Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentax *ist DS versus 300D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:05:58 PM

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

I know this is the kind of question that invites all sorts of comments, but
nevertheless I dare it.

I can get the DS for 1000 ? in a shop and for maybe 800 ? in the Internet,
the 300D for 700 ? in the shop. Both equipped with a 18-55 lens. I know
about the obvious differences in size and card format. I like the compact
size of the DS more and I opt for SD cards, since I already have two 512 MB
cards for my Pentax Optio 550. I have an old Sigma 28-200 for the EOS 300,
which would probably fit on the 300D. But all that is not decisive on the
long run.

So what do YOU think is the better camera in terms of handling, picture
noise and quality, auto focus, speed and robustness? Can give me any advice
to think about?

Rene

More about : pentax ist versus 300d

Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:05:59 PM

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

Rene Schmidt wrote:

<snip>

> So what do YOU think is the better camera in terms of handling,
picture
> noise and quality, auto focus, speed and robustness? Can give me any
advice
> to think about?

The SD versus CF is a minor issue on point on shoot cameras, a bit more
of an issue on D-SLRs due to the large capacity CF cards that are
available. The *istDs is the ONLY D-SLR that does not use Compact
Flash. Still, this is a minor issue, it just means that you need more
SD cards.

The biggest thing favoring the EOS-300D or EOS-350D is image quality
and low noise. Another issue with the *istDs is the poor selection of
lenses, especially super wide angle zoom.

The *istDs may be a good choice if you have a bunch of compatible
Pentax lenses, and a good deal at less than $800, though the Canon
EOS-350D and Nikon D70 are superior choices in the same price range.

The *istDs doesn't have an available vertical grip, but that may not be
an issue for you.

You may want to wait a couple of weeks for the the EOS-350D. Even if
you decide on the EOS-300D, once the EOS-350D is out, the EOS-300D
price is sure to fall.

Check out "http://digitalslrinfo.com/" .
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:05:59 PM

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

To me, the *ist DS using SD cards is a major drawback. The mad rush to
SD-cards by camera makers--especially in a D-SLR--is totally absurd. That
said, since you already own SD-cards, that makes a difference.

To "papenfuss"--we so-called "CF snobs" are NOT going to get over it. The
thing of it is, the camera makers are being "SD snobs," cramming SD down our
throats in everthing--including in places like D-SLRs where it clearly isn't
needed.

But, the SD vs CF issue aside, the issues for me are this.

The *ist DS does not have program shift, which is a silly drawback in a
modern SLR. I rarely use P-mode, but it is handy at times--and to not be
able to shift aperture/shutter speed combinations in P-mode is silly. Even
cheap 35mm SLRs like the Nikon N55--which is as basic as 35mm SLRs get these
days--has program shift.

Also, things like white balance, ISO speed, flash exposure compensation, AF
mode and quality of image have to be changed in the menus, while other
D-SLRs including the 300D allow you to change these quickly without having
to enter the menus. This is particularly the case if you install the "Wasia
firmware" in the 300D, as the 300D actually won't have flash-exposure
compensation at all otherwise, and would also require you (as the *ist DS)
to use the menus to change the image quality.

Image quality is about the same between both as I understand it. I think the
AF-speed of the 300D is a bit quicker.

I think the 28-200 lens that you already own can be a factor, but a bigger
factor would be other lenses that you would acquire in the long run. I do
like Pentax, but the "big boys" like Canon & Nikon have more lenses and
other accessories available for them, a big factor for a D-SLR.

I'd opt for the 300D myself. Ignoring the SD/CF issue (I prefer CF, but you
own SD already), the having to enter menus to change settings which the 300D
& other D-SLRs allow you to change much quicker without menu-itis and lack
of program shift--those make the 300D prefereable. Just make sure you
install the "Wasia firmware" to obtain a lot of features that the 300D
wouldn't have--enough so that I'd opt for the Pentax instead even with the
SD/CF issue.

LRH
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:05:59 PM

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

Why not get the Canon 350D (Rebel XT) without a lens and keep your 28-200
lens? Or maybe get it with the lens anyways since it's only $100 more. It
has alot of feature upgrades over the 300D.


"Rene Schmidt" <mga010@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:39off7F4to4miU1@news.dfncis.de...
> I know this is the kind of question that invites all sorts of comments,
but
> nevertheless I dare it.
>
> I can get the DS for 1000 ? in a shop and for maybe 800 ? in the Internet,
> the 300D for 700 ? in the shop. Both equipped with a 18-55 lens. I know
> about the obvious differences in size and card format. I like the compact
> size of the DS more and I opt for SD cards, since I already have two 512
MB
> cards for my Pentax Optio 550. I have an old Sigma 28-200 for the EOS 300,
> which would probably fit on the 300D. But all that is not decisive on the
> long run.
>
> So what do YOU think is the better camera in terms of handling, picture
> noise and quality, auto focus, speed and robustness? Can give me any
advice
> to think about?
>
> Rene
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:06:00 PM

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

<papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote in message
news:D 17hmh$dnv$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...

