Hi Fred, I'm "sorta" in the same boat as you, and have recently started asking lots of questions and reading articles and tests. Considering that the istDS has ~just~ come out, it's probably too early to make a decision on what's an acceptable level of features for my needs as I'm still trying to define what I want from a digital camera. Definitely I'd like something that's a couple of steps up from the little Sony I've been using, and definitely I don't want a DSLR as a replacement for film, so, for me at least, it comes down to primarily how well the DS uses the k-mount lenses as I don't want to run out and buy more glass just to accommodate a digi. If the DS allows good manual use, and can end up with an image better than the Sony and comparable to the istD, then I may very well opt to save a few $$ and get it instead of the istD.
I'd be very interested in what others have to say ... From what's been posted here, the DS may well be "good enough" and maybe even better than anticipated. I suppose the answer depends on what you want from the camera: features, picture quality, cost, adaptability to different lenses, size. What's most important to you? For me it's adaptability to lenses and picture quality, with size coming in behind that, a decent viewfinder, and the ability to use the camera as a P&S as well as a regular manual focus SLR. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Not being one of the "digitally-enabled" yet, I wonder what the > ~principal~ differences are between the *ist DS and the *ist D. > Sure, I can compare the features and specs online, but I'm wondering > about how you digital users view the ~importance~ of the various > differences. Is the *ist DS "good enuf", say? Or, is the *ist D > "absolutely essential"? > > Fred >
