----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:41 AM Subject: Re[6]: So?
> Rob, > > A funny thought just crossed my mind. In the past we have been very > accustomed to thinking that the camera body doesn't matter that much > as long as the shutter speeds are accurate. The optics are after all, > what really makes the picture quality. But with DSLR's, that changes > to some degree. Optics are important, but the body is far more > important than in the past. With the electronics and software built > into the body, a camera body can have as much or more impact on > picture quality than the lens. It would be entirely possible for > Pentax to create a DSLR with poor software that would negate the > quality gained from the optics. Not a comforting thought for me. I > have always thought that as long as my glass was good, any body would > work in a pinch. You make a good point Bruce. One thing that I've heard that remains constant is that the most important things in taking photos are, one, the photographer, and two, the quality of the optics. Your thoughts of a DSLR I imagine are quite accurate. In fact, one may actually wait quite a while until a DSLR is proven to be good. Otherwise you're taking a bit of a risk. That make sense? Regards, Brad Dobo