> Absolutely. Many of the accessories available for the "big boys" are
> either
> unwanted, unnecessary, or too expensive for many casual shooters. I know
> I won't be
> blowing $1500 on a fancy IS lens anytime soon. For me it's more fun to
> blow $100-$200
> a pop on quality, old glass.
>
Oh, I hear you there. With my 300D I first got their 80-200 f/4.6-5.6II
lens--one that a lot of Canon shooters like--and only paid $90 for it with a
52mm UV filter & lens hood. Then I found myself wishing for more reach, got
an older Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens (about a 1992 model), only $85 for it,
slightly used. That, and I have the 18-55 "kit" lens. So it shows you MY
dedication to expensive accessories (hee hee).

But at least--I have the OPTION to do this, if I ever become so inclined.
The other thing--when I see fine lenses for sale at websites like Fred
Miranda--lenses like the highly-regarded Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro
II--they almost always are Canon-mount or Nikon-mount. Of course if you buy
new it doesn't matter--but when looking at places like Fred Miranda for
good, low-priced used material--you find very little Pentax material. And
that's too bad--because, again, I do like Pentax.

LRH
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:14:59 PM

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

Rene Schmidt <mga010@gmx.de> wrote:
: I know this is the kind of question that invites all sorts of comments, but
: nevertheless I dare it.

: I can get the DS for 1000 ? in a shop and for maybe 800 ? in the Internet,
: the 300D for 700 ? in the shop. Both equipped with a 18-55 lens. I know
: about the obvious differences in size and card format. I like the compact
: size of the DS more and I opt for SD cards, since I already have two 512 MB
: cards for my Pentax Optio 550. I have an old Sigma 28-200 for the EOS 300,
: which would probably fit on the 300D. But all that is not decisive on the
: long run.

: So what do YOU think is the better camera in terms of handling, picture
: noise and quality, auto focus, speed and robustness? Can give me any advice
: to think about?

I just finally bought one (after a few years of waiting for a DSLR at
reasonable prices that was compatible with my 35mm). Your dollar amounts seem
reasonable.

To those that suggest that the Pentax isn't a professional camera, they're
correct. It's also correct to say that comparable brand C and N cameras are also not
professional. While many may dismiss brand P as a toy simply because no professional
lenses are available for it, I say that normal people can't afford them anyway so it's
a moot point. I'd say that the compatibility with quite old lenses and their
associated low cost is a huge plus for P vs. C. Mid-range lenses (read: affordable
for mortals) are available for all.

From what I understand, the image quality is pretty much the same between
the brands, so that's not really an issue to get your panties in a wad about. About
the memory format, the CF snobs need to get over it. They're just too big to be
useable in all digital doodads (cell phones, PDAs, mp3 players, etc), so SD is the new
ubiquitous standard. They're already pretty much equal in cost and availability.

For batteries, I still say that *standards* are a good thing. Having my
external flash and camera using the same batteries I could potentially buy at
Quik-E-Mart is a big plus to proprietary ones.

For build quality, from what I've read the Pentax with its SS subframe is a
lot more solid than the 300D. It also uses a pentaprism vs. pentamirror so the
viewfinder is supposedly brighter.

Anyway, you can tell where my opinions lie. To each there own... everything
*I personally* feel important can easily be of no importance to others.... flame on.

-Cory

--

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:15:00 PM

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

<papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote:

> To those that suggest that the Pentax isn't a professional camera, they're
> correct.

Cameras aren't professional. The people who use cameras can be
professional. And even people who use Pentax *istDs can be professional
photographers.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:26:29 AM

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> To me, the *ist DS using SD cards is a major drawback. The mad rush to
> SD-cards by camera makers--especially in a D-SLR--is totally absurd. That
> said, since you already own SD-cards, that makes a difference.
>
> To "papenfuss"--we so-called "CF snobs" are NOT going to get over it. The
> thing of it is, the camera makers are being "SD snobs," cramming SD down our
> throats in everthing--including in places like D-SLRs where it clearly isn't
> needed.
>
> But, the SD vs CF issue aside, the issues for me are this.
>
> The *ist DS does not have program shift, which is a silly drawback in a
> modern SLR. I rarely use P-mode, but it is handy at times--and to not be
> able to shift aperture/shutter speed combinations in P-mode is silly. Even
> cheap 35mm SLRs like the Nikon N55--which is as basic as 35mm SLRs get these
> days--has program shift.

My previous digital and Nikon D70 don't allow you to change aperture or shutter
speed in P mode. Makes sense to me. If you want to change the aperture, use A
mode, and if you want to change shutter speed, use S mode. What's the point of
being able to change them in P mode?

