I Tried my 50/1.8 on the 3000 and it focused 10 times faster than his
28-80. I can't try his lens on my body (E-FM). Note my recent post
that the time has come for me to up-grade my EOS body!! So I would
suspect the problem to be the 28-80. My 24/2.8 & 15/2.8 focused also
very fast on his 3000.
-Dan
Canada.
Gary Fisher wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Flather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > My neighbor purchased a Canon 3000 (rebel?) last
> > week and he was showing me his new toy. I came with
> > the 28-80/3.5-5.6 zoom. Now I know this will be a
> > slow AF set up. But it is almost useless!! I could
> > not focus at all. I tried the AF on a bush with
> > lot's of snow on the ground (black on white - lots
> > of contrast) with full direct sun light all at
> > infinity. This set up could not focus properly,
> > lots of hunting. It would lock focus after a tries
> > but very slow. Is there something wrong with his
> > camera or is this normal?? I would think something
> > is wrong.
> >
> > -Dan
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> It's interesting, I didn't know they sold the 3000 in
> Canada - they don't sell it in the US (unless maybe
> it's a grey import), but they do sell it here in
> Australia. The 3000 is basically a repackaged EOS 500
> (a Rebel XS in the States). As such it has 3 focus
> points, but these are selected totally by the camera,
> you cannot override the selected point manually (as
> you can with the 500n/Rebel G for example).
>
> So focus point selection may have had something to do
> with it.
>
> An easy test - try one of your lenses on his 3000 to
> see what that works like and also try his lens on your
> camera body and see how that goes. By the process of
> elimination you can tell whether the camera body, the
> lens or the combination of the two together is the
> problem.
>
> FWIW I've played with an EOS 3000 in a shop (I was
> considering it as a back up body until I discovered
> that you can't manually select the focusing point and
> it doesn't support e-ttl (the only new model not to do
> so)) and while it's AF was nothing to write home
> about, it worked quite well - at least on stationary
> objects. I can't remember what lens it was with for
> sure, but I think it was either a 28-105 or 28-135.
>
> Regards
> Gary
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
