Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon D70 v Pentax *ist DS

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:30:05 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi all,

A D70 (with 18-70mm) costs about AU$1900 and the Pentax *ist DS (with Sigma
18-125mM) can be bought for under AU$1400.

I like the slightly smaller size of the Pentax, but wonder if there's something
in particular about the Nikon that justifies it being 30% more expensive.

Unfortuntely dpreview.com only has a preview of the Pentax, so some specs are
missing, but it appears the two cameras have very similar functions except the
Pentax has a bigger and higher res LCD screen although that's not very important
as it's not a P&S.

I think I can live with the status LCD being on the back of the body of the
Pentax as I'm used to all status info being on the back of my Kodak DX6490 body
(via the LCD screen).

I don't mind using SD memory as I was thinking of getting two 256 MB cards and
sharing one with my Kodak P&S.

Can someone point out some critical differences that should sway me towards the
Nikon?

Thanks for any help.
--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

More about : nikon d70 pentax ist

Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A D70 (with 18-70mm) costs about AU$1900 and the Pentax *ist DS (with
> Sigma 18-125mM) can be bought for under AU$1400.
>
> I like the slightly smaller size of the Pentax, but wonder if there's
> something in particular about the Nikon that justifies it being 30% more
> expensive.

I already had Pentax glass, so the choice was easy for me. The price
difference bought me a tripod and another used lens.

> Unfortuntely dpreview.com only has a preview of the Pentax, so some specs
> are missing, but it appears the two cameras have very similar functions
> except the Pentax has a bigger and higher res LCD screen although that's
> not very important as it's not a P&S.
>
> I think I can live with the status LCD being on the back of the body of
> the Pentax as I'm used to all status info being on the back of my Kodak
> DX6490 body (via the LCD screen).

The LCD status screen is on the top of the *istDS, with the color screen
on the back.

> I don't mind using SD memory as I was thinking of getting two 256 MB cards
> and sharing one with my Kodak P&S.
>
> Can someone point out some critical differences that should sway me
> towards the Nikon?

Can't help there. :-)
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm in a similar position. I'm looking to get hold of my first DSLR and
the choices are threefold:

Canon 300D
Nikon D70
Pentax *ist DS

The canon is due for replacement and ergonomics didn't feel right in my
hands. Purely subjective, I know.

The Nikon gets all the kudos in the reviews, but it's a bit of a brute
to lug arround.

The pentax looks like the ticket. Feels goods, small size, and I
remember reading something about a tiny lense being released for it.

P.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:6suduc.osd.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Hi all,
>
> A D70 (with 18-70mm) costs about AU$1900 and the Pentax *ist DS (with
> Sigma 18-125mM) can be bought for under AU$1400.
>
> I like the slightly smaller size of the Pentax, but wonder if there's
> something in particular about the Nikon that justifies it being 30% more
> expensive.
>
> Unfortuntely dpreview.com only has a preview of the Pentax, so some specs
> are missing, but it appears the two cameras have very similar functions
> except the Pentax has a bigger and higher res LCD screen although that's
> not very important as it's not a P&S.
>
> I think I can live with the status LCD being on the back of the body of
> the Pentax as I'm used to all status info being on the back of my Kodak
> DX6490 body (via the LCD screen).
>
> I don't mind using SD memory as I was thinking of getting two 256 MB cards
> and sharing one with my Kodak P&S.
>
> Can someone point out some critical differences that should sway me
> towards the Nikon?
>
> Thanks for any help.
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.\\



No skin in this game, but a comparison of the Nikkor 18-70 to a Sigma is not
a reasonable comparison.

Tom
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I already had some Nikon lenses that I could use on the D70, so that's what
I bought. Generally, when somebody gets a DSLR they already started with a
35mm system of the same make, therefore often have lenses that they can use.

IMHO, I've been very happy with the 18-70 lens that comes with the D70 kit,
and the camera has a great feel to it with all the buttons and controls in
the right places. It ain't light, but I think it easier to hand hold a
substantial camera that has the weight of a 35mm SLR.

