Canon lover switched to RX-100, and it was terrible! Need advice....

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
YiannisPP
Senior MemberPosts: 1,621
Like?
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...
In reply to NIK11, Feb 3, 2013

NIK11 wrote:

YiannisPP wrote:

Glad to hear it was a mistake, I couldn't believe your reaction to be honest.

Thanks, I'm not into sport. Never heard of Tyson Gay, but do remember Mike Tyson. lol, great gaff!

As for semantics and whether people mean slow in general or slow in comparison to the fastest there is, don't you think that in forums like this, one needs to be careful not to mislead other people? We are referring to a broad range of cameras in this forum and people that read these comments have a lot of cameras in mind they might consider buying, not the top 2 with fastest AF. So you cannot really write RX100 has slow AF, is sluggish and leave it there. It's just poor writing. You need to qualify it, not everybody works on the race track. In fact very few people do. The fact is that the RX100 feels incredibly fast for a compact, makes all my previous Canons feel really slow and they didn't feel like that when I was using them.

Yes, your point is well made, RX100 is amongst the fastest compacts. My S95 is slow and I find it difficult to capture active children, hence my particular interest in A/F continuous performance and my wish to upgrade.

As you say, readers deserve accurate information. I did try to expand the required qualifications you mention, although it got clouded somewhat. I am also aware that on an international forum sometimes people whose own language is not English will choose words I wouldn't. So subjecting them to the same sort of word precision might well be a lost cause. It is quite easy to have misunderstandings even in one's native language, as I can attest!!

You definitely have a point here, my native language is not English.

On a different point, there is a lot of conflicting information out there and I wonder if DPRE have stopped publishing compact A/F figures because it is quite complicated to get it right.

That's my thinking as well. Obviously AF times depend a lot on the conditions and I don't think there's a standardized test for those...

The other spectre we haven't touched on is to what extent, if at all, manufacturers finely hone their A/F algorithms to do well with standard studio A/F testing systems, maybe even to the detriment of performance in real life. Many years ago it was an open secret that in Europe car manufacturers adjusted the final gearing on cars to give the best fuel economy at precisely the test speeds of 56 and 75mph, often to the detriment of handling/acceleration.

Again, you're right about the cars so it's logical to suspect camera companies of the same. But as there's no standardized test for AF acquisition times (at least as far as I'm aware of) as there is for fuel consumption, I doubt they do that. But who knows...

Cheers,

Nick´╗┐

Cheers

Yiannis

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow