Yes, a major motivation for the 5D was not so much focusing speed (which
is good) but the ability to achieve focus *at all* in very low light.
I have no idea how it might perform in sports photography or even how to
go about using mutilple focus points. I haven't done sports photography
since my kids were in school and my only photo equipment was an OM-1,
Zuiko 50mm/1.4, 200/4 and a Vivitar 283 with fry your eggs trigger
voltage level. Still have them all (and lots more) but they're getting
lonely in the closet these days.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> Good point. The 50-200 seems to give me the most problems focusing out
> of all the D.Zuikos I have. When it's focused it seems very nice.
> Another less likely possibility is post processing.
>
> Moose already mentioned his favorable experience with AF on his two
> C*nons. As I recall part of what motivated Chuck to get his was the AF
> in low light.
> -jeff
>
> On 11/2/06, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>I doubt you would see a difference in optical quality between the
>>lenses. Photodo tested the Olympus and thought it was a pretty good
>>lens except for the focus speed which is slow. Plus your E-500 has
>>only three focus points which is really not enough, I think, for
>>good, fast follow focus. If you are talking about images made while
>>tracking moving cars it may not be achieving focus for those moving
>>objects.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|