----- Original Message ----- From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Point taken. But although I will happily admit that the best SMC > glassware will outperform most other (say) Nikon and Canon lenses > (perhaps the Canon L lenses maybe match SMC ?) - surely they will be on a > par with each other. What I mean is - I would rather have a brilliant D > cam with a good lens as opposed to a good D cam with a brilliant lens.
Don't think we need to admit to anything here. All the competing brands have some great performing glass too, and bless them for that. > Note use of 'good'. I mean better than 'satisfactory' or 'adequate'. By > 'brilliant', I mean better than 'good'. Just curious... how much better would brilliant need to be over good when comparing different digital cameras? I mean, with optics, we can pretty much imagine the difference between good and brilliant. Since both are above adequate, both can produce images good enough for most appliances. > I would be the last person to suggest use of ultra-cheap consumer grade > lenses on *any* camera. *nodding*. -There's (D)SLR for the masses for you... :-) > With digital, the opposite becomes relevant. Not wanting to wait for the > *ist D, which still smacks, I reasoned that I wanted what I considered to > be the best (for the money) DSLR producing the best (in its class) image. > I quickly narrowed my choices down to the D100 and the D60. Reasoning > that the lenses were not going to be as good as the SMC glass I had been > used to, but still capable of producing a pretty reasonable smudge all > the same. I did my research and settled on Canon. Considering when you made the decision, I support it completely. Can't say I would have done the same thing myself, but I too thought it seemed to give the most bang for the bucks at the time. Jostein
