Just to note, the DS will have a pentaprism. Look at the specs on Adorama.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/22/2004 11:08:57 AM >>> Hi! > 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"? Let me put my coins into the jar... Once one of my friends who was witnessing me getting almost mad trying to figure out what to buy - Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax told me this: "Whatever camera you choose, it will take excellent pictures"... Which is not so trivial if you stop for a moment and think of it. I think that from digital only point of view DS and D are rather similar. They share same sensor, etc. However DS is more of an amateur camera while D is more like prosumer grade. What does it mean: 1. On DS the viewfinder most likely will be penta-mirror. For me the D's viewfinder was like a blessing compared to penta-mirror of my MZ-6. 2. DS is not going to have shiftable program, a.k.a. hyper modes (program and manual). I lived without this with my MZ-6, but when, thanks to Jostein, I could hold Z-1 in my hands, I realized what I was missing. It is very, very convenient. 3. DS has all those scene based modes - portrait, landscape, etc. What happens, is that mostly judging from the distance reported by the lens, the camera will decide which sub-program to choose. This is in a sense a substitute to shiftable program. D has other choices - Normal, Depth, MTF, Speed. Those are more abstract programs so to say, but I often find that switching between them is very convenient. In fact, all three user pre-sets are the same in my D except the program line. I use Normal, Depth and MTF. I can shift to speed if I have to. To me it is mighty convenient. 4. DS is supposed to be more plasticky and it is designed so that there'll be no grip for it. I lived with plasticky MZ-6 and couldn't really complain. Nonetheless I like the sturdy feel of D much better than that of MZ-6. I don't have the grop for D but have grip for MZ-6. Eventually I hope I would buy the grip for D. I think it could be benefitial. As you can see, one can live without any of the above. The only picture I made that entered an exhibition was done with ME Super and Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 lens ;). In a nutshell these are just slightly different electronics/software elements that are designed for your photographic comfort. Is it worth the money - it is your choice. Of course I could go on with the above list, but I hope I made my point :). I hope the jar did not break after all these coins were put in :). Boris
