I'm not disputing that, but you're still missing the point. What I'm saying is simply that you can't pick up an SLR, turn it on, point it at your subject, press the shutter button, and get an in-focus shot instantaneously. I don't care if you're using an F5 with an AFS lens or an EOS 1v with a USM, the camera still needs time to physically move the lens from its initial point to the correct focus point. I don't care if it's going from its close limit to infinity, or from a point 30 feet away to one 50 feet away. The fact is that the lens will still need time to move into place. I brought up this fact when I was talking about digital cameras and how people unrealistically expect them to take an in-focus shot when they jab the shutter button quickly. Not gonna happen... digitals need a bit of time to set focus. More than most good SLR's, but the basic principle is the same. Keep in mind I'm not talking about AF tracking or anything like that, just simple response times when you point the camera at a subject and press the shutter button to take a shot.
As for your car analogy, I'd say that those people would get a car based on its 0-60 times. Still performanced based, but this criterion has little to do with real-world handling and performance. chris On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > AF speed isn't simply how fast the lens can be driven from its close limit > to infinity. You can drive the lens with a 5hp motor and still not be able > to get something in focus any faster. It's a rather complicated closed loop > feed back system with lots of variable that effect performance (how fast it > can get a subject in focus). People who judge the AF speed of a camera by > seeing how fast it can run the lens from stop to stop, probably also buy a > car based on the flavor of the steering wheel. > > BR > > From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I can't pick up an EOS 3 with a lens focused to 1.5 feet, aim it at > something 300 feet away, press the shutter button, and expect it to .... > >
