> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:15:07 -0300
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Danks)
> Subject: Re: EOS Re: D30 and print size.
>
> I came very close to buying a D30 this month.
> Decided against it for the following reasons:
>
> 1/ Shutter release delay.
Is not very dramatic.
> 2/ Poor autofocus performance
Indeed, there is practically no AF.
However, your glass allows for easy
manual focussing.....
> 3/ Inconsistent flash exposures
That's due to the implementation of E-TTL,
but in your setup I don't see why you don't
just set up the flashes in manual mode, they
are in fixed positions with the subject in
known areas anyway.
> My use is primarily for birds using both the
> EF300/2.8L IS and EF600/4L IS lenses.
I would neither need nor want AF with that. Those
lenses are good enough for excellent manual focussing.
> The shorter lens is the one of choice for close work
> with hummingbirds using a multi 550ex/ST-E2 flash setup.
Yeah, trigger remote but set up manually.
Best consistensy of results with no doubt about
the results. Just buy a flash meter.
> I am frequently in the position of wishing to fire
> frames quickly in succession,
No way with the D30. More training for the decisive moment.
> Poor AF performance is not to be suffered when chasing
> birds either. I use the 300/2.8 on large birds in flight.
People did this before AF, why not do it today?
After all you are not ruining film anymore, just
hit DEL and try again....
> I do not understand why the D30 is supposedly not good
> with flash.
Because the flash metering characteristic ist the same as
what you chose for ambient *plus* the secret ingredient
from the active and focused AF spot.
> I have never used a D30 but,
You should have.
> despite being gung-ho to try digital, its limitations, as
> reported here and elsewhere, made me decide it was probably
> not appropriate for my needs.
I disagree. Yes you would have needed to adapt your working
environment a little, but the results are so rewarding that
it really is worth doing it.
> Would users of the D30 concur that I am correct or have
> these deficiencies been exaggerated?
These deficiencies are there, but the effect on a
skilled photographers results is vastly exaggerated.
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.photoquack.de
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
