Re: Everything new is obscure again
Aaron, I think I am right in saying that Continuous AF only works in Sport mode on the DS. I assumed it did the same on the DS2, but presumably Pentax have added back a bit of functionality if it also works in Av and M. I have to say that I don't change ISO from shot to shot. If I did so, then perhaps your thumb-tapping technique would be easier. John On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:05:00 +0100, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What modes is continuous focus disabled in -- the programs? Works fine for me in M and AV on the DS2. As for the control set, I miss the vertical grip and front dial, but do not miss the implementation of drive mode and ISO on the D, which require you to change position relative to the camera to see what you're doing on the top LCD and also change your hand position -- why people prefer to do this instead of tapping their thumb three times while just pulling their eye away from the finder is beyond me. Manual white balance on the D was also quite counter-intuitive in comparison. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Everything new is obscure again Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:42 am Size: 4K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Clearly Bob doesn't have a D! :-) The later bodies lack several of the D's capabilities, like continuous focus in all exposure modes; wireless flash using the RTF to trigger the remote unit; and most functions available via knobs rather than menu-diving. All of these are useful, at least for me. The wireless flash system is excellent. There are no "prototyping issues" of any significance whatsoever. This is the preferred body EXCEPT for those who like to shoot continuously. All the other bodies are faster. They are also cheaper, which is obviously a consideration, too. One or more of the latest bodies will not work with any flash other than (I think) the (expensive but good) AF360FTZ. John On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:45:04 +0100, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen, With respect to Question #1: All the cameras have the same sensor and basic electrical components. D was the first - uses CF cards, capable of taking a battery pack/vertical grip. DS was the second - uses SD cards, slightly different controls & instruction set. (capabilities are identical to the D, bigger LCD for chimping?) No vertical grip. DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta prism. (capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip. DS2, DL2 - introduced with bigger LDC on the back of the camera and a software upgrade (at least in the DS2). (Software upgrade is available on the Pentax USA site so you can update your DS if you have one - 5 minutes with a high speed internet connection - Thanks Pentax!) Bottom line is these are all a family of cameras based on the same electronics and capable of delivering the same digital results. The first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a great camera with everything you need. The DL cuts some corners (viewfinder) to drop the price for the mass market. Regards, Bob S. On 5/17/06, Stephen D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the people in the know. 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will be "What kind of photographer are you?&quo
Re: Everything new is obscure again
The later bodies lack several of the D's capabilities, like continuous focus in all exposure modes; Firmware v2 allowed AF-C operation in all modes on the DS body. The DL, DS2, DL2 all had it to start with. ... most functions available via knobs rather than menu-diving. There have been many debates about this. I find the DS layout nearly ideal, better than the D in several respects (like having ISO setting on a dedicated Fn menu rather than having to change the selector mode and look in a different place to set it, etc). Both are functional and work well overall. It is so rare that I touch the Menu button at all, the notion of "menu-diving" seems overstated. I do use the Fn menu often ... usually to change ISO setting. This is the preferred body EXCEPT for those who like to shoot continuously. All the other bodies are faster. They are also cheaper, which is obviously a consideration, too. I don't know about "preferred". I prefer the DS over the D. One or more of the latest bodies will not work with any flash other than (I think) the (expensive but good) AF360FTZ. The DL/DL2 bodies only support P-TTL flash metering, so to get all the body's features you need a P-TTL capable flash unit. That's the AF360FGZ or AF540FGZ from Pentax, or the Sigma EF 500 DG Super. Of course, any of the bodies will work with any manual flash unit, or any flash unit that contains its own auto-metering unit built-in. Wireless control of a fully dedicated flash unit with the built-in flash is only available with the D model, but that again limits you to the same three flash units as the D. Wireless control of a fully dedicated flash unit is also possible with the DS, presuming you have two of them (one on the camera). Godfrey
RE: Everything new is obscure again
Welcome Stephen. Well guys, I guess we can stop believing he was the smart one. :-) Tom C. From: "Stephen D'Andrea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Everything new is obscure again Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 23:38:13 -0400 Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in again. -Stephen
Re: Everything new is obscure again
John, while the DS didn't has AF-C in all modes when introduced, all of the Pentax DSLR's currently support AF-C in all modes (DS got it with firmware 2.0). Note the AF unit on the DL's and the buffer is cut down (DL's have same sized buffer as D, DS/DS2 have twice the buffer). The DL's require P-TTL flash for TTL modes, the DS and D doe plain TTL as well. -Adam John Forbes wrote: Clearly Bob doesn't have a D! :-) The later bodies lack several of the D's capabilities, like continuous focus in all exposure modes; wireless flash using the RTF to trigger the remote unit; and most functions available via knobs rather than menu-diving. All of these are useful, at least for me. The wireless flash system is excellent. There are no "prototyping issues" of any significance whatsoever. This is the preferred body EXCEPT for those who like to shoot continuously. All the other bodies are faster. They are also cheaper, which is obviously a consideration, too. One or more of the latest bodies will not work with any flash other than (I think) the (expensive but good) AF360FTZ. John On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:45:04 +0100, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen, With respect to Question #1: All the cameras have the same sensor and basic electrical components. D was the first - uses CF