Frank Theriault wrote:
> You are, of course, correct, insofar as when
> one says "pro camera", a certain image comes
> to mind.
True, Frank, but might that image be different for different people,
based on their own experiences and affectations. For example, someone
interested in studio photography might be thinking Hasselblad, while
someone interested in documentary work might think of Leica or a
certain type of SLR, and a landscape photographer 4x5 or larger format
view camera.
> the word "pro" has been usurped by the marketing
> departments, and now seems to mean "a camera that
> amateurs (ie: non-pros) will be impressed with, or
> possibly impress others with).
Now that is the best definition of a "pro" camera I've seen thus far,
and probably closer to the truth than some would like to admit,
especially in this day and age, where marketing hyperbole and
advertising chicanery determines what and how so many people think.
It is, IMO, sad to see so many people by into the hype so completely.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me
when I was out making a photograph? Then what would I do?"
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
