*ist issues - what does the future hold?

[jlemire]

I've been using Pentax equipment for over 10 years now and have

accumulated a number of different bodies and lenses. I am comfortable

with the system and since I am already invested in Pentax I figure I

will stay with them for the duration.

 

However, I just today started thinking about going digital. I think I

would take more pictures (which, for me anyways, would be a good

thing) and I would probably save money in the short run by not having

the processing, printing, and scanning costs that I do now.

 

Naturally, I looked to Pentax. I was a bit disappointed by a couple

of things:

 

1) The *ist (how does one pronounce "*ist"?) sensitivity only goes

down to ISO 200. I would consider this the FASTEST ISO I would ever

use in film (normally)

 

2) The 1.5x Focal Length Multiplier due to the smaller than full frame

sensor. This means that my new 24mm lens is now only 35mm, right?

That is longer than the 28mm that I just replaced and comopletely

defeats the purpose of the new 24mm.

 

I don't know much about digital SLRs, but I am going to assume that a

larger, more sensitive sensor costs more and that is why the *ist does

not have it, but any idea if Pentax is planning on such a camera? I

guess this might be considered a "Pro Model" Digital SLR.

 

I am hesitant to jump at the *ist with the above issues and don't

really want to switch to Cannon or Nikon. I guess I will stick with

film and wait to see what Pentax brings us in the (hopefully,

not-too-distant) future.

 

Any one have similar issues or comments about mine?

[Sandeha Lynch]

Pretty much in agreement, Jim. The older lenses and bodies I am used to, and the very limitations of the istD incline me to stay off the dslr route for the time being ... (for <i>my</i> style of shooting I should add.) If anything (since I love my computer and PS) it was the istD itself that provoked my launch into MF and LF film!

[mendel_leisk]

I got an MZ-5n a few years back, and like it's traditional controls. Now though, all their film slr's are termed "novice/intermediate", and involve some degree of "drive-by-wire". Too bad.

[jurie]

Mendel,

 

<p>I agree completely. If Pentax came out with a digital version of the MZ-5n, even if it was just a re-packaged *istDS, I'd be all over it.

<p>In the meantime, my favorite digital camera in the showcase at work is the Minolta Maxxum7D. It's built with the same principles in mind that our MZ-5ns are: everything is a knob switch or dial; there's no digging through menus for things that you would change in the field or in the middle of a shoot. Even ISO changes can be acomplished on the fly simply by holding down a button and spinning a wheel.

<p>The only downsides to it are that shutterspeed and aperture are changed via wheels instead of knobs or aperture rings, just like every other modern SLR, and I've got enough invested in Pentax at the moment that I wouldn't really want to re-buy everything all over again.

<p>Jordan R. Urie

[Jochen_S]

I got the *ist D as soon as possible and am happy to have it.

 

O.K. my widest lens was and is a 14mm Sigma (I like and use 20mm on film a lot). Living with the crop factor isn't hard. You can get a kit lens for example to be on the convenient side. I have none but like the 35-80 a lot, at the moment. Third party WA lenses for DSLRs should soon become available and won't really count compared to the other costs. Some people argue buying another WA lens is much cheaper than being a poor full frame shooter, who needs a 300mm f2.8 or fast portrait lens.

I doubt Pentax offering a full frame DSLR soon. Why? - Even Leica and Nikon don't have one yet. And Nikon isn't known to release one soon. Pentax is in the consumer class only. Who would dump EOS gear to switch to a Pentax me-too camera offered 1.5 years after others? Do you really want to dump at least 5000 Euro/$ just to keep your 24mm a 24mm?

 

Why are you complaining about HIGH minimum ISO? - I can't understand it. The main advantage of digital is at high ISO compared to film. By pixelpeeping you might discover how shaky your hands really are and 35mm cameras where not invented to be used on tripods. - MF & LF do a better job there. O.K. I bought a 3f-stop ND filter to match the *istD with my ancient strobe system which seems to be intended for LF gear with slow film, but well the modelling light is bright enough, even for the AF.

 

I'm not bashing film. I've bought some "new" film cameras after the DSLR, but I believe digital is fun and now is the time to start having it.

[david_nevin1]

I shoot various formats, and have been a longtime LX user in 35mm. I thought of making the switch, but it would cost a lot of money just to buy the Canon or Nikon version of my old SMC 500mm f4.5 So I bought the *istD last year.

 

Although I'd shared some of your concerns, they've disappeared. The only really wide work I do is with landscape--and for that I use a larger format, or stitch a couple of digital shots together. The quality of the prints I get are superb--as high of if not higher quality (not more pixels, of course, but more useable) and a lot less work than scanning a 35mm slide from my LX. In fact, I hardly use the LX anymore (a real shame. . .but it has become my backup body to the *istD)

 

Not to start an old debate, but if Pentax is going to do anything pro level, I'd think they'd stick with their past marketing model and do a digital insert for the 645nii. Look at their 35mm lens lineup. Hardly in the same league as Nikon or Canon. They decided not to fight that battle long ago--the LX was the last "pro" level 35mm they made. Not that the haven't made some great cameras since then--but they are not targeted at the same market.

 

But why wait--if you want and can afford to make the jump, buy a *istD (or a DS if you don't need the additional features). If it doesn't work for you, the used market for Pentax DSLRs is really good right now.

[jlemire]

Thanks all -

 

You've given me much to think about and you have certainly relieved me of some of my "fears". FYI, I also posted this message in the generic "Digital Cameras" forum and an excellent discussion is going on over there - check it out if you've got the time.

 

Thanks again.

[lance_blackburn1]

Jim,

 

I have had my *ist D for about 8 months now and love it. I was slide film shooter with Pentax equipment but have not since used it.

 

1) The highish ISO 200 question. This is basically has to do with the output voltage of the sensor. The voltage is sufficiently high to allow this high sensitivity and if they were to reduce it then that would introduce noise and defeat the purpose of a low noise, low ISO. The noise and grain of the 200 setting is lower than that of 50 film possibly and definitely 100 film.

 

2) The 1.52x multiplier question. I have a nice selection of SMC A, FA and DA prime lenses and a DA zoom. The beauty is your 50mm f1.4 is now a nice 76mm f1.4 portrait lens, a 100 is now a 152, and that 135mm f2.8 is the equivalent of a hugely expensive 200 f2.8. You have effectively jumped up by 1.52x, kept the same f stop but purchased for a much lower cost. Case in point. My FA 135 f2.8 cost me approx US$300 second hand. It is now like a 200 f2.8. I also bought the SMC A* 200mm f2.8 ED and that cost me close to US$800 second hand!

 

Where there is a problem is at the wide angle end of the focal range. Wide angle lenses are all now 1.52x narrow in their Angle of View. The widest Pentax lens is the DA14mm f2.8 which is 90 degrees, but it is a great lens.

 

3) My OPINION of whether Pentax will go FF is that I think they will and use 35mm mount lenses. My reasoning is that Pentax are at the moment updating their lenses from the FA version to the new D FA version which are compatible on 35mm film as well. Why make a set of new 35mm lenses if you aren't going to use these lenses for FF DSLR?

 

It also makes sense that they can provide a mount adaptor for the users of 645 and 6x7 lenses and equipment to be able to mount onto a 35mm style FF DSLR. This means that they really only need one lens line up which will be the new DA(APS C DSLR only lenses) and D FA(DSLR Full Frame lenses) types. I know this is two line ups, but there are only a 4(at the moment and not likely to be too many more) DA type lenses. They are basically the wide angle and wide to tele zooms as the wide angle is where APS C DSLR are lacking. 35mm lenses can be used for the rest of the focal range for the APS C DSLR AND for the FF type. Basically one lens line up.

 

This path will work as it keeps the pro LF shooters happy and also provides an upgrade path for the amateur. Everybody can be kept happy. :-) I don't think a FF version will be out too soon though.

[hendrik]

Hi,

 

A couple of years ago pentax launched the MZ-S and then showed the MZ-D with a full frame sensor based on the MZ-S body.

 

Now if only they would keep to their plans they would soon realise that there are a multitude of pentax users out there that would LOVE to go digital with the bags full of pentax mount lenses that they own.

 

Surely they have to realise that even, with an expensive new body, it is far cheaper for all the pentax users not to change systems.

 

I for one am not happy with the ist-D/DS and would even like to see something closer to a Nikon D70 or (may I beg!!) a Canon 20D!

 

In the mean time, Pentax is fast asleep.

[lance_blackburn1]

Hendrik van Rooyen.

 

Why are you not happy with the *ist D or DS? The images from it are superb and I would put it up against the D70 or 20D any day.

 

The *ist D is particularly good at getting the exposure correct. I have heard that the 20D and D70 can have difficulty with blowing highlights whereas my D definintely does not have this problem.

 

The more I use the D the more I am impressed with it's exposure capapbility. I mostly shoot RAW and when viewing the exposure, it has preserved each INDIVIDUAL colour channel. The histogam on the camera LCD may look a little underexposed, ie to the left of the histogram, but upon viewing on the computer an individual colour channel may actually be right up almost to the 255 mark on the histogram. The other colour channels maybe be more to the left and the combined histogram, ie all channels combined, may psooibly be more to the left. This gives much more latitude when adjusting the image as you never have a problem with any blown channels.

