Thats why i'm keeping the D1 and not "buying down"
Dave
> The D100 isn't a DSLR.
>
> tv
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Mustarde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:03 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: ...went digital today... very disappointing.
> >
> >
> > So in my new home here in Arizona I found a well-stocked
> > camera store
> > just a mile from the plant. Went there, and to my surprise they had
> > plenty of Nikon D100's in stock. So I thought I'd give it a spin.
> >
> > First thing I noticed was that Nikon puts the lens release button on
> > the wrong side of the camera. Sales guy says they've been doing it
> > that way for years. Sheesh - good way to make ya drop a lens!
> >
> > Next thing I noticed was the slow autofocus. Sure, I was
> > only using a
> > genuine Nikon 300/4 brand new lens, so maybe it lacks some
> > hypersonic
> > something or other. Nevertheless, my antique 1996 PZ1p focuses
> > noticeably faster than the brand new year 2002 Nikon D100.
> >
> > Later I read this camera has something called CAM900 AF, which is
> > slower than the CAM1300 AF on their better film cameras. Let's see -
> > you're gonna charge a grand more than your film camera,
> > then give your
> > customers slower AF? Sounds like something straight out of
> > the Pentax
> > marketing book. Shame on you, Nikon - crippling an expensive camera
> > with second-rate AF when you could have done better.
> >
> > Then I noticed the Nikon D100 has only 1/180 flash sync. Rats again.
> > Another hard pill to swallow when thinking of buying a two grand
> > camera. If I needed to downgrade to 1/180 flash sync, I could always
> > buy an MZ-S, fer crying out loud!
> >
> > But in it's favor, the D100 is a pretty good looking camera, because
> > it looks almost exactly like a PZ1p. It's just got a little
> > more heft
> > on the bottom and a few extra buttons. At least they got
> > the shape and
> > grip right. Even has a nice PZ1p-style thumb wheel to
> > change aperture
> > - just my cup of tea.
> >
> > Like I said, I tried out the Nikon 300/4. It nearly whirred
> > out of my
> > hand - the dang focus collar spins crazily if you have the
> > lens in MF
> > and the body shooting AF! Whoof! They should put a warning label on
> > that thing!
> >
> > So my small foray into DSLR-land was a little revealing. It let me
> > know I would have to be crazy to spend two grand for a DSLR from
> > Nikon, at least until they get their feature set straight. Even then
> > I'd have to learn to live with that idiot lens release location and
> > those ugly barbecue-grill-paint black lenses.
> >
> > Oh, and I also got to test out the Sigma 50-500 lens. It's about the
> > size and weight of my Tokina 300/2.8 - in other words, it's
> > just plain
> > huge and heavy. Just imagine lugging around the weight of a
> > 300/2.8 to
> > take a photo at 50mm! Guess this one is influenced by the
> > longevity of
> > the Canon 35-350 L. Here's a hint, Sigma - send this puppy to Weight
> > Watchers. Give me a good ol' Pentax 300/4.5 instead any day.
> >
> > Enough rambling on the digital front. I told my wife I could wait
> > another few months on a Pentax DSLR, if such an animal every
> > materializes. Even if the feature set is no better than the
> > competition, at least with Pentax I'll get a lens release button on
> > the right side of the camera!!!
> >
> > --
> > John Mustarde
> > www.photolin.com
>
