not paying $4000 for one!

There's enough 1-series shooters in the world who don't want to pay for a seacam/subal to justify Aquatica or Ikelite manufacturing a housing. Same basic housing would cover both cameras, and probably the new 1DsMk2 when it arrives, because Canon tends to keep its one series bodies the same size and shape. These manufacturers would make money, and lots of it. Guaranteed. I'm sure. And I know lots about business. So please build me this housing and I'll buy it, probably.