On 5/6/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > "I wonder which camera has taken the most interesting photographs." > > 'Most interesting' is an opinion so there are no wrong answers. Here's > my list: > > the ones the National Geographic photographers carried during their > treks into the Amazon basin etc > > the one that <insert the guys name here> used for his pioneering bullet > through the apple type shots > > the ones built into those spacecraft that have been exploring Mars etc > > the electron microscope cameras that photographed the ants head at a > thousand times lifesize >
I think maybe the relevent question might be "which camera has a higher ratio of interesting photos to duds?" And I'm not saying that taking piles and piles of photos with a smaller ratio of "winners" is a bad thing - it's always been said that taking lots of photos is a key to improving. BUT, taking 10,000 photos and indescriminately deleting 9,900 of them without learning "what went wrong" or what's improvable, isn't doing much good either. I do think it's interesting (but maybe totally meaningless in the overall scheme of things) that 70 year old Leicas are still ticking and taking great photos. My guess is that the current crop of DSLR's will all be out of service in 10 years (if not sooner). Indeed, the current digital photo capture/storage system may be completely out of date and unusable by then. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
