E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 21/7/05, Pål Jensen, discombobulated, unleashed:
Huh? I've no interest in entry level cameras
The *ist D is an entry level camera?
Strange but true.
Well it was Pentax's entry-level DSLR when it was introduced, that's for
sure.
(Also its top-level, but apparently that's beside the point.)
All relative, isn't it.
For a manufacturer's first and only foray into DSLR cameras, one could
say it was entry level, I guess, even if it cost $6000 and had a ton of
bells and whistles. Not so?
Therefore the term "entry level" is meaningless, except as a put-down...
Let's use another word for what you mean.
A phrase like Pro-sumer might work. It doesn't carry the burden of a low
quality assessment on it's back like "entry level" does...
A "mere" $1000 camera may not be anywhere near equivalent to a top level
Canon professional camera...that costs $4500!
But, for most serious (advanced) amateurs, it's an expensive camera and
has a lot of very good features...
My thoughts on the matter...
keith whaley
