On 4/10/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > >The *ist viewfinder is small and hard to manually focus with - > >especially compared to the MZ-S or PZ-1p. I have one (actually my > >daughter's) and it is pretty poor from that perspective. All else > >about it is reasonable. So using A series lenses on it is more > >difficult. She also has an MX - and that gets the nod whenever > >possible because of the big difference in viewfinder. She has become > >a preferred manual focusser and so mostly shoots the MX. > > > > > > > > It's unfortunate that they couldn't put a Viewfinder as nice as the > *istD's in the *ist. I would have bought one when I had my D if the > viewfinder hadn't been so unimpressive. >
The viewfinder is certainly not it's highpoint. The magnification and coverage are sub-standard. The brightness, considering it has a pentamirror, is really not that bad, and certainly better than similar cameras from Nikon and Canon. For manual focusing I do prefer the K1000 or the MX, though it's not unusable and my Super-Takumar lenses get some use on the *ist. The crippled mount is a bitch. It's too bad a workaround similar to the green button wasn't possible. Auto focus is a different story. It's fast and accurate. Mike's 100% dead on with his observations. I'm leaning toward an FA50/1.4 and an FA35/2 to start with. Since my wife's been wanting to get a DSLR and a decent macro, I may skip the 50/1.4 for the time being and go for the DFA50/2.8 instead. Did I mention that the meter is phenomenal? Who knows? Next week I may decide to ditch all of the K-mount gear and stock on up on M42 lenses. It's still Bill's fault. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
