Don't apologize Frank, how will you ever become an Iconoclast...
frank theriault wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:27:58 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<sigh>
I just love it when this thread comes around again.<snip>
<snip> A real pro uses what's appropriate to get the job done and that which
compliments his or her style of shooting. A pro camera is one the camera
companies use as much to establish image as to fill a need.
I agree with your whole post, Shel.
I really didn't mean to get the whole "what's a pro camera" thing started again, or indeed, whether anything after the LX has been a "pro camera".
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the consensus is that the LX was targeted as a pro system; Pentax' attempt to take on the F3 (the reigning Pro Camera of the time). I think it's generally accepted that the LX was as capable as the F3, but didn't generate the sales hoped.
As to whether any subsequent 35mm systems by Pentax have been as capable, or have been accepted by pros may be open to discussion.
I meant no slight against the PZ 1.
cheers, frank
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
