Re: *istD-flaws
As I said about the DS, it would be nice. I don't feel it terribly important for my needs, the DS does well enough. Godfrey --- Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you think the *ist DS image buffer is too shallow and slow try a *ist D __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: *istD-flaws
Re: *ist D CF card removal: Just looked @ my Nikon 5700. It has the same CF card orientation as my *ist D - the lip on the card is oriented toward the back of the camera making it harder to remove than if it was in the front. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jan 31, 2005 11:59 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD-flaws On 31 Jan 2005 at 22:16, Mark Cassino wrote: Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at length. Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a more relevant gripe for reviewers than fiddly CF card socket... I suspect the fix for the large files (bigger external drive) is a little more elegant that the crappy piece of tape that needs to be attached to many cards in order to make them at all easy to remove. Also I suspect the CF door isn't such an issue for non-strap users but I have Tamrac straps with the little QR lugs on my camera and with the strap connected or not the short flying QR straps always seem to foul the door. A fix would be nice but I suspect we can write off any thoughts of further attention to the *ist D from Pentax. Call it early (well early for Pentax) adopters blues. We can only cross our fingers that the engineers listen even a little to our (my) bitching and moaning :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: *istD-flaws
On 1 Feb 2005 at 0:00, Kenneth Waller wrote: Re: *ist D CF card removal: Just looked @ my Nikon 5700. It has the same CF card orientation as my *ist D - the lip on the card is oriented toward the back of the camera making it harder to remove than if it was in the front. It's not so much the orientation of the card that bothers me (not all CF cards have the lip you describe) just the fact that it remains so deep in such a tight recess after the eject tab is depressed. Of all the other CF based cameras I've used I never had to plan how to remove a card, they simply pop up when the release is pressed to a point where they can be picked straight out. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
Paul Stenquist wrote: The card compartment takes a wee bit of getting used to, but I don't consider it a problem. I now whip cards in and out without even thinking about it. If you have a strap attached, you have to make sure it's not in the way when you open the door, and it's a bit hard to grip the card after pushing the eject button. But after a few days of use you develop a method that makes it all quite simple. I just attached a strip of electrical tape to the end of the CF card, leaving a little handle which I use to pull the card out after pushing the eject button. It makes taking the card out a snap. You just have to make sure the door is positioned all the way open, which is where I find the mechanism awkward. The lack of an immediate histogram display doesn't bother me in the least. To display the histogram, you push a button twice. I keep the post-exposure review turned off in any case. That way I can review when I want but I don't have the screen flashing on after every shot. One push on the button gives you the review, a second push gives you the histogram, a third push gives you some abbreviated metadata. It's a nice system for the way I work. I like it the way it is also. I normally dont want the histogram, but instead just want to see if I framed and captured the image the way I wanted. Sometimes I check the histogram when the exposure might be in question. The blinking histogram might be useful, but even more useful would be a mode like PS Raw, where you can see *WHERE* on the image are the hilites blown. Or just as useful, correlate the histogram to what you are looking at, i.e. when if you zoom in the preview, the histogram is re-computed to what you see, and not the whole image. Paul On Jan 29, 2005, at 6:30 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden
Re: *istD-flaws
My CF cards come out only if I hold the opening of the slot downwards, else they stop on their way out too early for me to get a grip on them. I do think this is a flaw. at least for me, as is the strap that gets in the way. I can live with it though. I also think the histogram should be available right after the shot. I don't need it often, but when I do, usually when using the unpredictable flash, I want instant review of the histogram. The bad TTL flash control and the bad joystick control are my other gripes, but I still do like the *istD very much and I am very happy with it. On Sunday 30 January 2005 05:03, Larry Cook wrote: FJW It is not just microdrives that stick. I have several compactflash cards FJW from Lexar and Sandisk, 512MB, 1GB and 2GB and some pop right out when I FJW press the eject button and at least one barely comes out and without the FJW post-it tab that I use is a bitch to get out. You can't just tip the FJW camera and it will fall out. You have to pull it out but with the FJW post-it tab it is no problem. So what I assume is happening is that FJW there is a specification with a tolerance range of how wide and thick a FJW CF card can be and a spec with a tolerance range for the size of the FJW *istD slot and between the size of the *istD slot and the CF spec some FJW (and possibly a lot) CF cards stick in the slot and others don't. Those FJW that don't pop right out. Those that do are annoying. FJW FJW Larry FJW FJW Rob, I wasn't saying that you have to do as I did every time! That was FJW merely to indicate, IMO, how effective the eject design is in getting FJW the card out of the slot. In fact, I did say that tilting the camera FJW slightly down would be the best way. That's what I do when the camera FJW is around my neck: lift it up, hold the strap out of the way with a FJW spare finger, open the door and eject the card. It ain't that hard! FJW FJW Maybe the problem really arises with microdrives? How close to a CF FJW card are they in size (obviously, I have never used one and never FJW tried one in the *ist-D)? FJW FJW John Coyle FJW Brisbane, Australia FJW FJW FJW - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net FJW Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:14 PM FJW Subject: Re: *istD-flaws FJW FJW FJW On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote: FJW FJW FJW The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D! FJW FJW FJW Test performed just now: FJW Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is FJW perfectly horizontal. FJW Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door. FJW Open the card door. FJW Push the card eject button. FJW Retrieve the card from where it landed - 10 cm. away