Or "Good Enough, is always good enough".
In cameras, that is often a long way from the most expensive, because
above a certain point you are paying for features you rarely if ever
need, or for "marketing image".
An on topic comparison, for 99% of serious photographers a K-1000 is
just as good as an LX results-wise. That doesn't mean that most of us
wouldn't rather have the LX <grin>.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
afford is best.
No.
All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that "sufficient
tools" will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that
are every bit as good as "the best tools".
Marnie, I suspect you're buying into what marketers and advertising
agencies would want you to.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
