On Nov 4, 2005, at 9:10 AM, E.R.N. Reed 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.
It doesn't matter whether it was intended or not. The expression is
what it is, and carries the connotation.
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" ...
"Less-featured" or "lower-spec'ed" both work, but it's awkward to put
this complex idea into a single adjective. What you intend is more
easily suggested in a phrase like "the mid-range/lower-end D(eviant)
S" or whatever. :-)
Godfrey
