Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Here we go again: what is your knowledge of that particular test, the >conditions it was done in, the procedures, the points of comparison ? Having owned - and still use a N90s on top of a digital camera - I know from experience in professional sports shooting that it is no way anywhere near as fast as a Nikon F5, having owned one, or the EOS1n, having owned one of them too. The N90 is nowhere near as reliable, ergonomic, or fast in focusing. It's certainly fast enough for most people's uses. No doubt about it. AF is pretty much useful for most situations where it works with just about any AF camera being manufactured. But that wasn't what was being tested. Absolute raw speed. And there the F5 is still king - when used with the silent wave lenses. And it's darn close to the EOS1n with even body-focused lenses. But tests often prove the testing methodology, not the tested subject. Were these tests done with silent wave lenses? In real life, with a very heavy emphasis on sports shooting, I have done the real world test. The N90 is a competent camera, but it's not in the same class as the F5 or EOS1n. Or, I'm willing to bet, the new Minolta 9. But I have no experience with it. Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch The best lack all conviction, while the worst \ Are full of passionate intensity. -William Butler Yeats [The Second Coming]