Pick em all up, fire off a few shots, and it should be easy to make a
decision. BTW I also agree with the person who said you can't compare a
Sigma lens to a Nikon lens, and this is probably at least part of the reason
for the price difference. A few dealers put cheaper lenses on the Nikon to
bring the price down, but I don't think it does anything good except save a
few bucks. Also, I don't know what's going on with the D70 over there, but
in the US there is now a substantial rebate on the kit.
"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:6suduc.osd.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Hi all,
>
> A D70 (with 18-70mm) costs about AU$1900 and the Pentax *ist DS (with
> Sigma 18-125mM) can be bought for under AU$1400.
>
> I like the slightly smaller size of the Pentax, but wonder if there's
> something in particular about the Nikon that justifies it being 30% more
> expensive.
>
> Unfortuntely dpreview.com only has a preview of the Pentax, so some specs
> are missing, but it appears the two cameras have very similar functions
> except the Pentax has a bigger and higher res LCD screen although that's
> not very important as it's not a P&S.
>
> I think I can live with the status LCD being on the back of the body of
> the Pentax as I'm used to all status info being on the back of my Kodak
> DX6490 body (via the LCD screen).
>
> I don't mind using SD memory as I was thinking of getting two 256 MB cards
> and sharing one with my Kodak P&S.
>
> Can someone point out some critical differences that should sway me
> towards the Nikon?
>
> Thanks for any help.
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 4:16:46 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you have an investment in lenses for a particular brand for most users
that should be the deciding factor about which consumer digital slr to
purchase. The main reason for a dSLR as opposed to a high quality EVF camera
is to be able to interchange lenses, no? Manufacturers have performed all
kinds of tricks so that consumers can leverage the existing 35mm SLR lens
base.
The D70 is not the end-all camera it is made out to be: however it has
extremely flexible programming options, which one needs to master to get
quality images, and is very convenient to use in raw format. The latter is
fortunate because the quality of D70 jpeg images is no better than P&S
quality.
If I had no investment in lenses I would look at either the new Minolta
dSLR, as antishake is a very usable function, or the Canon D20, because 8mps
is better than 6mps no matter what you read. The Olympus dSLRs are small and
light and have newly designed, dedicated to digital lenses.
Regardless of the above if I had a bunch of Pentax autofocus lenses I would
buy a Pentax dSLR and not think twice about it.
February 10, 2005 6:03:26 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bmoag...i am interested in peoples responses here also. Are the 20D's images
on prog (i assume thats what you were talking about) going to be superior to
that of the D70 ?



.. The latter is
> fortunate because the quality of D70 jpeg images is no better than P&S
> quality.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:57:05 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
> No skin in this game, but a comparison of the Nikkor 18-70 to a
> Sigma 18-125 is not a reasonable comparison.

Despite the brand name, the Nikkor 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX is not a lens
I would want, due to extreme distortion. Near the 18mm end, it is
more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens.

Pop Photo says the Sigma 18-125 has 1.05% barrel distortion at 18mm,
which is not bad.

The Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX is a respectable lens, but costs $1350 USD.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:15:22 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 09 Feb 2005 in rec.photo.digital, Ben Thomas wrote:

> A D70 (with 18-70mm) costs about AU$1900 and the Pentax *ist DS
> (with Sigma 18-125mM) can be bought for under AU$1400.

For What It's Worth, Nikon Australia has a AU$200 rebate on the kit (or
at least on the D70 plus a lens)through the end of February.

http://www.nikonclub.com.au/cashbacks/index.html

> I like the slightly smaller size of the Pentax, but wonder if
> there's something in particular about the Nikon that justifies it
> being 30% more expensive.

I like the size and weight of the camera. Somebody else in the thread
mentioned Olympus. I've always admired their cameras, but found them a
little small for my hands.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:15:01 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I never see any image from D70 with the stunning result as opposed from a
*ist DS posted by a fellow aus.photo poster recently
http://www.pbase.com/bookster/nantien

If you see the shadow area .. the colour rendering is almost perfect !

=bob=

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:6suduc.osd.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Hi all,
>
> A D70 (with 18-70mm) costs about AU$1900 and the Pentax *ist DS (with
> Sigma 18-125mM) can be bought for under AU$1400.
>
> I like the slightly smaller size of the Pentax, but wonder if there's
> something in particular about the Nikon that justifies it being 30% more
> expensive.
>
> Unfortuntely dpreview.com only has a preview of the Pentax, so some specs
> are missing, but it appears the two cameras have very similar functions
> except the Pentax has a bigger and higher res LCD screen although that's
> not very important as it's not a P&S.
>
> I think I can live with the status LCD being on the back of the body of
> the Pentax as I'm used to all status info being on the back of my Kodak
> DX6490 body (via the LCD screen).
>
> I don't mind using SD memory as I was thinking of getting two 256 MB cards
> and sharing one with my Kodak P&S.
>
> Can someone point out some critical differences that should sway me
> towards the Nikon?
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 6:25:49 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas wrote:

> Can someone point out some critical differences that should sway me
towards the
> Nikon?

