For my taste and kind of shooting, the difference worth considering is (in
no special order):
D pluses:
1 - two-wheel interface for aperture/shutter speed setting
2 - Direct selection (switch) for AF-S/AF-C
D minuses:
1 - Histogram+bright portion warning unavailable
2 - Awkward selection of WB, ISO & RAW mode
3 - Erratic TTL flash with flash units other than Sigma EF500DG Super
4 - Smaller LCD
If I had to buy one now, I'd probably choose the DS/DS2 based upon such
balance of features, other differences being not worth considering for
making a choice.
I'd discard the DL/DL2 only for the limited number of AF points and the
missing TTL support (rather than the viewfinder, which in my opinion is
overall not worse than that in the DS).
Dario
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D
For my needs (I have a DS) the additional cost of the D wasn't worth it.
The DS/DS2 has a number of features that even some D users would like, and
the D has some features some DS/DS2/DL users might like. I sometimes
wonder how many of the D owners would have purchased a DS had it been
available at the time. Conversely, how many DS/DS2/DL owners might prefer
the D now that they've had and used their cameras for a while.
Shel
João Moreira wrote:
Another question: is the *ist D worth the $600.00 over
the *ist DL? What are the extra features?
