> Stefan Behrens wrote: > "Poor AF" - compared to what? > What were your testing conditions (lenses, light, AF mode)? > > I read in several places on the web that the Elan 7 has a poor > AF but very few state what they compare it to. > > Did you compare to an EOS 3? Or to an Elan II with AF assist switched on?
Well, I've only ever used Elan7e, so no other SLR can I compare it to. When I refer to the low light auto-focusing as poor, I mean that when I try to use AF in lighting condition of 1/30 f/4.5 @ISO800 for indoor shots at night (reading given by matrix metering), it hunts a lot and sometimes give up. I use the central cross AF sensor with ECF turned off, lens is EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. Subject is of normal contrast, such as black colored eyes against well-tanned skin. You can get better AF performance using a faster lens, like my 50mm f/1.8 MkII. I don't know how EOS 3 or Elan II fare in this lighting using the zoom lens, but I heard Minolta's AF kicks ass. Elan II specified AF working range of EV 0-18 @ISO100, and Elan7 is EV 1-18 @ISO100, which is the same as Rebel 2000. Isn't Elan7 a higher-end body than ElanII? Does Canon think that auto-focsuing in low light isn't important anymore? Why is the IR AF assist not featured on the camera? Could it be that they just want to sell more Speedlites? Or perhaps they want to 'encourage' Elan7 users to get faster lens? Well, you guess is as good as mine. :) regards, BlueSky * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
