Now we have the *istDS2

[marsha7]

They just brought out the DL, and now the DS2...what changed as the DS became the DL became the DS2

[mikaelwardhana]

Yes I found that Pentax DSLRs are pretty confusing...

first it was the Ist*D...and then the Ist*Ds then the Ist*DL then the Ist*Ds2.... God knows what might come next :-*

all of those cameras are basically sit on the same level in the market. Why would Pentax made so many variants of that Ist*D series?? I dont quite understand what are they up to.

For example Konica Minolta has the 7D to compete with 20D...and the 5D to compete with 350D.
Nikon has the D70s to compete with 20D...and then came the D50 to compete with 350D/300D.

But Pentax....hmmm....what are they thinkin??

[dougjgreen]

It IS strange. You would think that they might have one ultra low-end camera, one midrange camera, and one premium product. But it looks like every one of their cameras, all available at once, target the lower midrange of the DSLR market.

[mawz]

The naming convention is a little odd, but understandable.

The DS2 is a simple successor to the DS, it adds Auto ISO and a 2.5" LCD, nothing else (Pentax missed a good chance to increase the buffer, which is a mistake IMHO).

The DL is a cut-down DS2. Pentamirror Viewfinder (Smaller than the DS's as well), and the AF unit is cut down to 3 point instead of the 11 point unit with 9 cross sensors in the DS, DS2 and D. This is a Canon 300D competitor, while the DS2 is up against the D50 and 350D. All the cost savings appear to be in the viewfinder and AF unit, I'd suspect everything except the viewfinder housing, Viewfinder and AF unit is physically common between the DS2 and DL. Given that one of the biggest selling points for the DS is its superb viewfinder, this is a fair bit of cutting down.

The D is a fair bit more camera than the DS or DL. It's got more control (Hyper programs especially), is generally quicker to use due to having independant controls for most settings while the DS and DL require you to use the menu and offers features that are more important for the semi-pro photographer (Vertical grip, PC Sync, wireless commander mode on the built-in flash, AF-C in all modes, quick selection of focus points and metering modes). This was aimed at the EOS 10D and D100, but is now up against the D70s and EOS 20d, it generally holds it's own against the D70s in everything except buffer size and drive speed, but the 20d is a fair bit more camera in some regards.

Pentax has pretty much the same breakdown as the Canon DSLR's in the consumer/semi-pro market. 1 low-end body (The DL, EOS 300D), one mid-range body aimed at the core of the market (DS/DS2 and the 350D) and one serious body aimed at pro's who don't need more and semi-pros (D, 20d). Nikon covers the same markets with two bodies by putting them in the gaps (D50 in between the 300D and 350D, D70s in between the 350D and 20d). Note that the *ist D is now discontinued, hopefully Pentax will replace it with a worthy body (Frankly, all I want in the D's successor is 8MP, 3fps with a buffer for ~20 L*** JPEG's ISO button so you don't have to take the camera out of a shooting mode to change ISO, and the DS's grip contour, everything else about the D is pretty well sorted. Full-aperture coupling on plain K mount lenses would be nice as well)

[eganjover]

Originally Posted by mawz

The naming convention is a little odd, but understandable.

The DS2 is a simple successor to the DS, it adds Auto ISO and a 2.5" LCD, nothing else (Pentax missed a good chance to increase the buffer, which is a mistake IMHO).

The DL is a cut-down DS2. Pentamirror Viewfinder (Smaller than the DS's as well), and the AF unit is cut down to 3 point instead of the 11 point unit with 9 cross sensors in the DS, DS2 and D. This is a Canon 300D competitor, while the DS2 is up against the D50 and 350D. All the cost savings appear to be in the viewfinder and AF unit, I'd suspect everything except the viewfinder housing, Viewfinder and AF unit is physically common between the DS2 and DL. Given that one of the biggest selling points for the DS is its superb viewfinder, this is a fair bit of cutting down.

The D is a fair bit more camera than the DS or DL. It's got more control (Hyper programs especially), is generally quicker to use due to having independant controls for most settings while the DS and DL require you to use the menu and offers features that are more important for the semi-pro photographer (Vertical grip, PC Sync, wireless commander mode on the built-in flash, AF-C in all modes, quick selection of focus points and metering modes). This was aimed at the EOS 10D and D100, but is now up against the D70s and EOS 20d, it generally holds it's own against the D70s in everything except buffer size and drive speed, but the 20d is a fair bit more camera in some regards.

