Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.
exact , so it is or vice versa
Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is
The Canon AF is better.
You use the same logic as Pentax did with a 22bit ADC some years ago, more is better
I say , when a proper test is done we can discusse the AF issue, or wait a year when all sports photographers have seen their keepers from different events, it was not so difficult to see the differences between the 1dmk3 and D3 regarding keepers and that was one of the reasons why 1000 of sports photographer went over to Nikon from 1dmk3
I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did.
You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior.
You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance.
You fail fanboy.
read what i writes ,and unlike several others I say nothing about AF but I'd love to have proof that one or the other would be better.
And when it comes to AF in D3 and 1dmk3 you need to study the subject a little.
Until you provide facts that Nikons 51 point system is a better field performer than the 61 pt system from canon, the canon system remains better on paper and remains better in first hand experience from me.
Also, where is your body of work? Or does it consist soley of test charts and color charts? I could believe you more if you had a portfolio showing your work using the nikon system.