Shel, it's only you and Godfrey that are making a meal out of this. :-)
We all know that all the bodies produce identical results, and many D
owners would have bought a DS if they had been around at the time. I
certainly would have done (given the price differential). The only reason
I bought a second D rather than a DS was that by that time the price was
the same (here in the UK), and I didn't want to have to grapple with two
different systems.
Technically, Tom was right, but practically, who cares? I was shooting
fireworks tonight, and was wishing I had the buffer of the DS.
John
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:42:34 -0000, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is all such a pile of dog doo. Pros in one field use different
cameras and want or require different features than pros in another
field.
Gary Winogrand had no need for flash or autofocus or shooting modes or
any
of that stuff. David Hurn, a Magnum photographer, chose a low-end Canon
for one of his cameras and an old Rollieflex 6x6 as another for a project
he was working on (interesting how he chose the camera for the project,
not
as his only "pro" camera). A photojournalist may need features and specs
that a fashion photographer wouldn't. The world has gone digital, but a
few weeks ago I was watching a shoot for the cover of a local magazine.
The pro was using an old manual Hasselblad - he liked the size, weight,
handling, and results he got from it. No desire or need for a digital
back
or a digital workflow. He sure had some neat lights though. A client of
mine who does advertising and product photography uses both film and
digital, cameras from an old 'blad to some new, high tech digi stuff to
4x5
film . There are a number of pros on one of the other mailing lists I
subscribe to who use mostly manual cameras as well as digital. Some,
for a
good portion of their work find that film works best, others, who do a
different type of photography, move easily between film and digital, and
others have moved to digital and sold all their film gear.
Anyway, speaking only for myself, this pro-v-amateur, better-v-lesser
crap
is getting tiresome.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
[Original Message]
From: Cory Papenfuss
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... :)
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
