Herb wrote:
> he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring. Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have sharp images shout out of a car window with the MZ-S at 1/60s with a 600mm lens. About 50% of the images are sharp. With the Z-1p I couldn't shoot anything slower than 1/250s under the same circumstances and get even one sharp image. Yesterday I was out shooting fox puppies again and I managed frame filling shot with the 600mm and not so frame filling shots with the 150-300 on my 645NII. Without AF, I could only have the shots where the animals were still; this doesn't happen often with small foxes! AF is truly helpful and being without it under such situations isn't really an option in my opninion and virtually everyone who shoots wild-life have converted to AF long ago because it works. I don't use AF for anything else. Luckily, all my AF lenses are great manual focus lenses as well. My AF cameras are fantastic manual focus cameras. The 645NII is the best manual focusing camera I've ever used. It isn't really about one thing or the other: it is about using the tool when it makes a difference. I don't find AF helpful at all when using hyperfocal focusing for landscapes but it is bloody useful for moving wild-life! Pål