cards, capable of taking a battery pack/vertical grip. DS was the second - uses SD cards, slightly different controls & instruction set. (capabilities are identical to the D, bigger LCD for chimping?) No vertical grip. DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta prism. (capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip. DS2, DL2 - introduced with bigger LDC on the back of the camera and a software upgrade (at least in the DS2). (Software upgrade is available on the Pentax USA site so you can update your DS if you have one - 5 minutes with a high speed internet connection - Thanks Pentax!) Bottom line is these are all a family of cameras based on the same electronics and capable of delivering the same digital results. The first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a great camera with everything you need. The DL cuts some corners (viewfinder) to drop the price for the mass market. Regards, Bob S. On 5/17/06, Stephen D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the people in the know. 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is "somewhere in that vague area that defines people who have a bachelor's degree in photography, do some freelance commercial work when they have to, but generally do their own personal photo projects." After 18 years with an MX I bought in college (with money I earned using my dad's Spotmatic), I've used an LX for the past eight or nine years. And, boy, you go away from the list for a few months and a whole new set of acronyms pops up. You certainly can't tell the players if you don't have a scorecard. Would someone patient be so kind to explain what the following terms mean to the casual reader: GESO PESO PAW GFM PEOW anything else that comes to mind Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in again. -Stephen
Re: Everything new is obscure again
What modes is continuous focus disabled in -- the programs? Works fine for me in M and AV on the DS2. As for the control set, I miss the vertical grip and front dial, but do not miss the implementation of drive mode and ISO on the D, which require you to change position relative to the camera to see what you're doing on the top LCD and also change your hand position -- why people prefer to do this instead of tapping their thumb three times while just pulling their eye away from the finder is beyond me. Manual white balance on the D was also quite counter-intuitive in comparison. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Everything new is obscure again Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:42 am Size: 4K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Clearly Bob doesn't have a D! :-) The later bodies lack several of the D's capabilities, like continuous focus in all exposure modes; wireless flash using the RTF to trigger the remote unit; and most functions available via knobs rather than menu-diving. All of these are useful, at least for me. The wireless flash system is excellent. There are no "prototyping issues" of any significance whatsoever. This is the preferred body EXCEPT for those who like to shoot continuously. All the other bodies are faster. They are also cheaper, which is obviously a consideration, too. One or more of the latest bodies will not work with any flash other than (I think) the (expensive but good) AF360FTZ. John On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:45:04 +0100, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen, > > With respect to Question #1: > All the cameras have the same sensor and basic electrical components. > D was the first - uses CF cards, capable of taking a battery > pack/vertical grip. > DS was the second - uses SD cards, slightly different controls & > instruction set. > (capabilities are identical to the D, bigger LCD for chimping?) No > vertical grip. > DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta > prism. > (capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip. > DS2, DL2 - introduced with bigger LDC on the back of the camera and a > software upgrade (at least in the DS2). (Software upgrade is > available on the Pentax USA site so you can update your DS if you have > one - 5 minutes with a high speed internet connection - Thanks > Pentax!) > > Bottom line is these are all a family of cameras based on the same > electronics and capable of delivering the same digital results. The > first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping > issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a > great camera with everything you need. The DL cuts some corners > (viewfinder) to drop the price for the mass market. > > Regards, Bob S. > > > On 5/17/06, Stephen D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Greetings all, >> After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion >> for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up >> with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to >> going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the >> people in the know. >> >> 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the >> differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've >> read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the >> general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes >> me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and >> the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera >> still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a >> higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the >> same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent >> models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D >> can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much >> as a camera that's several years newer? >> >> 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the >> last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can >> someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens >> is put on the newer body? >> >> 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? >> >> 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax >> digital SLRs? >> >> I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will >> be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is >
Re: Everything new is obscure again
- Original message -- From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The > first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping > issues. I have two D cameras. No issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a > great camera with everything you need. Except for double the battery life in the D with a grip, individual controls for aperture and shutter speed, and vertical hold controls and shutter releas. All of which I need. Both the D and the DS are very good cameras. It's a trade-off: the fully featured D vs. the larger buffer and faster write speed of the S.
