On Mar 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, Brian Dipert wrote:
My reason for earlier asking about the storage card format of the
upcoming
10 Mpixel DSLR is that I just bought a new *ist D on clearance from
Amazon
for $1199, as a backup for my existing *ist D. Here's where I'm torn:
1) 10 Mpixel resolution will certainly be helpful when doing extreme
enlargements, or said another way enlargements of a small portion of a
captured image, and
Yes, it's a useful plus for wide angle work and when you are
producing prints at the largest sizes.
2) the *ist DS/DS2 on which I assume the new camera will be based
makes some
feature advancements over the *ist D, albeit with a few features
discarded
along the way (I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how the *ist D compares
to the
*ist DS/DS2, and would welcome folks' feedback on this), but
If I read the interview that was posted correctly, the new body is
not based on any of the current models at all. All of the current
models (*ist D and *ist DS/DL etc) are considered low-end "*ist"
based, where the new body is considered a mid-range design. Its
included image stabilization and other features necessitates a rather
different design.
3) Especially for those of us that primarily shoot RAW,
CompactFlash storage
capability, versus SD card, is desireable both from an absolute
capacity
standpoint and cost/GByte standpoint (esp when MicroDrives are
factored into
the mix).
CF storage cards still have an advantage in terms of available
capacity, but SD is coming up fast with both 2 and 4 Gbyte cards now
easily available. Prices, at least here in the US, show little bias
one way or the other (CF and SD with the same performance specifics
run very very close in price; there are more cheap, slow CF cards
available though). Microdrives are only available in CF form factor,
but their capacity/price and speed advantage has been compromised by
recent flash developments, while their disadvantages in terms of
mechanical fragility and power consumption have not changed.
So what do folks think? The newer cameras are cheaper, and arguably
better-featured (again, data and opinions are welcomed), but only
work with
capacity-deficient SD cards. Does it make sense to pay more simply for
CompactFlash capacity?
Given the above responses, I'm not sure the question makes much sense.
I have not felt like I was constrained by card capacity with the DS
model camera. A 1G card holds 93-97 RAW exposures, which is a
comfortable amount of pictures per card change for me. (My Sony R1,
with RAW files twice as big as the DS, really needs 2G cards for the
same capacity per storage unit.) The *ist D feature set was targeted
at a higher market position than the DS, although I have never missed
the additional features. The DS/DL/et al are slightly faster, which
is welcome.
At this point in time, I still buy and use both CF and SD media due
to the cameras that I own. I'm satisfied with 2G CF and 1G SD with my
present cameras, and I'll likely add more 2G SD with the new Pentax
body. I don't see it as a big deal because by Fall the price of 2G SD
will be even better, and I can use the SD cards in the CF camera by
use of an SD->CF adapter too.
Godfrey
