Hello Jens, I had already sold off almost all my 35mm gear quite a while ago. So I started basically fresh on lens procurement for the *istD. So all my lenses are AF lenses.
One thing to note, the *ist film body has the advanced AF and wireless flash operation of the MZ-S for a much smaller price. That is what I bought for a backup body until the time that I can afford another DSLR. The *ist film body sounds like it would be the perfect complement to your PZ-1p and still give you much money left over to put towards a digi or lenses or some such. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 10:01:23 AM, you wrote: JB> Hi Bruce JB> Very good point. JB> I allready own 5 Pentax film bodies... JB> I guess I was trying to convince my self, that I was't after a diggy, just JB> because it's a diggy. So I made my self the point, that I was after faster JB> autofocus, more focus points, and more measuring segments, compared to my JB> newest body - the PZ-1 (which I love using BTW). In fast changing JB> situations, people or animals moving arround e.i. the PZ-1 autofocus is JB> missing out. JB> Do you use K or M lenses with your *ist D? JB> How does it feel, having to push the green button frequently? JB> Regards JB> Jens JB> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB> Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB> Sendt: 11. februar 2004 18:32 JB> Til: Jens Bladt JB> Emne: Re: MZ-S vs. *ist D JB> Hello Jens, JB> The question you should have asked is if you can only have one camera, JB> would it be the *istD or the MZ-S, for those who either own both or JB> have owned both. JB> For me, while I certainly admire the MZ-S (owned 2 at one point), I JB> would most certainly go for the *istD (which is what I have done). JB> Like you, I am not in a position to own both. JB> Another thing to consider is how much use they get. For those who own JB> both, find out the percentage that they are used. From what I have JB> read so far, film usage has dropped dramatically for those who have JB> both. The needs/usages for film become more niche. Extreme WA, and JB> finely detailed landscapes (of course 35mm isn't the best choice here JB> anyway) come to mind. One doesn't need an MZ-S to cover those needs. JB> Any Pentax body will fill the bill. JB> -- JB> Best regards, JB> Bruce JB> Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 5:58:36 AM, you wrote: JB>> Thank you very much Rob, John and Steve JB>> I still can't make up my mind, choosing between the two. I'd really like JB> to JB>> have both. Then I wouldn't need other bodies, except maby for backup. JB>> The *ist D cost twice as much as the MZ-S, and doesn't works rather JB>> inconveniently (green button) with my 6 K or M mount lenses. On the JB> other JB>> hand - the convenience of a digital, that will work fine with my 6 A, F JB> or JB>> FA mount lenses. I regret I didn't get the MZ-S when it was marketed in JB>> 2001/2002. JB>> Jens JB>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB>> Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB>> Sendt: 9. februar 2004 21:16 JB>> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JB>> Emne: Re: MZ-S vs. *ist D JB>> I agree with the others on most points. One difference is that the AF JB>> system D has cross sensors and the MZ-S doesn't, particularly the JB>> central one. I tend to use the single central sensor setting, but have JB>> found I have to tilt the MZ-S to get a lock sometimes. As noted on this JB>> list, the D flash exposure works best when the ISO is set to 400. JB>> Steven Desjardins JB>> Department of Chemistry JB>> Washington and Lee University JB>> Lexington, VA 24450 JB>> (540) 458-8873 JB>> FAX: (540) 458-8878 JB>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
