At some point I wrote: > >The VF in the ist-D is surprisingly good. I had an LX before the D and > >was > >pretty spoiled (by 35mm standards). Compare the D to the Olympus E-1 or > >Nikon D-100 and the D is the big winner.
to which DJE responded: > I keep hearing this. Honestly as a D100 user I don't have any problem > with it and am uncomfortable with the *istD. Of course I'm USED to the > D100 and not the *istD. > I wasn't referring to the overall camera, only the viewfinder. I used a friend's D100 (before the ist D was released) and was horrified at the viewfinder. How could it be so small and dim? Why was it like looking through a tunnel? More than anything I was disappointed because I was afraid the forthcoming Pentax DSLR would be as bad. Having used only LXen and MXen I could not imagine using such a crummy viewfinder for my style of photography. When the D was released and I picked mine up from the store I was relieved to see that the VF was very good by AF standards. I understand now why DSLRs like the D100 have such small viewfinders (APS-sized sensor, etc) but I'm glad Pentax got something right. A few weeks after I got my D I picked up an Olympus E-1. It's VF was worse than the D100's. Christian
