On Dec 26, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Tom C wrote: >> From: Michael Adam Maas <[email protected]> >> >> That said, the D600 shares the D7000's AF tech, which is considered to >> be significantly better than the K-5's poor unit by the accepted >> wisdom (and probably is, when shooting AF-C in good light) >> >> -- >> M. Adam Maas > > dpreview.com writes this: > > Another area in which the D600 lags behind the D800 is its AF > sensitivity in poor light. The D800 is rated for accurate focus in > light as low as EV-2, which is approximately equivalent to moonlight. > In use, we've found this to be true. The D600 is rated down to EV-1, > and in normal use, with a 50mm F1.4 prime mounted, we've found that > indeed, the D800 is the better tool in low light. But when shooting > low-contrast targets at EV levels between 0-1, the difference between > the two cameras is only noticeable at the point where we could barely > perceive our subject in their viewfinders. The Canon EOS 6D has an AF > system rated down to -3EV, and we will perform more in-depth > comparisons between this and the D600 when the 6D becomes available. > > In good light, the D600's AF system proved very capable in all of the > environments in which we used it. In the hundreds of frames that we've > shot with the camera, including images taken at night and in very poor > interior lighting, only a handful are anything other than totally > sharp. As usual, if you're working in marginal light the central AF > point is your best bet, but in normal everyday shooting, the D600's AF > system is very capable. > > I write: > > Not having a D600 or K-5 I have no idea how they compare in this > regard. I've generally find all cameras to have a harder time with AF > in low-light as opposed to normal or bright light, as everyone knows > (same goes for my eyes). To my recollection there hasn't been any > mention in this comparison regarding lenses used (prime or zoom, > aperture, etc.), central AF point vs. other vs. auto, single frame vs. > continuous shooting, or really whether both photographers were > simultaneously aiming at the same scene in the viewfinder.
The lenses were the FA 31/1.8 and Nikkor 35/2.0. ISO 12,800, f/2.0, 1/30 S. I was aiming at the same thing with both cameras. Focusing with live view was also noticeably, though not hugely, better with Live View on the Pentax. His G5, however, was by far the best for focusing in crazy low light. > I often > experience focus issues when I'm straddling the line of closest focus > distance. All these items could have an impact. > > We tend to expect a lot out of our cameras nowadays, don't we? Twenty > years ago it was try your best to focus in a dark viewfinder and check > the distance scale. A couple days ago, when we had a spot of rain (5.1 inches that day) I was photographing the river in my back yard, (much better than my back yard being in the river) and briefly noted how casually I use ISOs in the triple digits, after noting that to use that shutter speed and aperture, I *only* needed an ISO of 1200. I was briefly boggled at just what the modern sensors can do, with sensitivities an order of magnitude greater than what I grew up with, much less the two orders of magnitude we were using playing in the dark. As an aside, one thing that annoys me every time that I actually think about it is my tendency to use "ISO" rather than "sensitivity". It is odd, however, that the standards organization is mentioned at all on film speed. I suspect that at one time, there were several competing standards used for film speed, and it was the ASA's standard that one, so that was the only one people born after 1960 have ever seen, at least until the standard was adopted by ISO. And a quick check of wikipedia confirms my hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed -- 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.
