Aaron,
I think I am right in saying that Continuous AF only works in Sport mode
on the DS. I assumed it did the same on the DS2, but presumably Pentax
have added back a bit of functionality if it also works in Av and M.
I have to say that I don't change ISO from shot to shot. If I did so,
then perhaps your thumb-tapping technique would be easier.
John
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:05:00 +0100, Aaron Reynolds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What modes is continuous focus disabled in -- the programs? Works fine
for me in M and AV on the DS2.
As for the control set, I miss the vertical grip and front dial, but do
not miss the implementation of drive mode and ISO on the D, which
require you to change position relative to the camera to see what you're
doing on the top LCD and also change your hand position -- why people
prefer to do this instead of tapping their thumb three times while just
pulling their eye away from the finder is beyond me.
Manual white balance on the D was also quite counter-intuitive in
comparison.
-Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Everything new is obscure again
Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:42 am
Size: 4K
To: [email protected]
Clearly Bob doesn't have a D! :-)
The later bodies lack several of the D's capabilities, like continuous
focus in all exposure modes; wireless flash using the RTF to trigger the
remote unit; and most functions available via knobs rather than
menu-diving. All of these are useful, at least for me. The wireless
flash system is excellent.
There are no "prototyping issues" of any significance whatsoever.
This is the preferred body EXCEPT for those who like to shoot
continuously. All the other bodies are faster. They are also cheaper,
which is obviously a consideration, too.
One or more of the latest bodies will not work with any flash other than
(I think) the (expensive but good) AF360FTZ.
John
On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:45:04 +0100, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Stephen,
With respect to Question #1:
All the cameras have the same sensor and basic electrical components.
D was the first - uses CF cards, capable of taking a battery
pack/vertical grip.
DS was the second - uses SD cards, slightly different controls &
instruction set.
(capabilities are identical to the D, bigger LCD for chimping?) No
vertical grip.
DL cheaper alternative but uses porro mirror for viewfinder, not penta
prism.
(capabilities are identical to the Ds) No vertical grip.
DS2, DL2 - introduced with bigger LDC on the back of the camera and a
software upgrade (at least in the DS2). (Software upgrade is
available on the Pentax USA site so you can update your DS if you have
one - 5 minutes with a high speed internet connection - Thanks
Pentax!)
Bottom line is these are all a family of cameras based on the same
electronics and capable of delivering the same digital results. The
first of the series, the *ist D, has the usual Pentax prototyping
issues. The DS drops some of those initial features and gets to a
great camera with everything you need. The DL cuts some corners
(viewfinder) to drop the price for the mass market.
Regards, Bob S.
On 5/17/06, Stephen D'Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings all,
After a couple years absence I've returned to the list. My passion
for Pentax never waned during my time away, but my leisure to keep up
with the list did. In the intervening years I've been drawn closer to
going digital, so the time has come to ask the right questions of the
people in the know.
1. Can someone give me a brief explanation (or confirmation) of the
differences in the istD, DL, and DS (plus the "2" versions). I've
read what I can about them but just when I think I'm getting the
general idea of them in comparison I still feel like something eludes
me. For example, I know the "plain" D is the oldest of the three, and
the most expensive, but I find myself asking, "Why is this camera
still being made?" I get the general sense that the D is aimed at a
higher level user than the DL or DS, though they all have many of the
same features, and the LCD screens are bigger on the more recent
models, but I still don't feel like I have a clear idea of what the D
can do that the DS or DL can't. What makes the D cost twice as much
as a camera that's several years newer?
2. I'm attracted to the Ds for the Pentax experience I've had for the
last 27 years and the option to use my existing A series lenses. Can
someone clarify what happens to the focal length when an older lens
is put on the newer body?
3. Can I use my AF400T flash with any of the Ds?
4. What are the latest rumors about the next generation of Pentax
digital SLRs?
I know one of the inevitable questions about dispensing advice will
be "What kind of photographer are you?" The easiest answer is
"somewhere in that vague area that defines people who have a
bachelor's degree in photography, do some freelance commercial work
when they have to, but generally do their own personal photo
projects." After 18 years with an MX I bought in college (with money
I earned using my dad's Spotmatic), I've used an LX for the past
eight or nine years.
And, boy, you go away from the list for a few months and a whole new
set of acronyms pops up. You certainly can't tell the players if you
don't have a scorecard. Would someone patient be so kind to explain
what the following terms mean to the casual reader:
GESO
PESO
PAW
GFM
PEOW
anything else that comes to mind
Thanks. I did miss reading the messages and am glad to be tuned in
again.
-Stephen
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
