Please ignore my other Email 8^) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/04/02 11:04AM >>> Oops, I was thinking F100.
Stupid Nikon nomenclature. ;) tv > -----Original Message----- > From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ...went digital today... very disappointing. > > > 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
