Steve wrote: > My point is that the *Ist D is pretty much what I expected. Was anyone > just hoping for some unspecified amazing camera that just didn't > materialize?
I didn't expect a Nikon copy. I expected something with built in lust factor. Something that made peole say wow! with first sight. Something sexy that they had to check out. Mind you, this doesn't have to be weird looking camera; just good and distinctive looking. The *ist D is just anoher camera (with a silly name). Actually, I thought the *ist name signalized individuality. Seems I was wrong. It seems like my stunt with Pentax 35mm ends right here. I'll keep the LX and perhaps start scavenging the used market for those nice K and M lenses. When I want to go digital Pentax is not first on the list anymore. If I have to buy DSLR's without apetrure rings and faximiles of Nikon and Canon it would be downright foolish not to just buy a Nikon or Canon. After all they are much more complete propositions. I have no wish to use my K-mount lenses on a DSLR; at least if it is not full frame. P�l
