|
|
Re: Nikon D70 v Pentax *ist DS
wrote in message
news:1108080515.756680.79150@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| bratislav3162@hotmail.com wrote:
|
| > Think ahead.
| > There's tons of really sharp glass for Nikon (especially second
| hand).
| > Not so great choice for Pentax. You will grow out the standard zoom
| > quickly, and then there's open road for Nikon (or Canon) but Pentax
| is
| > very limited.
|
Canon this, Nikon that... I'm very happy with my *ist DS that I purchased a
few weeks ago... though it took a few to get it right (see my earlier post
on here "3 pentaxes in 3 days"). I'm putting that down to bad luck, though
I'm sure doomsayers on here would howl that it must mean all pentax cameras
are faulty. My DS body I have now works perfectly, it's just the operator
that needs refining!
As for the availablitiy of "glass" that people love to go on about, well
they are assuming a lot. You never said what the cameras main use will be,
or how much you would be willing to spend... apparently we all have $$$ to
spend on the latest USM f0.8 IS doohickey. Me, I'd be stoked to pick up a
pentax A 50mm 1.7 prime from a garage sale or secondhand place and play with
that. Of course future lens selction may be a big thing for you and then I
stand corrected :)
My reasons for choosing the *ist DS were: price (with 2 lenses it seemed
pretty good to start with); I had no other SLR lenses except my old canon FD
stuff; and browsing many photo forums saw me find no reason _not_ to buy the
DS. Am I happy with my purchase? Absolutely. A good article on the DS can
found over at Luminous Landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml
Here's some of the pics I've taken with my DS:
http://www.pbase.com/bookster/istds
Bookster
|
|
|
| |
"David Morrison" wrote in message
news:davidmor-B68492.11455027112004@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> In article <41a7897a@news.comindico.com.au>,
> "Justin Thyme" wrote:
>> Electronic Viewfinder - mostly as for rear panel lcd's, except they are a
>> bit lighter on power, you don't have the problem of sunlight hitting the
>> screen, and you hold the camera better, but their lower resolution makes
>> them harder for manual focus
>
> They may not always be lower resolution. The Canon Powershot S1 IS
> claims to have the same number of pixels in the viewfinder as the LCD
> panel. But you are right, being smaller would make it harder to focus.
The S1IS is one that gives an enlarged view when focussing, but it is still
a pain
>
> I guess I am trying to decide whether the disadvantages of the
> electronic viewfinder (power consumption, low light issues, limited
> resolution) are enough to make an optical viewfinder preferable with its
> disadvantages (framing issues, no filters, no manual focus).
>
> Most of my photos are outdoors, so a polarising filter is pretty
> important.
People can and do use polarisers with rangefinder film cameras, so digital
would be the same. Look through the filter until you see the best image,
take note of the orientation of the filter (there will be a little index
mark on it), and make sure that is in the same position when you put it on
the camera.
>
> Manual focussing is what I do now (very old SLRs), but I am unsure
> whether the autofocus systems are good enough that I would not need to
> use manual focus.
AF systems are very accurate. Certainly on consumer digitals it is generally
more accurate than you would be with MF. However on anything less than a
prosumer or dslr, the AF systems are SLOOOOW, and MF is even slower.
>
> Some of my photos are in low light. What level of light becomes a
> problem? In the depths of a forest? Late in the afternoon? Moonlight?
forests are not normally a problem, afternoon not a problem at all. well lit
indoors room no problem. Moonlight - hopeless. I like optical viewfinders
where if i can see it with my eye, i can frame it with my camera.
>
> I have been using SLRs for 20 years and would certainly prefer a through
> the lens viewfinder. However, for the moment I have no experience with
> digital cameras and would like to try a middle-range one to work out
> what is important to me. (Could not stand a low-end camera's
> limitations!)
I was in a similar boat. I considered upgrading, and was lucky enough to get
some extended play-time with some very nice cameras. Really though, the
only cameras that I didn't find a step backwards from an SLR (and I've been
using MF SLR's with match-the-needle type metering for years), were the
DSLR's. I probably could have lived with a canon Pro 1 or olympus 8080, but
still felt they were lacking. As a pentax user, at the time I was looking
Pentax's only DSLR offering was out of my budget (but the istD is a
beautiful camera, and the istDS looks very promising), so changing into a
Nikon or Canon offering would have required a re-investment in lenses etc.
In the end, I decided that to get a digital I'd be happy with was out of my
budget, but a digital within my budget would disappoint. So I put in a
small investment, bought a budget kodak p&s offering for those times when a
p&s is handy, and spent a small amount on another couple of 2nd hand SLR
bodies, a couple of 2nd hand lenses, and a bit of 2nd hand processing gear
so I can do my own B&W and slide processing. All up I spent under $500. It
will take about 200 rolls of film before I catch up price wise with what I
would have spent on a DSLR, and I'm taking pictures that are of a quality on
par with a $3k DSLR.
I will agree that the 2MP, 3xOptical zoom kodak is a damned site more
convenient, and takes much nicer pictures than the APS P&S my wife had
previously.
|
|