My concerns about a "cut down" *ist-D was that it would have an inferior viewfinder. I made that mistake when I bought the MZ-6. I far prefer my M series bodies as I can actually compose a picture far more easily, and that's far more important to me than making the camera a few grams lighter. With the *ist-DS I can use my Pentax glass with a digital body that has the same sensor and viewfinder as it *ist D at a price that is far more affordable# I don't give one whit about the frame rate (anything would be quicker than my TLR) or the lack of MLU (that's what the B setting and black velvet are for). I can live without a PC socket by using a hot shoe converter that I already had to buy for my MZ-6. The only settings I care about are manual and Av, so there's no loss there. As far as I can tell, *for the features that I will actually use* it's not inferior to the *ist-D in any way other than price. We'll have to wait and see...
Cheers, Simon # Read - "can convince beloved wife that it's affordable" -----Original Message----- From: Treena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2004 3:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! I know I won't complain. This is exactly what I wanted, and possibly at a far better price than I'd hoped. I've read the release over several times, and I can't help thinking this sounds more and more like the zx-5n of the digital line. And that would keep me happy for a very long time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:10 AM Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera! > They probably are identical. Pentax decides not to cheapen the new > camera where it matters and folk complain. Oh well. > > -- > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > See below: > > > > Martin Trautmann wrote: > > > >> On 2004-09-15 15:35, Alin Flaider wrote: > >> > >>> Martin wrote: > >>> MT> Yet another question: the new model was reduced in weight. Does > >>> it still use > >>> MT> an inner metal frame or ist it 'plastics only'? > > > > > >>> The chassis depicted here appears quite sturdy: > >>> http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0914/pentax107.jpg > > > > > >> But that's the image of the *ist D - isn't it? > >> http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0914/pentax1.htm > > > > > > On the site you reference above, that chassis is shown as one of a set > > of 6 images, one of which shows the front view of the *istDS. > > The two chassis images (Alin's above and your URL below) look identical > > to me. > > > > I do question whether that particular chassis might not be an > > engineering mockup, however. > > Seems to me they wouldn't build a chassis with so many screws and posts > > and separate stampings for a large production model as the DS is > > supposed to be. > > In other words, I'm not convinced that's a production chassis. > > > > keith whaley > > > >> I asked for the *ist Ds. > >> > >> Regards > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > >
