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" ...
I would argue for "fewer pro-oriented features." A lot of the
advantages of of DS[2] could be construed as not necessarily important to
pro users (bigger screen, USB2 on-camera, etc)... I presume pros would be
concerned with the picture quality (identical) and the ability to use
high-end peripherals (flashes, grips, etc). The only one I can think of
that's contrary would be the larger buffer on the DS... that's just
because it's a newer generation.
Whatever... I grow weary of this line of questioning... :)
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
