10-04-2011, 01:45 PM
[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1317730335' post='12062']
...
It could have a better frame coverage.
[/quote]
... as in 80 AF points vs 51?... Still, it would hardly cover the remaining parts of the frame. Would be just more densed AF area in the middle, which makes it more distractive when you look from the VF IMHO... I don't think I need so many AF points as long as they're not placed near to the edges (which is hardy to happen because of the size of the AF sensor).
But could be better if it would have more cross-type points... Or maybe the new AF technology used in V1 combined with the normal mirror usage (why not?)<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />... Would not help with the price tag though...
Serkan
...
It could have a better frame coverage.
[/quote]
... as in 80 AF points vs 51?... Still, it would hardly cover the remaining parts of the frame. Would be just more densed AF area in the middle, which makes it more distractive when you look from the VF IMHO... I don't think I need so many AF points as long as they're not placed near to the edges (which is hardy to happen because of the size of the AF sensor).
But could be better if it would have more cross-type points... Or maybe the new AF technology used in V1 combined with the normal mirror usage (why not?)<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />... Would not help with the price tag though...Serkan