> > >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
I was imprecise. I was also referring to the viewfinder only. I agree that the D100 finder is a "tunnel", but it doesn't appear to bother me in use. The *istD finder is not "bad", but the different symbology and collections of lines and such were unsettling. I think I like Nikon's layout better precisely because the stuff in the viewfinder is smaller and less intrusive. I can see that a lot of people would have exactly the opposite opinion. Having spent some time with my girlfriend's *istD in the last couple of days I don't find it hard to use. Some of the controls are "backwards" and "counterintuitive" to me, but that is because I am used to Nikon and OLDER pentax. I'll bet that for PZ, ZX, and MZ series users it is quite natural. I also found the Canon 10D control layout to be a bit odd, presumably because it does things the Canon way. DJE
