>- --- Willem-Jan Markerink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Time for some enquiries on the PhotoKina....and if true, then there is >> all the more reason for a successor of the 1Ds (either they >> artificially crippled both, or none; a factor 2 difference back >> between the two back then wouldn't have been accepted by the market). > >I doubt that Canon intentionally "crippled" either the 1v or 1D. But time, and technology, march on. >Processors get faster and wider (8 bit -> 16 bit -> 32 bit). Memory busses get faster and wider. With >experience,algorithms get optimized or rewritten from scratch. Possibly even the optics in the AF path get improved >(tings like better coatings, aspheric optics, more sensitive sensors). > >Had Canon been able to build the 1v with AF equal to the 1D MkII, I'm sure they would have. Their real competition was >(and is) Nikon, not their own digital line. > >===== >Bob Meyer
FWIW, the reason the 1D MkII has faster AF is that AF now has it's own dedicated CPU, separate from the camera's primary CPU. Technology that I'd imagine was either not yet developed or too costly when the other cameras were released. Paul Wasserman * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
