Joffrey Wallaart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There. i am not envious of F5 owners, nor did i enjoy spending this kind of
>money on my equipment. But it did pay for itself (after 5 years of hard labour)
>I am happy with my stuff, please be happy with yours, whatever it is, but don't
>say anybody else's camera's are not capable of producing good pictures. Every
>Nikon is, be it an F50 or F5 (there's only one 0 difference there...)
I agree for the most part and even though I am not one of the types who must
have the latest and greatest, I do think some cameras are less worthy, to me,
to use.
Assuming you can afford the camera (This is a given because if you
can't afford, what use is there in considering it.), I think the main issue
is productivity. Because of a given camera's handling, ease of use, automation
accuracy, etc. one's productivity with it will likely be different than with
a different camera - one that doesn't miss the shot you want and gets that shot with
good exposure and focus. I have used a friend's N50 and I hated it. There
seemed to be quite a delay from the time I pressed the shutter release and the
time it actually tripped the shutter. I would often miss the "decisive moment"
with the N50. I am confident I am more productive with my N90s which is my
most used camera.
For times when agility is not important but image quality is the most important
issue, I use my Mamiya 645. It is easily the least agile of all my cameras
(N90s, Nikkormat FTn, Pentax MX, Minolta XD-11, Yashica FX-1, Olympus 35RC,
and Mamiya 645) but it produces the most beautiful images by far.
Another issue is reliability but isn't easy to determine for a camera. The only
camera I have that isn't at least 20 years old is the N90s. It is only little more
than three years old. I somehow doubt it will make it another seventeen without
having a major problem of some kind, unlike my other cameras. The Minolta was
my primary camera prior to getting the N90s which did have its lightmeter die
after 12 years.
David Johnson
