"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 14 May 2004 at 12:11, graywolf wrote: > >> There may have been a running change in the production models. I could easily >> imagine the USB 1.1 chips becoming unavailable and a running design change being >> necessary. > >This particular Imaging Resource review was published way earlier than my >camera was produced I suspect it's simply a misinformed assumption on their >part. The *ist D digital interface spec remains USB1.1 on all current web based >documentation.
I dunno. But my ist-D downloads *much* faster into a USB 2.0 connection than into USB 1.1. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
