Question about the Pentax *ist D

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
The *ist D is no longer
available new, so if you want a new model you must buy one of these
later variants.

B&H still has *ist Ds in its inventory.

"Ryan Robbins" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
The *ist D is no longer
available new, so if you want a new model you must buy one of these
later variants.

B&H still has *ist Ds in its inventory.


That's interesting, thanks. In Europe the last of the *ist Ds were
sold over a year ago. Occasionally, Pentax UK releases a small batch
of refurbished models - that's how I got mine.

Tony Polson wrote:

Frank Calidonna wrote:


I am ready to move to a digital slr for some of my photo work. I have
used Pentax for over thirty years and have a lot of lenses so the *ist D
seems to be where I want to go. Right now I have a Canon G5 which I
love, but want to use some of my longer tele lenses for photgraphing
birds. I also like the *ist D because it has features such as a pc
terminal for studio work.

That said I read mixed reviews about the *ist D. I want a very sharp
image and if the camera is a bit soft to reduce noise that does not
bother me as long as it can be well corrected in PhotoShop or Photo
Paint. What is the experience of you who own the camera? I would hate to
lose the use of my present lenses, but am not sure what to do right now.



The *ist D is an excellent camera, especially considering the fact it
is a couple of years old now. It uses basically the same Sony CCD
sensor as in the Nikon D100, D70, D70s and D50 and Konica Minolta 7D
and 5D and provides better image quality than all except the later
Nikon D70s and D50.

Bull****. It is fine on all of the cameras. If Tony Polson had any
proof to post, he would; but he doesn't so he just posts crap like the
above.


To get the best out of the *ist D you need to shoot RAW rather than
let the camera shoot JPEGs.

Like that isn't the same for any DSLR. Geez Tony, at least be original.

Sheesh. Post your Paris Match cover Tony. Show your STUFF!


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Tony Polson wrote:

Frank Calidonna wrote:


I am ready to move to a digital slr for some of my photo work. I have
used Pentax for over thirty years and have a lot of lenses so the *ist D
seems to be where I want to go. Right now I have a Canon G5 which I love,
but want to use some of my longer tele lenses for photgraphing birds. I
also like the *ist D because it has features such as a pc terminal for
studio work.

That said I read mixed reviews about the *ist D. I want a very sharp
image and if the camera is a bit soft to reduce noise that does not
bother me as long as it can be well corrected in PhotoShop or Photo
Paint. What is the experience of you who own the camera? I would hate to
lose the use of my present lenses, but am not sure what to do right now.



The *ist D is an excellent camera, especially considering the fact it
is a couple of years old now. It uses basically the same Sony CCD
sensor as in the Nikon D100, D70, D70s and D50 and Konica Minolta 7D
and 5D and provides better image quality than all except the later
Nikon D70s and D50.

Bull****. It is fine on all of the cameras. If Tony Polson had any proof
to post, he would; but he doesn't so he just posts crap like the above.


Actually, it's not 'fine' on the D70 - I know, because I used to own one.

The D70 offers a superficial 'sharpness', which is generated entirely by
harsh in-camera processing.

The *st D takes a more adult approach, and produces images that respond well
to thoughtful sharpening in PP

Plus, take away the rather good Nikon kit lens and the D70 is revealed for
what it is - a cheap lightweight plastic box - with several annoying
idiosyncrasies, like trying to zoom a previously taken image.

The *ist D is, without doubt, much the better of the two cameras, and one
that was/is greatly underrated.

Broake wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Tony Polson wrote:


Frank Calidonna wrote:



I am ready to move to a digital slr for some of my photo work. I have
used Pentax for over thirty years and have a lot of lenses so the *ist D
seems to be where I want to go. Right now I have a Canon G5 which I love,
but want to use some of my longer tele lenses for photgraphing birds. I
also like the *ist D because it has features such as a pc terminal for
studio work.

That said I read mixed reviews about the *ist D. I want a very sharp
image and if the camera is a bit soft to reduce noise that does not
bother me as long as it can be well corrected in PhotoShop or Photo
Paint. What is the experience of you who own the camera? I would hate to
lose the use of my present lenses, but am not sure what to do right now.



The *ist D is an excellent camera, especially considering the fact it
is a couple of years old now. It uses basically the same Sony CCD
sensor as in the Nikon D100, D70, D70s and D50 and Konica Minolta 7D
and 5D and provides better image quality than all except the later
Nikon D70s and D50.

