The word "lesser" implies a disparagement.
The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder
quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking
at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's
additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the
difference upon seeing a print.
In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And
people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was
stupid then... Not much has changed.
Godfrey
On Nov 4, 2005, at 4:14 AM, John Forbes wrote:
Given that the D offers considerably more control and better
facilities than the "deviants", I have to say that I'm with Tom C
on this.
Which is not to knock the deviants.
'D{eviants)'. I like it :-)
But you won't get away saying they are lesser cameras than the D.
The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D
(eviants) are less camera than the D.
