Hello Jens, I'll go halfway with you. I have paying customers all the time. Using a Pentax *istD has not had a negative effect on that. I have shot about 20,000 frames of youth soccer and baseball. Not to mention lots of weddings and portraits, all for paying customers.
The previous photographer for the baseball was shooting Canon and did not do as good a job, in fact, a rather poor job (not the camera's fault). Certainly timing is critical. I only used AF in certain situations and found that it generally delivered adequately. I also almost never machine gunned the shots so buffer was not a critical issue. I will say that the *istD is not the ideal sports camera, but it is usable. I shot all in raw and you get a full buffer after about 6 frames - then about 7-8 seconds per image before you can shoot again. Remember that you can shoot after just 1 image is written out - you don't have to wait for all of them to write out. I suspect that you need to be a better photographer to do a good job with the *istD than you would with the Canon or Nikon mid-pro level bodies. So, in a nutshell, if most/all of your shooting would be sports oriented, then the *istD is not the ideal camera. If you will be doing lots of varied shooting and you are willing to hone your skills, the *istD will perform just fine. What would make the *istD a better camera? Much bigger buffer and much faster writing to card. HTH, Bruce Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 1:45:28 PM, you wrote: JB> That's very good. I agree with most of what you said. JB> But I get more and more paying customers - they expect me to deliver! JB> I know Rick wants photographs for the family album, from travelling with his JB> wife an son. JB> The *ist D will suit him fine and will save him all the hazle (and expence) JB> of using film. JB> Someone also asked about how the D would perform for shooting scaters and JB> similar stuff. JB> My reply would have to be, that the D is not the best choise for this. It JB> just isn't. JB> The D works fine for me - as long as I stick to postcards, studio portraits, JB> commercial adds and landscapes. JB> If I was asked to document a ballgame - I'd simply have to say: Thank you JB> very much, but no thanks! JB> Please ask someone with a fast camera. With fast AF and 8 FPS and JB> "unlimited" buffer. JB> You can make a blaming "movie" with a Canon DSLR, for crying out loud. JB> I have to wait 37 secs for the next 5 shot boost featuring 2.5 FPS - of JB> which probably very few will be in focus, because the AF can't cope! JB> The D is a very nice camera. It is!. But it was never the first choise of JB> PJ's. Don't you wonder why? JB> Regards JB> Jens Bladt JB> http://www.jensbladt.dk JB> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB> Fra: Malcolm Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB> Sendt: 21. februar 2006 22:15 JB> Til: [email protected] JB> Emne: RE: Question: Should I buy an ist D? JB> Jens Bladt wrote: >> But if I was starting from scratch, I'm quite certain I'd go >> elsewhere. >> A lot of photographers do, you know. JB> PDML = Pentax Defection Mailing List. JB> A lot of people shifted both before AND after the launch of the *ist D. I JB> didn't regret buying mine then or now - it does what I wanted it too and JB> still does - and all the negative things I thought about it (reliability, JB> battery munching) all have been proved to be without foundation. JB> If I was starting from scratch again, I'd buy a Pentax. JB> Malcolm JB> -- JB> No virus found in this incoming message. JB> Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 02/21/2006 JB> -- JB> No virus found in this outgoing message. JB> Checked by AVG Free Edition. JB> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 02/21/2006
