That's funny. FWITW, I don't consider any current Canon to be a
professional camera because they don't have interchangable
viewfinders.
But then, I am old fasioned, it used to be that two things made
a camera suitable for professional use.
One, the ruggednest to stand up to day by day flogging that many
pro photographers give them. e.g. Hundreds of rolls of film a
week.
Two, the versitility to use for almost any photographic need.
e.g. Full range of lenses, motor drives, interchangable
viewfinders, interchangeable backs, etc. There were at one time
several cameras available that met those requirments.
Number of "auto features" weren't a requirement. In fact most
pro cameras had very few to none, and up to a very few years ago
medium and large format pro cameras had none. Now it seems price
is the real determining factor.
In fact, a Pentax rep told me that when he was showing the MZ-S
to some salespeople. One of them told him it wasn't
"professional" because it sells for less that a $1000 (US). I
said, You should have offered him the professional model, and
when he asked what the difference was, tell him $200.
--Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/29/01 8:44:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> <<
> So we have one subjective meaning, one arbitrary meaning, and
> the closest we get to an objective standard is a closely
> related (not the same) concept with _fuzzy_boundaries_. >>
>
> There is nothing "fuzzy" about the build of the "pro" cameras Canon and Nikon
> produce. There is ~no one~ who reads this list who thinks different, at least
> not when confining the topic to the 35mm SLR genre of "pro" cameras.
--
Tom "Graywolf" Rittenhouse
Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA
------------------------------------------
-
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 .
