On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Roland Mabo wrote: > >From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:44:29 -0600 (CST) > > > >The MZ-3 offers fewer overall focusing points (no verticals at all!), > > The MZ-5n and the MZ-3 has the same AF system. > One linear sensor and two verticals.
Two miscommunications here. I meant that the 5n/3 have fewer points than the comparable C/N models, not that the 5n and 3 are different from each other. And by "verticals," I meant that the three sensors of the 5n and 3 are laid out in a horizontal line. Some sensors may be sensitive to vertical lines, but I was talking about Pentax's lack of vertically situated sensors, which C/N have and which can be helpful for subjects a little higher or lower than usual. > >You've obviously never used a Rebel Ti. Put one of those up against an > >MZ-6 and you'll be blown away by how much faster the Ti is. > >USM lenses are still fast on entry-level bodies because the USM is in >the > >lens (body > >has a relatively small role to play in focusing speed). And I have no > >idea how you can claim that Pentax's AF is more than slightly faster >than > >Canon's. > > The swedish magazine FOTO always measures the AF speed when they test > cameras. All Canon entry bodies prior the EOS 300V (Rebel Ti) was slower > than Pentax bodies in terms of AF speed. On stationary subjects? Moving subjects? Moving subjects that didn't stay dead-center in the middle of the frame? Bench tests for AF speed mean very little in the real world, when a camera's ability to switch sensors on the fly may be more important than the time it needs to focus and lock onto a subject. In any case, I don't dispute that Pentax's AF may have been faster than Canon's. I was always happy with the AF speed of my 5n. I wasn't happy with its ability to lock onto moving subjects, or with its noise, and I probably wouldn't have been happy with its 3 sensors if I took more action shots than I did. > >If it's true, it'll be very nice. > > Why don't you believe in the 11 point SAFOX VIII? > Arnold Stark tested an *ist at CeBit and wrote here about his findings. He > has found that it has several cross sensors, he didn't tested all of the > sensors but he found several of them (I believe he found 3-4 sensors that > were cross, of those he tested). According to reports from Japan, the *ist > has 9 cross sensors. I don't believe in the existence of 9 cross-sensors in a mid-level camera because that seems excessively high, and I don't believe every rumour I hear. I'll remain skeptical about this until I see the camera myself or hear reliable reports. > The competition has one, in the center. Even if the *ist only has two, > it still twice as much as the competition offers. Pentax should be > praised for this, but most people here seems busy complaining. First > they say "Pentax should make this and that", and when Pentax does it, > they say "Too late" and starts complaining again. You're trying to take this off the original subject. I'm out out to belittle Pentax's up and coming products. It's simple... you made a statement that you couldn't understand why someone would say that C/N have better AF performance than Pentax. I'm trying, politely, to explain why that might be the case. I'm not commenting on other aspects of the Pentax system, or on future models, just on what's already out there. While we're on the subject... on what grounds do you base your claim that Pentax has better low-light AF capability? I've never noticed that before, so I checked the specs, and they're identical... the Pentax MZ-5n, Pentax MZ-6, Canon Rebel 2000, and the Canon Rebel Ti all have an autofocus EV range of 1-18 (at ISO 100). chris