Re: Everything new is obscure again
Clearly Bob doesn't have a D! :-) The later bodies lack several of the D's capabilities, like continuous focus in all exposure modes; wireless flash using the RTF to trigger the remote unit; and most functions available via knobs rather than menu-diving. All of these are useful, at least for me. The wireless flash system is excellent. There are no "prototyping issues" of any significance whatsoever. This is the preferred body EXCEPT for those who like to shoot continuously. All the other bodies are faster. They are also cheaper, which is obviously a consideration, too. One or more of the latest bodies will not work with any flash other than (I think) the (expensive but good) AF360FTZ. John On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:45:04 +0100, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stephen, With respect to Question #1: All the cameras have the same sensor and basic electrical components. D was the first - uses CF cards, capable of taking a battery pack/vertical grip. DS was the second - uses SD cards, slightly different controls & instruction set. (capabilities are identical to the D, bigger LCD for chimping?) No vertical grip. DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta prism. (capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip. DS2, DL2 - introduced with bigger LDC on the back of the camera and a software upgrade (at least in the DS2). (Software upgrade is available on the Pentax USA site so you can update your DS if you have one - 5 minutes with a high speed internet connection - Thanks Pentax!) Bottom line is these are all a family of cameras based on the same electronics and capable of delivering the same digital results. The first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a great camera with everything you need. The DL cuts some corners (viewfinder) to drop the price for the mass market. Regards, Bob S. On 5/17/06, Stephen D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the people in the know. 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is "somewhere in that vague area that defines people who have a bachelor's degree in photography, do some freelance commercial work when they have to, but generally do their own personal photo projects." After 18 years with an MX I bought in college (with money I earned using my dad's Spotmatic), I've used an LX for the past eight or nine years. And, boy, you go away from the list for a few months and a whole new set of acronyms pops up. You certainly can't tell the players if you don't have a scorecard. Would someone patient be so kind to explain what the following terms mean to the casual reader: GESO PESO PAW GFM PEOW anything else that comes to mind Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in again. -Stephen -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Everything new is obscure again
-- Original message -- From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The > first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping > issues. I have two D cameras. No issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a > great camera with everything you need. Except for double the battery life in the D with a grip, individual controls for aperture and shutter speed, and vertical hold controls and shutter releas. All of which I need. Both the D and the DS are very good cameras. It's a trade-off: the fully featured D vs. the larger buffer and faster write speed of the S.
Re: Everything new is obscure again
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Bob Sullivan wrote: DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta prism. (capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip. Stephen asked if he can use the AF400T on the cameras. I think the answer is effectively "no" for the DL; owners of the camera can confirm what the limitations are. Kostas
Re: Everything new is obscure again
Stephen, With respect to Question #1: All the cameras have the same sensor and basic electrical components. D was the first - uses CF cards, capable of taking a battery pack/vertical grip. DS was the second - uses SD cards, slightly different controls & instruction set. (capabilities are identical to the D, bigger LCD for chimping?) No vertical grip. DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta prism. (capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip. DS2, DL2 - introduced with bigger LDC on the back of the camera and a software upgrade (at least in the DS2). (Software upgrade is available on the Pentax USA site so you can update your DS if you have one - 5 minutes with a high speed internet connection - Thanks Pentax!) Bottom line is these are all a family of cameras based on the same electronics and capable of delivering the same digital results. The first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a great camera with everything you need. The DL cuts some corners (viewfinder) to drop the price for the mass market. Regards, Bob S. On 5/17/06, Stephen D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the people in the know. 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is "somewhere in that vague area that defines people who have a bachelor's degree in photography, do some freelance commercial work when they have to, but generally do their own personal photo projects." After 18 years with an MX I bought in college (with money I earned using my dad's Spotmatic), I've used an LX for the past eight or nine years. And, boy, you go away from the list for a few months and a whole new set of acronyms pops up. You certainly can't tell the players if you don't have a scorecard. Would someone patient be so kind to explain what the following terms mean to the casual reader: GESO PESO PAW GFM PEOW anything else that comes to mind Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in again. -Stephen
Re: Everything new is obscure again
