Toralf Lund wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: >> Frankly, the AF is so primitive on the 5n that I consider it a MF body. >> When I had mine, I tried AF a couple times, turned it off and never used >> it again. It was dog-slow in comparison to every other AF body I've >> owned (even the circa-1988 Nikon F801). >> > Really? > > I have only one other AF body, and that's a Pentax PZ-20 which I suppose > have a similar AF setup to the MZ-5n > > I've tried a few Canon/Nikons though, including some of the digitals, > and their AF didn't really strike me as faster. I haven't tested any > high-end bodies, or the lenses, though (but the MZ-5n was not really > high-end either, was it?). > > But that's also an age-old discussion on this list...
The primary issue with the MZ-5n is its lack of a cross sensor. Linear sensors are only sensitive to contrast in one orientation and perform much less well. That's why essentially every other maker has been using at least centre cross sensor since the mid 90's. But I found the MZ-5n to lock on noticably slower and hunt a lot more than even the primitive AF on the F801 (which has one linear sensor, and is a 1st-gen AF body comparable to an SF1) or the F65 and D50 that I used to own (Those two share the same AF unit, and the F65 is otherwise comparable or inferior to a MZ-5n in features). My Rebel XS was also noticably faster at locking on (None of these bodies could really be called fast, but teh difference was noticable). I wouldn't even consider comparing a MZ-5n's AF to my current F100, or the EOS 3 and F90x that were my earlier high-performance AF bodies (the F100 and EOS 3 in particular run rings around any Pentax AF body in performance, but are also true Pro bodies barely a step down from Nikon and Canon's highest-end models) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
