I bought a film *ist as a backup to my *istD. Overall, it is quite nice and has enough features. Pretty usable overall. Certainly not an MZ-S by any stretch of the imagination, but at 1/3 cost, there are not very many features on the MZ-S that it is lacking.
My daughter has been "testing" it for me, and she really likes it! I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it back when I need it. Especially she likes the general handling and she has been learning how to use DOF preview - the switch for that is the same as the MZ-S. Anyway, here's another vote for a great little film camera. In it's price range, it is very fine. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, December 31, 2003, 3:49:28 PM, you wrote: MR> "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>AP being Amateur Photographer, a British mag. The did a three camera >>shootout with the Pentax, a Nikon F75, and whatever the equivalent priced >>Canon are. They had some sort of point-scoring system, and the Canon and >>the Nikon scored 89% each, and the Pentax scored 90%. >> >>I know, doesn't sound like much, but a win's a win, right? <vbg> Besides, >>the author went on to point out that in his mind, at least, the 1% >>difference (as scored) seemed much more noticeable to him in the real world, >>and that the Pentax really was the best of the bunch in his eyes. MR> I got to try out the film *ist at Grandfather Mountain in June. It's MR> really a dynamite camera. I'm seriously considering one as a replacement MR> for my aging MX. MR> Pity it's (like all film cameras) being overshadowed by things digital.