from the camera! FJW FJW FJW FJW LOL, you don't own any Microdrives obviously (not that mine FJW actually comes out FJW without a fight) FJW FJW The fact that the door can't simply opened to provide clear access FJW the card for FJW secure removal it is a negative in my books. There are many FJW instance that I FJW find myself in where I can't provide the ideal conditions that FJW changing the FJW card in a *ist D requires. For instance I often can't find a desk FJW when I'm in FJW the midst of a surging crowd, or on a dance floor, or chasing a FJW parade, or in a FJW huddle at the races or up on the fence at a motorsport event. I FJW have a tab on FJW my cards to assist in their removal (both are stiff in any *ist D FJW slot) but the FJW tab can also foul the CF door and my CF card case. FJW FJW I had no problems changing cards in these sorts of conditions with FJW my previous FJW CF based body. So what I'm trying to say is that it is a problem FJW for some FJW users, we aren't simply whingers this aspect of design is poor and FJW I hope that FJW they address it next round. It's fact nothing else, it doens't FJW stop the camera FJW from producing excellent images but it can be a PITA in some FJW instances. FJW FJW Rob Studdert FJW HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA FJW Tel +61-2-9554-4110 FJW UTC(GMT) +10 Hours FJW [EMAIL PROTECTED] FJW http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ http://members.ozemail.com.au/%7Edistudio/publications/ FJW Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 FJW FJW FJW FJW FJW FJW -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: *istD-flaws
I've never used or even looked at a Canon 10D, but I was talking to a Canon 10D user, who said that he got something like 150 RAW files per 1 gig card. I only get 70-75 raw files with the *ist-D, but I've never heard any complaints about poor compression of RAW files on it *ist-D. Considering that reviewers are willing to complain about things like a fiddly CF compartment, I'd expect to see this at the top of the list. Can any confirm is the Canon's get this kind of compression out of their RAW files? - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: *istD-flaws
Yes, indeed. Canon raw files are compressed (though not amazingly well). Pentax raw files are not only not compressed, they're padded to 16 bit :( It is one of my single biggest annoyances with the *istD. It _should_ be able to get near on twice the amount of raws on a card. Hell, even with no compression, they should be 3/4 of the size... Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws I've never used or even looked at a Canon 10D, but I was talking to a Canon 10D user, who said that he got something like 150 RAW files per 1 gig card. I only get 70-75 raw files with the *ist-D, but I've never heard any complaints about poor compression of RAW files on it *ist-D. Considering that reviewers are willing to complain about things like a fiddly CF compartment, I'd expect to see this at the top of the list. Can any confirm is the Canon's get this kind of compression out of their RAW files? - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: *istD-flaws
On 1 Feb 2005 at 12:52, Peter Loveday wrote: Yes, indeed. Canon raw files are compressed (though not amazingly well). Pentax raw files are not only not compressed, they're padded to 16 bit :( It is one of my single biggest annoyances with the *istD. It _should_ be able to get near on twice the amount of raws on a card. Hell, even with no compression, they should be 3/4 of the size... There are plenty of references to this problem in the archives, this is one of the issues that as been at least partly addressed in the *ist DS. And Godfrey if you think the *ist DS image buffer is too shallow and slow try a *ist D :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message - From: Mark Cassino Subject: Re: *istD-flaws I've never used or even looked at a Canon 10D, but I was talking to a Canon 10D user, who said that he got something like 150 RAW files per 1 gig card. I only get 70-75 raw files with the *ist-D, but I've never heard any complaints about poor compression of RAW files on it *ist-D. Considering that reviewers are willing to complain about things like a fiddly CF compartment, I'd expect to see this at the top of the list. Can any confirm is the Canon's get this kind of compression out of their RAW files? My friend with the rebel digital sez his RAW files are around 6.5mb. William Robb
Re: *istD-flaws
Well, Pentax RAW files must have some sort of compression going on - they are (slightly) variable in file size. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - From: Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:22 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws Yes, indeed. Canon raw files are compressed (though not amazingly well). Pentax raw files are not only not compressed, they're padded to 16 bit :( It is one of my single biggest annoyances with the *istD. It _should_ be able to get near on twice the amount of raws on a card. Hell, even with no compression, they should be 3/4 of the size... Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws I've never used or even looked at a Canon 10D, but I was talking to a Canon 10D user, who said that he got something like 150 RAW files per 1 gig card. I only get 70-75 raw files with the *ist-D, but I've never heard any complaints about poor compression of RAW files on it *ist-D. Considering that reviewers are willing to complain about things like a fiddly CF compartment, I'd expect to see this at the top of the list. Can any confirm is the Canon's get this kind of compression out of their RAW files? - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: *istD-flaws
On 31 Jan 2005 at 21:44, Mark Cassino wrote: Well, Pentax RAW files must have some sort of compression going on - they are (slightly) variable in file size. The *ist D PEF files consist of a fixed RAW bayer array dump (12 bits per pixel + 4 bit padding) plus a low res, full sized jpeg on which the preview and histogram display is based. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
There are plenty of references to this problem in the archives, this is one of the issues that as been at least partly addressed in the *ist DS. And Godfrey if you think the *ist DS image buffer is too shallow and slow try a *ist D :-( Out of interest, how has it been improved in the DS, any idea? Is it compressed, or no padding, or both? It would be reay nice to have a firmware upgrade for the *istD to address this issue. Pentax? :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday
Re: *istD-flaws
the Canon 1Ds Mk2 with a 16MP sensor outputs RAW files approximately 16MB in size. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:33 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws My friend with the rebel digital sez his RAW files are around 6.5mb.
