John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 08:44:53AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: >> On 9 Nov 2005 at 22:26, Jens Bladt wrote: >> >> > Small buffer, Only 5 images in a "bust". Then wait 37 sec's for the next 5 >> > shots or 7 sec's for the next single shot: >> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/469145/ >> >> Not great for creating pano sequences is it? :-( > >Oddly enough, I've managed to use my D for (RAW) panoramas, >and for motorsports action photography.
Same here. With panos, the shooting speed limitation is trivial, in my experience. When I'm shooting a 21-frame 360-degree panorama (and I've done quite a few with this camera), I'm generally not trying to capture fast action ;-) The limitation is more significant with motorsports, but this can be minimized through some preparation and skill on the part of the photographer (though I realize these concepts are out of fashion these days). >I guess it's just as well that I didn't know the camera >couldn't be used for such things. > >It could certainly be better for buffer size, write speed, >and auto-focus performance (while I've got some great action >shots, I've also got several near misses). > >But I don't regret having purchased the camera, even though >I paid almost $2000 (US) for the camera and battery grip. I concur on all the above points. The main reason I'm not champing at the bit for the next top-end Pentax DSLR is that the ist-D performs so well for me that I don't feel a pressing need for a replacement at the moment. I'll buy it when Pentax makes it (and I expect it'll become available next year just about the time I can afford it!) but I'll keep the ist-D. Oddly enough, despite the reputation for DSLR's rapid showing of age, I expect to be using the ist-D professionally for longer than either the PZ-1p or the MZ-S held the top spot in my arsenal. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
