Andy Rouse for example dumped his Canon film gear for the 645. He only kept the D60 for super telephoto stuff with a 500mm and the focal multiplier - cant really blame him as this would not be possible in MF!!
On his website he says of the 645: "The light meter itself has proven to be spot on and compares favourably with a hand held light meter which allows you to forget about one more technicality when trying to get the right shot in difficult conditions. Likewise the autofocus is as good as any other ..." In the magazine he reviewed the 645 for he said how it was like a breath of fresh air after the metering on his canons which were never right and/or reliable. Now tell me how adding extra metering segments can make the metering better than 'spot on'? Its what the camera does with them rather than how many you have. As for AF points, many people prefer to switch off all but the centre point and hold/recompose - I am firmly in this camp. That way I don't have to think about which point is selected - its much faster. The only use for multiple AF points is if you use auto select and don't bother to think about it - just leave it to pure chance whether it gets the right point or not. > -----Original Message----- > From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 19 February 2003 16:02 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: More on the *ist > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > I don't disagree necessarily, but playing devils advocate - we won > > know the *ist has 'better' AF and metering than MZ-S, merely 'better > > specced'. Other marques have had more points in both for a > > long time > > and still motorsports and wildlife pros switch to Pentax (for better > > metering particularly in these specific examples)... > > Seriously? This is common? > > tv > > > > >
