Thanks all!

It really is just fear of the unknown.

I have heard of Photographers losing weddings because the film came screwed up from Kodak! (Provable, too!)

There are no garantees! Ain't that the truth! (Hey, I tell people that all the time... thanks for reminding me! )

OK, I'm about to take the *ist D plunge... I'm thinking of using it commercially for photographing weddings. One concern, born of shear ignorance I admit, is the reliabilty of the CF cards.

The idea of shooting 200 images at a wedding and having an electron out of place that results in NO IMAGES really wangles my brain!

Again, I have no basis for this fear other than shear ignorance, so it would be nice to hear what those with real experience think about this.

Any thoughts?

Thank you!

(Also, if you were going to shoot a wedding with this camera, what file type would you use? Tiff? Raw? Clearly I have some "shaking out" before I aim this baby at anyone in a white dress... )

And another thought: Maybe the out of stock situation could be the result of the *ist D generating some serious interest in Pentax's great glass that Pentax had not anticipated...

Reading some of the other forums, a few people have commented that upon buying a Pentax D, they added 4-6 new lenses to their kit!

If this is true, then I could see Pentax not anticipating that and getting caught short.

I know I've been seriously looking for a 100mm 2.8 Macro now that the ist D compliments everything I've already got.

It would be pretty bone headed of the company to introduce a camera that is fully compatible with their FA lenses that people are actually buying and then quit making the lenses...

Time will tell.

You know, after the shock of seeing the beginning of the end, there also seems to be a new beginning here...

I know I said they would have to better than 6.1 MP, BUT, maybe not.

If you have not been to Norman Koren's websight, check it out. What a cool guy. www.normankoren.com

Maybe 6.1 MP is the ticket, and with the new DA 14mm and all the gear I've already got, I'm away with the mixer.

What a great situation. Digital AND Film in the same bag with the same great lenses.

I've got a *ist D on order. What an epiphany. I feel sorry for the person buying the Canon, I don't think he has thought this through thouroughly...

I actually came here to see if anybody has heard anything...and I find this!

The New York Mega sellers (B&H and Adorama) have been out of stock on most of the interesting lenses for a while.

I was in the market for an 85mm 1.4 and have been checking frequently for a while. I finally called Pentax USA and got zero information, which made me think they were hiding something!

I guess this is the end of 35mm as we've known it...

Oh well. I kind of wish they had the digital thing perfected before pulling the plug. (As a working pro, they are going to have to do better than 6 MP before I can trust shooting digital. It won't be long I hope!)

In this order: A 24mm F2.8, FA 20mm F2.8, FA 43mm F1.9 LTD.

I love the look the 43 gives an image. There is a 3-d quality to the images that I see but have a hard time describing. But I "see" in wide angle, so....

If I had an A 20mm F2.8, that would probably be my favorite, but there is no point spending money to replace the FA. It does the same thing, equally as well, it's just the palstic doesn't turn me on asmuch as the metal in the 24mm.

Hi Lee, I don't know much about the 80-200 M, sorry, but I do know that the A 70-210 F4.0 is professionally sharp and contrasty. (i.e. I have been using this lens professionally for 5 years now and it never lets me down. And I'm VERY picky!)

The combination of the A series quality of contruction and the modern camera metering like in the MZS, Z-1, or MZ, is unbeatable.

(Remember the only Nikon that ever Matrix metered with AIS lenses was the F-4!)

My favorite camera kit is the Mz-s with A-series lenses. Can't be beat. The quality of brass (aluminum) and glass precision and the modern metering and film imprinting data are tremendous.

Having said that though, I do mix and match a bit.

I have the FA 20 2.8, FA 28 2.8 AL, and the FA 43 1.9 LTD. To this I also add the A 24 2.8, A 35-105 3.5 and the A 70-210 4.0.

The FA zooms, other than the PRO 2.8 versions, leave a lot to be desired. But the A series, particularly the two I mentioned are FIRST RATE in terms of image and build quality.

I like the compact-ness of the A 24 2.8 as oppossed to the FA 24 2.0 (Though that is a wonderful lens!)

The only two lenses I am missing (lusting for) are the A* 300 F4.0 and a 100mm macro A or FA.

I use the MZ-s and use a ZX-5n (MZ-5n) as a back up, both with AA's and grips. I also have an old MX kicking around for fun, and an optio S for snapshots. I shoot weddings and B&W landscapes. (Yes with 35mm, digital scanning is a miracle come true!)

So the point that I am really trying to make, is if you don't need AF, stick with the Pentax Lenses, they really are superior and the older A series zooms probably cost less than a new Sigma or whatever...

Great Forum!

Ed

When the PZ-1 first came out, I was using them for weddings, It got expensive in terms of batteries, so I took apart a spent 2cr5 and ran some wires to a 4-AA battery holder which I mounted under the camera. It worked great. I had to make a little hole in the corner of the battery door for the wires, but other than that it just screwed into the tripod socket.

(Kind of like a poor mans MZ-5 battery grip.)

If the batteries are that expensive where you are you might want to fiddle around and see what you can come up with!

Good luck!

Yea, try that with ANY OTHER camera brand!

(Does Pentax ROCK, OR WHAT! )