> > > Thanks for this information. Last week I had the oppertunity to hold a > > digital 3MP P&S, and I was very dissapointed about the lag in time > > between pressing the button and finally after a very long time making > > the photograph. How is the *ist D in this respect, is it comparable > > with my PZ-1?
The terrible shutter lag in most consumer P&S digitals is being spent in the auto-focus and exposure calculation. You can prove this (if the camera supports it) by half-pressing the shutter. All the calculations will be done, and the camera will be ready to capture the image as soon as you press the shutter the rest of the way down. On my Canon PowerShot G1 I can even run off a sequence of images at around 1.5 fps as long as I never let the shutter release come back above the halfway point. Pentax film SLRs have to do exactly the same calculations as the *ist-D, and have to focus the image using the identical methods. I would be very surprised if the *ist-D was noticeably slower than the MZ-S or PZ-1p. I have been told that some of the cheaper AF bodies use a smaller motor, and so have slightly slower AF speed. I have no first-hand experience of this, but have found both the PZ-1p and MZ-S quite capable of focussing even the heaviest Pentax FA glass. In fact I'd expect the *ist-D to offer a significant improvement for somebody used to a PZ-1; one problem with the PZ autofocus system is that it sometimes gets lost, guesses the wrong way to go, and has to hunt all the way to the focus extreme and back before locking in on the image. The MZ-S is much better, and very rarely does this. That, plus the use of cross-sensors in the *ist-D, should outdo the PZ-1.
