The answer is they'd be impressing those who think they know about cameras. One of the few lenses I've been complemented on owning is the smc P FA 28-200, but the 43mm Ltd is mostly ignored, which is the better lens? (Not more versatile mind you). Most people, including photographers know little about equipment they're not familiar with.
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Who would they be impressing? Certainly not > anyone who knows anything about cameras. I > would be more impressed seeing a true high end > point and shoot then I would seeing an entry level > DSLR with a cheap kit lens on it all the time. To each his > own I guess.... > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:15 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Luminous Landscape: Reichmann tries out a K10D > > > Same reason they drive a SUV, but never go off-road. It's more > impressive. > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> If someone is going to buy a DSLR, but it's NOT >> to use multiple lenses, WHY would they buy >> a DSLR in the first place? The only answer I >> can think of is for better image quality and >> you are not going to get that from a cheap >> supernormal zoom lens. They would be much better >> served buying a high end P&S cemera with a really >> good lens on it ( even over a DSLR with a really >> good supernormal lens on it) because >> it would be smaller, lighter, and can have a lens >> system optimized for the sensor without the limitations >> a reflex system imposes IMHO. To me, the main advantage >> of an SLR/DSLR is the ability to change lenses >> to meet the specific requirement. And I dont believe >> that a supernormal zoom can meet 99% of a typical >> person's shooting needs. A majority, maybe yes, but 99% NO. And your >> example of using three primes is not the same as one zoom because >> primes typically offer way better image quality than cheap zooms do, >> as well as tyically being smaller and faster than supernormal zooms of >> > > >> the same range. jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Mark Cassino >> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:56 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Luminous Landscape: Reichmann tries out a K10D >> >> >> I have a good selection of lenses on hand, even after i sold off the >> ones I bought as 'collectables' a few year ago. In reality, many go >> unused for months at a time (or longer.) I last used my A* 300 f4 on >> vacation in July, 2005. I can't remember when I last used the Sigma >> > 14mm > >> f 3.5 or the A* 400 f 2.8. >> >> I set aside serious time for photography and try to take a disciplined >> approach to actively producing images. At the end of the day, a >> > handful > >> of lenses does most of the work, and aside from specialized macro >> > work, > >> a normal prime and standard zoom are the real workhorses. >> >> I do a lot of Medium Format shooting with 3 lenses - 55mm to 170. The >> same focal length range is covered by a 28-80 mm lens in 35mm format, >> > or > >> 18-55mm lens in APS-C format. >> >> I'd suspect that for a more casual shooters good normal zoom would >> fill >> the bill for 99% of their shooting needs, and the cost / benefit ratio >> > > >> doesn't justify the purchase of a new lens for that 1%. >> >> I wouldn't expect the typical DSLR buyer to pony up for more lenses. >> (Unless they subscribe to this list and get the bug...) >> >> IMO - the smart marketing money would be to put a good lens in the >> kit >> - sharp, minimal distortion and light falloff, good close focusing - >> > and > >> realize that many people will just use that. Better to have people >> happy >> >> with the results of their kit lens, and giving good feedback about >> their >> >> camera, than giving them a junk lens and hoping they will upgrade. >> >> FWIW - I haven't tested the 18-55mm but it seems like a reasonably >> good >> lens. Noticeable light fall off and softness in the in the corners >> > wide > >> open, but not bad stopped down to f8 or 11. But that's just a casual >> observation. >> >> - MCC >> >> >> >> >> >> Gonz wrote: >> >>> Just as I suspected. I'll bet its the same pretty much everywhere. >>> I know of at least 7 people personally in my area with DSLRs, only 1 >>> of them has more than two lenses and one has two. The rest all have >>> 1 lens. The person with more than two is a pdml subscriber so I met >>> him >>> >>> through the list, therefore he almost doesnt count in this quick >>> >> survey. >> >>> Most of these people I know bought the camera with a kit lens or >>> bought >>> their own higher end zoom. >>> >>> rg >>> >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Adam Maas" >>>> Subject: Re: Luminous Landscape: Reichmann tries out a K10D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> That's certainly the case with most buyers of base-model DSLR's, >>>>> just like it was for base model SLR's back in the days of film. I >>>>> doubt its 90%, but 70% is probably close. >>>>> >>>> I just talked to the one knowledgable sales person at Don's Photo. >>>> She say that 75-80% buy the camera and kit lens and at some point >>>> > buy > >>>> a longer zoom , and perhaps 15-20% will eventually buy a second >>>> lens, >>>> >>>> with very a few buying more than that, generally because they have >>>> decided they have a specific need or want. This may not be an >>>> accurate market indication, just a local snapshot. >>>> >>>> William Robb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