Ben
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:26:30 AM

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

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:rj0kg2-jde.ln1@centauri.unico.com.au...
>
> My previous digital and Nikon D70 don't allow you to change aperture or
> shutter speed in P mode. Makes sense to me. If you want to change the
> aperture, use A mode, and if you want to change shutter speed, use S mode.
> What's the point of being able to change them in P mode?
>
> Ben
>

Hmm, according to the Dpreview.Com review of the D70, you **can** "shift"
aperture/shutter speeds in program mode.

I do sort of hear what you're saying; the Av (A) and Tv (S) modes are the
most "serious" modes besides manual, it makes perfect sense they'd be the
ones to use for serious shooting not P. But there are a couple of reasons
why having shiftable values in P is a good thing, and both reasons are based
on these two words--extreme values.

Extreme values meaning--say, f/2.8 in aperture-priority outdoors in
bright-light, 1/4000 second shutter-speed indoors.

One, my wife uses P a lot because she's more of a "point & shooter," and by
using P I'm assured that she will get a more "middling" combination but yet
she does at least have the option of changing the aperture/shutter-speed
combination. With Av (A) or Tv (S), there's too much of a chance of an
"extreme" number being the last one used, and her not having the forsight to
shift the number; with P, this doesn't happen, but then if she DOES remember
she can still "shift" as needed.

Two, if you're in a hurry to shoot something that's transpiring very
quickly, P is best because in Av (A) or Tv (S) you may have an "extreme"
value as your last setting which won't work (say, 1/4000 second indoors, or
f/2.8 outdoors), requiring you to spend that extra second or two "shifting"
the numbers so you don't under or over-expose. In P-mode, you don't have
that--BUT, if you end up finding yourself with an extra second or two to
change the numbers, you can still do it--without going back to Av
(aperture-priority) or Tv (shutter-priority) mode.

Really, more than anything else, the main thing about the *ist Ds omitting
"flexible" program is simply that practically every other modern SLR--35mm
or D-SLR--has this, so why not them? Even professional cameras like the
Nikon F5 or Nikon D1x--hardly point & shoot material--have it. Why not this
one?

LRH
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:49:33 AM

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

Thanks for all this answers.

It boils down to the following: Both camaras are equally priced (since
I had to buy at least 1 GB of CF for the 300D) and of equal picture
quality. Everyone likes the handling, look and feel of the Pentax.
But the 300D has more availabe lenses in mid price range and also this
program shift. (The CF versus SD discussion is beyond me. I'd prefer
SD, but don't care if I had to use CF. And forget my old 28-200. It is
not good enough.)

About the program shift: I have one on my 300, and guess, I never used
it. If I prefer some specific time or aperture, which I often do, I
use other modes anyway. So this may not be an issue for me.

I'll have to study other technical details, I am more insterested in.
One is a following auto focus, which the Pentax seems to have, but
only in one of the program modes. Others are flash handling (daylight
flash), and how it works on both cameras. Things like that.

Then, of course, it is always a good idea to wait. But as some will
understand, I do not want to.

Anyway, thanks to all.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:46:13 AM

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

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
news:_fJZd.71646$Tt.1586@fed1read05...
>
> <papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote in message
> news:D 17hmh$dnv$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>
>> Absolutely. Many of the accessories available for the "big boys" are
>> either
>> unwanted, unnecessary, or too expensive for many casual shooters. I know
>> I won't be
>> blowing $1500 on a fancy IS lens anytime soon. For me it's more fun to
>> blow $100-$200
>> a pop on quality, old glass.
>>
> Oh, I hear you there. With my 300D I first got their 80-200 f/4.6-5.6II
> lens--one that a lot of Canon shooters like--and only paid $90 for it with
> a 52mm UV filter & lens hood. Then I found myself wishing for more reach,
> got an older Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens (about a 1992 model), only $85
> for it, slightly used. That, and I have the 18-55 "kit" lens. So it shows
> you MY dedication to expensive accessories (hee hee).
>
> But at least--I have the OPTION to do this, if I ever become so inclined.
> The other thing--when I see fine lenses for sale at websites like Fred
> Miranda--lenses like the highly-regarded Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro
> II--they almost always are Canon-mount or Nikon-mount. Of course if you
> buy new it doesn't matter--but when looking at places like Fred Miranda
> for good, low-priced used material--you find very little Pentax material.
> And that's too bad--because, again, I do like Pentax.
>
> LRH

Same lenses are available for the DS, at the same prices.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:47:17 AM

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

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gtgsqo.10hqyje1ydl834N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> <papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote:
>
>> To those that suggest that the Pentax isn't a professional camera,
>> they're
>> correct.
>
> Cameras aren't professional. The people who use cameras can be
> professional. And even people who use Pentax *istDs can be professional
> photographers.

