> From: Bill <anotherdrunken...@gmail.com> > > On 14/04/2013 12:14 AM, Tom C wrote: >>>> That's half-true, at best. My Nikon P7100 just isn't good for low-light >>>> photography (although it's considerably better than my previous Canon >>>> A710). Similarly, no camera is good if you hate to use it (you can argue >>>> that it's capable, I suppose, but that smells of "wrong question"). >>> Really? >>> You show me one camera that cannot produce a pleasing image and I'll >>> show you a million that are. >> I wasn't referring to a specific use for a specific camera. I was >> speaking in general terms, that being, any camera is capable of >> producing a pleasing and decent image, unless it's downright >> defective. >> >> Tom C. > I fully understand Aahz's "no camera is good if you hate to use it" > comment. The camera my be fine, but if it's ergonomics are getting in > the way of the user, or even if it's just butt ugly and is missing key > components (the Pentax K-01 for example), it's not going to be something > the photographer wants to use. > > bill
Getting it back in thread... All that's well and good but it has *nothing* to to with making my assertion *"half-true at best".* I wrote: >> I should add, following the line of thought, that any/every camera is >> capable in the hands of one who knows how to best use it. It's quite obvious that any/every camera that is unused is photographically-speaking, a doorstop. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
