有时间看些半半拉拉的所谓资料（其实都是出自别人之口而已），

对自己以前一款旧相机品牌的新机型不断的打击诋毁对改变你现在的片子焦点都对不到脸上有帮助么？

还是先搞清楚为啥你的片子都总是焦点在MT胸部再说吧。

= =这个你是在低估新手的智商么？...其实很多新手选机器为了实惠，不是为了所谓的“专业”，周围N家多选N家，C家多选C家，这种理由也许更能左右新手。我也是新手过来的，请不要太高估了自己的影响力。

那为何有一些（不是全部，是一些）新手经常在论坛里发帖请教该买什么机器该配什么镜头？事实上是QD一直在试图建立对新手的影响力，看看他历史上发的帖子就知道。

这里有1D4和D3的追焦对比，自己看吧！
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...K4/E1DMK4A.HTM

还有一段文字说明：

We can say one thing for sure: the Canon 1D Mark IV is very definitive and blazingly fast when it decides to refocus. In image #15 above, the image is in focus: images #16 and #17 are out of focus, but #18 is back in focus. These four images were all taken at 16:53:49, and there are actually five other images in this series with the same timestamp, meaning that the between images #15 and #18, the camera refocused in a few tenths of a second. Generally though, it's hard to know exactly what to make of these results: they're indicative of the 1D Mark IV's overall performance in each of the tests (some sequences had more shots in focus, some had less, but it was rare that we noted a sequence of absolutely in-focus images throughout). It may be that we didn't set the right combination of custom functions, or use the camera properly. By contrast, the Nikon D3 just seemed to work without fuss. More importantly, you had a sense that you knew what it was focusing on, that it was responding to your direction; the 1D Mark IV seemed almost erratic in comparison. With the Nikon, while it certainly wasn't perfect (it would wander off on its own from time to time) more often than not it was maintaining a focus lock on the subject I had chosen. With the Canon 1D Mark IV, it seemed to be very reluctant to leave the central focus point.

What we can say is that when it worked, predictive focus seemed to work very well. But when predictive focus didn't work, it was unclear what the problem was, and more importantly, how to correct it. This is clearly a camera that is designed with the most advanced autofocus technology and algorithm Canon can muster, but the question is, is it becoming so advanced that it is too difficult for the end user to master? Professionals coming to this system will be well-advised to test and practice with it thoroughly before using it in critical situations.

这是1D4的评测，所以文字以1D4为主。
大意是1D4追焦过程中，失焦矫正速度极快，但焦点移动比较“冲动”，用户会担心是否追失了。
D3的动作让人更放心，用户可以“感觉”到它在追踪。
预焦似乎是1D4的弱点，预焦准确时效果很好，预焦失败时却原因不明，造成用户不知如何修正。
另1D4追焦的设置不如D3直观明确。

追焦这块反正D300s感受过的结果是，有用，但是也不是完全可靠，串丢了的概率大概在20%左右。
感受的时候是傍晚追黑猫：横向快速飞奔........

服了,又开始转移话题了

又来装可怜了吧，你这是研究器材吗，你是在挖空心思找某家的缺点，要真是缺点倒也罢了，你还靠想象，捏造出来一大堆，大家怎能不喷你？
你花再多的时间都是值得滴，因为你有五毛好领

佩服QD的钻研劲头！码字很辛苦！

不过，结论是否正确？是否权威？都是问号？？？？

两家的对焦和测光各有千秋，但最终都会满足拍摄者的使用，都会使拍摄者得到满意的画面！

这是最终结论！书出同归，差异的存在，才使得这个世界丰富多彩！

QD其实挺不容易的，承受能力蛮佩服的。偏执的性格早晚会崩溃的。