Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
Maybe top of the line products do perform better.

Look on photo.net and other places for people talking about problems like front/back focusing or poor focusing. As for anecdotal reports, well, I gave mine; rolleiman and Rol_Lei Nut gave theirs. You'll find many more if you look.
AF has its limits which are well known. Macro, for example. Pros need to produce a product, and it needs to be adequate. They accept that tradeoff. But there are many more amateurs than pros, and many more amateur/prosumer cameras sold than pro-level ones.

I have heard complaints from pros regarding AF failures, though often with the additional statement that they would have missed a lot of shots trying to manually focus, too. For sports they feel they get more keepers, but are less confident that any one shot will be good. The old skill of anticipating and pre-focusing seems to be fading.
Similar is firing a burst to be sure of getting a shot that's adequate, rather than anticipating the peak moment and getting the shot that's perfect.
Yup. The best is better. Poor technique, simple ineptitude, and reluctance to learn how AF patterns work on an F100, F5, D7000 or D3 get my vote for poor results, not the hardware alone. Pro sports film shooters back in the day relied on burst shooting, too. Why do you think high firing rates were key features on pro film Nikons and Canons? So much for anticipation. AF was a godsend for sports and PJ.

Back focus is user-adjustable on the D7000. Friends have used film and digital Nikon bodies professionally for years with few if any problems attributable to what some here argue is a baked-in deficiency. Sample variation is part of using mass-produced items. But so far I'm not seeing sufficient incidence to suggest a pattern.