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.
I've got three Nikon film bodies with lots of lenses (including many
primes from 24mm to 300mm IFED), but for digital I went to the dark
side (Canon) as 300D was the only viable alternative a year or so ago.
D100 was expensive and noisy, and D70 was nonexistant. (D70 still has
an inferior sensor compared to 300D, but not as much)
If I was buying today I'd have to think hard between D70 and 300D ...
and probably pick D70 'cause of the stuff I already have.

20D is a vastly superior camera (and more expensive too). Even less
noise than 300D, more pixels, better build, more options, you name it.

Bratislav
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:08:35 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.

This is a very good point. Also, Canon has at least recognized the
issue with the focal length multiplier, and come out with a wide-angle
zoom lens that is usable (EF-S 10-22 which ends up as a 16-35 in 35mm
terms). While not cheap (I paid US$650!), at least it's a solution.
With the istD/istDs, unless I've missed something, there is really no
wide angle zoom option, only the prime 14mm for US$660 (correct me if
I'm wrong).

If I were you, I'd wait a couple of weeks, since Canon is about to
announce the replacement for the EOS-300D, which is likely to be on the
level of the Nikon D70, and priced around the same as the EOS-300D.

Steve
http://digitalcamerashortlist.com
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:28:37 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-T- wrote:

> Pentax *ist D/Ds can use old lenses in a much better way then Nikon
and
> Canon. You can take a lens from mid 70'ies and it works on Ds. Of
> course...... you won't get autofokus etc on a lens that old :) 

What is "much better" ? My circa 1960 28/3.5 AI will fit on D70 no
problem.
Yes, you lose matrix metering and autofocus, but it will take shots
just fine.
Same with 300D. I have put on telescope many times, and it never
complained, trust me :-)

> The Pentax range of lenses is also so comprehensive that unless you
> have_very_ special needs I guess you won't feel any limitations.
Pentax
> glass is generally aslo known to be sharp btw..

EXCEPT there aren't that many on second hand market. All my Nikon gear
(and fix focus Canons) have been bought second hand. Want that "ED" or
"L" lens ? No worries. If not today, it will be in the shop in a month
or two.
When was the last time you saw 20mm Pentax for sale s/h ? Or
(excellent) 350mm f/2.8 ?
I didn't see them in Melbourne *at all*. And I've been window shopping
last 20 years or so.
Just have a look at any camera shop that sells second hand stuff. For
every Pentax lens there will be dozens of Canon and Nikon ones.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:07:24 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Book wrote:

> 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 :) 

Well, that is exactly what I did for excellent Canon AF 50mm f/1.8
(mint s/h). Went into the shop, handed out 100 bucks, walked out.
Warranty and all.
I've got the feeling you won't be able to do that with Pentax so easily.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 12:20:03 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>>No skin in this game, but a comparison of the Nikkor 18-70 to a
>>Sigma 18-125 is not a reasonable comparison.
>
>
> Despite the brand name, the Nikkor 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX is not a lens
> I would want, due to extreme distortion. Near the 18mm end, it is
> more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens.
>
> Pop Photo says the Sigma 18-125 has 1.05% barrel distortion at 18mm,
> which is not bad.
>
> The Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX is a respectable lens, but costs $1350 USD.
>

Thanks for a more reasonable comparison Bill.

I'll be buying the Pentax in that case. My brother-in-law still prefers to buy
the Nikon because he thinks they are better quality.

Sometimes you don't get more for your money.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:53:13 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The new Pentax *1stDS is the same price of the digital rebel. Why
wouldn't that be the best choice if you have no lenses including the
Canon D20?

bmoag wrote:

>If you have an investment in lenses for a particular brand for most users
>that should be the deciding factor about which consumer digital slr to
>purchase. The main reason for a dSLR as opposed to a high quality EVF camera
>is to be able to interchange lenses, no? Manufacturers have performed all
>kinds of tricks so that consumers can leverage the existing 35mm SLR lens
>base.
>The D70 is not the end-all camera it is made out to be: however it has
>extremely flexible programming options, which one needs to master to get
>quality images, and is very convenient to use in raw format. The latter is
>fortunate because the quality of D70 jpeg images is no better than P&S
>quality.
>If I had no investment in lenses I would look at either the new Minolta
>dSLR, as antishake is a very usable function, or the Canon D20, because 8mps
>is better than 6mps no matter what you read. The Olympus dSLRs are small and
>light and have newly designed, dedicated to digital lenses.
>Regardless of the above if I had a bunch of Pentax autofocus lenses I would
>buy a Pentax dSLR and not think twice about it.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 3:50:53 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> 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.

