I don't know Canon or Nikon at all.
How "backward compatible" are they compared to Pentax
as far as glass?
I hate to say this but the only things that have kept me
loyal to Pentax are the viewfinders and the abundance of
inexpensive yet excellent lenses.
Can the other two make a similar claim?
Don (Who just bought a Nikon FM to see what the 'other
side' was really like.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
>
>
> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/01/05 1:08 PM >>>
> > Just a hypothetical question:
> >
> > If you did NOT own any Pentax or k-mount lenses, why would you choose
> > the *ist DL over the Nikon D50 or Canon 350D (RebelXT)? (price
> being equal
> or
> > near-enough; I believe the D50 is supposed to be much less than the
> > 350D,
> > but let's ignore that right now)
> >
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > if you showed someone all three cameras and they did not already have a
> > Canon/Nikon brand bias, then I think the *ist DS or DL could do OK. I
> > like small camera bodies, and it has just as nicer fell to it than the
> > Rebel (IMHO).
> >
>
> Ok so one reason to choose the DL would be ergonomics/size. Good reason.
>
> Any others?
>
> I compared the Ds next to a RebelXT. The Ds viewfinder was WAY
> better, but,
> let's play entry-level user here: the Canon offers "more" megapixels
> (remember, new users are interested in pixel count; why else would
> manufacturers be cramming 8mp into teeny digicams?). and we
> don't know how
> the DL's viewfinder will compare.
>
> I'm just curious how the pdmlers would sway a new entry-level consumer.
>
> Christian
>
>
