Paul, I am just about where you are. At this stage of what I do - portraits, weddings, events, some sports and scenics, the *istD is doing just fine. The buffer thing gets in the way sometimes, but I have to work around it the best I can. Most everything else works well enough for what I do. I'm not a huge proponent of IS or AF - I don't think that I would probably pay for an IS lens anyway. Usually I am in need of either lighter lenses or have moving subjects where the IS is really of no help. The amount of automation that I need is more than present in the current *istD.
-- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, June 2, 2005, 11:16:30 AM, you wrote: pcn> Some very good points here Shel. Every time I think I might pcn> want to switch to Canon, I remind myself that the *istD is pcn> capable of doing everything I require at the moment. Yes, the pcn> slow and small buffer is a minus, but that's about the only thing pcn> that ever gets in my way. Some shooters do need certain high pcn> technology features. I think the IS will pay off for Christian pcn> who does a lot of nature photography. I do some nature pcn> photography but primarily for amusement. So the challenge of pcn> handholding a 400 without IS is part of the fun. I will move up pcn> to a higher resolution Pentax with a faster, bigger buffer when pcn> it comes along, but I'm quite happy with the way the current pcn> 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.... >> >>
