Paul
On Jun 5, 2004, at 6:42 PM, Herb Chong wrote:
before competent AF, everyone was the same and had about the same hit rate
if they were decent. now, with good AF, the average hit rate has gone way up
for those using it. the ones not, are not in the running because to make a
living, or even to get a start towards it, you have to provide their level
of image quality with a much lower hit rate, perhaps as little as 1/3 of
what they are getting. for pro's, it's not enough to get the great shot, you
have to get lots of great shots reliably. i'm starting to do pretty well
with my 400/2.8 and the 1.7X AF extender on the *istD, but i also see the
number of times where the camera hasn't been able to keep up with bursts of
frames during some activity, and i see the number of times the AF as failed
to lock when i know it should have.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: long glass
If you don't need IS, Nikon has competitive glass and other system
features. Minolta might have the glass, AF, and drive speed too--I
haven't looked lately. If you don't need AF, Pentax and probably Leica
are viable. Remember, prior to the EOS system people DID make a living
at nature photography. It may still be possible if you are skilled
enough, I don't know. I'll admit that with a 400 my MF isn't great, and
I've never played with a 600 or 800. I've always found that a working
automobile is a more critical business investment for me than a telescope.
