>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis, >Peter (Peter) > >You are changing what he said. If a skilled carpenter had >a hammer and saw and a novice had a complete set of tools >I would put money that the carpenter would do a better job.
>From my perspective I did not change what he said. This is the complete message including the quote followed by his reply: >>Yes but a slow, mediocre lens only hurts your images no matter how good a >>photographer you are. >It's the carpenter, not the hammer. The original post seems to say that even if you are the best photographer in the world that bad lens still will give you soft images. No matter how good you are you can't get very sharp images with a bad lens. Now if you are skilled enough to work around that limitation or not is a completely different story. >As to psychological stuff, for amateurs it makes them feel >better they own the best lenses and then they think about >the image. For pros, its the image first, equipment second. I don't argue that. As a matter of fact I did put rather little emphasis on the psychological aspect. I only said that psychological aspects sometimes can't be ignored. If a photographer has good tools that he likes to work with compared to tools that do not lay nice in his/her hand, that do not feel sturdy and trustful, that are less then optimal, etc. his/her performance might be reduced. This does also apply to a pro. Not all of them but some. Some (very good) pros might even refuse to work with tools that are less then what they consider optimal and that might not even be the latest and best camera/lens but the once they like to work with.... Robert * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
