The flash problem isn't universal. Both of my D cameras produce nice
flash exposures with both my AF400T and my Sigma 500 Super.
On May 25, 2005, at 5:21 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Currently about the only thing on the *istD that bothers me is the
speed of writing raw files out. I do run into instances where I fill
the buffer and miss a shot waiting on it. These instances are during
weddings and sports sequences. Outside of that, the bodies have been
just as I expected when I bought them.
I'm kind of with you that if it used to work, what changed? Mostly
our desire to keep up with Joneses, me thinks.
I haven't heard many things listed that is wrong with the D - here are
what I know:
Slow raw writes
Inconsistent P-TTL exposure with flash
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 1:39:37 PM, you wrote:
k> William Robb wrote:
Tom is very concerned about being able to upgrade his camera bodies.
William Robb
k> Really?
k> LIke, buy a new model car, with more advanced features, and such?
k> Hate to be stuck with a 2004 model, because a 2006 or -7 will be SO
much
k> more capable?
k> Heck, if all car makers stopped issuing new annual models right now,
k> you'd start comparing your make with other owners makes, to compare
k> capabilities.
k> Owners would start thinking about what their cars are really worth,
what
k> they can do, and how easy to drive, what creature comfort
accessories
k> they have, etc., etc.
k> Advertising hype to buy a new model is merely a fenzied push to get
one
k> dissatisfied with what they presently have! Not that the current
model
k> is in ANY way inferior, but soon the owners believe it is, and
wonder
k> how the hell they were ever talked into such a piece of crap body!
k> If it worked just fine when they first bought it, chances are it's
k> working just the same now. What changed is the owner!
k> S/he allowed an ad agency to snooker them. Tsk, tsk, tsk...
k> keith
