An Elmo 6000AF sold on ebay.co.uk yesterday for £42. I did think about bidding myself as my eyes are getting worse. What put me off was the size and weight of it.
I was surprised the price went that high. That said, you don't see many AF's on there. Has anyone got an AF camera?If so, how good is the autofocus on it? I'd have thought It'd be worse than the first generation of video cams (eg slow, sluggish, hunting problems etc)
Mondo77
Elmo 6000AF
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
ultramarine
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:16 pm
- Real name: George Patoulidis
- Location: Greece
-
themagickite
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:30 pm
-
super8man
- Senior member
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
- Real name: Michael Nyberg
- Location: The Golden State
- Contact:
No sense correcting the crowd...the crowd knows all. But my Elmo 3000AF rocks and autofocuses perfectly. Faster than most digital cameras.
http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/super8_40.html
http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/super8_40.html
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/
Super8man,
I had it in my head that I'd read an article somewhere (don't ask me where!) that the autofocus on super 8 cameras was surprisingly good. I'd have thought the opposite so I convinced myself, almost, that I had imagined the article. I did wonder why so many people were after the Elmo. There was quite a few bidders.
I'm a regular visitor to you site by the way, and admit re-reading/re-visiting your reviews. Reminds me of my youth when I was too young (ie penniless) to buy any s8 camera but admired them from afar.
I had it in my head that I'd read an article somewhere (don't ask me where!) that the autofocus on super 8 cameras was surprisingly good. I'd have thought the opposite so I convinced myself, almost, that I had imagined the article. I did wonder why so many people were after the Elmo. There was quite a few bidders.
I'm a regular visitor to you site by the way, and admit re-reading/re-visiting your reviews. Reminds me of my youth when I was too young (ie penniless) to buy any s8 camera but admired them from afar.
-
Matthew Buick
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:09 pm
- Real name: Joe T Nondescript.
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Just like me and Camcorders not so long ago...mondo77 wrote: Reminds me of my youth when I was too young (ie penniless) to buy any s8 camera but admired them from afar.
In November 2005 I discovered the Kolumbus.fi webpage with the collection of Super 8 Cameras.
And I haven't looked back since.
I need more cameras. :lol:
Matthew Buick.
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Training to be a CBT Therapist. Deeply passionate about photography. Getting back into shooting Super 8.
My flickr profile: http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewbuick/
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Training to be a CBT Therapist. Deeply passionate about photography. Getting back into shooting Super 8.
My flickr profile: http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewbuick/
Hi,
my Canon 514XL-S AF is faster and preciser than expected. (And much better than the AF-Elmos, AF-Chinons and AF-Revues I've tested before.) Not to mention that a focus set to something between 4 and 10m and a zoom smaller than 30mm will give you a perfect focus from 2m to infinity anyway with the normal auto-exposure on a sunny day... . In other words: Focusing in the non-tele-range is more or less obsolete anyway. That's why the "snap-shot"-marks on the focus-rings of several Elmos, Fujicas, ... work as good (or even better) than any autofocus ;)
Jörg
my Canon 514XL-S AF is faster and preciser than expected. (And much better than the AF-Elmos, AF-Chinons and AF-Revues I've tested before.) Not to mention that a focus set to something between 4 and 10m and a zoom smaller than 30mm will give you a perfect focus from 2m to infinity anyway with the normal auto-exposure on a sunny day... . In other words: Focusing in the non-tele-range is more or less obsolete anyway. That's why the "snap-shot"-marks on the focus-rings of several Elmos, Fujicas, ... work as good (or even better) than any autofocus ;)
Jörg
This space was left intenionally blank.
-
super8man
- Senior member
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:51 pm
- Real name: Michael Nyberg
- Location: The Golden State
- Contact:
agreed on the depth of field aspect but let's remember that focus is shorter in the front than in the back. So, while we all enjoy seeing the street scene in the back, we grimace at the soft focus on the nose of the person since they are inside the close distance end of the depth of field.
So, let's not put down the efforts of the AF lens in the super 8 cams - they used super light focus resistance on the barrel, 8-30mm zoom ranges (say 3X) and worked remarkably well for their intended purpose. Like I said, they are of a magnitude faster than my Nikon Coolpix 950 built, what, 20-25 years LATER???!! Du-oh. Sorry Nikon, B&H beat you to it, as did Elmo too.
Cheers,
Mike
PS - Thanks for the shout out on the website. I appreciate it.
So, let's not put down the efforts of the AF lens in the super 8 cams - they used super light focus resistance on the barrel, 8-30mm zoom ranges (say 3X) and worked remarkably well for their intended purpose. Like I said, they are of a magnitude faster than my Nikon Coolpix 950 built, what, 20-25 years LATER???!! Du-oh. Sorry Nikon, B&H beat you to it, as did Elmo too.
Cheers,
Mike
PS - Thanks for the shout out on the website. I appreciate it.
My website - check it out...
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/
http://super8man.filmshooting.com/
Matthew,
Gateshead, eh? Remember that classic line from Aufwiedersein, Pet: "Sex is in its infancy in Gateshead"? I'm a Wallsend baby.
Super8man/Jorg,
Can you explain, in laymans terms, why the focus is shorter in the front? I'd rather it was the other way round and I suspect most people would.
To tell you the truth I've never had the confidence to use the "snap shot" markings. I've always done it the "proper" way. I'm always worried it'll come back out of focus. But my eyes are getting worse - which is one reason why I noticed the AF camera on sale. I've noticed most dioptre corrections go upto +4. My eyes were + 4.25, maybe even +4.50 last check. They're overdue another check.
That said I can easily focus with the Canon 814 AZ(max dioptre =+4). The viewfinder is big and clear. Everything I shoot with that is in focus. Whereas with the Nizo 156 xl I have to rely rely on snap shot.
Here's something I shot on the Nizo, on Trix x, using guesswork. It isn't great but it's the first thing I've shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QHPCqTYuEI
Gateshead, eh? Remember that classic line from Aufwiedersein, Pet: "Sex is in its infancy in Gateshead"? I'm a Wallsend baby.
Super8man/Jorg,
Can you explain, in laymans terms, why the focus is shorter in the front? I'd rather it was the other way round and I suspect most people would.
To tell you the truth I've never had the confidence to use the "snap shot" markings. I've always done it the "proper" way. I'm always worried it'll come back out of focus. But my eyes are getting worse - which is one reason why I noticed the AF camera on sale. I've noticed most dioptre corrections go upto +4. My eyes were + 4.25, maybe even +4.50 last check. They're overdue another check.
That said I can easily focus with the Canon 814 AZ(max dioptre =+4). The viewfinder is big and clear. Everything I shoot with that is in focus. Whereas with the Nizo 156 xl I have to rely rely on snap shot.
Here's something I shot on the Nizo, on Trix x, using guesswork. It isn't great but it's the first thing I've shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QHPCqTYuEI
-
Matthew Buick
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:09 pm
- Real name: Joe T Nondescript.
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
