Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The word "lesser" implies a disparagement.
The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder
quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking
at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's
additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the
difference upon seeing a print.
In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And
people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was
stupid then... Not much has changed.
Godfrey, perhaps "lesser" wasn't meant to imply disparagment. I wonder
if "lower-spec'd" could be used instead, or whether perhaps
disparagement would again be inferred? I'm trying unsuccessfully to come
up with a term that can cover "different, with fewer big-shot features
but not inferior" ...
ERN
