Personally, for the sort of stuff I do out in the world, the more
unobtrusive it is, the better I'll like it. That's one of the reasons I
picked the Ds in the first place. I have a fair collection of Nikon
lenses from years past. If I was wanted "presence" I'd get a D200.
Anti-shake (or whatever it would be called) would be great, though.
- Marco
On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I couldn't care less what the new D looks like. If it has a fast write
speed, a large buffer and ten megapixels, I will fall in love. I am in
know way disappointed. I'm pumped.
Paul
On Feb 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It will most likely be similar to the Nikon D200, which B&H has
priced at l699. If it can equal that camera in specs, it will be a
winner in my book. I'm sure it will accommodate early lenses in a
manner at least as efficient as the D.
I' am somewhat dissapointed. I think it is just an *isD with a better
sensor. I also think that the camera looks rather bland particularly
if it cost semi-pro money. The contrast to the 645D couldn't be
larger. Although the 645D is no classical beauty, it is camera with
presence, original design and doesn't look like anything else. In
addition the design offers uniqe features. Most importantly the
slanted top panel makes it possible to adjust and see setting when
the camera is on a tripod at eye level. Anyone who has tried to
change setting on, say, the Z-1p (who is the worst offender of all
cameras as the LCD panel is at the top of the prism), under such
circumstances knows it involves taking the camera off the tripod for
setting functions. Also the two tripod sockets are brilliant. Why
don't Pentax make their semi-pro K-mount DSLR similar? They are no
longer bound to the old shapes dictated by film-
Pål