Re: *istD-flaws
Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at length. Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a more relevant gripe for reviewers than fiddly CF card socket... - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:49 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws On 31 Jan 2005 at 21:44, Mark Cassino wrote: Well, Pentax RAW files must have some sort of compression going on - they are (slightly) variable in file size. The *ist D PEF files consist of a fixed RAW bayer array dump (12 bits per pixel + 4 bit padding) plus a low res, full sized jpeg on which the preview and histogram display is based. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
On 31 Jan 2005 at 22:16, Mark Cassino wrote: Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at length. Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a more relevant gripe for reviewers than fiddly CF card socket... I suspect the fix for the large files (bigger external drive) is a little more elegant that the crappy piece of tape that needs to be attached to many cards in order to make them at all easy to remove. Also I suspect the CF door isn't such an issue for non-strap users but I have Tamrac straps with the little QR lugs on my camera and with the strap connected or not the short flying QR straps always seem to foul the door. A fix would be nice but I suspect we can write off any thoughts of further attention to the *ist D from Pentax. Call it early (well early for Pentax) adopters blues. We can only cross our fingers that the engineers listen even a little to our (my) bitching and moaning :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: *istD-flaws the Canon 1Ds Mk2 with a 16MP sensor outputs RAW files approximately 16MB in size. That sounds like they are being consistent, anyway. William Robb
Re: *istD-flaws
Peter Loveday mused: Out of interest, how has it been improved in the DS, any idea? Is it compressed, or no padding, or both? It's improved on the *ist-DS; the camera estimates 97 RAW files per GB, I believe (vs. 73 on the *ist-D, IIRC), and generally does significantly better than that. It's done by compression alone. There's still those 4 bits of padding, but eliminating those wouldn't help you; they are all the same (zero) at every pixel position, so they effectively compress down to nothing. Disclaimer: I haven't seen very many DS raw files, so I'm basing this on information from the limited samples I have seen.
Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message - From: Mark Cassino Subject: Re: *istD-flaws Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at length. Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a more relevant gripe for reviewers than fiddly CF card socket... Nah, that would require in depth thinking. Surprised Kenny boy didn't pick up on it when he reviewed the thing. William Robb
Re: *istD-flaws
Be kinda hard since he never handled it, and thus couldn't compare it to his D70. Oh, well. I guess I'm being Judgmental again, and damn it all I promised not to say anything more about the subject. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino Subject: Re: *istD-flaws Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at length. Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a more relevant gripe for reviewers than fiddly CF card socket... Nah, that would require in depth thinking. Surprised Kenny boy didn't pick up on it when he reviewed the thing. William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD-flaws
--- Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *ist-Ds adds the Highlight alert IIRC. I don't remember if it puts the histogram on the image or not. It does both, on your option. They fixed the CF card eject problem but changing to SD cards and according to some reviews I've read you can eject one across the room. That was a particularly silly comment in the Steve's Digicams review. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: *istD-flaws
I can certaiinly live with both: 1) The problematic card compartment means, it's a little trickey to get the car out. And the compartment door sometimes gets caught in the camera strap. It's all really a matter of habit. And I guess a rather tight card slot minimizes the risk of getting dirt and moitstur on the contacts. 2) I don't understand the fuzz about the histogram. It's there - post exposure. High light warning is missing, but I guss a realy reliable and critical judgment can not me preformed from the LCD, anyway. It's there only to give a rough clue about what's going on. I don't use instant replay anyway - I only play back if there's a special reason to do so. Pressing one more button is not a big deal for me. And I don't really miss the high light warning. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 12:31 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden
RE: *istD-flaws
Here's the link, just in case: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-istd.shtml
RE: *istD-flaws
PS: I have shot nearly 10.000 pictures with the *ist D on small (256Mb, 512Mb) cards. So, I have probably changed cards morea than 100 times in all kinds of conditions (in open nature, in a helicopter, in the dark etc.). I have never once droped the card. In fact I could have, if the slot was any wider. So, I geuss it's more about how it FEELS to use the camera. In reality it's not a problem, once you know how to opreate it. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 13:00 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: *istD-flaws I can certaiinly live with both: 1) The problematic card compartment means, it's a little trickey to get the car out. And the compartment door sometimes gets caught in the camera strap. It's all really a matter of habit. And I guess a rather tight card slot minimizes the risk of getting dirt and moitstur on the contacts. 2) I don't understand the fuzz about the histogram. It's there - post exposure. High light warning is missing, but I guss a realy reliable and critical judgment can not me preformed from the LCD, anyway. It's there only to give a rough clue about what's going on. I don't use instant replay anyway - I only play back if there's a special reason to do so. Pressing one more button is not a big deal for me. And I don't really miss the high light warning. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 12:31 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden
Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message - From: Peter Smekal Subject: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign The card slot is fiddly, but not highly problematic. I don't miss the histogram popping up after the picture is taken, I rarely use the instant review anyway. William Robb
Re: *istD-flaws
My card slot was quite fiddly upon receipt of the camera. After break-in however, it's not an issue at all. You DO have to be sure to have the strap in the right position to get the door open but so what? I use the shot review and would like to have the histogram review be a little easier to access. Highlight warning sounds nice. I'm living quite happily without it though. CW about to brave the ice storm to provide audio support for a marching band competitiongo figure. - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:30 AM Subject: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 1/28/2005
RE: *istD-flaws
Well put, William. My thoughts exactly. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 13:25 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *istD-flaws - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal Subject: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign The card slot is fiddly, but not highly problematic. I don't miss the histogram popping up after the picture is taken, I rarely use the instant review anyway. William Robb
Re: *istD-flaws
The card compartment takes a wee bit of getting used to, but I don't consider it a problem. I now whip cards in and out without even thinking about it. If you have a strap attached, you have to make sure it's not in the way when you open the door, and it's a bit hard to grip the card after pushing the eject button. But after a few days of use you develop a method that makes it all quite simple. The lack of an immediate histogram display doesn't bother me in the least. To display the histogram, you push a button twice. I keep the post-exposure review turned off in any case. That way I can review when I want but I don't have the screen flashing on after every shot. One push on the button gives you the review, a second push gives you the histogram, a third push gives you some abbreviated metadata. It's a nice system for the way I work. Paul On Jan 29, 2005, at 6:30 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden
Re: *istD-flaws
By the way, the histogram provides highlight warning. If the right side is clipped, some highlights are out of range. That, by the way, is not always a bad thing. You have to know how to interpret what you see, whether it's a highlight warning or a histogram. Paul On Jan 29, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: I can certaiinly live with both: 1) The problematic card compartment means, it's a little trickey to get the car out. And the compartment door sometimes gets caught in the camera strap. It's all really a matter of habit. And I guess a rather tight card slot minimizes the risk of getting dirt and moitstur on the contacts. 2) I don't understand the fuzz about the histogram. It's there - post exposure. High light warning is missing, but I guss a realy reliable and critical judgment can not me preformed from the LCD, anyway. It's there only to give a rough clue about what's going on. I don't use instant replay anyway - I only play back if there's a special reason to do so. Pressing one more button is not a big deal for me. And I don't really miss the high light warning. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 12:31 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden
RE: *istD-flaws
I guess the card problem could have been solved very easily by turning the contact board inside the camera - or the the card compartment door - 180 degrees. The CF cards have a rim on the back side which can serve as a handle for the finger nail on the right hand thumb. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: cbwaters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 14:57 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *istD-flaws My card slot was quite fiddly upon receipt of the camera. After break-in however, it's not an issue at all. You DO have to be sure to have the strap in the right position to get the door open but so what? I use the shot review and would like to have the histogram review be a little easier to access. Highlight warning sounds nice. I'm living quite happily without it though. CW about to brave the ice storm to provide audio support for a marching band competitiongo figure. - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:30 AM Subject: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 1/28/2005
Re: *istD-flaws
Pete wrote A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? I read these comments on Luminous Landscape and thought twice about getting the istD. Then I bought it and found out very quickly that these (faults) are really minor and do not bother me in the least. I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal about getting the flash card out. I find it at least as easy as getting a roll of film in or out of most of my newer camera bodies (MZS PZ1). It's really not a big deal. I think these reviewers go out searching for something to criticize. IMHO, if that's the best they can do, than the camera is close to perfection. I just give the CF card a flick with my fingernail and the card pops out no problem. As far as the histogram goes, all you have to do is press a button and the histogram comes up. If that's too much trouble for these reviewers than what can I say. There is no highlights blowout indicator but I have never had anything like that and do not miss it at all. I think learning to properly expose digital images is the same as shooting film. You can't rely on the camera's technology all the time to get it right. Sooner or later you have to learn proper exposure for yourself. Relying on histograms and highlight blowouts is fine at times, but it does not make up for good technique and understanding of proper exposure. Vic
Re: *istD-flaws
