On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > * They like the small size > > It's got competition there, if perhaps not equally-featured competition. > I can also understand the desire for small size. My girlfriend really > likes the *istD because it fits her hands well. I have a bit of trouble > handling the thing, although the makes-it-heavier grip might help.
What competition do we have for a small D-SLR with a high build quality? There is nothing as small as the *ist D. The 300D is the closest and is not in the same category of camera. I like the small size because it makes it easier for me to carry the camera more often. I shoot most of my photographs while hiking (backpacking) or on vacation. In both cases I don't want to be carrying around a 3lb body with a large collection of glass. I bought my ZX-5n in 1995 largely because it was compact and I could carry it and a couple of lenses in a small amount of space (I also really liked the classic UI). The *ist D is not as compact, but it is the closest thing that I can get now. > > I expect that if you ask most members of this list why they bought > > a Pentax SLR in the first place that those would be two common answers. > > The other is probably the quality of lenses. > > IMHO Pentax has NOTHING on the other guys here, although it may > well give you better quality for the same price and have more > useful gradations in price/quality (Canon seems to have no "middle level" > lenses). The middle level lenses are a huge advantage when you are going for smaller. I'd much rather have a constant f4 zoom of high quality than a constant f2.8 zoom that weighs 2-3x as much. I like that Pentax makes mid-level lenses which are high quality but not necessarily super fast. The 28-70/4, 16-45/4, and 24-90/3.5-4.5 are all good examples of this in modern zooms. The 50/1.7, 24/2.8, 35/2, and 135/3.5 that I own are good examples in primes. > > I personally wouldn't a Canon tomorrow if all of my gear was stolen. > > The cameras and lenses are big and I don't like their UI. > > I'll tolerate big, expensive gear if it gives me capabilities that I need > and cannot get elsewhere. Not all Canon gear is big and heavy either, > although perhaps all of it worth owning is. Again, it sounds like we shoot in different situtations. If I shot in a studio or carried all of my gear in a car then I would have different preferences. I typically am carrying my gear by hand (or occasionally by bicycle) and size and weight are very big concerns. alex
