--- "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The results in seconds at EV 15, 10, 5 and 0:
>
> Nikon F5: 0.19, 0.19, 0.29, 0.41
> Canon EOS-1n: 0.23, 0.23, 0.33, 0.51 (w or w/o
> booster)
> Nikon F90X: 0.26, 0.26, 0.35, 0.53
> Pentax Z-1p: 0.27, 0.29, 0.39, 0.58
> Pentax MZ-5: 0.28, 0.31, 0.40, 0.61
> Minolta 700si: 0.27, 0.32, 0.40, 0.60
> Nikon F70: 0.30, 0.30, 0.39, 0.78
> Canon EOS-5: 0.30, 0.34, 0.42, 0.60
> Canon EOS-50: 0.33, 0.37, 0.43, 0.63
> Minolta 500si: 0.40, 0.40, 0.45, 0.67
> Contax AX: 0.39, 0.42, 0.50, 0.60 (back focus
> in body with
> MF lens)
> Canon EOS-500N: 0.45, 0.52, 0.49, 0.73
> Minolta 300si: 0.47, 0.50, 0.53, 0.72
> Nikon F50: 0.49, 0.50, 0.52, 0.75
> Pentax MZ-50: 0.49, 0.49, 0.56, 0.79
> Sigma SA-5: 0.56, 0.57, 0.61, 0.80
I assume these numbers are for focusing on a static
object. I doubt anyone would notice the difference
between .63 (EOS 50) and .51 (EOS 1n) in that
situation. But I can assure you there is a huge
difference in AF performance when tracking objects
moving towards or away from the camera. The EOS 1
gave me a dramatically higher percentage of in focus
shots than my EOS 50. My EOS 3 does even better.
=====
Bob Meyer
Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