Bull****. It is fine on all of the cameras. If Tony Polson had any proof
to post, he would; but he doesn't so he just posts crap like the above.



Actually, it's not 'fine' on the D70 - I know, because I used to own one.

The D70 offers a superficial 'sharpness', which is generated entirely by
harsh in-camera processing.

Rubbish - it has a weak aa filter! No (zero zilch) in camera sharpening!

The *st D takes a more adult approach, and produces images that respond well
to thoughtful sharpening in PP

Plus, take away the rather good Nikon kit lens and the D70 is revealed for
what it is - a cheap lightweight plastic box - with several annoying
idiosyncrasies, like trying to zoom a previously taken image.

By pressing a button and rotating a thumbwheel?
Jeesh, the D70 is one of the most ergonomic and least idiosynchratic of
all the lower cost dslrs.

The *ist D is, without doubt, much the better of the two cameras, and one
that was/is greatly underrated.

If you need a PC terminal and want a Pentax DSLR, I strongly suggest
that you should wait for the next Pentax 10M DSLR model if you don't
need the DSLR body urgently. I replaced my *ist D with a *ist Ds. One
of the good reasons is that the color response of the DS is far better
in many situations, especially when the latest digital lenses are used.
Or, I should say the color response of the *ist D is simply strange
somehow and this problem has already eliminated with the DS. In the
field, the metering accuracy of the Ds is still better than the D,
although there is still much room for improvement.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh

for the record, i have a pentax *ist DS , which i think takes great photos
imho

might not have all the whizz bag features, but its was good value and i
could use my exisitng 35mm lenses from my pentax z-70 days with it.

if i win lotto i want a d20 or a d5 tho :-)

--

http://photobucket.com/albums/b216/corks67/my-bikes/


"Frank Calidonna" wrote in message
...
I am ready to move to a digital slr for some of my photo work. I have used
Pentax for over thirty years and have a lot of lenses so the *ist D seems
to be where I want to go. Right now I have a Canon G5 which I love, but
want to use some of my longer tele lenses for photgraphing birds. I also
like the *ist D because it has features such as a pc terminal for studio
work.

That said I read mixed reviews about the *ist D. I want a very sharp image
and if the camera is a bit soft to reduce noise that does not bother me as
long as it can be well corrected in PhotoShop or Photo Paint. What is the
experience of you who own the camera? I would hate to lose the use of my
present lenses, but am not sure what to do right now.

Thank you for your advice.

Frank

What features do you think it is missing? I have looked and dont see to much
if anything missing.

"corks" wrote in message
...
for the record, i have a pentax *ist DS , which i think takes great photos
imho

might not have all the whizz bag features, but its was good value and i
could use my exisitng 35mm lenses from my pentax z-70 days with it.

if i win lotto i want a d20 or a d5 tho :-)

--

http://photobucket.com/albums/b216/corks67/my-bikes/


"Frank Calidonna" wrote in message
...
I am ready to move to a digital slr for some of my photo work. I have used
Pentax for over thirty years and have a lot of lenses so the *ist D seems
to be where I want to go. Right now I have a Canon G5 which I love, but
want to use some of my longer tele lenses for photgraphing birds. I also
like the *ist D because it has features such as a pc terminal for studio
work.

That said I read mixed reviews about the *ist D. I want a very sharp
image and if the camera is a bit soft to reduce noise that does not
bother me as long as it can be well corrected in PhotoShop or Photo
Paint. What is the experience of you who own the camera? I would hate to
lose the use of my present lenses, but am not sure what to do right now.

Thank you for your advice.

Frank

I use the DS.
You can get all the technical expertise needed at http://www.pdml.net.
Subscribe there and post your questions. Lots of experts and pros
available.
Yes, there are pros who use Pentax.
This should be in line with your expectations:
http://www.markcassino.com

Hopefully your lenses are A, F, or FA. You can you the K & M series
lenses
but, on the D, need to push that little green button to set the
aperture.
Let me know if you have any lenses that you need to part with.

Consider the DS along with the D as options. It's newer and there have
been
changes, mostly for the better. imnsho.

Enjoy,

Collin
KC8TKA

"Cheesehead" wrote:

Consider the DS along with the D as options. It's newer and there have
been changes, mostly for the better. imnsho.


Two changes for the worse are the lack of a PC socket and the omission
of one of the two control dials. Those omissions were more than
enough for many people to continue to choose the D over the DS. The
DS's "newness" is not in itself necessarily a virtue when genuinely
useful features have been deleted solely to cut costs.

What were the changes for the better?