Sure, and I mostly look at the pictures instead and find that the 1Ds mkII wouldn't make much of a difference.
Anyone (with enough money) GET TO BUY a 1Ds mkII. The only difference is that some of you insist on having the "Pentax" trademark on it. I stick to Pentax because I think compact, good primes with large aperture are more important to my photography than full frame, many pixels and pictures per second. If I though anything else I'd have another trademark on them. I just don't see why you make such a fuzz about it. If you could afford the 1Ds mkII (or Pentax equivalent) an extra lens or two wouldn't make much of a price difference... DagT > fra: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > HAVE TO BUY more something expensive or GET TO BUY something more useful ? > Its all in how you look at it dude.... > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > So being a photographer is easy, you just have to buy more expencive > equipment? I'd better buy a 1Ds MkII then... .-) > > DagT > > > fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > place these new images side by side with some 30 year old shots and > > you will > > see why such old shots aren't publishable any longer. i have birding books > > > from the late 60's to 70's. amazing for their time, completely > unpublishable > > today because they don't meet today's standards for sharpness, let alone > > content. this guy is an amateur and there are now thousands of people like > > > him out there producing similar images. that's the difference that > > technology makes. > > > > Herb.... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:04 AM > > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive > > > > > > > Manual film advance would be difficult, but sequences like this were > > > regularly taken with manually focused, manual exposure movie cameras for > > > > about 75 years. It's amazing how quickly skills are forgotten, let > alone > > > lost. The fact that this was done with a still camera is just about > > > amazing. (But I though that the first time I saw it). > > > > > > >
