Is it possible to have "too nice" a lens?

[e_dawg]

No, no. Don't need infinity focus, but maybe 6 feet away at 17 mm and 12 feet away at 35 mm so that you actually test the resolution of the lens and not just overall contrast (like it would be if you're shooting from only 7 feet away @ 35 mm). Just referring to the best practice of keeping distance to test target somewhat proportional to focal length in such tests. You know what I mean...

[dr4gon]

You could ask the same thing of Canon and Olympus (no screw drive on any body; all focusing done in the lens), and what about Sony & Minolta's attempt at that with SSM?

But for Nikon specifically, what happened was that the entry level D40-D60 bodies did not include an AF screw-drive motor to save cost and weight. They became so popular that lens mfr's started adding AF motors to most of their Nikon-mount lenses. If they didn't they'd be losing out a significant Nikon user base. But it's not like they had to do too much, since their Canon and Olympus -mount lenses all have built-in AF motors anyways.

Oh thanks. I was just wondering why Nikon's had built in motors and they didn't use the standard screw drive mount. I did not know the entry level Nikons did not even have it. The Sony is my first SLR, so I'm new to the whole photography thing...

[DonSchap]

The α700 has a two-speed focus motor drive, so its response with lenses is quite a bit different. I kind of like it, personally. I suggest getting one and appreciating it. nudge nudge

One more thing ... I'm not complaining. LOL

[e_dawg]

The α700 has a two-speed focus motor drive, so its response with lenses is quite a bit different. I kind of like it, personally. I suggest getting one and appreciating it. nudge nudge

Was that directed at me Don? Not sure, but if it was, I did try out the A700 after getting the A900 so I could use the A700 as a virtual 1.5x TC of sorts. But the A700 did not take. Didn't like the colours and overall IQ of the files enough to keep it at the time. In retrospect, I could have created a custom RAW profile with the DNG editor, and used Adobe's Standard / beta 2 RAW profile, as it seems to be decent (noticeably better than the old ACR 4.3/4.4 profiles IMO).

[DonSchap]

No ... I was just pointing out that the α700 works a little different than some. I highly recommend (to anyone) trying it out if you have not. The α900 is a whole different animal and I wasn't really going to suggest that anyone step their shooting up to that degree. That's a bit beyond the "standard shot", don't you believe? I believe in keeping it REAL.

The α700 is now under a grand ... straight from SONY. That is a true bargain for what that camera can do with a good lens.

[dr4gon]

I think the A200-350 has the A700 AF drive. At least according to Alphamountworld.com's reviews of the cameras in which they refer to the fast AF over the A100 since it uses the same system as the a700.

[DonSchap]

How fast does the A300 move the 70-200mm f/2.8?

[dr4gon]

lol that's subjective and hard to say. It's very fast at 70mm, not so fast at 300mm. I really don't know

Alphamountworld

4.. Autofocus speed and accuracy - The Sony A300's 9 point AF performed extremely well just like its other two siblings the A200 and A350. Sharing the same autofocus motor as the Sony A700, it is noticeably 1.7x faster than the A100. Users of the A100 will be impressed immediately, and users of the Sony A700 will be delighted to see that the A300 can keep up pretty well with the A700 in good to average light. In very dim light however, the A300 has some trouble obtaining focus lock without the aid of auto focus assist on the flash unit. Overall however, I find the A300 workable, and not downright frustrating in low light like the A100 was and generally in all aspects of its autofocus performance

Guess I forgot the second part, so it's probably pretty close.