Hi,
aimcompute wrote:
[...]
> Wouldn't it just burn your butt if all the "pros" when digital? Right now
> many "amateur" status photographers can afford to buy what is promoted as
> "pro-level" equipment. If that switched to digital with bodies in the $5K -
> $10K range...
> Of course, this is likely ro revive the age old thread of what "pro" is.
whatever the term means I think it's unlikely that they _all_ going to
go digital in the very near future. Even though it has pentrated very
deeply into the press agencies, for obvious reasons, there are still an
awful lot of photojournalists and/or documentary photographers who use
film cameras for several reasons. For instance, people who are
spending a long time out on a job - for example, doing a commission for
a relief agency or a charity or something - don't need them and find that
other types of camera are more appropriate for the situation.
Also, if you go and watch a press pack at work on an event I think
you'd be surprised by the number of Leica Ms in evidence, and
generally cruddy-looking old manual cameras, esp. F3s, that are still
getting a good daily workout. Part of the reason for this is that
there is so much reliance on freelancers and stringers. Somebody I
know had a photo in the 'Independent' (major UK newspaper) recently
that he shot with an Olympus Trip.
--
Cheers,
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
