Exactly Jens. We all like to have nice little toys but in the end it's the person playing with the toys that make them work. To answer your question. Right now I would take an MZ-S over the *istD any day. I think the istD is great for the few people who really need them. I work at a daily paper and our photogs certainly need digital cameras. I don't. I can wait an hour for my film, even a week for my slides. That's not to say I will never want the *istD. Some day 10 years down the road I may even own one... Vic In a message dated 6/18/03 1:00:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Hi Vic > >Your mail makes a lot of sence. I have often thought like this: Camera > >producers want to sell many cameras. That's the reason they try to make > >people believe ( and make themselves believe) that the camera is totally > >automatic and can take into account any possible situation or at least >most > >of them. That's one of the reasons for all the gizmo's. Annother reason >is > >that some (male) buyers really like them. (Before the computers were made, > >photography was the number one male hobby). > > > >I guess what I'm saying is - or what I hear you're saying is - allmost >any > >camera of today is good. You can make brilliant photographs with all of > >them. As long as you know what you are doing. Photographing is a craft >- > >like fixing a roof, the plumming or your car! When you build something >very > >nice, you will not say: Wll, I'm lucky to have such a great hammer! But > >funny enough you often hear people give credit to the camera - for good > >photographs! > > > >Please tell me; would you prefere a MS-S over a *ist D? > >Regards > >Jens
