In a message dated 9/25/2005 7:26:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > This analogy doesn't work. The wood is always available to the > carpenter and > it doesn't move. Nature photographers might have to wait three > hours for an > opportunity to get the shot. When it finally comes, that opportunity might > only last a few seconds. Wildlife photography is a specialized application > and it requires special tools. With better tools, the > photographer will get > more good shots. That's critical when he's doing it to put food on the > table. > > Tom Reese =========== I agree. The fact that some photographers in the past did great wildlife shots with equipment without all the bells and whistles that we have now (including faster fps rates), doesn't mean that one should not get the best tools for the job that one can. Things have changed. Some of those changes have greatly benefited sports and wildlife photographers. So why use tools not up to the job? Nowadays one isn't forced to because they aren't available. They are.
There are some areas of photography specialized enough to really require specialized tools. Well, I am interested in wildlife photography and I have tried some. And it ain't easy. In fact, it's very difficult. So that affects my opinion. In those situations, it's better to get several shots rather than just one. And I am not even talking about making money on it, just getting the shots. Squirrels are the fastest d___ creatures, for instance. Marnie aka Doe :-)
