On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Chris Brogden wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > Pity it's (like all film cameras) being overshadowed by things digital. > > > > > > Pity, also, that it's a cripple mount. > > > > > > Happy New Year, > > > Kostas > > > > Argh... digital is an entirely new medium. > > And the subject of this email is...
Oops... my mistake. I saw the "crippled mount" comment and assumed that the topic had migrated to the *istD. > In addition, I would quite happily accept your (and other people's) > speculation in the rest of your email, for the *ist or the *ist-D if > the mechanical coupling was removed in favour of something *already* > in the camera. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? > As for the AF system, it is very fast, was my finding when I tested the > -50 against the expected 4 opponents in the same price in 1999. I've never had a complaint about Pentax's AF speed. I'm bothered by the hunting and sometimes endless nitpicky back-and-forth tweaking of the AF system. I don't like the small degree of control over AF points that has characterized Pentax AF SLRs until recently. I don't like the lack of cross-sensors, again until recently. But, most of all, I can't stand the noisiness of Pentax's AF. It's not bad if it locks on immediately, but if it has to hunt, those lenses are *loud*, especially anything with a long focusing throw. The *ist addressed the scarcity of focusing points and the lack of cross sensors, so that's a good start. chris
