I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance
to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of
times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with
the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using
the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet.
When looking at a group of stars (Seven Sisters) there are many more visible
than with the naked eye, even here in light polluted London. Unfortunately when
I put the camera adaptor on with the *istD I couldn't see anything - it was far
too dark to focus. A bit disappointing. I haven't tried the camera with the
moon yet, but will do next time it makes an appearance, and it's not raining,
or cloudy.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom C"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 11/01/05 23:45:05
To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
Bruce,
I'm curious why the shop people thought the Digital Rebel was junk. Was it
based on look and feel ? What about image quality?
I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for
astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet with my
telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind
trying the Rebel.
Tom C.
>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: Nick Clark <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:08 -0800
>
>I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some
>Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep
>walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it
>doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in
>all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70
>is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the
>Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase.
>Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is
>too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My
>shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very
>willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making
>their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved
>Nikon's hide.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Bruce
>
>
>Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:18:50 PM, you wrote:
>
>NC> My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling.
>NC> They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is
>NC> humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax
>NC> is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly
>NC> the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is
>NC> something like GBP200 cheaper.
>
>NC> Nick
>
>
>NC> -----Original Message-----
>NC> From: "P�l Jensen"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>NC> I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are
>NC> larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from
>NC> the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely
>NC> there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small,
>NC> not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they
>NC> look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need
>NC> to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look
>NC> like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small
>NC> SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M
>NC> series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the
>NC> *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a
>NC> photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see
>NC> or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are
>NC> unless they do a lot of homework.
>NC> The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity
>NC> though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera.
>
>
>NC> P�l
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
