Pentax *ist D Hits The UK High Street!
It seems that the Pentax *ist D has finally made it from the Pentax factory to the local high street, at least here in the United Kingdom anyway. CameraWorld and Park Cameras are both advertising body only and kit deals, and they even have the camera in stock!
Park Cameras - £1199.99 body only or £1329.99 with the 18-35mm lens
CameraWorld - £1299.99 with the 18-35mm lens
Those prices make the Pentax *ist D slightly cheaper than the Canon EOS 10D, which retails for around £1299.99 body only. It’s a much better price than the body-only RRP of £1,400 that Pentax announced at the end of August.



#1 Ed Garrard
I want to see more sample images. It may be slightly cheaper than the 10D, but does the quality equal it? The 10D takes some amazing pics...
And I'm not too thrilled about being forced to use all my old lenses wide open.
10:52 am - Thursday, September 25, 2003
#2 Mark Goldstein
Well, DPReview posted 25 sample images on Monday. What did you think of those Ed?
http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=P849_0_1_0
So you have to use all your old lenses at wide open apertures? What's the maximum aperture allowed?
12:22 pm - Thursday, September 25, 2003
#3 Ed Garrard
I really like the pics. The reds may be just a little out of balance, but the rest of the colors seem as well represented as in your 10D pics, just a little restrained. Very workable.
I wish I could remember where I had read that about the lenses. It basically said that for the KA and KAF series, there was no problem, but that the K and M lenses had to be used at the widest aperture. They don't have the electrical circuitry in them, but the mechanics are the same. I don't understand why they didn't just go ahead and build in full compatability. Surely, it couldn't have been that hard. My best lenses are older ones, so that's why I'm griping about it.
1:26 pm - Friday, September 26, 2003
#4 Ed Garrard
Oh the only aperure allowed was the widest of the lens. If you put a 50mm 1.2 on it, 1.2 is it. It be great if all you wanted to do was shallow DOF shots, but it would be bad for landscapes, I would think.
Of course, I may have completely misunderstood what the article said.
1:30 pm - Friday, September 26, 2003