Yes, but....
With a poorly matched ZOOM/body, correction may not be accurate at both
ends of the zoom--must settle for sort of OK at both ends and spot on
focus in the middle.
Why is that acceptable for an "L" zoom? That was my point but I did
not articulate that clearly enough.
Mike
Canon has adopted that in the 5D Mk II and other cameras but,
unfortunately, I have a 5D Mk I. The 5D Mk II supports custom focus
data for 20 different lenses. But I doubt that it would work with my
Tokina and Tamron lenses. Fortunately, I'm not aware of any focusing
errors with those lenses.
Chuck Norcutt
manuel viet wrote:
> That's part of the reasons why I loved my Pentax *istDL ; there was a
hidden
> maintenance menu where you could finely adjust the back or front
focus of the
> camera to match perfectly with your lens.
>
> It's a shame this kind of software knob isn't widespread and made
accessible
> to the ordinary user.
>
> Le mardi 11 mai 2010 02:02:23, usher99@xxxxxxx a Ãcrit :
>
>> I never understood why improvements (or even data) on sample
>> variability and matching lenses/bodies for spot on AF is not
demanded.
>> Certainly abundant info that Canyon is no better in either
department.
>> Even Canyon microfocus adjustment for zooms doesn't really work
that
>> well at all FL's--fine for primes. Manufacturing tolerances seem to
>> produce some bad matches. There should be a hardware/software fix or
>> the body should be sent in for a good marriage. No excuses for any
>> manufacturer not to have a flagship lens work well on a flagship
body.
>
>
--
_______________________
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|