Welcome back, Stephen. The AF 400T works quite well with my *istD. I use it in TTL, flash auto, and manual modes. In TTL it works best at ISO 400. The next Pentax digital is rumored to be a 10 megapixel camera with anti-shake. The buffer should be considerably larger than the present cameras and the write speed should be faster. It will most likely be APS-C sensor size, like the current cameras. The focal length of your lenses won't change, but the field of view they deliver will. The factor is approximately 1.5. For example, a 300 mm lens will deliver a field of view that is roughly equivalent to that of a 450 mm lens on a full-frame 35 mm camera. Paul On May 17, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Stephen D'Andrea wrote: Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the people in the know. 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is "somewhere in that vague area that defines people who have a bachelor's degree in photography, do some freelance commercial work when they have to, but generally do their own personal photo projects." After 18 years with an MX I bought in college (with money I earned using my dad's Spotmatic), I've used an LX for the past eight or nine years. And, boy, you go away from the list for a few months and a whole new set of acronyms pops up. You certainly can't tell the players if you don't have a scorecard. Would someone patient be so kind to explain what the following terms mean to the casual reader: GESO PESO PAW GFM PEOW anything else that comes to mind Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in again. -Stephen
Re: Everything new is obscure again
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:38:13PM -0400, Stephen D'Andrea wrote: > > 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the > differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). The D is the only body that has the ability to accept an external battery grip (although using one can cause problems on occasions), and it's the only one with two separate control wheels (one, at the front, for shutter speed; another, at the rear, for lens aperture). But it shows its age in buffer size and write speed, and is missing the over-exposure blinking warning introduced with the DS. The DS simplified the design, somewhat, and put some of the controls which had dedicated buttons on the D into menu options. It also went to SD cards, rather than the CF cards (or MicroDrives) of the D. The DL lowered costs further, replacing the pentaprism with mirrors. The DS2 (and DL2) are pretty much a DS or DL with a larger rear LCD. There are other differences (especially in the flash capabilities); go to one of the review sites if you really need more details.
Re: Everything new is obscure again
On May 17, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Stephen D'Andrea wrote: 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? There is too much to try to answer there ... The D is no longer in production, although new stocks are still for sale. It was targeted to compete against the Canon 10D, Nikon D100 class cameras. The DS and later bodies were designed to sell for less, with revised ergonomics and a different feature mix. The DL was designed to be even cheaper, with a pentamirror instead of pentaprism and some more features removed to save money. The '2' versions are incremental updates to both, with bigger LCDs and other minor differences. As it turns out, Pentax did not skimp on the imaging quality of the DS and DL so they perform about as well, overall, as the D on that front, and they've got bigger buffers and faster IO. A feature comparison at DPReview.com will give you more information. 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? Nothing happens to the focal length of a lens. It remains the same. The Pentax DSLR bodies have a sensor with format 16x24mm instead of 35mm film's 24x36mm. The effect is to narrow the field of view. If you want to know "by how much", you can calculate the lens required to give a particular focal length you're accustomed to in 35mm by a factor. EG: Let's say you're comfortable with a 35mm lens on your Pentax K1000 and you'd like the same field of view for the DS. You multiply 35mm by 0.66x ... the lens that will provide the same field of view is ~24mm focal length. (You will normally see this posed the other way ... "what lens in 35mm film will this 50mm lens I've fitted seem to be?" The factor there is 1.5x ... a 50mm lens on the *ist DS will give the field of view of a 75mm lens on a film SLR. Personally, I find this less useful and full of all kinds of ridiculous ambiguities.) This schema should help: for the Pentax DSLRs <16mm = ultrawide 24mm = wide 35mm = normal 50mm = portrait tele >135mm = long telephoto 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? Yes. It will work with the D, DS, DS2. 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? Fall time frame, a new top of the line body has been announced. It will have 10Mpixel, built-in image stabilization, and controls/ feature set derivative of the *ist D. Some time between now and then, a new 6Mpixel body is rumored to be delivered as an update to the DS, with built in image stabilization. Would someone patient be so kind to explain what the following terms mean to the casual reader: GESO Gallery Every So Often PESO Picture Every So Often PAW Picture A Week GFM GrandFather Mountain PEOW No clue... enjoy Godfrey
Everything new is obscure again
Greetings all, After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the people in the know. 1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much as a camera that's several years newer? 2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens is put on the newer body? 3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds? 4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax digital SLRs? I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is "somewhere in that vague area that defines people who have a bachelor's degree in photography, do some freelance commercial work when they have to, but generally do their own personal photo projects." After 18 years with an MX I bought in college (with money I earned using my dad's Spotmatic), I've used an LX for the past eight or nine years. And, boy, you go away from the list for a few months and a whole new set of acronyms pops up. You certainly can't tell the players if you don't have a scorecard. Would someone patient be so kind to explain what the following terms mean to the casual reader: GESO PESO PAW GFM PEOW anything else that comes to mind Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in again. -Stephen
