AF illuminator on the Maxxum 7D

Alan Browne wrote in
:

one? B&H was selling them for around $4,500 in 1999. And the RD-3000
Vectris-based system never had a chance).

See Magnus.

huh?

Or is it Bill Tuthill who has the RD-175 (Sorry: I snipped that little
bit!)

yeah, OK, no, that's me.

But I don't know what to comment :-)

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Nostrobino wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

Nostrobino wrote:


illuminator will be a shortcoming for anyone. The low-light photographer
will still run out of usable shutter speeds long before he runs out of
autofocusing capability.

What lenses are you using in low light?


In the case I just tried then, it was Minolta's cheapo 28-100/3.5-5.6
that comes with the Maxxum 5 kit, and ISO 400. I suppose I should put on
a 50/1.7 and try again at some higher film speed.

Okay. Just tried that in my windowless kitchen with the lights out, a
little light coming in from the living room (there's no door there). With
the 50/1.7 in place and ISO set to 800 (which is faster than any film I
generally use), by pointing at the darker areas of the kitchen I can get
the shutter speed down to 1/8, wide open of course, and it still
autofocuses rapidly--virtually instantaneously in fact--and positively. I
don't see how an AF illuminator could do any better than that.

Quite easilly. When it can't focus w/o the illumintaor, the illuminator
will come on and the lens should focus (and that's the point).

That's the fastest lens I own. I also have a Sigma 28/1.8 but that should
be about the same, the AF still working at light levels lower than I'd
ever hand hold.

Of course I never really shoot sans flash in light that low anyway. In
fact even WITH flash I rarely do.

Tripod, cable release and away you go... _much_ lower.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that I just never have any need or desire to do
that.

If I did, and the camera couldn't autofocus (which would have to be awfully,
awfully dark) I'd just use a small flashlight as an AF illuminator.
Certainly not much additional bother if I were already setting up a tripod
and plugging in a remote control.

N.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Nostrobino wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

Nostrobino wrote:


illuminator will be a shortcoming for anyone. The low-light photographer
will still run out of usable shutter speeds long before he runs out of
autofocusing capability.

What lenses are you using in low light?


In the case I just tried then, it was Minolta's cheapo 28-100/3.5-5.6
that comes with the Maxxum 5 kit, and ISO 400. I suppose I should put on
a 50/1.7 and try again at some higher film speed.

Okay. Just tried that in my windowless kitchen with the lights out, a
little light coming in from the living room (there's no door there). With
the 50/1.7 in place and ISO set to 800 (which is faster than any film I
generally use), by pointing at the darker areas of the kitchen I can get
the shutter speed down to 1/8, wide open of course, and it still
autofocuses rapidly--virtually instantaneously in fact--and positively. I
don't see how an AF illuminator could do any better than that.

Quite easilly. When it can't focus w/o the illumintaor, the illuminator
will come on and the lens should focus (and that's the point).

That's the fastest lens I own. I also have a Sigma 28/1.8 but that should
be about the same, the AF still working at light levels lower than I'd
ever hand hold.

Of course I never really shoot sans flash in light that low anyway. In
fact even WITH flash I rarely do.

Tripod, cable release and away you go... _much_ lower.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that I just never have any need or desire to do
that.

If I did, and the camera couldn't autofocus (which would have to be awfully,
awfully dark) I'd just use a small flashlight as an AF illuminator.
Certainly not much additional bother if I were already setting up a tripod
and plugging in a remote control.

N.