Pentax *ist D/Ds can use old lenses in a much better way then Nikon and
Canon. You can take a lens from mid 70'ies and it works on Ds. Of
course...... you won't get autofokus etc on a lens that old :) 

The Pentax range of lenses is also so comprehensive that unless you
have_very_ special needs I guess you won't feel any limitations. Pentax
glass is generally aslo known to be sharp btw..
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 6:10:03 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> The new Pentax *1stDS is the same price of the digital rebel. Why
> wouldn't that be the best choice if you have no lenses including the
> Canon D20?

Pentax is cheaper than Canon here in Australia, and the Pentax is definitely
better featured than the Canon.


--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
February 11, 2005 10:36:16 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Boom Boom ! And not to mention the avail software for either canon/nikon or
VR & IS glass for that matter.

Want that "ED" or
> "L" lens ? No worries. If not today, it will be in the shop in a month
> or two.
> When was the last time you saw 20mm Pentax for sale s/h ? Or
> (excellent) 350mm f/2.8 ?
> I didn't see them in Melbourne *at all*. And I've been window shopping
> last 20 years or so.
> Just have a look at any camera shop that sells second hand stuff. For
> every Pentax lens there will be dozens of Canon and Nikon ones.
>
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:45:02 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>>No skin in this game, but a comparison of the Nikkor 18-70 to a
>>Sigma 18-125 is not a reasonable comparison.
>
>
> Despite the brand name, the Nikkor 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX is not a lens
> I would want, due to extreme distortion. Near the 18mm end, it is
> more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens.
>
> Pop Photo says the Sigma 18-125 has 1.05% barrel distortion at 18mm,
> which is not bad.
>
> The Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX is a respectable lens, but costs $1350 USD.
>
Hey Bill, thanks for helping me make up my mind. Had to make a knee jerk
purchase over Christmas and ended up with a Cosina 17-35. Not bad for
the price so I'm not bitching. I am looking for something sharper and
was looking at the Nikkor 18-70. The 18-70 is now not on my list nor is
the 17-55, due to cost. I have a lovely Tamron 75-300 on my D70 which is
a beauty and was wondering if anyone has some experience with a wide
zoom, 17-50 +/- in the Tamron range ... or even the Sigma range ?
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 12:12:14 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard P Rother <bprother_REMOVE_THIS1_@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> Despite the brand name, the Nikkor 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX is not a lens
>> I would want, due to extreme distortion. Near the 18mm end, it is
>> more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens.
>> Pop Photo says the Sigma 18-125 has 1.05% barrel distortion at 18mm,
>> which is not bad. The Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX is a respectable lens,
>> but costs $1350 USD.
>
> Hey Bill, thanks for helping me make up my mind. Had to make a knee jerk
> purchase over Christmas and ended up with a Cosina 17-35. Not bad for
> the price so I'm not bitching. I am looking for something sharper and
> was looking at the Nikkor 18-70. The 18-70 is now not on my list nor is
> the 17-55, due to cost. I have a lovely Tamron 75-300 on my D70 which is
> a beauty and was wondering if anyone has some experience with a wide
> zoom, 17-50 +/- in the Tamron range ... or even the Sigma range ?

What mount?

Although I have not seen a formal review of it, the Pentax 16-45/4 DA
is reputed to be excellent. It's not quite right as a wedding lens
(a good use for the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX) but with 25-70mm equivalent range,
it would be on the front of my *ist-DS most of the time, if I owned one.

Wait a minute, I just saw D70. Whew, that's a problem for Nikon owners.
I guess if you want to do weddings and can't afford the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX,
the Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC is worth investigating. Pop Photo just reviewed
the (full-frame) Sigma 24-60/2.8 and it beat the older Sigma 24-70/2.8
by a wide margin, and takes mainstream 77 filters.

Tamron doesn't really have anything in an appropriate range if you ask me.
The 28-75 Di, although excellent, is too long for a DSLR, and the 17-35
is too short.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:45:30 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<scharf@hotmail.com> 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.sht...