No way, who'd have thought it and in a Canon group??? ;-D
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:47:18 AM

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

Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:

> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1gtgsqo.10hqyje1ydl834N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > <papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> To those that suggest that the Pentax isn't a professional camera,
> >> they're correct.
> >
> > Cameras aren't professional. The people who use cameras can be
> > professional. And even people who use Pentax *istDs can be professional
> > photographers.
>
> No way, who'd have thought it and in a Canon group??? ;-D

This isn't a Canon group. It says 'rec.photo.digital' in my newsreader.
:-)
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:33:53 AM

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

"Rene Schmidt" <mga010@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:a98b27f5.0503152249.52cd2af6@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for all this answers.
>
> It boils down to the following: Both camaras are equally priced (since
> I had to buy at least 1 GB of CF for the 300D) and of equal picture
> quality. Everyone likes the handling, look and feel of the Pentax.
> But the 300D has more availabe lenses in mid price range and also this
> program shift. (The CF versus SD discussion is beyond me. I'd prefer
> SD, but don't care if I had to use CF. And forget my old 28-200. It is
> not good enough.)
>
> About the program shift: I have one on my 300, and guess, I never used
> it. If I prefer some specific time or aperture, which I often do, I
> use other modes anyway. So this may not be an issue for me.
>
> I'll have to study other technical details, I am more insterested in.
> One is a following auto focus, which the Pentax seems to have, but
> only in one of the program modes. Others are flash handling (daylight
> flash), and how it works on both cameras. Things like that.
>
> Then, of course, it is always a good idea to wait. But as some will
> understand, I do not want to.
>
> Anyway, thanks to all.

You mentioned "following auto focus." I take that to mean that you're
referring to "servo" or "continuous" autofocus, which tracks moving subjects
and updates the autofocus continuously as it moves--for birds in flight,
football players, etc.

If that is what you are referring to, then yes--the Pentax *ist Ds and the
Canon 300D only have this in the special "dummy" modes which a typical D-SLR
user isn't going to want to use--because it fixes the aperture/shutter speed
combination (and many other things) that you otherwise have control over.
The 300D has this in the "sports" mode (which looks like someone running),
the Pentax *ist Ds is apt to have a similar mode and that would be where you
find it.

Note: sometimes the 300D will go into "continuous" mode if the subject is
moving at the time you initiate the autofocus, and I'd imagine the Pentax
does also--but that is not a substitute for being able to specifically
select "continuous" or "servo" autofocus specifically.

If you need this, the new Digitial Rebel XT (350D) or the Nikon D70 are
other D-SLRs which DO have "follow focus" specifically available on command
when you need it. All of these options (thank God--in my opinion anyway) are
all Compact Flash cameras. (As for CF vs SD--most of us who don't like the
Pentax doing SD this is because it's "normal" for a D-SLR to use CF--or at
least offer both as the more expensive Canons do--and Pentax's usage of SD
exclusively is for most of us kind of curious, if not totally wrong flatout.
But if you have no problem with it--and most of the objective reviewers
haven't--then don't worry about it.)

As for flash--I'd imagine the Canon 300D & Pentax *ist Ds are equally
capable. One potential fatal flaw of the 300D is that, unless you install
the "Wasia firmware," it will not have flash-exposure compensation available
unless you have a hot-shoe flash which has this itself. With daylight "fill
flash" it's common to apply about -1 EV flash exposure compensation for a
more "natural" look. The Pentax DOES have this available, flat-out. On the
other hand, if you do install the "Wasia firmware," the 300D gives you flash
exposure compensation--and you don't have to enter into the menus to use it
(it's quickly accessed using the JUMP button), whereas the Pentax requires
you to use the menus to use it. The Canon 350D has FEC and I'm not sure how
it's used, but it has it outright. The Nikon D70 also has it outright--and
it doesn't require you to go into the menus.

Speaking of flash--the flash system of the Nikon D70 is well renowned. It
has i-TTL flash, and I'm told it works great in particular if you try a
multi-flash wireless setup, it really handles it great. I am not sure how
the 300D, 350D, or Pentax would handle it--but I hear many great things
about how the Nikon D70 does.

Hope this helps,
LRH
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:56:52 AM

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

"Rene Schmidt" <mga010@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:a98b27f5.0503152249.52cd2af6@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for all this answers.
>
> It boils down to the following: Both camaras are equally priced (since
> I had to buy at least 1 GB of CF for the 300D) and of equal picture
> quality. Everyone likes the handling, look and feel of the Pentax.
> But the 300D has more availabe lenses in mid price range and also this
> program shift. (The CF versus SD discussion is beyond me. I'd prefer
> SD, but don't care if I had to use CF. And forget my old 28-200. It is
> not good enough.)

