In a message dated 7/29/01 9:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< It happens (FWIW) to be a N**** Ftn, 'cause when I first became interested
in photography in the mid- to late-60's, and actually had aspirations to be a
photojournalist, that seemed to be what all the "pros" had around their
necks. Mind you, I had no idea why they might have chosen that camera, >>
Yep and those PJs were most likely wearing cameras their companies had
provided. Anyone in the (PJ) business shoots what the company buys, or what
the company tells their incoming PJs to buy.
**At some Knight-Ridder publications for example, the company pays 80% of the
cost of new bodies and lenses, the PJ paying the other 20%. With deep
in-store discounts, the PJ many times only pays for the flash of their
choice, the body being discounted. That's how Nikon did it, flood the likely
buying market, especially during the Vietnam conflict. Those of us crawled
the stores in places like Bangkok while on leave, usually ran into gobs of
Nikons and a few Canon. Thus, Nikon transposed itself to these shores on the
shoulders of returning GIs, all 9 or so million of them. What would Canon or
PENTAX expect those former servicemen to buy?
***Every serviceman in Vietnam heard variations of one of the famous Vietnam
"Urban legend," that of the Nikon F-3 slipping out of the hands of a PJ,
falling 150 (250, 500 feet-you pick 'em) out of a Huey helicopter. It landed
in some mud. The owner persuaded the Army pilot to land so he could retrieve
his camera.
Once retrieved, the shooter wiped the clods of Buffalo dung and mud off the
F-3, changed lenses and went back to shooting. Other variations has him
taking a wiz on the camera but you get the drift. How in hell you gonna top
that if you're Canon or PENTAX?
But over the past five years, Canon has put on a full-court press to get
their products noticed, turning many former Nikon shooting "pros" and
amateurs alike into EOS shooters, using the same tricks Nikon did: put your
product n the hands of the "pros" and let the BS take its course.
**But Canon also has those incredible IS lenses, producing shots only dreamed
of in 1995 and selling EOS bodies and lenses out the yang.
**My EOS A-2 was so cheap it was nearly a gift from a PJ buddy of mine who
had four (4!) A-2s, each with the VG-10 vertical release! He also pointed me
towards a PJ friend of his who had a nice 35-350 "L" for sale: cheap. I had
to drive 600 miles to get it... took pictures with it all the way back home.
**~Every~ Leica shooting PJ I knew however, had chosen and bought their own.
While one can delude themselves professing that the choice of "pro" cameras
is up to the individual and what they like; the same does ~not~ hold with
those of us who ~earn(ed) a living~ from photography. The choices of "pro"
gear is actually ~very~ limited for each genre. That is, there simply isn't
that many "pro" cameras to choose from.
That may be what is wrong with the discussion: some here shoot only for fun
or minimum profit, some of us (yep, me too) still shoot for a living. If we
"pros" want to produce quality product, we must buy and choose quality built
cameras (of every persuasion).
~That's~ the ~real~ difference about "pro" cameras: quality construction and
endurance, regardless of genre.
-
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 .
