Why does everyone insist on talking about "pro" photographers as if they all shot the same subjects, and they all had the same shooting style? The 645N II is a great camera, but it can't--and wasn't meant to--compete with an F5/1v in many ways. They're different tools, and each has its advantages and disadvantages.
chris On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Roland Mabo wrote: > The 645 is a really nice MF camera with many features from their 35mm > cameras (autofocus, multizone metering etc.). I believe that the original > 645 were once marketed as "as easy to use as a SLR". If you want to go pro, > then Pentax answer is that you have to go to medium format. It's an > excellent medium for pro photographers, even wildlife. And I believe that > Pentax has earned more money on MF equipment than they would have on a F5 or > EOS 1 clone. However, Pentax might come up with a more professional body > than the MZ-S. It's even likely. As I've said before - I believe Pentax has > many tricks hidden up their sleeve. New, exciting things to release. We just > have to wait and see. I have faith. > > Best wishes, > Roland > > > >From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:21:21 -0600 (CST) > > > >What I'm trying to say is that high-end 35mm SLR's and MedF cameras are > >really two entirely different things, meant for entirely different > >situations. Saying that Pentax makes MedF cameras answers the >question of > >why Pentax doesn't make professional-level cameras (they >do), but doesn't > >really answer the question of why they don't make >high-end 35mm ones. Or > >you could show them an MZ-S. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hitta r�tt p� n�tet med MSN S�k http://search.msn.se/ > >
