Might matter to a hammer handed "semi pro" (K-7 has now been so designated) who, weather and other conditioned be damned, MUST get the shot. This situation fits, maybe..two struggling beginning "pros."(?)
Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> > Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 1:34 PM > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam > Maas <a...@mawz.ca> > wrote: > > I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the > pricing. Oh, and the > > performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII > was 5fps and had > > AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either > I'd say it was a > > better value. Right now it's more expensive here in > Canada (same price > > in the US according to B&H) and is pretty much > unobtanium to boot > > which changes the value proposition. > > > > -- > > M. Adam Maas > > Is 'build quality' that much of a factor if one only > realistically > uses the camera for 2 - 3 years before upgrading to the > newest and > latest. Build quality is desirable, I'm sure no one > would argue that, > but I wonder. Different body types, magnesium vs. a > steel & plastic > body, weather sealing. There's no doubt there may be > advantages, but > at what cost to the end consumer, and if the camera only > sees 2 - 3 > years of use, was that extra expense of sufficient benefit, > or does it > merely serve to gratify that materialistic side of our > egos? Hey I > like a quality product just as much as the rest of us. > > Back in film days where one might plan on using the same > camera for 5, > 10, 15 years, I think build quality was a larger > factor. Today if any > camera I owned suffered a catastrophe sufficent to require > repair I'd > probably junk it in favor of a newer model. > > I know the Mark II supposedly does not have weather sealing > that > matches some competitors, but how often will I be actually > need that > weather sealing? If I was standing taking pictures in > the pooring > rain, I'd be providing some kind of protection to the > camera and lens > anyway. > > Since you've used the Mark II, was there anything specific > about build > quality that was not up to par or even better than the > average DSLR? > The lower frame rate is fine since I'm not shooting action, > and even a > slower AF than some, is not a big deal for the same > reason. I'm > largely looking at it for general landscape photography, > large > enlargements, and specifically for night/astrophotography > and the > automation add-ons Canon has for that. > > Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and > thinking that > because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe > our > parameters for measuring them should also be changing. > > It's almost getting to be like: Do I use the quadruple > quilted toilet > paper to wipe my butt or do I go for the cheaper stuff, > because it's > all going to get flushed anyway? Not that any of this > is cheap. > > Tom > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
