>-----Original Message----- >From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:12 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: istd or istds or wait? > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >The D's built-in flash supports wireless control of the 360FGZ. The >> >DS will also allow wireless flash control, but you need one 360FGZ >> >mounted on the body to control a remote 360FGZ; its built-in flash >> >does not support the control protocol. >> >> I see. Didn't know that. How stupid. I was eyeing DS, but >it's now off >> the list. > >Don't base your decision solely on flash capability. Look >through the archives of this list and you'll see lots of >disappointment in the TTL flash area with the D. I personally >never experienced the inconsistent flash exposures that many >people here complained about so you might want to think about that too. >
It's not just flash, it's not that vital, it's all things together - both wheels, HyperProgram, absence of stupid "turist" program modes - something I enjoj with PZ-1p - and wireless flash, the only reason I sometimes choose to fight with my spouse's MZ-6. I've been toying with idea of getting something digital for quite some time now and I'm still not sure that it's a good idea. I mean, I've read quite a few endless digital-good-film-bad and vice versa discussions and still belive that film's better (pray, may these words not start another endless thread) and digital is more convenient. Recent failure of CCD on my video camera just confirmed that those gadgets are fragile. And even if I convinced myself that changing camera every three years is what I want, I just couldn't made my mind about which of D/DS would be more to my taste. I still think not adding wireless control to built-in flash is stupid! Okay, I'll dig throught archives. Thanks for pointer. Leon
