> > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:30:50 -0500 > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: lenses for digital > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > >Of course if Cxxxn is quiet enough then there is no need to go Leica. > >Pentax shutter and film advance have always been whiny in my experience. > >Of course Cxxxn didn't used to be better--heard an A1 lately? > > Do I understand late Canon equipment is quieter because the AF motor > is inside each lens?
This makes the focus quieter, yes. It would also apply to recent Nikon, Minolta, and Olympus lenses. DSLRs are quieter because there is no film advance. I suspect the main reason that the Canon is quieter has to do with engineering for 8fps frame rates. Plus, the body is big and very well sealed, probably sucking up the noise it creates. > >It has been suggested that the M 20/4 and 28/2 > >are not as good as their larger K predecessors. > > True but tests show that differences are small as far as resolution > and contrast are concerned. Distorsion, vignetting and full aperture > performance is where it hurts a bit more, although both M lenses are > perfectly suitable for nature photography where good lighting and > small f stops are usually part of the game. > > Pentax M equipment was competing against Olympus and late Minolta > equipments to get the attention of the nature photographers (pros, > semi-pros and amateurs as well). > Andre Hadn't thought of Pentax as a nature photography camera--it makes a lot of sense. I'd always assumed that nature photographers either giant MF and LF cameras to get the high image quality. For nature work Pentax's small size and light weight are an asset, and the lack of real motor drives and fast shutters is not much of a liability. Olympus actually seemed to me to be much better at a lot of these things than pentax in the OM era, but they fell on their face much harder when AF showed up. DJE
