You are just a snob, Cotty. I knew a professional freelance news cameraman once. He drove a Mercedes Benz 300D. To him it was "MERECEDES!", to me it was a rusted out hunk of junk that cost a lot to maintain. I do admit that his camera cost 20 times as much as he paid for the car however.
-- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Cotty wrote: > On 15/9/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> Yep. The "pro" disdain for pop-up flash is pure snobbery. I've seen >> some of Galen Rowell's climbing photos, taken while roped in half way >> up enormous rock walls and carrying just one body and lens, in which >> he used the built-in flash for fill. Using the built-in flash for fill >> has saved some shots I've taken while backpacking when I didn't have a >> separate flash (and it wouldn't have been practical to bring one). > > Horses for courses. > > Have you looked at professional cameras? Seen the eyepiece *missing*? > Seen bits of gaffer tape here and there, usually holding the lenshood > together, that is - if there *is* a lenshood. Most often, it's gone. > Why? It's a weak point. So is a pop-up flash. I'm sure most professional > snappers would agree that it's a handy thing to have, but i would > suggest that most professional PJs would have it knocked off in a matter > of days. > > Pro cameras are designed by large companies. They design them without > flashes because they know that professionals will buy all the kit needed > to provide flash, because professionals have to spend money to avoid > giving it to the revenue instead. There's no snobbery involved. > > If I get a contract with my current employer as a freelance, I will have > to buy a lens costing nearly £10k, when for all intents and purposes, I > could get away with a lens costing 1/5th of that. (Actually I am going > to try and reduce that to about £6K but that's a different story). The > point is, I need the expensive lens because as a professional I have to > be equipped with the kit that I might be called on to use, even if I > only use its wide angle capability (say) 5% of the time. If I didn;t > have it, it might lose me a job and as a freelance that is not good > business sense. Sorry, digressing. > > If a professional photographer had some 1Ds/D2x cameras and was going > abseiling and needed a short lens and fill flash with little weight and > bulk, he/she'd just go buy a good point and shoot, or even a D50/400D/ > *istD or whatever and use it for that job. When it's a business, they > become tools that need buying, and depreciate and need replacing. > > With respect, the perceived snobbery originates from an amateur > viewpoint, which isn't such a bad thing actually. > > Most professional stills people would regard a list like this as full of > geeks. Why? Because as a professional TV cameraman, I regard a similar > mailing list on video cameras as full of geeks and wouldn't be seen dead > there. My excuse is I don't get paid for my stills, it's a hobby and a > passion, just like most others here. I (we) enjoy it, right? Chatting > about your day job is great fun, but not with strangers - only for > gossiping with colleagues. Same with professional stills people. > > Sorry, i've lost the plot completely now. I blame the wine. *parp* > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
