Paul F. Stregevsky suggested:
> By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
> 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative
> definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the
> cheapest lens nearly always must win.
Shouldn't it be cost per photo-you're-satisfied-with, rather than
cost per frames exposed? 'Cause the quality of the lens just might
affect one number more than the other.
-- Glenn, trying to catch up
on list mail while Excel
recalculates a spreadsheet
chock full of VLOOKUP() calls.
-
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 .