Peter, Here's my opinion on the same, after over a year's use: The CF card slot on my camera was very tight to begin with. So tight that one had to have a long fingernail to flip the card out. However after ten ins and outs, or thereabouts, the cards slid smoothly in the track. With the camera tilted, it comes out by itself. This is not only due to wear on the card, since a brand new card I bought recently has been problem free from day one. One weakness with the CF compartment, though, is that the door is located very close to the camera strap. To me, this is a negative in the nuisance division, rather than serious gripe division. The instant review without histogram is a beginner's gripe, imho. I remember I missed the feature for the first couple of hundred shots. However, by looking at the histogram after the image had been written to card, it's easy to learn what to expect from the camera's light meter. I think the last time I used the histogram was when shooting the Venus passage in June last year. Since then, the instant review has been off all together, which saves me a lot of battery. The *istD is certainly the most precisely metering Pentax I have owned. The only situations I've experienced it to be off by more than 1/2 stop is once when I inadvertently had forgot to put it back to multi-segment metering after a session with spot-metering, and also in shots with sun in the frame. Shots with snow also become 1 stop underexposed in overcast weather, ie. low contrast. The predictable meter is another good reason why histograms on the instant review isn't a must-have, imo. Btw, shooting RAW may have made me more laid-back on the exposure accuracy than I used to be with slide film. I'm still imagining that I work with a high-contrast slide film when I'm out there, and frequently I get surprises on how much more detail I'm able to lure out of the shadows and highlights with the RAW converter. This experience might be totally different for people used to colour negative or B/W, though, but I'm not able to tell... hth, Jostein - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:30 PM Subject: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden
Re: *istD-flaws
Instead of a hinged compartment door, it should have been a sliding door. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 3:13 PM Subject: RE: *istD-flaws I guess the card problem could have been solved very easily by turning the contact board inside the camera - or the the card compartment door - 180 degrees. The CF cards have a rim on the back side which can serve as a handle for the finger nail on the right hand thumb. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: cbwaters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. januar 2005 14:57 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *istD-flaws My card slot was quite fiddly upon receipt of the camera. After break-in however, it's not an issue at all. You DO have to be sure to have the strap in the right position to get the door open but so what? I use the shot review and would like to have the histogram review be a little easier to access. Highlight warning sounds nice. I'm living quite happily without it though. CW about to brave the ice storm to provide audio support for a marching band competitiongo figure. - Original Message - From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:30 AM Subject: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 1/28/2005
Re: *istD-flaws
The *istDS body supports histogram on review, can do the blinking highlight thing, and the SD card carrier is not fiddly at all. When I use the instant review, I usually have it set for a minimal review time, without the histogram but with the highlight blinky going. That gives me enough information to know if I need to make another exposure. I more normally have it off and review all my exposures a little later, not in the thick of taking pictures. I'm very glad they went to SD cards on the *istDS. I always find CF cards fiddly. ;-) Godfrey --- Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment an d the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode I have turned the blinking highlites feature off on my D2H. I had one distater with it. I took the blink way to serious,did a - ev correction and every shot was underesposed serverly.Only a few were saved.(jpg not raw) I think the reason was they 'look' much worse than they really are in the lcd screen. I now look at the histogram only. As long as the high end is at or near the line, it will give me a pretty good shot.However the D2h is very sensative to under/over exposure so it may not be the camera to test against. This is why i'm thinking of selling and going 1D MK II. I here exposures are a lot better and consistant. Now to get back to the Pentax D. I can see in the lcd screen even without the histo popped up if the exposure looks good. Its a very nice screen. Its only a button push as your aware of to get the histo up.On the D2h its a button push to,so its even there.:-) Also the battery indicator thing seems less of a problem lately,so that a + Dave
Re: *istD-flaws
Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ... thank you guys ... :-) Peter
Re: *istD-flaws
I have noticed over the years that reviewers like to mention a couple of fiddlely things. But they only mention serious defects when they review the next model. Made up example: the istDS fixes that notorious lenses falling off problem of the istD. I have come to the conclusion that ten minutes of using something will give you about the same information as reading 200 reviews. Reviews should be read with a tablespoon full of salt. Because they make mountains out of mole hills, and ignor whole mountain ranges. Remember, they are not going to say anything that might cut off some advertising revenue. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Peter Smekal wrote: Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ... thank you guys ... :-) Peter -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005
Re: *istD-flaws
Graywolf wrote the istDS fixes that notorious lenses falling off problem of the istD ... huuh ... what was that? Peter
Re: *istD-flaws
The *ist-Ds adds the Highlight alert IIRC. I don't remember if it puts the histogram on the image or not. They fixed the CF card eject problem but changing to SD cards and according to some reviews I've read you can eject one across the room. Peter Smekal wrote: A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore the two serious flaws that I've pointed out a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode. ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD-flaws
