Yeah, you're probably right. My Pentax cameras are professional enough for me. If they weren't I'd buy some that are.
I use photographs for professional reasons. About 75% of what I shoot is not for my own use, but part of my work - for presentations, books, posters, adds, web sites etc. I've shot app. 7000 shots in the last 2? months. Mostly for work. I am a pro - not photographer, but a city planner. I don't make a living from photography alone. But photographing is a part of what I do. I am not dependant on super fast AF or a very high resolution (like a sports photographer or a nature photographer). I do wild life/landscape only as a hobby. I believe cameras like the MZ-S and *ist D are just right for me. Pentax is not too expensive, and if not the prefered brand among pro's, it still has close to "state of the art" features and a professional user interface. And a lot of excellent lenses are available. Pentax makes more cameras and lenses than I can afford, anyway. Cameras like the MZ-S, *ist D, 6x7II and 645n are all pro-featured, very durable and well made cameras. And Pentax doesn't change models every year, which suits me just fine. Some of them are even a pleasure to my eyes and hands :-) I guess my point is: You don't need the best or most expensive or sofisticated car in the world to be a TAXI driver. A Mercedes will do just fine. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. november 2004 17:56 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pro cameras again.....SHEESH. was: Re: New Guy I've been sorely tempted to say, "Who cares!" But since so many seem to, I've changed my question to, "For Pete's sake, why does it matter?" Might as well argue the mechanical differences between traditional flat vs. round toothpicks. keith whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > ernreed said: > >>>We've established many times, including quite recently, that we >>>cannot reach a consensus on what makes a "pro" camera. >>Thats cause the camera isn't all there is to whether it is pro or >>not. >>The company has to offer stellar support service as well. >>Pentax is a bit spotty in this regard. >>.... > Meaning then that according to your standards, the LX isn't a "pro" camera > either? > I mean, just to be clear, this got underway because of the claim that the LX > was the last 35mm pro camera Pentax made, and my opinion that the PZ-1 and PZ- > 1p also qualify. > If it's your opinion that the company has to stand behind it and therefore > there's no such thing as a Pentax 35mm pro camera, okay, I understand your > reasoning. > > ERN > > >
