Some very good points here Shel. Every time I think I might want to switch to Canon, I remind myself that the *istD is capable of doing everything I require at the moment. Yes, the slow and small buffer is a minus, but that's about the only thing that ever gets in my way. Some shooters do need certain high technology features. I think the IS will pay off for Christian who does a lot of nature photography. I do some nature photography but primarily for amusement. So the challenge of handholding a 400 without IS is part of the fun. I will move up to a higher resolution Pentax with a faster, bigger buffer when it comes along, but I'm quite happy with the way the current camera performs.
> This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I > would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven > and wide screen TV) that are found in many "pro" cameras for a simplified > feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate > camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have > different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are > lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one, > especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just > complaining because they think Pentax "should" have a camera that meets the > top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for > Pentax's image. > > Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is > about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer > smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses > that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a "feature > set" that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know > how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric > motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have > you, in order to get a good photo. > > But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few > istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual > cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and > rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax > Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce > good photos. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > > Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM > > Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? > > > > Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > > > > > >>The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so > well they > > >>deserve it IMO. > > > > > > > > > You mean their customers asked to change the mount? > > > > > > Kostas > > > > > > > > > > > And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera > > that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of > > tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? > > > > Probably.... > >