In a message dated 1/29/2005 7:02:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Btw, shooting RAW may have made me more laid-back on the exposure accuracy than I used to be with slide film. I'm still imagining that I work with a high-contrast slide film when I'm out there, and frequently I get surprises on how much more detail I'm able to lure out of the shadows and highlights with the RAW converter. This experience might be totally different for people used to colour negative or B/W, though, but I'm not able to tell... hth, Jostein Definitely. Same experience (on another camera system). It's really nice. Makes me relax. Hopefully, I won't relax too much. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: *istD-flaws
On 29/1/05, cbwaters, discombobulated, unleashed: about to brave the ice storm to provide audio support for a marching band competitiongo figure. Ceeb, you and you bloody marching bands Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *istD-flaws
I find it quite funny of Mr. Reichmann to object of missing blinking highlights warning, when he is such a strong proponent of RAW. I don't know a single DSLR which computes the highlight warning from the 16bit data. AFAIK most if not all are computed from the 8bit preview (zoom) jpeg !!! Then again, Mr. Reichmann is just, in my opinion, sometimes too bloated. Perhaps he should uncork himself, as they say in one part of Italy. That's all ;-) Fra
Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message - From: Graywolf Subject: Re: *istD-flaws I have come to the conclusion that ten minutes of using something will give you about the same information as reading 200 reviews. Reviews should be read with a tablespoon full of salt. Because they make mountains out of mole hills, and ignor whole mountain ranges. And, as we have found, sometimes reviews are completely ignorance based. William Robb
Re: *istD-flaws
On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:00, Peter Smekal wrote: Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ... thank you guys ... :-) Read the previous comments as you will but for my money the card door and eject mech is a bad design and still is a bad design after I've been using it for a year. My cards are still a pig to get out (especially compared to previous cameras I've owned that also used CF). The post view mode selection sequence is clumsy and could be remedied with software. A highlights feature (like on the *ist DS) would be very handy (I guess that's why they added it to the *ist DS) and the joy-stick on the back is an absolute pig of a design, one of the poorest implementations of such a control that I've used. We have an iPaq Pocket-PC and a Muvo MP3 player they both have smaller joy-sticks of similar appearance but they both seem to work far better than the Pentax control. These gripes may sound minor but they've caused me frustration in the field so I remember them. I hope whatever comes next addresses these problems but if you are prepared to ignore them the *ist D is a fine camera but will probably only be available used in a very short time. The *ist DS design appears to have already addressed these minor gripes from what I read. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
From: Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then again, Mr. Reichmann is just, in my opinion, sometimes too bloated. Perhaps he should uncork himself, as they say in one part of Italy. Knowledge from Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, I suppose... :-) Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: *istD-flaws
On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:00, Peter Smekal wrote: Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ... thank you guys ... :-) Read the previous comments as you will but for my money the card door and eject mech is a bad design and still is a bad design after I've been using it for a year. My cards are still a pig to get out (especially compared to previous cameras I've owned that also used CF). The post view mode selection sequence is clumsy and could be remedied with software. A highlights feature (like on the *ist DS) would be very handy (I guess that's why they added it to the *ist DS) and the joy-stick on the back is an absolute pig of a design, one of the poorest implementations of such a control that I've used. We have an iPaq Pocket-PC and a Muvo MP3 player they both have smaller joy-sticks of similar appearance but they both seem to work far better than the Pentax control. These gripes may sound minor but they've caused me frustration in the field so I remember them. I hope whatever comes next addresses these problems but if you are prepared to ignore them the *ist D is a fine camera but will probably only be available used in a very short time. The *ist DS design appears to have already addressed these minor gripes from what I read. 2nd attempt to post :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
I received both attempts ;) On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:20:27 +1000, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:00, Peter Smekal wrote: Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ... thank you guys ... :-) Read the previous comments as you will but for my money the card door and eject mech is a bad design and still is a bad design after I've been using it for a year. My cards are still a pig to get out (especially compared to previous cameras I've owned that also used CF). The post view mode selection sequence is clumsy and could be remedied with software. A highlights feature (like on the *ist DS) would be very handy (I guess that's why they added it to the *ist DS) and the joy-stick on the back is an absolute pig of a design, one of the poorest implementations of such a control that I've used. We have an iPaq Pocket-PC and a Muvo MP3 player they both have smaller joy-sticks of similar appearance but they both seem to work far better than the Pentax control. These gripes may sound minor but they've caused me frustration in the field so I remember them. I hope whatever comes next addresses these problems but if you are prepared to ignore them the *ist D is a fine camera but will probably only be available used in a very short time. The *ist DS design appears to have already addressed these minor gripes from what I read. 2nd attempt to post :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Thibouille
Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the joy-stick on the back is an absolute pig of a design, one of the poorest implementations of such a control that I've used. That, Rob, is so absolutely my opinion too. :-( Jostein