How many lenses do you actually need, one or two, have you researched that
yourself for either camera, the Sigma APO lenses are available equally for
both cameras, there are more for Canons but more people are looking for
them, if you know what I mean. There is also many 50mm fast primes at cheap
prices for both, I got a manual 50mm F2.0 for $6.05.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:05:42 PM

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

scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in news:1110912231.055769.188130
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Rene Schmidt wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So what do YOU think is the better camera in terms of handling,
> picture
>> noise and quality, auto focus, speed and robustness? Can give me any
> advice
>> to think about?
>
> The SD versus CF is a minor issue on point on shoot cameras, a bit more
> of an issue on D-SLRs due to the large capacity CF cards that are
> available. The *istDs is the ONLY D-SLR that does not use Compact
> Flash. Still, this is a minor issue, it just means that you need more
> SD cards.
>
> The biggest thing favoring the EOS-300D or EOS-350D is image quality
> and low noise. Another issue with the *istDs is the poor selection of
> lenses, especially super wide angle zoom.

Pentax have now got a DA 12-24 f4 - does that make you happier to
recommend them? And the noise situation between the 300D and the D70,
Minolta 7D, *ist D/Ds is pretty much a wash - they're identical on print
out, just have different qualities of noise visible at 100% on screen and
different default parameters which affect the noise visibility.

> The *istDs may be a good choice if you have a bunch of compatible
> Pentax lenses, and a good deal at less than $800, though the Canon
> EOS-350D and Nikon D70 are superior choices in the same price range.

At the other end of the price range: they're more expensive cameras (a
cheap lens or two more).

> The *istDs doesn't have an available vertical grip, but that may not be
> an issue for you.
>
> You may want to wait a couple of weeks for the the EOS-350D. Even if
> you decide on the EOS-300D, once the EOS-350D is out, the EOS-300D
> price is sure to fall.

As will the Pentax *ist Ds and Olympus E-300 prices - they track the 300D
price down.

> Check out "http://digitalslrinfo.com/" .

Please update it about the DA 12-24 f4.

--Sophie
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:53:51 PM

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

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gthpug.qsmqaraf592N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:1gtgsqo.10hqyje1ydl834N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>> > <papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> To those that suggest that the Pentax isn't a professional camera,
>> >> they're correct.
>> >
>> > Cameras aren't professional. The people who use cameras can be
>> > professional. And even people who use Pentax *istDs can be professional
>> > photographers.
>>
>> No way, who'd have thought it and in a Canon group??? ;-D
>
> This isn't a Canon group. It says 'rec.photo.digital' in my newsreader.
> :-)

OMG OMG OMG, mine too!!
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:40:20 PM

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

"Sophie Wilson" <sophie.wilson@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961B66B163528sophiewilson@130.133.1.4...

>
> Please update it about the DA 12-24 f4.

Okay. It was just announced yesterday. I have added a note to my site, and
removed "limited lens selection" as an issue.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:40:21 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> "Sophie Wilson" <sophie.wilson@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns961B66B163528sophiewilson@130.133.1.4...
>
> > Please update it about the DA 12-24 f4.
>
> Okay. It was just announced yesterday. I have added a note to my site, and
> removed "limited lens selection" as an issue.

'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking? :-)

You can put pretty much *any* k-mount lens on the *ist D/Ds, from all
the way back to the '70s, along with M42 and Pentax medium format
lenses, with adaptors, which takes you back into the '60s. I regularly
shoot with an SMCP-M 50mm/2 lens from 1979, that I got at a thrift store
for $6 (well, $12... It came attached to a Pentax MV). Makes lovely
portraits, and I actually enjoy switching all the settings to manual.

There's no limited lens selection for the *ist D/Ds. Everything's
covered, since you aren't stuck with the DA lens line. And you can use
beautiful old glass if you want to. That Pentax isn't speedy about
producing new lenses is not a problem; you can find a not-so-brand-new
lens to fit your needs, and maybe exceed your expectation.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:15:37 AM

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

One thing that rarely gets mentioned when comparing the 300d, d70 and the
pentax d or ds is the size of the viewfinder. on both the nikon and the
300d and the new xt it's very small, on the pentax it's much larger
comparable to the 20d and the d100, I have owned all 3 and it's quite
suprising how they differ. Of course some people may not mind a smaller
viewfinder but it's something to be aware of before buying.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:35:04 AM

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

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gtikir.emb9zw1j9gjpfN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>> "Sophie Wilson" <sophie.wilson@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns961B66B163528sophiewilson@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> > Please update it about the DA 12-24 f4.
>>
>> Okay. It was just announced yesterday. I have added a note to my site,
>> and
>> removed "limited lens selection" as an issue.
>
> 'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking? :-)
>
> You can put pretty much *any* k-mount lens on the *ist D/Ds, from all
> the way back to the '70s, along with M42 and Pentax medium format
> lenses, with adaptors, which takes you back into the '60s. I regularly
> shoot with an SMCP-M 50mm/2 lens from 1979, that I got at a thrift store
> for $6 (well, $12... It came attached to a Pentax MV). Makes lovely
> portraits, and I actually enjoy switching all the settings to manual.
>
> There's no limited lens selection for the *ist D/Ds. Everything's
> covered, since you aren't stuck with the DA lens line. And you can use
> beautiful old glass if you want to. That Pentax isn't speedy about
> producing new lenses is not a problem; you can find a not-so-brand-new
> lens to fit your needs, and maybe exceed your expectation.

