Boy, you have me confused. I have shot a lot of weddings, and I don't recall action shots being a part of it. If you can't focus follow someone walking down the aisle, then perhaps you might consider that action. I never use AF for weddings.
-- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 2:26:19 AM, you wrote: SP> On 2005-01-11, at 00:47, John Coyle wrote: >> My experience with the AF of the MZ-S and the *istD tells me that the >> MZ-S is far better than the digital, with any of the lens I have used >> on both cameras. I find the MZ-S very quick and accurate, and able to >> AF in very dim conditions and low contrast. On the other hand, using >> the *istD at a wedding on Saturday, I got only two focussed shots in a >> 6-7 second opportunity (when the couple were walking back down the >> aisle after the ceremony) using AF-C and the SMC-Takumar 28-105 4-5.6: >> sensitivity 400ASA and exposures were in the 1/60 @ 4.5 to1/90 @ 5.6 >> region. I have to confess that this is my first real disappointment >> with the *istD: perhaps, however, it was due to battery state, as I >> did get the half-full to empty warning several times during about an >> hour's use - turning it off and back on again gave me a full indicator >> every time though! Alternatively, the state of the batteries together >> with the fact that this is a solid and heavy lens may have >> contributed. SP> This is exactly the same experience as mine. And that was a reason why SP> I had to sell *istD - disappointment during weddings at low light. For SP> film use I still have MZ-S, which has very good (enough for action SP> shots during wedding) low-light AF. SP> -- SP> Best regards SP> Sylwek
