On Sep 13, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > It's very interesting to hear others' take on this. I have found over > and over again that when I disable AF my photos are far more > consistently in-focus, regardless of camera and regardless of how low > the light I'm working in might be or whether the subjects are moving > or not. AF generally does little other than slow things down for me. > Like steve, I've moved more and more to abandoning AF entirely too. > > I'm open to better manual focus with better focus aids, and I could do that > at times. But for quick action you simply don't have the time for focusing. > > "As quick and precise an AF system as possible" would lead me to > looking into the Nikon D3s and D700, they seem to be the market > leaders in this area as well as in sensitivity and noise control. > > I perceive the K-5 and a few good lenses as the poor man's D3s/D700 & AF > Nikkor VR lenses outfit, which I could hardly afford. Not to speak of the > special relationship I have developed with the Pentax people in Italy/Europe.
Dario, Would you have any chance of being able to afford an IR modified K-5? Or doing an IR modification to any other cameras? I've found that an IR filtered flash is not noticeable to dancers. If they are looking at it when it goes off, they can see a dim red light, but the beam isn't perceptible. If you do a lot of extremely low light performance photos, that's a rig that might work well for you. I had an FZ20 modded for IR, but I think he just put an IR pass filter on top of the IR block filter, because the camera works out to being about ISO 8 in sunlight rather than ISO 80. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