I got an old 50mm F2.0 M for $6.05, very nice.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:27:07 PM

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

"Rene Schmidt" <mga010@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:39off7F4to4miU1@news.dfncis.de...
> I know this is the kind of question that invites all sorts of comments,
but
> nevertheless I dare it.
>
> I can get the DS for 1000 ? in a shop and for maybe 800 ? in the Internet,
> the 300D for 700 ? in the shop. Both equipped with a 18-55 lens. I know
> about the obvious differences in size and card format. I like the compact
> size of the DS more and I opt for SD cards, since I already have two 512
MB
> cards for my Pentax Optio 550. I have an old Sigma 28-200 for the EOS 300,
> which would probably fit on the 300D. But all that is not decisive on the
> long run.
>
> So what do YOU think is the better camera in terms of handling, picture
> noise and quality, auto focus, speed and robustness? Can give me any
advice
> to think about?

I just examined both of these cameras over last weekend and I'm giving a
slight edge to the Pentax: it has excellent build quality, handles well,
feels more solid in my hands than does the 300D, and it uses standard AA
NiMH batteries, a real plus for me. I do prefer CF cards to SD cards,
though, so the Canon takes the prize in that regard. In terms of picture
quality, there doesn't seem to be that much difference, at least judging by
the samples pictures on Steve's, DPreview, et al.

I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with either camera--they're both quality
devices-- but I do like the *istD a tad more.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:24:24 PM

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking?
> >
> > There was no super-wide-angle zoom prior to the announcement
> > of this new lens.
>
> Untrue, Pentax made a 17-28/3.5-4.5 fisheye, which is out of
production,
> but can be obtained on the used market.

While A 17-28 is fine for a full frame camera, 17-28 is NOT super-wide
angle on a digital SLR with a 1.5 crop factor. This is why everyone is
rushing to introduce new lenses that compensate for the crop factor.
I.e.:

Canon: 10-22 EF-S (35mm equivalent: 16-35)
Nikon: 12-24 DX (35mm equivalent: 18-36)
Pentax: DA 12-24 (35mm equivalent: 18-36)
Konica-Minolta: AF DT ZOOM 11-18mm (35mm equivalent: 16.5-27)
Olympus: Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm (35mm equivalent: 14-28)
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 7:51:13 PM

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

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gtikir.emb9zw1j9gjpfN%usenet@mile23.c0m...

> 'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking?

There was no super-wide-angle zoom prior to the announcement of this new
lens. These lenses are important due to the focal length multiplier. Canon
has one, Konica-Minolta announced, and now Pentax has announced.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 7:51:14 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>> 'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking?
>
> There was no super-wide-angle zoom prior to the announcement
> of this new lens.

Untrue, Pentax made a 17-28/3.5-4.5 fisheye, which is out of production,
but can be obtained on the used market.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 7:54:18 PM

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

"michael claggy via PhotoKB.com" <forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote in message
news:ea13ebce0b7c4a52bb07a73f66b1a697@PhotoKB.com...
> One thing that rarely gets mentioned when comparing the 300d, d70 and the
> pentax d or ds is the size of the viewfinder. on both the nikon and the
> 300d and the new xt it's very small, on the pentax it's much larger
> comparable to the 20d and the d100, I have owned all 3 and it's quite
> suprising how they differ. Of course some people may not mind a smaller
> viewfinder but it's something to be aware of before buying.

I do mention this on my site, http://digitalslrinfo.com. Alas, as with all
features, there are trade-offs.

A viewfinder with a high magnification gives you a better view of your
subject, and makes it easier to do manual focusing, but if it's too big
(i.e. >= 0.95x, then you have to move your eyes around a lot in order to see
the whole scene. On the other hand, a viewfinder with a smaller
magnification allows you to see the whole scene, but it may be harder to see
details and harder to do manual focusing, and below 0.8x there is a
"tunnel-vision" effect. Somewhere between 0.8x and 0.9x is fine, especially
if, like most users, you don't use manual focusing very much. You probably
don't want to go below 0.8x or above 0.9x, unless you have some special
need, but this should not be a deciding factor in the selection of a camera.
March 17, 2005 11:02:44 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> You probably
> don't want to go below 0.8x or above 0.9x, unless you have some special
> need, but this should not be a deciding factor in the selection of a camera.

Even a 1x finder on a 1.5x/1.6x dSLR gives a smaller image than most
35mm SLRs. The only reason I see for rejecting 1x as too big would be
if in order to achieve it the manufacturer had made the finder too dim
or otherwise of poor quality. I wear eyeglasses and don't have to move
around to see the edges of my film SLR finder.

- Len
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:16:08 AM

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

While you're at it, why don't you also try removing the "no continuous
auto-focus" issue
for the istDS, since it is wrong.

