----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Lillja" Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
> > Your statement sounded to me just like that Canon ad in Pop Photo. The > Canon ad is marketing drivel. Perhaps you need to learn how to read more intelligently than to relate everything to marketing pap. Just because you have plenty of time on your hands to sit on top > of the list all day doesn't give you or your pronouncements any special > status. Between building a house, holding down a full time job, teaching dog obedience classes and the occassional photo job, I am hardly sitting on this list with time on my hands. I have, however, taught a lot of newbies a lot about photography over the past 3 decades. I don't give a rats ass about what status you think my thoughts on a subject are, since I think you are pretty much a dolt anyway. > > ***The only reason to shoot Pentax bodies is to get to use their > lenses. > > Ridiculous. There are many reasons to use a Pentax - the quality of the > OEM lenses may simply be one of the best reasons. The availability of a > wide range of excellent third party lenses - especially in M42 - is > another. Go back and quote the entire "pronouncement" as you so idiotically refer to them as. There are a lot more cameras out there than Pentax that use third party glass, a lot of third party glass that isn't available to Pentax shooters, and a hell of a lot of cameras that outperform anything Pentax makes. > > ***Experience of a working photographer, whether at it's best > or worst, I don't know, but my customers never had a complaint. > > The experience of this working photographer has been that good > photographs can be made with any good instrument, OEM or third party, or > any combination thereof. So why not use the best camera body money can buy with the third party glass you so happily espouse? > > It was a "Newbie Question" William, mind the context. And I think that > newbies need third party lenses (or a substantial income) to build up a > good kit of quality primes quickly - to save themselves from "cheap zoom > hell." Already answered this. > > Here's my full signature, in case you feel I was hiding behind my > truncated "Chris L." sig. Email me personally if you wish to take it off > the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), but please refrain from calling as > I'm struggling to meet a publication deadline. As of now it's not going > well, but that has nothing to do with my cheap, prestige-challenged, > third party lenses. You don't mean enough to me to rate an off list response. You don't even rate the two onlist responses I have gone to the trouble of making. William Robb
