Get 10% Off Eversure Camera Insurance Today!

SLR digital camera


ShotGun

Link Posted 09/09/2003 - 04:33
Ooops... forgot to log-in when I wrote the previous post..
http://www.photonski.com/shotgun http://www.pbase.com/santyluib/first_istd_sample_photos
---------------------------------------
"It's only a Pentax!"

Stephen

Link Posted 09/09/2003 - 07:50
When Pentax first launched the MZ-S there was a lot of talk about the digital offering being based on it (and a full frame CCD). I am a little dissapointed that the MZ-S style body has not been chosen but we have to wait and see what the *ist D is like to use. John writes in glowing terms about the *ist so there is hope that Pentax have got it right - I wait for Peters further thoughts as he is the lucky chap who has his hands on one.
Stephen

grahamwalton

Link Posted 09/09/2003 - 18:42
I believe that the Digital SLR based on the MZS was going to be very expensive and that was why its development was discontinued.
However, time and development have moved on and it is good to know that Pentax have at last produced a Digital SLR of good spec for a reasonable sum.
1400 does seem a bit steep, but that will no doubt settle down to about 1200. With compatability of lenses, that would seem attractive.
However, I dont know what the dedicated flash compatibility is: any ideas?.
grahamwalton

Peter Bargh

Link Posted 09/09/2003 - 18:56
The flash shoe has the usual three extra dedicated pins so all the usual range will fit. We didn't get an instruction book with the test camera so I'm not sure at this stage what level of TTL they will deliver. The spec sheet states:
Via hot shoe (with X-contact for dedicated flash unit).High-speed synchronization, wireless remote-control synchronization and P-TTL synchronization functions available with dedicated flash unit.

grahamwalton

Link Posted 09/09/2003 - 19:52
Thanks for the flash info Peter.

That does sound good on the Flash aspect of the Pentax istD.

Regards
grahamwalton

Peter Bargh

Link Posted 12/09/2003 - 17:50

MattMatic

Link Posted 12/09/2003 - 21:51
Peter,

Thanks for getting the review so quickly

Actually, the ISO3200 image looks better than I expected... a quick run through NeatImage produced a really good image - most definitely usable (actually a lot better than my aging Canon S30 at ISO800).

I can see from the image numbers that you've been through a few frames Please keep the sample images coming...

It's also worth noting that write speeds to compact flash are also largely dependent on the manufacturer of the card. The interface into the card is very similar to the hard-disk interface found in most computers. However, the CF card itself has a controller that has to manage things internally. It is also possible that a virgin card can perform better than a used card, since the blocks of flash must be carefully managed (wear-levelling techniques etc). In addition, some cards provide ECC (Error Correction and Control) so that rogue bit changes can be automatically corrected. It's a complex subject... and even more so with the Lexar high speed format that the *istD supports.

That said, I don't worry too much about it (just deal with the electronics for work)

Thanks again,

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Stephen

Link Posted 13/09/2003 - 06:49
Peter,
Thanks for the swift review. Looks mostly good news and as expected, one small dissapointment though, I had not realised that K and M series lenses would be restricted to full aperture use.

The next step is to get my hands on one!
Stephen

ShotGun

Link Posted 14/09/2003 - 16:22
I'm with you on this one, Stephen

I would love to get my hands on it before my next "project" comes in. My previous one I have rented a Canon 10D for the digital job (I shot both digital and Film) and I have to say the quality of the images a 6Mega-pixel SLR can offer is more than enough for my requirements, although I still prefer Film for the macro part of the work.
http://www.photonski.com/shotgun http://www.pbase.com/santyluib/first_istd_sample_photos
---------------------------------------
"It's only a Pentax!"

Stephen

Link Posted 15/09/2003 - 07:51
Speculation about final pricing by some in this thread seems to have been bang on the nail, I see that www.parkcameras.com are advertising the body at 1,200 - don't get to excited - they haven't got any stock, just taking orders!
Stephen

MattMatic

Link Posted 15/09/2003 - 14:11
Hi all...

The DPReview Pentax talk forum is starting to buzzzz....
And there's a review from Bojidar: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/ (follow the link at the bottom of the page) It looks liek more details will follow.

Looking at the image sizes, it looks as though Pentax have opted for three levels of JPG compression, as opposed to Canon's two (that's per image size). It looks like Pentax have chosen a different set of JPG compression values (you'll remember from PS that it ranges from 0 to 12, and in PSP from 1 to 99) Maybe the higher-quality JPG mode may satisfy some of the RAW image issues. Personally, I would most likely use the higest quality JPG setting - I would rather have a small degradation in quality but a faster write-to-card time (according to the DPReview forum the RAW mode can take quite a time per image.)

All looks positive.
(BTW, Park Cameras are a very nice company to deal with, and great if you can visit their Burgess Hill store too - packed with goodies )

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

ShotGun

Link Posted 15/09/2003 - 17:23
Matt.... Thanks again for this nice link for *ist D review.

Looks like we have a positive feedback so far on this new baby!
http://www.photonski.com/shotgun http://www.pbase.com/santyluib/first_istd_sample_photos
---------------------------------------
"It's only a Pentax!"

Anonymous

Link Posted 15/09/2003 - 17:57
I see prices for the *ist D starting to appear on UK dealers' web-sites. Does this mean a RRP has been announced and, if so, what is it?

Have deliveries commenced?

On a technical note : I assume the lens supplied with the body is a "digital" lense i.e. it will deliver a 1:1 24x16 image on the *ist D body?

As a matter if interest, if a 35mm format lense produces a 1.5x image on a digital body, what does a "digital format" lense produce if used on a standard 35mm film body?

Does anybody know the capacity of the CompactFlash card delivered as standard?

Lurach

johnriley

Link Posted 15/09/2003 - 18:20
If you use any lens of a given focal length on a different format it will deliver the same image in all cases. But if the format is bigger than the lens is designed for it will not cover all of the negative (or CCD). Also, an 18mm lens on a small format will not be as wide a wide angle as on 35mm. So an 18mm lens designed for a digital camera will behave like any other 18mm lens when used on a 35mm camera, but it will need to have been designed to cover a 35mm frame to use it fully and there may also be issues with the other optical parameters - chromatic aberration in particular.

Hope that starts to help, but optics is a complex subject.....
Best regards, John

Anonymous

Link Posted 15/09/2003 - 19:05
Thanks John,

I think that gives me something to work on!!

Maybe you, or somebody else, can advise on another item I am having a problem resolving. I currently have a little Canon S40 with a SanDisk card. I feel the files may not be written to the card as fast as might be possible and am looking at other cards. However, getting "meaningful" comparisons is proving a little difficult. Many manufacturers use an "x" factor such as 4x, 8x, 20x where 1x equals 150kb per second. Apparently this is the industry standard format but the important thing is that it gives me information that I can relate to.

SanDisk, however, on their web-site quote "burst" speeds of 20.0Mb per second to/from Flash and 16Mb per second to/from Host. I feel this tells me little in terms of normal working conditions.

I do not want to spend money on a new card and then find that it is only as fast as the one I am replacing.

Can anybody help?

By the way, if my user name does not appear on this message it is because I seem to have a problem sending messages when I enter it, so I have to send them without my username!!!!
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.