Here's some of the pics I've taken with my DS:
http://www.pbase.com/bookster/istds

Bookster
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 6:37:26 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Book" <bookster@eekpacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:kjTOd.7774$i6.72404@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> As for the availablitiy of "glass" that people love to go on about, well
> they are assuming a lot.

Not really. The big issue with consumer D-SLRs is the 1.5-1.6 crop factor,
which means that for a true wide angle that goes to no more than 19mm (and
16mm or 17mm is preferred), you're down between 10 and 12mm on the wide
side. At least for now, you're S.O.L. with the istD or istDs. If all you
care about is "normal" to telephoto, then you'll be just fine. But why limit
your options. OTOH, Pentax is probably going to come out with more
digital-only lenses, and at the top of the list will be a wide angle zoom.

>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.

It's not a question of money. The initial cost of the body, be it a D70,
300D, or istD/Ds, is not all that different. You have to look at the big
picture (no pun intended), the lens selection, etc..
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:22:36 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote:

> I think I can live with the status LCD being on the back of the body of
> the Pentax as I'm used to all status info being on the back of my Kodak
> DX6490 body (via the LCD screen).

My wife just got a *istDS and is quite happy with it. One small gripe:
the LCD is large all right, but its viewing angle is markedly smaller
than the one on my Oly E-1. Also it has a habit of "reversing" colors
when looked at from a sideways angle.

A more serious gripe is shutter noise: not at all soft and "buttery"
like the E-1, but rather metallical and loud.

Ton
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:45:54 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like Pentax as a brand, but to me one thing single-handidly drives the
*ist DS out of contention--their insistence on cramming SD cards down our
throat.

I don't like this mad rush to SD cards. If Canon can make a camera as
competent & tiny as an S410 work with Compact Flash, and if cameras like the
EOS 1D Mark II, D2h, 20D and D70 can do their high-speed thing with Compact
Flash, there is no good reason for the *ist DS to have been designed to use
freaking SD cards.

LRH
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 2:47:02 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I agree - but please consider Minolta. Availability, while not in the same
league as C/N, is way better than pentax and the lenses really are bargains.
I routinely find decent ones in camera shops and even pawn shops, and if you
need a 300/2.8 shipping from e.g. KEH is not that expensive.

Oh yeah, and the D7D body is awesome :) 

//Adam F



<bratislav3162@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108081717.803248.149930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> -T- wrote:
>
>> Pentax *ist D/Ds can use old lenses in a much better way then Nikon
> and
>> Canon. You can take a lens from mid 70'ies and it works on Ds. Of
>> course...... you won't get autofokus etc on a lens that old :) 
>
> What is "much better" ? My circa 1960 28/3.5 AI will fit on D70 no
> problem.
> Yes, you lose matrix metering and autofocus, but it will take shots
> just fine.
> Same with 300D. I have put on telescope many times, and it never
> complained, trust me :-)
>
>> The Pentax range of lenses is also so comprehensive that unless you
>> have_very_ special needs I guess you won't feel any limitations.
> Pentax
>> glass is generally aslo known to be sharp btw..
>
> EXCEPT there aren't that many on second hand market. All my Nikon gear
> (and fix focus Canons) have been bought second hand. Want that "ED" or
> "L" lens ? No worries. If not today, it will be in the shop in a month
> or two.
> When was the last time you saw 20mm Pentax for sale s/h ? Or
> (excellent) 350mm f/2.8 ?
> I didn't see them in Melbourne *at all*. And I've been window shopping
> last 20 years or so.
> Just have a look at any camera shop that sells second hand stuff. For
> every Pentax lens there will be dozens of Canon and Nikon ones.
>
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mmm Strange thing to say. If you are not getitng better than P&S quality you
either have no idea what you are doing, you have it set to ISO 1600 and dont
know, or there is something wrong with the camera.

All the testing I have done with the Canon and Kikon DSLRs have had them
neck a neck in image quality.

Canon choose creamy noise free images. Nikon choose more film like images
that you can get creamy by post precessing.





.. The latter is
> fortunate because the quality of D70 jpeg images is no better than P&S
> quality.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 9:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital larrytucaz@yahoo.com wrote:
: Yeah, I know. To me, it's not about the price or even the legacy
: (although I do have a Sandisk Ultra II 512 megabyte card). It's just
: the IDEA of--why is everyone rushing to SD for? It's as if Compact
: Flash has leprosy or something. CF is not Smart Media, and shouldn't go
: the way of it.

