Bill, Comments embedded within:
Tuesday, November 11, 2003, 8:25:08 PM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Bruce Dayton" WR> Subject: *ist D aftermath >> So, big question to all *istD owners: >> After having purchased and used your new DSLR, are there any of you >> who now have second thoughts? Perhaps wishing you had gone the Canon >> or Nikon route instead? Given the opportunity to do it again, would >> you still purchase the *istD? WR> No regrets, and yes. The camera suits my simple needs, and uses lenses that WR> I already own. Good to hear. Nothing like looking back on what you've done and re-evaluating. Based on what I have heard so far on the list, I doubt very many are regretting their decision. >> >> Even further, would you recommend it above other choices to someone >> else who doesn't have any investment in Pentax Glass? WR> I would and I have, but lots of people are swayed by price, the ist D is not WR> a good deal pricewise. Seems that price is reasonable for what the camera represents. Not a great deal, but not a bad one either. My local camera shop is selling it for $1490. Doesn't seem too bad. I need to ask what they are selling the D100 for. They basically sell Nikon and Pentax gear. >> >> Obviously for me, I have a stray zoom or two (28-80 Tamron, 80-320 >> Pentax) and an AF280T, 2 AF400T's and a bunch of 67 glass. Other than >> that, I am free to choose any direction. So, is the *istD the right >> choice? WR> Ferget the 6x7 glass. If you buy a DSLR, you are going to be buying glass WR> for it. WR> The change in the angle of view changes things. Lenses that were good for a WR> task may not be good for that task anymore. Contrawise, I have had a couple WR> of pleasant surprises. WR> The A 50mm f/1.2 is a very nice lens on the ist D, but I hadn't liked it WR> much on film. The 77, which is really not well suited to portraiture, even WR> though the focal length mimics a portrait length, is a really nice WR> telephoto, though I think it loses some of it's 3D effect. WR> Are you going to be bothered by the unhappiness about the JPEG algorithm and WR> software? WR> Or will you be like me and not really care? WR> How about getting the card out? It's really bitchy about it. WR> How about the frame rate and buffer capacity? It's apparently pretty WR> limited. WR> OTOH, it is a really pleasant little camera to use. Well, all new glass does leave me free to pick any system. I can say that I have been happy with my Pentax glass - but I pretty much had the good stuff - not the consumer zooms. As far as needs go - I am actually much like you. No specific needs, just general purpose. Theory has it that I would still shoot weddings and family portraits with the 67's although we hear from TV that he is hardly ever using his 645's anymore. At least for family portraits I commonly need to print bigger than 16X20 so that probably rules out 6mp DSLRs. WR> So there you go. WR> William Robb Thanks for the input. It is always appreciated.