This just points out (again) that you have never even held
most of the cameras that you somehow "rate".

Is across-the-board ignorance the same as being objective??



"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:UjZZd.6206$qf2.3655@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Sophie Wilson" <sophie.wilson@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns961B66B163528sophiewilson@130.133.1.4...
>
> >
> > Please update it about the DA 12-24 f4.
>
> Okay. It was just announced yesterday. I have added a note to my site, and
> removed "limited lens selection" as an issue.
>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:33:00 AM

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:02:44 GMT, Leonard <user@example.net>, wrote in
news:Enl_d.884$g3.484@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net:

> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>> You probably
>> don't want to go below 0.8x or above 0.9x, unless you have some
>> special need, but this should not be a deciding factor in the
>> selection of a camera.
>
> Even a 1x finder on a 1.5x/1.6x dSLR gives a smaller image than most
> 35mm SLRs. The only reason I see for rejecting 1x as too big would be
> if in order to achieve it the manufacturer had made the finder too dim
> or otherwise of poor quality. I wear eyeglasses and don't have to move
> around to see the edges of my film SLR finder.

I don't wear glasses and have no problem with large 35mm SLR finders
either. Hell, even the viewfinder of my 645 medium format is never too
big for me! And I've never heard of such bullshit complain of too big a
viewfinder for an SLR! Those big finders are also usually very bright
being made of larger and high quality pentaprisms, unlike those made of
cheap pentamirors that are both small and dim.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:59:14 AM

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:51:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net>, wrote in
news:5Ai_d.6654$qW.4364@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1gtikir.emb9zw1j9gjpfN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>
>> 'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking?
>
> There was no super-wide-angle zoom prior to the announcement of this
> new lens. These lenses are important due to the focal length
> multiplier. Canon has one, Konica-Minolta announced, and now Pentax
> has announced.

The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX has been available for awwhile for Pentax
AF mount. A 14mm lens from either Pentax or Tamron is wide enough for the
majority of wide angle work plus the paramount quality over those zooms
anydays.

It's a joke to say the lack of one single name-branded zoom is "limited
selection" while ignoring the largest compatibility of hundreds of other
lens choices.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:59:15 AM

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

T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:51:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <scharf.steven@linkearth.net>, wrote in
> news:5Ai_d.6654$qW.4364@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:1gtikir.emb9zw1j9gjpfN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> >
> >> 'Limited lens selection??' What are you smoking?
> >
> > There was no super-wide-angle zoom prior to the announcement of this new
> > lens. These lenses are important due to the focal length multiplier.
> > Canon has one, Konica-Minolta announced, and now Pentax has announced.
>
> The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX has been available for awwhile for Pentax
> AF mount. A 14mm lens from either Pentax or Tamron is wide enough for the
> majority of wide angle work plus the paramount quality over those zooms
> anydays.
>
> It's a joke to say the lack of one single name-branded zoom is "limited
> selection" while ignoring the largest compatibility of hundreds of other
> lens choices.

Hence my question: What was he smoking?

The *istDS lens kit is an 18-55mm zoom. How wide does wide need to be
before it's 'super-wide?'
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:48:53 AM

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

This just appeared on the Pentax mailing list. It concerns the original
ist-D, not the DS, but they are both built on the same stainless steel
chassis, as I understand it:

>Friend of my friend has accidentally left his *istD on the roof of his
>car and didn't noticed it till he drove 0.5 km. By that time 1.5 tons
>weighting car overran it... See how it looks here:
>http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/26424/display/...
>Lens is completely destroyed, but *istD survived and is still working
>having only a few scratches on its bottom :-)

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 1:17:12 PM

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

Pentax mailing list? How can I reciev it?

TIA!

Pentax DS
Pentax 18-55
Sigma 28-70 2.8

"Mark Roberts" <mark@robertstech.com> wrote in message
news:D 1ehql0o5c@news4.newsguy.com...
> This just appeared on the Pentax mailing list. It concerns the original
> ist-D, not the DS, but they are both built on the same stainless steel
> chassis, as I understand it:
>
> >Friend of my friend has accidentally left his *istD on the roof of his
> >car and didn't noticed it till he drove 0.5 km. By that time 1.5 tons
> >weighting car overran it... See how it looks here:
> >http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/26424/display/...
> >Lens is completely destroyed, but *istD survived and is still working
> >having only a few scratches on its bottom :-)
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 1:29:55 PM

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

Mark Roberts <mark@robertstech.com> directed us to:
>>
>> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/26424/display/...

Thanks Mark, interesting picture!

On the Pentax mailing list, have you seen any tests or comparisons of
the new Pentax DA lenses (16-45/4 and 18-55/3.5-5.6) with Sigma DC lenses,
especially the 18-50/2.8 or 18-125/3.5-5.6, which seem quite good?
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:33:06 PM

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

Malevil <nobody@nunaya.biz> wrote:

> Pentax mailing list? How can I reciev it?

