BlueSky wrote: > > > 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?
Well, there are several possible explanations to this. - Maybe it's marketing, but I don't think so. - It could also be due to the fact that AF areas are larger in the latest EOS models, which means the available light has to be spread over a larger AF sensor, so a higher light level is required. - Then, the fact that smaller structures on modern chips cause higher noise levels could be a reason why they don't work well at low light levels. Don't know which one is true... br/Stefan. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
