Well...
Canons don't always get what you exåect. I danish guy wrote this at
Photo.net:
Can anybody help. I have just been to Miami to shoot for a danish magazine
and around all my photos (90%) is out of focus ? i use a EOS 1Ds camara and
with EF 24-70 L USM - EF 100 USM macro and a 70-200 L USM
On 17/1/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well...
Canons don't always get what you exåect. I danish guy wrote this at
Photo.net:
Can anybody help. I have just been to Miami to shoot for a danish magazine
and around all my photos (90%) is out of focus ? i use a EOS 1Ds camara and
with
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter speed necessary to freeze movent
must be divided by the crop factor: If i.e. a 250mm is used: 1/250 divided
by i.e. 1.5 = 1/375 sec.
90%
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter speed necessary to freeze movent
must be divided by the crop factor: If i.e. a 250mm is used: 1/250 divided
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Cotty wrote:
Well cut the fellow a little slack, Cotty. Perhaps he just isn't too
bright. After all, he *is* a Canon user. ;-)
ARGHH
Point taken LOL
I thought Jens shoots Pentax! ;-)))
Kostas
I thought Jens shoots Pentax! ;-)))
better shoot with Pentax than being shot by Canon ;-)
Bedo.
On 17/1/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter speed necessary to freeze movent
must be divided by
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens
comments)
I mean for crying out loud, it's a 1Ds - there *is no crop factor*
involved - it's a full frame camera. What planet do these people
come from ?
Uranus.
Or if not ur's, somebody's
- From: Cotty
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
I mean for crying out loud, it's a 1Ds - there *is no crop factor*
involved - it's a full frame camera. What planet do these people come
from ?
Uranus.
Or if not ur's, somebody's.
This allows me to bring
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
On 17/1/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop
. januar 2005 10:24
Til: pentax list
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
On 17/1/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well...
Canons don't always get what you exåect. I danish guy wrote this at
Photo.net:
Can anybody help. I have just been to Miami to shoot
(was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter speed necessary to freeze movent
must be divided by the crop factor: If i.e. a 250mm is used: 1/250
does.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 2:01 AM
Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
I agree.
But my point was that there's no locking on to the subject. It's
Herb Chong wrote:
the 1Ds does lock on a subject and track its motion provided that it
stays under any one of the focus points. it will track a moving bird
or football player provided that you aim the camera roughly aimed
correctly. no Pentax camera does this well enough to really useful,
but
On 17/1/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:
I agree, Cotty. He probably had the camera choose the wrong focus points
most of the time. Furthermore 1/250 sec. is perhaps a bit on the slow side.
Yes but for what focal length? and at what ISO?? And what was the
condition of the
-
Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 17. januar 2005 12:48
Til: pentax list
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor
If we knew, could we send them back?
Cotty wrote:
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter speed necessary to freeze movent
must be divided by the crop factor: If i.e. a 250mm is
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 17. januar 2005 12:48
Til: pentax list
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter
Oooh, good one!
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
T answer his question: Yes, there's is a difference. Due to the grater
enlargement (crop factor) the shutter speed necessary to freeze movent
must be divided by the crop
PROTECTED]
Sendt: 17. januar 2005 22:42
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Just the Canon, and the Kodak semi twins, (c/n), are full frame as far
as I can recall.
Jens Bladt wrote:
I don't know the 1Ds. But, I believe 95% of all
. januar 2005 02:46
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
You're right and a good example of why Pentax abandoned marketing the
MZ-D or whatever it would have been called.
Jens Bladt wrote:
Didn't Contax make one too?
Jens Bladt
mailto
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. januar 2005 00:53
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
tracking and locking are the same thing in most manufacturer's literature.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED
-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Yes. ...what they all will say, in order to sell. Don't believe everything
you read in an ad!
I guess tracking describes the currently available AF functions better than
locking.
What they mean by locking is simply
On 16/1/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:
I handled one of the very first five Canon D1's, when they first came to
Europe (2001?) at a Canon presentation in Cork, Ireland. It had 45 focus
points. The viewfinder was totally covered with focus points - they lit up
like the neon lights of
:48 AM
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
About locking onto something: To me this means focusing on a subject,
then
stay focused at the same subject, even if it moves. No camera that I know
of
does this. Not even the Canon D1.
The 1D can do
: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
About locking onto something: To me this means focusing on a subject,
then
stay focused at the same subject, even if it moves. No camera that I know
of
does this. Not even the Canon D1.
