paul stenquist wrote: >That's splitting hairs. Premium commercial photographers and top-drawer >sports >shooters for pubs like SI may rely on $5000 cameras, but many pro shooters >work >with less. I worked Detroit's North American International Auto Show today for >the NY Times (as a writer, not a photographer, although they did use a couple >of my shots that I grabbed with my P&S Panasonic.:-.) In any case, the >majority >of shooters who were on hand for the major dailies and car mags (hundreds in >all) > were shooting Canon 5D. The guy who was shooting for the Times had two Canon >bodies but wasn't sure what they were. Seriously. He's a worker, not a camera >buff. >I looked at his gear. One body was a Canon 5D, the other appeared to be an >early >Canon 1D. It's the huge dollar commercial shooters and the wealthy wannabes >who >go for the top end stuff.
Exactly. And I would say you're not splitting hairs, just pointing out an significant fact: A "high-end" camera and a "pro" camera are not *necessarily* the same thing. (This has always been true.) These days a high-end camera is something that costs over $3000.00. A "pro" camera is whatever takes a shot that you can sell. By that standard, my ist-D is still a "pro" camera (as is your Panasonic). It was *never* a high-end camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