<http://pdml.net/&gt;
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:33:07 AM

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

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:

>Mark Roberts <mark@robertstech.com> directed us to:
>>>
>>> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/26424/display/...
>
>Thanks Mark, interesting picture!
>
>On the Pentax mailing list, have you seen any tests or comparisons of
>the new Pentax DA lenses (16-45/4 and 18-55/3.5-5.6) with Sigma DC lenses,
>especially the 18-50/2.8 or 18-125/3.5-5.6, which seem quite good?

Don't know of any comparisons being done; people tend to own either one
or the other but not both :)  However, the unofficial gathering of the
PDML (Pentax Discussion Mailing List) takes place every June at
Grandfather Mountain (http://www.grandfather.com/events/nphoto.htm) and
there's a good chance several of the lenses you mentioned will be there.
Perhaps we can get some informal comparisons.

I purchased the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 for my wide angle zoom, as I
wanted a lens I could use on my MZ-S as well as my DSLR. I've also just
ordered the Pentax 24-90 zoom. It may end up replacing my Tokina
28-70/2.6-2.8 which is now up for sale.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:21:36 PM

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

Mark Roberts <mark@robertstech.com> wrote:
>
> I purchased the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 for my wide angle zoom, as I
> wanted a lens I could use on my MZ-S as well as my DSLR. I've also just
> ordered the Pentax 24-90 zoom. It may end up replacing my Tokina
> 28-70/2.6-2.8 which is now up for sale.

One problem I see with Pentax is that filter sizes are all over the map.
Your Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 takes 77 filters so I would buy lenses that
also take this filter size. Oh well, you're not me.

Back to the original thread topic, here is a positive review of the *istDS:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/

I like Mike Johnston's characterization of the 350D as having a viewfinder
that's like looking at a postage stamp at the end of a tunnel, and EVFs as
like looking at a TV image of a postage stamp at the end of a tunnel.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:42:38 AM

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

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:

>Mark Roberts <mark@robertstech.com> wrote:
>>
>> I purchased the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 for my wide angle zoom, as I
>> wanted a lens I could use on my MZ-S as well as my DSLR. I've also just
>> ordered the Pentax 24-90 zoom. It may end up replacing my Tokina
>> 28-70/2.6-2.8 which is now up for sale.
>
>One problem I see with Pentax is that filter sizes are all over the map.
>Your Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 takes 77 filters so I would buy lenses that
>also take this filter size. Oh well, you're not me.

My Pentax 80-200/2.8 uses 77mm filters so that's what I've standardized
on. Almost all my other Pentax lenses take 67mm filters, so I have a few
67-77 step-up rings (and I've purchased 67mm versions of a few filters).


--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:39:09 PM

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

"Rene Schmidt" <mga010@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:a98b27f5.0503152249.52cd2af6@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for all this answers.
>
> It boils down to the following: Both camaras are equally priced (since
> I had to buy at least 1 GB of CF for the 300D) and of equal picture
> quality. Everyone likes the handling, look and feel of the Pentax.
> But the 300D has more availabe lenses in mid price range and also this
> program shift. (The CF versus SD discussion is beyond me. I'd prefer
> SD, but don't care if I had to use CF. And forget my old 28-200. It is
> not good enough.)
>
> About the program shift: I have one on my 300, and guess, I never used
> it. If I prefer some specific time or aperture, which I often do, I
> use other modes anyway. So this may not be an issue for me.
>
> I'll have to study other technical details, I am more insterested in.
> One is a following auto focus, which the Pentax seems to have, but
> only in one of the program modes. Others are flash handling (daylight
> flash), and how it works on both cameras. Things like that.
>
> Then, of course, it is always a good idea to wait. But as some will
> understand, I do not want to.
>
> Anyway, thanks to all.
>

I went to the shop and tried the *ist D and DS. The D just felt much
more like my old Pentax boxes. It is all a matter of what each individual
feels comfortable with. The recording media is a distant 2nd IMO. I have a
lot of old Pentax glass and most are the "KA" type so they work perfectly
with the D (and should with the DS also). I have used Pentax since the 60s,
so I have a certain feel I like in a camera. If you try out the cameras,
make sure you do it with a medium lense and batteries installed and even
with a flash in the hotshoe if possible. The D had the weight and feel of my
film boxes (without the motor drives of course..:-). I noticed that the
cropping effect was much more prominent with the older K and less with the
KA lenses. I know, it doesn't make much sense, but that is my own
experience. The good part is that the majority of my older glass was from
post 1972 and was KA. Exposure and composition with the KA lenses is right
on the money. I did get a couple of KAF lenses, but find myself not using
the AF mode very much at all. I also got the battery pack with the
additional trigger for vertical shots. That made the box almost exactly the
same in feel as my old film boxes. Just get what feels right for you. There
is so little difference between the major DSLR brands out there now that the
main concern should be what YOU want and feel comfortable with.

Ed
!