The 1D can do this no problem. It also has predictive focussing so
every time isn't the issue. 90% is good enough to make not using it when
available stupid.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens
]
Sendt: 17. januar 2005 01:33
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
every time isn't the issue. 90% is good enough to make not using it when
available stupid.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED
, January 14, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Herb Chong wrote:
you obviously haven't done any lately then. even the *istD locks onto
flying
birds. and it's one of the slowest out there nowadays at continuous AF.
That's not the same as locking on.
]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
But _as Jens said_ it is not the same as locking on in weaponry, which
is an active system compared to autofocus. Not the correct
terminology, I know
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. januar 2005 00:04
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
the Nikon and Canon cameras can track an object wandering across the FOV
once it has acquired focus once
tracking and locking are the same thing in most manufacturer's literature.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments
@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
In any case, I suspect Jens is saying that locking on in (autofocus)
photography is not the same as locking on using guided weaponry. In
other words, the weaponry will stay
Message -
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Herb Chong wrote:
you obviously haven't done any lately then. even the *istD locks onto
flying
birds
-
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:19 AM
Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Cameras cannot lock on to anything. Like an electronic weapon system in an
F18-Hornet. I wish it could. It can
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
In any case, I suspect Jens is saying that locking on in (autofocus)
photography is not the same as locking on using guided weaponry. In
other words, the weaponry will stay locked on to its target unless
drastic
@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:19 AM
Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Cameras cannot lock on to anything. Like an electronic weapon system in an
F18-Hornet. I wish it could. It can only focus on a subject/distance. Then
perhaps refocus
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:19 AM
Subject: RE: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
Cameras cannot lock on to anything. Like an electronic weapon system in an
F18-Hornet
On 2005-01-11, at 00:47, John Coyle wrote:
My experience with the AF of the MZ-S and the *istD tells me that the
MZ-S is far better than the digital, with any of the lens I have used
on both cameras. I find the MZ-S very quick and accurate, and able to
AF in very dim conditions and low
Boy, you have me confused. I have shot a lot of weddings, and I don't
recall action shots being a part of it. If you can't focus follow someone
walking down the aisle, then perhaps you might consider that action.
I never use AF for weddings.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, January 11, 2005,
Bruce Dayton wrote on 11.01.05 16:29:
Boy, you have me confused. I have shot a lot of weddings, and I don't
recall action shots being a part of it. If you can't focus follow someone
walking down the aisle, then perhaps you might consider that action.
I never use AF for weddings.
Bruce, it's
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens
comments)
Boy, you have me confused. I have shot a lot of weddings, and I
don't
recall action shots being a part of it. If you can't focus follow
someone
walking down the aisle
Sylwek wrote:
And that was a reason why I had to sell *istD - disappointment during weddings
at low light.
Then Bruce wrote:
Boy, you have me confused. I have shot a lot of weddings, and I don't recall
action shots being a part of it.
I believe he was referring to the ancient custom, still
I believe he was referring to the ancient custom, still practiced in some
remote villages, wherein the bridesmaids perform a whirling sword dance
while tossing babies in the air, while the groom's friends ride a circle
around them on half-wild horses batting a severed sheep's head with long
Hello Sylwester,
Guess I'm with Shel on this one. My experience with AF is that it is
either inprecise or that it tends to cause you to compose poorer than
you would have using manual focus.
Here is my reasoning. The AF sensor (doesn't matter camera brand) is
of a certain size. When the focal
be
fooled into locking on the wrong thing first and after that, all bets are
off.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sylwester Pietrzyk pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom
on the wrong thing first and after that, all bets are
HC off.
HC Herb
HC - Original Message -
HC From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HC To: Sylwester Pietrzyk pentax-discuss@pdml.net
HC Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:29 AM
HC Subject: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens
-
Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. januar 2005 01:20
Til: Herb Chong
Emne: Re: *istD AF performance (was Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments)
There are an awful lot of possible points of focus on a person - ear,
eye, nose, mouth, chin, forehead, etc. Locking on to what is exactly
My experience with the AF of the MZ-S and the *istD tells me that the MZ-S
is far better than the digital, with any of the lens I have used on both
cameras. I find the MZ-S very quick and accurate, and able to AF in very
dim conditions and low contrast. On the other hand, using the *istD at
49 matches
Mail list logo