 

On another forum, a poster there uses an *ist D and went on a photographic trip to Myanmar with many Canon users. Most were using 300D's and 20D's. They were apparently having trouble with blowing highlights whereas this poster using his *ist D was not. The Canon users were very impressed with how the *ist D handled the particular scenes.

 

The only drawback I find on the *ist D is it is a little slow to write RAW images to the card, but as I'm not a sports photographer(and then I would probably shoot jpeg so it wouldn't be an issue) I am not overly concerned.

 

I wouldn't swap my *ist D for a 300D, 20D or D70 for any reason.

[hendrik]

I didn't say the ist D/DS is BAD.

 

But, the MZ-S is such a good system that it is a step down to any of the two, accept for workflow.

 

What I would like to see is a pentax digital that is in the same class as the MZ-S, this system WILL beat a 20D.

 

The censor inside the 70D is actualy the same used in the ist-D (made by Sony).<div></div>

[lance_blackburn]

Hendrik van Rooyen ,

"I didn't say the ist D/DS is BAD.

But, the MZ-S is such a good system that it is a step down to any of the two, accept for workflow."

 

In what way is it a step down? What is missing from the MZ-S that makes the D so inferior?

 

"What I would like to see is a pentax digital that is in the same class as the MZ-S, this system WILL beat a 20D."

 

The *ist D is at least as good as the 20D and in some ways better, but why does it have to BEAT the 20D? You have Pentax lenses and they will work just as well on the *ist D/DS so why would you even consider the 20D? What "class" are you talking about? If it's features then I don't know what is missing that would make any difference to you. If it's image quality then that is a digital vs film debate not a camera debate.

 

"The censor inside the 70D is actualy the same used in the ist-D (made by Sony)."

 

That is not really relevent. Exposure and white balance issues make the *ist D better in my book. Wouldn't even consider a D70 now.

[mountainvisions]

The *istD (there is a film *ist) is a great camera. It's gotten rave reviews and matches the Nikon D70 quite well in image quality as well as the canon models in the same class.

 

The issue with the 1.5x (1.3 with some canon models) crop is kinda the way it is. Basically you have no choice. How much money do you have? Because full frame SLR's start at about $3000 and go to about $8000 for a canon 1Ds Mark II and those are sketchy. The particular $3k model i am talking about is the Sigma produced Kodak with a Canon mount. It's really a hybrid with mixed reviews. And all that for only $3000.

 

For $3K you can buy some really nice glass, a super nice film scanner, and a lot of film to hold you off for 5 more years.

 

The bottom line is if you want to jump to digital you need to accept that you are going to need to buy a new wide angle lens. For me, I can't accept that. I'm spending the next 5 years upgrading to the best glass I can buy in that time and by then 1) I might actually want to switch from film for a hefty price tag to do what I can/could already do with film 2) Full frame sensors will be affordable for the masses. But I'll tell you, there is no way I'm spending $3000 on a camera that will be worth $1000 in 12mos and that I'll want to sell within 2 years because it's not cutting edge.

 

The last I checked, my PZ-1P was still capable of taking great photos with a roll of EliteChrome and it will still do the same in 5 more years. Not many DSLR owners can say that 5 years from now.

[mountainvisions]

""The only downsides to it are that shutterspeed and aperture are changed via wheels instead of knobs or aperture rings, just like every other modern SLR, and I've got enough invested in Pentax at the moment that I wouldn't really want to re-buy everything all over again.""

 

The PZ-1P had the best user interface of any camera ever made IMO. Easy to navigate. It used two wheels (one thumb and one index finger) near the shutter to control the aperture and shutter. It was/is the easiest camera to use in full manual or hyper program. The metering modes and EV comp were all within thumb reach, and the IF and ML buttons were also right in a thumbs reach. Basically anything you needed on the fly was right there. The other stuff wasn't all that hard to access and nothing was buried. I like switches and knobs myself but the PZ-1P did an excellent job of keeping everything accessable (not buried).

 

To bad it lacked a modern AF system.

[ed_nicholson3]

Let's see, now. I want a digital SLR but I want the full-size sensor. Hmmm, there's the Kodak DCS at $5000 and the Canon EOS-1Ds at $8000, not counting lenses and accessories and that's about it.Maybe I can get along with an APS-size sensor like all the other photographers that aren't on a big corporate budget and have to pay for their own equipment.

[lance_blackburn]

Hi,

 

Justin Serpico , feb 10, 2005; 03:38 a.m.

