Because the news media company get huge discounts on them, sometime even freebees, so that people like you will notice the PJ's using them and go buy a cheap Canon camera.
Actually the market for the expensive cameras has always been rich amateurs. The big companies also used them but got those discounts and lots of freebees from Nikon or Canon. Back in my day most of the freelancers used Pentax or Minolta because they had to buy them out of their own pockets; of course back then Nikon did not make cheap cameras at all, and Canon was an also ran (although their RF's were still popular). -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was at a folk music festival yesterday, and saw a PJ taking crowd shots > using a Canon 1Ds and a big lens (not sure what it was - some > investigating on my part could figure it out). > > My question is: why do newspapers use these expensive cameras for prints > that simply end up on newsprint, which has poor resolution? Why use a > 11MP camera with expensive lenses (the whole unit costing in the thousands > of dollars), when a much smaller, less expensive camera would provide the > same results, given the nature of their use? > > I understand why someone shooting for National Geographic or some other > higher quality print magazine would use a higher priced set up such as a > 1Ds. But newsprint is such a terrible medium for such an expensive piece > of electronics and optics! > > Any explanation? > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
