geez Tom, we get it already... :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future
> I agree Herb. For me, point #2 is pertinent. I miss potential shots > because the buffer is full. > > Tom C. > > > >From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future > >Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:00:17 -0400 > > > >in my case, it's because the current bodies don't provide the functions i > >need to make pictures that i was in a position to capture, but the body > >didn't do what i needed. two things are 1) focus tracking as the object > >moves about in the frame. Canon and Nikon's high end offerings do it. the > >*istD works this way only if you keep the sensor that locked focus on the > >subject, and 2) much larger buffer and faster write speed. for 1), ever try > >to track a flying bird and keep it in focus with a long lens? i use an FA* > >400/5.6 for this and it's a bit too long, but you need it for eagles over > >water. a FA* 300/4.5 would be ideal for this kind of work, but by the time > >i found that out, they weren't available in the US anymore. for 2), the > >usual way to shoot small active birds is to be in continuous mode and snap > >a frame whenever i anticipate an interesting pose. this could be 15 or 20 > >snaps in a one minute period. the camera can't possibly do this, while > >there are 4 other cameras that can easily do this, and a couple that come > >close. > > > >Herb... > > >
