Re: RE: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
Shel Belinkoff wrote: From: Joseph Tainter He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he didn't bite. So the only advantage is that it will be quieter. Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-)) You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this point. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this point. How fast is fast enough? In the pre-digital age AF speed was the holy goal of photography; the single most, perhaps the only important factor in camera choice if various newsgroups postings are to be believed. Nowadays it is high ISO performance everything depends on. Yawn. Pål -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
I've only used a couple-three Pentax AF lenses, and only on two or three camera bodies. I've used one Nikon lens and one Canon lens, on their respective bodies. In similar light (daylight, normal contrasts, etc.) I didn't notice that one lens or another was faster than others. Far from a real test, and just an observation based on a small sample. Quieter focusing would be nice, more accurate focusing would be a bonus, better focusing ability in low light and low contrast situations would be wonderful. IMO, auto focus still has a way to go in order to achieve excellent results in all situations. Shel [Original Message] From: Mark Roberts Shel Belinkoff wrote: From: Joseph Tainter He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he didn't bite. So the only advantage is that it will be quieter. Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-)) You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this point. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:03:09AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: From: Joseph Tainter He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he didn't bite. So the only advantage is that it will be quieter. Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-)) You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this point. It's faster on the cheaper bodies, which have under-performing motors in the camera. With a semi-pro or better body, though, the actual operation of the focus process is around as fast with most lenses, although it has been my impression that the largest, heaviest lenses still make things difficult for the body. I'm looking forward to trying the K10D with my FA* zooms. I'm also expecting to find, from all I hear about the K100D, that the speed of decision-making in the auto-focus logic has been improved. I've used a Canon 20D with the 17-85 USM lens under indoor lighting, and there's no doubt in my mind that it is faster in operation than my *ist-D with my 28-105. I've also had a chance to check out the high-end Canon bodies with long glass, and a Nikon with the 80-400, and definitely found those to be faster overall, though not by a lot. I expect the K10D, with either the FA* 80-200 or DA* 50-135, to be faster in operation than my PZ-1p or *ist-D. My personal belief is that the DA* 50-135 will be slightly faster than the FA* 80-200, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
My expectation (hope) is that on long lenses, USM will be significantly faster. On short lenses I don't need or expect much difference. I really don't see the point of USM on short lenses (because they focus fast enough), and I don't see the point on long lenses if it doesn't yield a speed improvement. As somebody pointed out (Shel?), it would be very nice to have better low light performance. John On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:09:50 -, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:03:09AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: From: Joseph Tainter He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he didn't bite. So the only advantage is that it will be quieter. Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-)) You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this point. It's faster on the cheaper bodies, which have under-performing motors in the camera. With a semi-pro or better body, though, the actual operation of the focus process is around as fast with most lenses, although it has been my impression that the largest, heaviest lenses still make things difficult for the body. I'm looking forward to trying the K10D with my FA* zooms. I'm also expecting to find, from all I hear about the K100D, that the speed of decision-making in the auto-focus logic has been improved. I've used a Canon 20D with the 17-85 USM lens under indoor lighting, and there's no doubt in my mind that it is faster in operation than my *ist-D with my 28-105. I've also had a chance to check out the high-end Canon bodies with long glass, and a Nikon with the 80-400, and definitely found those to be faster overall, though not by a lot. I expect the K10D, with either the FA* 80-200 or DA* 50-135, to be faster in operation than my PZ-1p or *ist-D. My personal belief is that the DA* 50-135 will be slightly faster than the FA* 80-200, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
On 03/11/06, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How fast is fast enough? In the pre-digital age AF speed was the holy goal of photography; the single most, perhaps the only important factor in camera choice if various newsgroups postings are to be believed. Nowadays it is high ISO performance everything depends on. Yawn. The obvious difference between digital and film bodies is of course with a digital body you are stuck with the sensitivity/capabilities of the sensor for the lifetime of the camera whereas for film bodies you could select from a vast number of film types specific to the photographers requirements. Of course noise and sensitivity is an issue, who cares about AF speed. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
