> > "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Based on my experience, the *ist-D is every bit as good for motorsports > >as the MZ-S. In brightly-lit conditions the *ist-D focus circuitry is > >as fast as that in the MZ-S (especially if you manually select the auto- > >focus sensor to use; operating in full multi-sensor auto-focus tends to > >have a few problems with fast-moving objects coming towards the camera. > >Not problems with speed; just a tendency for the camera to take shots > >if there's anything in focus anywhere in the frame). > > > >There is no significant shutter lag with the *ist-D; DSLRs are no more > >prone to this than film-based SLRs. > > Yep. I think the only issue I had with the autofocus is that the > FA*80-200/2.8 doesn't focus very quickly: It seems to have a lot of > moving mass in its focus system and I think the focus motor in the ist-D > may not be as powerful as in the MZ-S or PZ-1p. Still not a big deal, as > the photo will attest.
If you think the 80-200 has a lot of glass to move, wait until you try the 250-600 :-) The PZ-1p does seem to focus the heavy glass a little faster, but not enough to really be important. I really like the tight shot of #98. Was that taken from the tower at the top of the hill (turn 5 or 6, IIRC)? I can't get at my Mid-Ohio shots right now, but I don't remember an angle where I could get fence in the background.