 

You wrote:

"The last I checked, my PZ-1P was still capable of taking great photos with a roll of EliteChrome and it will still do the same in 5 more years. Not many DSLR owners can say that 5 years from now."

 

I'm sure my Pentax *ist D DSLR will still be taking excellent photos in 5 more years. I don't know why it wouldn't as the image quality will not degrade.

 

If you invest in a wide angle lens for the APS C sensor this will tide you over until the cheaper FF comes along as it is cheaper to do that than buy a FF now and use the same lenses that you already own. Don't forget at the tele end you get the 1.5x factor so you save on buying longer glass.

 

The current crop of DSLR's take images every bit as good as film cameras and yes, this is of course a contentious issue, but I take better quality pics now than I did with slide film and love the ability to be able to do my OWN processing how *I* want it done and no one else.

 

You also wrote:

"The PZ-1P had the best user interface of any camera ever made IMO. Easy to navigate. It used two wheels (one thumb and one index finger) near the shutter to control the aperture and shutter. It was/is the easiest camera to use in full manual or hyper program. The metering modes and EV comp were all within thumb reach, and the IF and ML buttons were also right in a thumbs reach. Basically anything you needed on the fly was right there. The other stuff wasn't all that hard to access and nothing was buried. I like switches and knobs myself but the PZ-1P did an excellent job of keeping everything accessable (not buried).

 

To bad it lacked a modern AF system."

 

The *ist D has the basic same control layout that you mention above. It used two wheels (one thumb and one index finger) near the shutter to control the aperture and shutter. I am sure it was modelled on the PZ-1P. All the other functions you mention bear an uncanny resemblence to how the D works as well and it DOES have the modern AF system.

[william_au]

A little late to the thread, but my question for you Jim is what purpose will you be using your camera for? There's no question that the Pentax DSLRs can produce pictures with as good quality as any of the competing 6MP cameras, and arguably the 8MP cameras. If you already have an investment in Pentax lenses, then the istD/istDs definitely warrant a look.

 

If you're not too heavily invested in Pentax gear already, then I think it's a harder choice. What you'll have to decide is whether you will be happy with what the Pentax DSLRs offer in terms of features. I have to disagree with Lance over the comparison of the istD to its competitors - while neither the D70 nor the 20D are perfect by any stretch, they offer meaningful improvements in a number of areas. As a wedding shooter, I've produced some shots with the istD I've been very happy with. But there are a number of things I wish the istD did better, including faster shoot/write times, bigger buffer, better AF, instant histogram and highlight/shadow warnings (istDs has some of this), better noise performance at high ISO. These, plus readier pro support and equipment availability, are things that are making me strongly consider a switch to either C/N. If these things aren't important to you, and you don't need to be on the cutting edge of technology, then you can be confident that the istD/Ds are fine cameras in their own right.

 

The ISO 200 is no problem (as good as any ISO 100 neg film I've shot). The 1.5 crop can be problematic with wide-angle coverage, but there are a growing number of 3rd party wide-angle options coming available. Digital is truly liberating in a lot of ways, and it's great to see technology improving and evolving at such a quick pace. Though with Pentax, I don't know how long you'll have to wait to see a 20D/D200 equivalent, much less a full-frame camera.

[lance_blackburn]

Hi William Au,

You wrote:

"But there are a number of things I wish the istD did better, including faster shoot/write times, bigger buffer, better AF, instant histogram and highlight/shadow warnings (istDs has some of this), better noise performance at high ISO."

 

I agree with you that the write times and the buffer could be faster and instant histogram would be desirable I would not be concerned with highlight/shadow warnings as they be unnecessary to my mind. If you want instant histogram you can buy the Pentax DS if need be.

 

The AF speed is plenty fast enough when using lithium disposables as the NiMH's seem to not have the power to allow the AF to work at it's best. This would have something to do with the low 1.2volt ouput of the NiMH's instead of the lithiums 1.5+volts. I have given up on NiMH's as the lithium AA are now realtively cheap and work better. Since using the lithium's I have found the AF to be much faster.

 

Accuracy is another thing that you should consider when talking fast AF of one camera compared to another. Just because one is faster than the other doesn't mean that it is accurate, something I think alot of people forget when they compare speeds. It's one thing to be fast and another to be accurate.

 

High ISO noise is another thing that I will have to disagree with you on. I have taken pics using ISO800 and enlarged them to A4 size and noise is virtually non exitent! I do not use any post process noise reduction programs either. I have also seen posted pics at ISO1600 and the noise is also almost non existent. I will say though that I shoot RAW exclusively and this would possibly contrbute to the low noise output.