: One excuse I always hear is compactness, then I see a tiny (yet
: good-quality) camera like the Canon Powershot S410 and see that it uses
: Compact Flash, so I'm like--bologney about needing SD for size. And
: that goes double & even triple when you're talking about a D-SLR.

I'll throw out the cost card. Even in bulk, CF connectors *have* to be more
expensive than SD... there's dozens of tiny pins in a socket that has to hold a
(relatively) large card. SD can be done with just a few, and surface-mounted to a
PCB.

I'm at least glad to see that one is emerging as the new standard. CF will be
around for awhile, but SD looks like the new one. I don't mind (but then again I
haven't spend big money on CF cards either). What I *do* mind are all the standards
such as the likes of the arrogant Sony bastards inventing their own and cramming *IT*
down everyone's throats.

-Cory

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 9:13:42 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote in message
news:cuo4t3$768$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> In rec.photo.digital larrytucaz@yahoo.com wrote:
> : Yeah, I know. To me, it's not about the price or even the legacy
> : (although I do have a Sandisk Ultra II 512 megabyte card). It's just
> : the IDEA of--why is everyone rushing to SD for? It's as if Compact
> : Flash has leprosy or something. CF is not Smart Media, and shouldn't go
> : the way of it.
>
> : One excuse I always hear is compactness, then I see a tiny (yet
> : good-quality) camera like the Canon Powershot S410 and see that it uses
> : Compact Flash, so I'm like--bologney about needing SD for size. And
> : that goes double & even triple when you're talking about a D-SLR.
>
> I'll throw out the cost card. Even in bulk, CF connectors *have* to be
> more
> expensive than SD... there's dozens of tiny pins in a socket that has to
> hold a
> (relatively) large card. SD can be done with just a few, and
> surface-mounted to a
> PCB.

A cost which is probably totally offset (at least) by the cost the the
control circuity/software needed for an SD card.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 9:17:08 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c78b5bdc1ae727398a588@news.verizon.net...

> Enh, prices of CF cards and SD cards are about the same now.

But for a D-SLR you're going to want cards with 1GB to 4GB, especially if
shooting RAW, but even for JPEG. These are available now in CF (including
the CF size drives, which are cheaper than the same size of FLASH.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 9:40:02 PM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <EQMPd.11684$oO.8364@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
scharf.steven@linkearth.net says...
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c78b5bdc1ae727398a588@news.verizon.net...
>
> > Enh, prices of CF cards and SD cards are about the same now.
>
> But for a D-SLR you're going to want cards with 1GB to 4GB, especially if
> shooting RAW, but even for JPEG. These are available now in CF (including
> the CF size drives, which are cheaper than the same size of FLASH.

Actually, the per-megabyte sweet spot seems to be at 512 right now. The
larger cards are nice, but you can save yourself a decent amount of
money buying multiple cards. Flash memory seems to be the opposite of
hard drive storage in this respect.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:33:13 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I agree...Why SD? I have a ton of CF......

--
____________________________
PATRICK//////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\
================================
A+ CERTIFIED TECH...........
______________________

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
news:nQBPd.10933$Tt.3661@fed1read05...
>I like Pentax as a brand, but to me one thing single-handidly drives the
>*ist DS out of contention--their insistence on cramming SD cards down our
>throat.
>
> I don't like this mad rush to SD cards. If Canon can make a camera as
> competent & tiny as an S410 work with Compact Flash, and if cameras like
> the EOS 1D Mark II, D2h, 20D and D70 can do their high-speed thing with
> Compact Flash, there is no good reason for the *ist DS to have been
> designed to use freaking SD cards.
>
> LRH
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:33:14 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick Boch wrote:
> I agree...Why SD? I have a ton of CF......
>
I also had quite an investment in CF cards which I had to replace with
SD cards when Kodak went SD. Perhaps there are other considerations,
such as space, in some cameras, but I suspect that other factors, such
as money changing hands, accounts for many of this type of change....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:21:36 AM

Archived from groups: aus.photo,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Patrick Boch" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D 2AQd.43347$i42.21098@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> I agree...Why SD? I have a ton of CF......

I think that they were looking for ways to de-feature the *istDs versus the
*istD, so as not to make the *istDS cannibalize *istD sales. As often
happens when companies try this sort of thing. they lose the sale to a
competitor, and end up making no sale at all. There is no good reason to use
SD on a D-SLR, and if I'm not mistaken, the *istDs is the _ONLY_ D-SLR on
the market that cannot use Compact Flash. They also eliminated the vertical
grip option on the *istDs.

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com/
!