--- Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately, I think your logic is flawed.
No problems there ! You have an opinion just as I have. > You make it sound as though there are people out > there thinking: "Let's see, > I can spend $6000 and get a good digital body with a > 16-35 lens or I can > spend $500 and get the same focal length in a P&S." > That's just not > realistic. Not really, while that may be your interpretation (or "spin" on it), the message is actually exactly the converse: want more ? then dish out more. Whether people actually think what you are suggesting what I suggested, I hardly think that is true at all. The market for the P&S Compacts is targetted differently than the one where camera users (professionals advanced amatuers beginner/hobbyists et al) are more particular about their equipment and have different/more flexible needs - SLRs, lenses, flashes and so on. If a D-P&S offers a little more flexibility which is satisfactory to me, then good. If not, then I would simply move on to the next higher level as it becomes affordable. In fact I know many people who I think are good with their photography but continue to be blissfully unaware about DSLRs and their potential - and very happy with what their "35-200/400" or so length digital P&S gives them. Canon is already making money in DSLRs, and the D-P&S just fetches them more revenue from a different segment - more or less same for many other manufacturers. - Harman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
