On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:13:20 -0600 (CST), you wrote: >Hopefully for Pentax users the D70 will hasten the appearance of a $1000 >Pentax DSLR with a reasonable feature set, or simply make the *istD >cheaper. >
I've owned a D100 for close to two years now, and agonized over the decision to get an *istD. I had a serious buyer for my 600/4, and came within a day of selling everything Pentax. If I could have generated enough dollars to afford the new Nikon 200-400/f4 AF-S VR IF-ED, I'd probably be lurking on a Nikon list instead of PDML. But I went ahead and bought an *istD and kept all my Pentax 35mm goodies. The small size was an important factor, since my wife thought the D100 was too big, and was disinclined to use it, but thought she would use the smaller *istD. The price reduction and firmware upgrade were important, too - without them I would not have bought the *istD. But the biggest factor was the three lenses I already owned that I could not or would not exactly replace in Nikon line for one reason or another - FA* 600/4, M20/4, F* 300/4.5, and Tokina AT-X 300/2.8 with the Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter. If all I had to worry about was a keeping a couple of ordinary and easily replaceable lenses, then my decision to keep a Pentax DSLR kit would not make as much sense. I could make a case for Pentax, but it would be weak. Small size? Build quality? Backward compatibility? Hmmmm.... not much there to hang a dollar sign onto. Limited lenses? They become strange focal length equivalents when the crop factor is figured in. Starting essentially from scratch, why not go with Nikon or Canon, who have image stabilized, ultrasonic motor lenses? One reason is price - images stabilized lenses with good optics are expensive. The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM was very tempting to me, even at $1400 and a little soft at 400mm. The EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM is great, and "only" $1100. I would have gone with Canon when I first went digital, except I tried for months to buy a D60 and could not find one for sale anywhere. The other great lens I lusted for, and bought, is the Nikon AF-S 300/f4, which was $950 or so with a rebate. It is one of the few lenses sharper wide open than the F* 300/4.5 and equal to the FA* 600/4. I would have liked image stabilization, but really have no complaint. If I have a moment on location to slow my breathing and shoot between heartbeats I can hand-hold it down to 1/60 fairly well, and 1/125 with precision. Am I happy with the *istD? Sure, no buyer's remorse here. The photo quality is equal or slightly better than the D100, the LCD review is less convenient but more accurate than the D100, my wife loves the small size and will probably start taking pictures again, I can get a 20-50-100-300-TC-Flash kit *and* my binocs in my Off Road bag again, so overall I am a happy camper. But for a DSLR long-lens kit? There's nothing better for the price than the D100 and Nikon AF-S 300/4 with Nikon 1.4x AF TC. Except maybe the Canon 10D with EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and EF1.4x AF TC. Ahhh, choices, choices. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
