Well said, G ... pretty much my sentiments as well, although, it might be pointed out that, in some respects, the DS and DS2 offer more in some areas than the D. ;-))
Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 11/4/2005 7:45:28 AM > Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. > > 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.
