Hi, Shel. > 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.
Well, that's about the state that I'm in, which is why I asked the question... > and definitely I don't want a DSLR as a replacement for film Same here. I suspect I'd use a K-mount DSLR much more often than I use my film SLR's, but I don't plan on stopping the use of film-based bodies just yet. > 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. That's a prime (no pun intended) concern here, too. > If the DS allows good manual use, and can end up with an image > [...] comparable to the istD, then I may very well opt to save a > few $$ and get it instead of the istD. That's my thinking - that's why I asked "Is the *ist DS 'good enuf'?". > 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. Yes - there certainly are a lot of digital "veterans" on the List now, so I am hoping to garner some erudite opinions. > 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. I'd say that my priorities are essentially the same. Since I own a lot of manual focus lenses, though, the viewfinder's focusing ability (or, rather, its effect on ~my~ focusing ability) would be very important. Thanks for the insights, Shel. Fred