Re: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden The short answer is I believe that both problems were fixed in the *istDS. I don't own one so I don't know for sure but reading the reports from others, I think they have been. From my perspective as an owner of the *istD, neither of these problems are particularly noteworthy. After reading a number of reviews (by owners, users and possibly pretenders as we have seen recently) I bought the *istD and I bought some Post It flags from an office supply store. The flags I cut down a bit and stuck one to each of my CF cards so that if it didn't eject well from teh *istD I would have some substantial to pull it out with. The flags work perfectly and are needed on some CF cards and not on others. As for the lack of a histogram, I could care less, because I turned off the instant review feature because it was annoying at night, I never looked at it and it was needlessly using battery power. To me the most glaring flaw is the the door for the batteries. When using the rechargeable CVR batteries one has to apply too much pressure, in my opinion, to close the door and I worry that it might break. Of course Pentax doesn't recommend using the rechargables so calling it flaw isn't fair but it is to me. I love the *istD and would buy another if it were within my budget. Larry
Re: *istD-flaws
The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D! Test performed just now: Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is perfectly horizontal. Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door. Open the card door. Push the card eject button. Retrieve the card from where it landed - 10 cm. away from the camera! Obviously, even tilting the camera slightly down will be enough to ensure the card flies out and you will have to catch it before it hits the floor! Why on earth would I need it to perform better than that? While the lack of a histogram on instant review might be important to some users, to those of us who don't use instant review anyway, it's of no consequence, and certainly not a serious drawback. Even starting from having the camera switched off, it took me less than 3 seconds to get to the histogram for the last (RAW) image I shot last night. I tend to think, after reading many reviews in different magazines, and after listening to some of the comments reported here, that reviewers in general seem to need to find some negative aspect of any Pentax, camera or lens, while gross faults (including massive exposure problems with the EOS300 and the D70) are glossed over. I include the interpretation of MTF charts where Pentax lens have obviously returned much better values, more consistently across the aperture range than the others in the same test conditions, and yet the Pentax is nearly always marked down, or dismissed with some comment such as the Brand X lens is much sharper wide open ,and is therefore the editor's choice blah blah blah. Could it be a coincidence that Brand X is the biggest advertiser in the magazine? Surely not! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Larry Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:19 AM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following: Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode (only on subsequent image playback, but not right after taking the shot) ... The latter can probably be fixed with a firmware upgrade. The CF card eject problem likely needs a body redesign Has Pentax fixed these problems in later-produced bodies or through firmware upgrades? Peter Sweden The short answer is I believe that both problems were fixed in the *istDS. I don't own one so I don't know for sure but reading the reports from others, I think they have been. From my perspective as an owner of the *istD, neither of these problems are particularly noteworthy. After reading a number of reviews (by owners, users and possibly pretenders as we have seen recently) I bought the *istD and I bought some Post It flags from an office supply store. The flags I cut down a bit and stuck one to each of my CF cards so that if it didn't eject well from teh *istD I would have some substantial to pull it out with. The flags work perfectly and are needed on some CF cards and not on others. As for the lack of a histogram, I could care less, because I turned off the instant review feature because it was annoying at night, I never looked at it and it was needlessly using battery power. To me the most glaring flaw is the the door for the batteries. When using the rechargeable CVR batteries one has to apply too much pressure, in my opinion, to close the door and I worry that it might break. Of course Pentax doesn't recommend using the rechargables so calling it flaw isn't fair but it is to me. I love the *istD and would buy another if it were within my budget. Larry
Re: *istD-flaws
On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote: The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D! Test performed just now: Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is perfectly horizontal. Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door. Open the card door. Push the card eject button. Retrieve the card from where it landed - 10 cm. away from the camera! LOL, you don't own any Microdrives obviously (not that mine actually comes out without a fight) The fact that the door can't simply opened to provide clear access the card for secure removal it is a negative in my books. There are many instance that I find myself in where I can't provide the ideal conditions that changing the card in a *ist D requires. For instance I often can't find a desk when I'm in the midst of a surging crowd, or on a dance floor, or chasing a parade, or in a huddle at the races or up on the fence at a motorsport event. I have a tab on my cards to assist in their removal (both are stiff in any *ist D slot) but the tab can also foul the CF door and my CF card case. I had no problems changing cards in these sorts of conditions with my previous CF based body. So what I'm trying to say is that it is a problem for some users, we aren't simply whingers this aspect of design is poor and I hope that they address it next round. It's fact nothing else, it doens't stop the camera from producing excellent images but it can be a PITA in some instances. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
I've changed CF cards in all kinds of conditions with no problems. I don't use microdrives, but why would I want to? MY CF cards slide right out of both of my *ist D cameras. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Paul On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote: The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D! Test performed just now: Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is perfectly horizontal. Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door. Open the card door. Push the card eject button. Retrieve the card from where it landed - 10 cm. away from the camera! LOL, you don't own any Microdrives obviously (not that mine actually comes out without a fight) The fact that the door can't simply opened to provide clear access the card for secure removal it is a negative in my books. There are many instance that I find myself in where I can't provide the ideal conditions that changing the card in a *ist D requires. For instance I often can't find a desk when I'm in the midst of a surging crowd, or on a dance floor, or chasing a parade, or in a huddle at the races or up on the fence at a motorsport event. I have a tab on my cards to assist in their removal (both are stiff in any *ist D slot) but the tab can also foul the CF door and my CF card case. I had no problems changing cards in these sorts of conditions with my previous CF based body. So what I'm trying to say is that it is a problem for some users, we aren't simply whingers this aspect of design is poor and I hope that they address it next round. It's fact nothing else, it doens't stop the camera from producing excellent images but it can be a PITA in some instances. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
Rob, I wasn't saying that you have to do as I did every time! That was merely to indicate, IMO, how effective the eject design is in getting the card out of the slot. In fact, I did say that tilting the camera slightly down would be the best way. That's what I do when the camera is around my neck: lift it up, hold the strap out of the way with a spare finger, open the door and eject the card. It ain't that hard! Maybe the problem really arises with microdrives? How close to a CF card are they in size (obviously, I have never used one and never tried one in the *ist-D)? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote: The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D! Test performed just now: Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is perfectly horizontal. Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door. Open the card door. Push the card eject button. Retrieve the card from where it landed - 10 cm. away from the camera! LOL, you don't own any Microdrives obviously (not that mine actually comes out without a fight) The fact that the door can't simply opened to provide clear access the card for secure removal it is a negative in my books. There are many instance that I find myself in where I can't provide the ideal conditions that changing the card in a *ist D requires. For instance I often can't find a desk when I'm in the midst of a surging crowd, or on a dance floor, or chasing a parade, or in a huddle at the races or up on the fence at a motorsport event. I have a tab on my cards to assist in their removal (both are stiff in any *ist D slot) but the tab can also foul the CF door and my CF card case. I had no problems changing cards in these sorts of conditions with my previous CF based body. So what I'm trying to say is that it is a problem for some users, we aren't simply whingers this aspect of design is poor and I hope that they address it next round. It's fact nothing else, it doens't stop the camera from producing excellent images but it can be a PITA in some instances. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD-flaws
It is not just microdrives that stick. I have several compactflash cards from Lexar and Sandisk, 512MB, 1GB and 2GB and some pop right out when I press the eject button and at least one barely comes out and without the post-it tab that I use is a bitch to get out. You can't just tip the camera and it will fall out. You have to pull it out but with the post-it tab it is no problem. So what I assume is happening is that there is a specification with a tolerance range of how wide and thick a CF card can be and a spec with a tolerance range for the size of the *istD slot and between the size of the *istD slot and the CF spec some (and possibly a lot) CF cards stick in the slot and others don't. Those that don't pop right out. Those that do are annoying. Larry Rob, I wasn't saying that you have to do as I did every time! That was merely to indicate, IMO, how effective the eject design is in getting the card out of the slot. In fact, I did say that tilting the camera slightly down would be the best way. That's what I do when the camera is around my neck: lift it up, hold the strap out of the way with a spare finger, open the door and eject the card. It ain't that hard! Maybe the problem really arises with microdrives? How close to a CF card are they in size (obviously, I have never used one and never tried one in the *ist-D)? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: Re: *istD-flaws On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote: The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D! Test performed just now: Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is perfectly horizontal. Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door. Open the card door. Push the card eject button. Retrieve the card from where it landed - 10 cm. away from the camera! LOL, you don't own any Microdrives obviously (not that mine actually comes out without a fight) The fact that the door can't simply opened to provide clear access the card for secure removal it is a negative in my books. There are many instance that I find myself in where I can't provide the ideal conditions that changing the card in a *ist D requires. For instance I often can't find a desk when I'm in the midst of a surging crowd, or on a dance floor, or chasing a parade, or in a huddle at the races or up on the fence at a motorsport event. I have a tab on my cards to assist in their removal (both are stiff in any *ist D slot) but the tab can also foul the CF door and my CF card case. I had no problems changing cards in these sorts of conditions with my previous CF based body. So what I'm trying to say is that it is a problem for some users, we aren't simply whingers this aspect of design is poor and I hope that they address it next round. It's fact nothing else, it doens't stop the camera from producing excellent images but it can be a PITA in some instances. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ http://members.ozemail.com.au/%7Edistudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
