I came across some web site and they said D100 has been recalled. I am not sure about this infor but why not check with your manufacture or retailer.
Andy -----Original Message----- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ...went digital today... very disappointing. The D100 isn't a DSLR. tv > -----Original Message----- > From: John Mustarde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ...went digital today... very disappointing. > > > So in my new home here in Arizona I found a well-stocked > camera store > just a mile from the plant. Went there, and to my surprise they had > plenty of Nikon D100's in stock. So I thought I'd give it a spin. > > First thing I noticed was that Nikon puts the lens release button on > the wrong side of the camera. Sales guy says they've been doing it > that way for years. Sheesh - good way to make ya drop a lens! > > Next thing I noticed was the slow autofocus. Sure, I was > only using a > genuine Nikon 300/4 brand new lens, so maybe it lacks some > hypersonic > something or other. Nevertheless, my antique 1996 PZ1p focuses > noticeably faster than the brand new year 2002 Nikon D100. > > Later I read this camera has something called CAM900 AF, which is > slower than the CAM1300 AF on their better film cameras. Let's see - > you're gonna charge a grand more than your film camera, > then give your > customers slower AF? Sounds like something straight out of > the Pentax > marketing book. Shame on you, Nikon - crippling an expensive camera > with second-rate AF when you could have done better. > > Then I noticed the Nikon D100 has only 1/180 flash sync. Rats again. > Another hard pill to swallow when thinking of buying a two grand > camera. If I needed to downgrade to 1/180 flash sync, I could always > buy an MZ-S, fer crying out loud! > > But in it's favor, the D100 is a pretty good looking camera, because > it looks almost exactly like a PZ1p. It's just got a little > more heft > on the bottom and a few extra buttons. At least they got > the shape and > grip right. Even has a nice PZ1p-style thumb wheel to > change aperture > - just my cup of tea. > > Like I said, I tried out the Nikon 300/4. It nearly whirred > out of my > hand - the dang focus collar spins crazily if you have the > lens in MF > and the body shooting AF! Whoof! They should put a warning label on > that thing! > > So my small foray into DSLR-land was a little revealing. It let me > know I would have to be crazy to spend two grand for a DSLR from > Nikon, at least until they get their feature set straight. Even then > I'd have to learn to live with that idiot lens release location and > those ugly barbecue-grill-paint black lenses. > > Oh, and I also got to test out the Sigma 50-500 lens. It's about the > size and weight of my Tokina 300/2.8 - in other words, it's > just plain > huge and heavy. Just imagine lugging around the weight of a > 300/2.8 to > take a photo at 50mm! Guess this one is influenced by the > longevity of > the Canon 35-350 L. Here's a hint, Sigma - send this puppy to Weight > Watchers. Give me a good ol' Pentax 300/4.5 instead any day. > > Enough rambling on the digital front. I told my wife I could wait > another few months on a Pentax DSLR, if such an animal every > materializes. Even if the feature set is no better than the > competition, at least with Pentax I'll get a lens release button on > the right side of the camera!!! > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com
