WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless you press button and if you change aperture you cant see it unless you press button again. and if light changes, you cant see it unless you press button again. With true AE you get continous readout of shutter speed at all times and instantly updates if you change the aperture, not only the display but the actual shutter speed too.
face it the *istD does not offer true AE with K/M. It offers a mode, which I guess you could call one shot AE, that is better than manual but much less than conventional true AE. JCO -----Original Message----- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! Actualy, you do get shutter speed confirmation both in the viewfinder and on the top-plate. Your anger is based on simple ignorance. John On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:08:43 -0400, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be fine for you, but it aint AE. > It wasn't done this way for the last 30 years because > it isnt as good as AE. > > What you are saying is that a mode where you > have to take a manual step every time before > you expose is as good as one that fully automatic > because it becomes second nature. Its still slower > than not having to take those readings at all and > just shooting away. Not only that, it is more > vunerable to human error if you forget to remeter > the scene each time unless there is a shutter lockout > after one exposure which in itself would be another disadvantage > compared to true AE. > > I also bet you don't get indication > of camera selected shutter speed until you press the button either. > Nearly all of the Pentax cameras with AE going all the way back to the > ES/ESII did that too, something impossible with the *istD. When the > camera senses the K/M aperture setting you not only can get true AE, > you get continous and immediate feedback from the camera as to the > shutter speed/ aperture combination. With the ist D mode you need to > re-meter every time you change the aperure setting not only to shoot > but to even see what the shutter speed is going to be. NOT AS GOOD > as if they had K/M sensing. > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! > > > JCO's big gripe is with the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses. You > said, "I am with him on this one." Interestingly enough, I was not > pleased with what I read about the *istD and its workaround for K and > M lenses when I first read about it. But I really needed a digital > body, so I bought one. Once I used it, I realized that it was just > fine. In fact it's better than fine, it's very good. The green button, > as I've said, becomes an automatic, just like cocking the shutter once > was, only easier. That's why I've said that opinions based on pure > speculation are not valid. You have to shoot with it for a week or > two, then decide. Paul > On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:37 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> Again, those who are upset over the way the *istD utilizes K and M >>> lenses are, for the most part, those who haven't tried it. >> >> Where in the post you quoted below in its uncommented entirety do I >> write that I am upset over the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses? >> >> Kostas >> >>> Paul >>> On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You guys don't seem to understand the implication of abandoning >>>>>> support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no one has yet >>>>>> proven it was a cost issue either) reason to do so. They have >>>>>> crossed the line and can longer be trusted to support anything >>>>>> you > >>>>>> buy for any time as they may decide whatever >>>>>> they want to do on anything. >>>>> >>>>> That's completely irrelevant if you're the only person who feels >>>>> that way. And it appears that you're quite alone on this one. >>>> >>>> No sorry Paul, I am with him on this one. There are a few >>>> inaccuracies in JCO's mail, but I also feel bad, particularly now >>>> that I understand >>>> what they did with the MZ-60. >>>> >>>> I am now happy that the green button would work for me. I am happy >>>> to recommend the *ist-D (I am still not sold on the digital idea, >>>> which is why I am nor saying "to buy"). I am not keen to recommend >>>> even the *ist to a beginner. I was irate when I heard what they had >>>> done when they first released the *ist-D. I felt a sucker (the >>>> sucker that I >>>> was?) when I realised my MZ-50 is crippled, but took it on the chin >>>> as it is a beginner's camera. I am still worried about the slippery >>>> slope. Just like JCO I may abandon Pentax (or any manufacturer; I >>>> would never buy a BMW after what they did to Rover) irrespective of >>>> my investment, on what I would consider a matter of principle. I am >>>> currently not pissed off enough, but I cannot but feel >>>> that Pentax will abandon even the botch in the not-so-distant > future. >>>> >>>> Kostas >>>> >>> >> > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
