On a recent leopard safari the Nikon D4 crowd simply ran away with shots compared to the best our 1D Mk4s could deliver. We are not only talking sensor performance, although we lived like lepers with only ISO 1600 max, the most frustrating feature is that the fitting of a flash to the 1D Mk4 forces Auto ISO to fix at 400.
While I do not question the flash issue, I couldn't help but laugh at the rest of your post.
* It's nonsense (or troll bait) to suggest that the 1D4 cannot shoot higher than ISO 1600.
* No way a D4 user should "run away" from a 1D4 user purely because of the camera. The D4 is newer/better, but simply not by any great amount.
* If Auto ISO wasn't working for me on a trip like that, I wouldn't use it, and no D4 user would "run away" from me.
All recently released bodies had significant problems and required post release upgrades and firmware replacement.
No, they did not.
A lot of noise being made about the 1DX, probably the best copy of a Nikon 3D that Canon ever produced, and is probably marginally better than the D3, I seems a capable camera but only if compared to the previous Nikon model.
Absolute nonsense. It is clearly competitive with the D4.
My concern is the rate at which the local photo community is switching to Nikon. With profitability already down Canon is yielding significant market share to innovative and high quality Nikon products and that means less money, also for R&D, resulting in less capable kit, resulting in less sales, resulting in less money…..
Last time I saw stats Canon still held #1 market share position. Do you have newer info? Source?
Should they rather focus on the point and shoot consumer market and leave the high end stuff to professionals?