Pentax has pretty much the same breakdown as the Canon DSLR's in the consumer/semi-pro market. 1 low-end body (The DL, EOS 300D), one mid-range body aimed at the core of the market (DS/DS2 and the 350D) and one serious body aimed at pro's who don't need more and semi-pros (D, 20d). Nikon covers the same markets with two bodies by putting them in the gaps (D50 in between the 300D and 350D, D70s in between the 350D and 20d). Note that the *ist D is now discontinued, hopefully Pentax will replace it with a worthy body (Frankly, all I want in the D's successor is 8MP, 3fps with a buffer for ~20 L*** JPEG's ISO button so you don't have to take the camera out of a shooting mode to change ISO, and the DS's grip contour, everything else about the D is pretty well sorted. Full-aperture coupling on plain K mount lenses would be nice as well)

Accurate statements. The DS2 is also equipped with C-AF l in all modes unlike the DS which has C-AF only available in Sports Mode. The lack of new features could hinder its success against existing and upcoming prosumer DSLRs. Hopefully the DS's backwards compatibility with older lenses and price friendliness will give it some sort of competitive advantage with consumers who are highly price-sensitive. This camera war will be interesting to watch.

[Sidebyte]

What a stupid "name-game' Pentax is playing.* I don't understand their marketing.* First of all the "D" was a marvelous full-featured camera and the concept of making it backward compatible with older K-mount lenses was great, not only for new customer marketing but for the Pentax Loyalists.* Then they started CHOPPING the camera down, increase the LCD and take away important features.....didn't change the "heart and brain", left it at the same level, 6 MP Sony and the same engine?* With every new modification they made it lighter and cheaper, not only money but quality wise also.
One thing manufactures need to adjust themselves to in the Western World marketing is the proven fact in business's in the U.S. and Europe, you can increase the price MODERATELY but you can never lower QUALITY and survive.* The buying public doesn't cater to the idea of you taking something away, even if it's slightly cheaper.* The "D" didn't sell that well against the competition but it was marketed poorly, AKA: Canon with the Andre Agassi Rebel.* Who even heard of the "istD" outside of the knowlegable photog public?* That and the fact that any new product, even if GREAT takes time to catch on, i.e., the "D" is now recognized by the knowledgable people as a fine instrument but now it's passe'.
Instead of flooding the market with cheap "knock-offs" of the original, they need to introduce a 10 or 12 MP camera built to the same standards as the "D".* I love the concept of using the older, fine lenses, the superior viewfinder but i don't want a used camera and the lesser models are not acceptable,,,,for instance, I love my Sunpak potato masher flash, but it needs a sync terminal to operate.* Incidentally, the chassis on the "D" is way more substantial also as are some of the other features of the "D".
I get really annoyed when they cheapen product without offering a better alternative.* If I object to the Nikon D50, I can always buy a D200 but not with Pentax.
I seriously wanted to buy a new Pentax and matching film camera that utilize the same lens but i won't buy their little plastic toys.

[dougjgreen]

I agree, this is exactly what Pentax has done, and it's completely uninteresting to me.


I look at it this way: 2 years ago, the Pentax *ist D was a very interesting alternative to the Nikon D70 and the Canon EOS 10D. Now, all they've done is cheapen it, and never move it forward.

Nikon evolved their D70 by making a D70s, which is basically a D70 with a bigger LCD and a couple of very minor tweaks. They also brought out a cheaper D50, and and a higher end D200.

Canon evolves their 10D with a 20D (and now a 30D) with some added features, and a cheaper Rebel (now a Rebel XT)l, and a higher end 5D

About all that this does is make me question whether Pentax is a serious long term player in the DSLR space. Have they really done anything besides cost reduce their camera, and do deals so Samsung can re-badge them?

Ironically, I would almost certainly have been a buyer for a slightly enhanced *ist D over the last year, had there been such a thing, because I was specifically looking for a solution that would let me use inexpensive but excellent manual focus glass, especially at the fast telephoto end. Of all things, I ended up getting an Olympus instead, because they are easily adapted to all this great old glass that I have.