The D is the most Pro oriented of the *ist series. DS and DL have upgrades in certain areas (bigger screen for example) but were both aimed at a lower price point than the original D. For this reason they lack some of the pro features like hyper modes, two control dials and (in the case of the DL) Pentaprism viewfinder.

Only the K10D can match or beat the *istD on all specs.

calm down Javam, I don't think anyone was intentionally getting at you.

As George pointed out, there are rather a lot of very happy Sigma users on this forum.

You make an interesting point about people not being objective, but surely that's the reason we join forums? To compare and contrast our viewpoint with that of others in the hope of more closely approximating objectivity.

I know that's why I'm here anyway, of course everyone is different.

by reputation (I've not used one) it will be better. Only supposed disadvantage is the F1.7 has a flatter field and is therefore a better choice for macro.

here are my views on the matter:


1. Teleconverters and consumer grade zooms don't play well together. If you mount that 50-200 sigma or even the 50-200 Pentax on a 2x TC you will find yourself with a 100-400 F9-11 lens. To get any kind of optical quality you're going to have to stop down to F16, and that's just not going to end happily. Not to mention the AF work, at least not very well and manual focusing will be difficult because of the dark finder image.

2. Both the 70-300 lenses you mentioned are 35mm compatible as far as I know. Another possibility is a Pentax FA 80-320, although these can be hard to find since they are no longer made. ~£100 second hand. I like my 80-320 but I've never used either of the 300 zooms you mention to compare it to.


I also add my voice to what has been said above about film, I love my ME-F and could never part with it, but it gets maybe one film in 6 months for old times sake.

pentax browser should have come with your camera, it does exactly what it says on the tin, why download anything else?

now, if you could show me one which will run on Linux, that would be another matter. I've yet to find a suitable browser replacement for Linux.

or the lens is perfectly focused, but the subject is off centre so the centre focus point can't see it.

Since you say it was working before this seems unlikely, but it sounds as if the custom function which allows the use of the aperture ring is set to "disable". Worth a check?

unless I misunderstand how these filters work, the colour filters are physical gels which cover a pixel, and they are basically a part of the sensor. You'd basically need interchangeable sensors to be able to swap them.

yes but the point being that you don't apply NR at low ISOs, so you get your full resolution capability back. This pattern will be awesome for security cameras and the like which must work well in low light. Not so sure it will work well for artistic photography in normal light though.

Of course back in the "good old days" you didn't have to worry that a 1600 ISO film had poor resolution in good light, because in good light you loaded a 100 ISO film with uber fine grains.

I feel the same way about my ME-F, although it doesn't make quite the same sound as a Super owing to its more complex mirror system. I get it out and run a film through it every once in a while just for old times sake.

there's something just a little odd about anyone who's minimalist kit includes the battery grip. Especially if it only includes pancake lenses, surely these two accessories are at odds with one another?