On 29 Apr 2001, at 0:38, Eduardo Carone Costa Júnior wrote:
Hi Ken,
At least we agree to disagree! No. That's not true... perhaps a slight
misunderstanding.
Of course a camera AF does not have a gear box, as a automobile does. But my
analogy was more focused --- no pun intended --- on a
Hi Ken,
At least we agree to disagree! No. That's not true... perhaps a slight
misunderstanding.
Of course a camera AF does not have a gear box, as a automobile does. But my
analogy was more focused --- no pun intended --- on a car drive shaft.
Perhaps it's due to my poor English, as I'm not
- Original Message -
From: Todd Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: OT: autofocus motor
I know there will be a loss of power, I just don't expect it to be very
much. I suppose if you have a TC/extension tubes with the shaft that goes
Hi Ken,
As a lawyer, I am not qualified to discuss about this subject to the same
extent of, for instance, an engineer. However, as a classic cars
admirer/owner who tries to understand and service them by myself, I like to
improve my knowledge concerning these aspects a mechanical machine.
I
]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: OT: autofocus motor
Todd wrote:
I would think so. I would also think that motors in the camera may fail
sooner if large heavy lenses are used a lot, as then the likely
underpowered motor will have to work harder, trying to do the job
- Original Message -
From: Eduardo Carone Costa Júnior [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: OT: autofocus motor
Todd wrote:
I would think so. I would also think that motors in the camera may fail
sooner if large heavy lenses are used
Sounds to me like the teleconverter was damaged, like it had been dropped
or maybe sand got into the coupling. I think a teleconverter should not
add significant strain unless it's damaged or a very poor design.
Todd
At 08:57 PM 4/20/01 -0300, you wrote:
Hi,
What you wrote is absolutely
Eduardo wrote:
ECCJ Another point is the use of teleconverters and extension tubes that are AF
ECCJ compatible. Due to the adding of couplings, the stress on the motor would
ECCJ also be increased. Do you agree? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the AF
ECCJ works just like a car transmission
I don't know too much about Pentax AF motors. I think the MZ series all
have the same motor (except MZ-M). The PZ-1p's motor is significantly
stronger than the MZ motor. As for adding teleconverters and extension
tubes, yes that should increase the stress due to extra mass of the
coupling and
John Francis wrote:
That's probably because you were pushing the limits of the AF system.
A small-aperture lens (f5.6?) and a 1.4x teleconverter is f8 - right
at the edge of the envelope for reliable AF performance. A 2xTC would
give f11, which is too small an aperture for AF in most
On 20 Apr 2001, at 20:57, Eduardo Carone Costa Jnior wrote:
Hi,
What you wrote is absolutely correct. However, I believe you're missing the
point. I can't remember clearly if the AF system hunted or not before
locking on a subject, but the AF motor of that camera --- that is not as
strong
Yes, that TC had a shaft to operate the AF and I'm
sure it was working properly; otherwise, the lens front element --- no IF ---
wouldn't be turning.
As I said,it might be due to the not so
precise built of that TC, as Rob Studdert reports a similar experiment where
there was no loss of AF
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:09:00 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
I tested an MZ-50, Kenko MC7 AF 2X TC and slow Sigma AF zoom in a
shop the other day and found that adding the TC caused no reduction in the
AF speed and no disturbing noise from the body.
My Kenko MC7 has never caused any problem on
I would think so. I would also think that motors in the camera may fail
sooner if large heavy lenses are used a lot, as then the likely
underpowered motor will have to work harder, trying to do the job of a
larger motor.
Todd
At 05:08 PM 4/18/01 -0300, you wrote:
What about AF motors
Hi!
recently we had a discussion in our local mailing list about autofocus
motors. What about Pentax: as it seems, AF motors are placed in the lenses
not in the camera bodies, or I'm wrong? Which way is better?
Regards,
Atvars
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
Pentax has the motor in the body, except with the ME-F and SMC-FA 35-70mm
lens. It's hard to say which is better, it's probably more personal
preference. With the motor in the lens it makes the lens larger and
heavier (but since there is no motor in the body it can be smaller and
lighter).
16 matches
Mail list logo
