> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:01:47 +0200
> From: Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: F100 in a hurry... [v04.n202/21]
>
> There is little doubt in my mind that the 3 beats the F100 in performance.
> WHY? Bbecause someone at Nikon made the wrong move at the wrong time.
>
I really need this one explained to me.
What kind of "performance" are you using for your metric?
Ah, yes. The performance of the eye-controlled focus is better
on the EOS 3 v. the F100. Is that it?
Or is it the 45 AF points? The same 45 points that, well, they
*can* be used with f5.6 lenses, but in reduced capacity; some require
f4 to work completely ... and I think there are a couple that keep
working even w/ f2.8 lenses. Hm. Can't remember?
Yes, more is better, isn't it?
How about a camera that will stay locked-on to the subject it is
tracking, instead of getting all confused and focus being grabbed
by other AF points, like I've read EOS owners say happens with the
1n. How about being able to focus in lower light levels like I've
been reading *many* EOS owners say they've seen in their own
Nikon/Canon AF comparisons?
*These* are metrics of AF performance that fewer people talk about,
but are just as important to using AF as a tool.
Of course, if you're focussing (pun) on "7" being bigger than "5"
(fps), then by all means they released the F100 too early.
Chris
--
Once I lay without moving for days until, \ Christopher Somers
mistaking me for driftwood, birds landed nearby \ Rise Technology
and began speaking in murmurs of Pythagoras + www.rise.com
and winds that blew in the Himalayas. /----------------------------
-> Barry Lopez / Gallery: www.flash.net/~jboy
