> This is, however, not a universal phenomenon of DSLRs and AF lenses. In
> fact, the E-1 is one of the poorer performing AF systems, particularly
> with the 50-200.
>
> When I was looking for my first DSLR, the performance of the E-1 with
> 50-200 in a store was a major factor in my decision to go elsewhere.
> Focusing on a moderately lit, but by no means dark, area with lots of
> contrasty detail, it took some time to focus at 200 mm, quite leisurely.
> A cheaper camera of another brand with a similar zoom focused on the
> same spot instantly.
>
> You may have noticed that Oly has quietly announced a new version of the
> 50-200.
Yes I noticed that and am starting to save up for a new one - and thinking
about how I can convince the wife that this is an absolutely necessary
upgrade.
> That's cool, and more power to you. But for others who might read your
> preferences, be aware that most contemporary AF systems on DLSRs work
> well and quickly and the best of them work well even in very dim light
> and at long focal lengths. And some of the better systems/lenses allow
> MF after getting close with AF without any switches, etc.
True, and I am very biased of course. I have almost no experience with any
other brands than Olympus. I tried Canon a long time a go but did not like
how it fitted in my hand. I did not take it out for any serious
photography. I have also tried Nikon and liked them. Actually I would have
bought D200 if I could have used the old OM lenses on it.
But I am happy with my E-1, after all it is a true full frame camera - you
better use the whole frame because you can't afford to throw too many pixels
away!
>
> Moose
J
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|