I can't say that I disagree there, Shel. However, in my experience long distance focusing is better with AF. For shots like this, AF is better, especially with the *ist D, with no great focusing help (split field or similar) in the viewfinder: http://images1.fotopic.net/?iid=y5kj3u&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1 For shots like this, AF speed is not a big issue, though.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. januar 2005 17:48 Til: [email protected] Emne: RE: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments If you're paying for AF the feature should work properly, every time. It's been about twenty years since the inception of AF cameras and you'd think that by now the technology would be refined enough so that complaints and concerns would be nonexistent. It seems to me that fast focusing in low light would be the "raison d'etre" for AF. Similarly, perhaps too many people have come to rely on AF in too many situations like the one Herb described. What need is there for AF when the camera's tripod mounted and the subject is stationary, like rocks and trees and waterfalls? Instead of getting all shots well focused Herb gets "correctly focused images pretty much all the time," and seems to be relying on DOF to get sharply focused pics. While that may be OK in some situations it's easy to imagine situations where minimal DOF would be appropriate for certain photographs, or where shorter shutter speeds would be a better choice. Shel > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think the slow AF of the *ist D is related to a rather weak focus motor, > not the optics. It seems to be equally slow no matter what lens is used. The > AF of the MZ-S is much better - it works so fast, that the camera actually > moves in my hand when I press the shutter release half way down. The focus > motor is better/faster/stronger. I wish the *ist D worked this well. I think > this is a stupid place for Petnax to save money, because of the marketing > issue. > > FWIW I think the AF works quitewell, though. I takes a second or so to > focus, which is not very fast, but most of the time it's good enough, but > certainly not impressing. For very fast foucsing in low light I tend to > sweitch off the AF. But this takes time as well.
