I'm very aware of image.
You don't get to my age, having had so many jobs as I've had when dealing with the public, without becoming keenly aware of what flies and what doesn't...
I agree with you. keith
graywolf wrote:
Small black cameras do not have the psychological impact with photographers's customers that big black cameras do. To a very large percent of the population's minds "big black camera" and "pro" are synonymous.
You can not imagine the utter respect that carrying a black Mamiya Universal Press camera (very bulky) generated for me. I probably would not have realized exactly what was happening except way back in 61-62 my very first potential wedding customer did not hire me because he wanted, "A real pro, someone with a big black camera". Of course back then he meant a Speed Graphic, but I have noticed the syndrome again and again over the years.
You better believe that Nikon and Canon know this, and it is why their top end cameras are 1/2 again as large as they need to be.
So as a pro camera, yes the small size is a fault. As a user's camera, no it is not, in fact it is a major benefit.
--
Keith Whaley wrote:
graywolf wrote:
Very true, Mark. Also many used MF because pro's were expected to use BBC's (Big Black Cameras). In this day and age a DSLR is a BBC to most of their customers. The *istD has a major faults. It is small.[...]
--
Two disparate comments.
What do you call one or more of the *istD's major faults, and DO you actually number the small size among them?
keith whaley
