On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote: > > Hard to argue with this, except to point out the uselessness > of "amateur" > > and "pro" as general terms. > > Actually, no. The terminology is very germaine to the > discussion. "Pro" means the type of equipment that is desirable > to a working pro.
Exactly. But which pro? The type of equipment desirable to wedding photographers is usually very different from what pro landscape photographers use, and what studio photographers use, etc. etc. You can talk about "pro" equipment as it relates to these fields individually, but it's not very useful as a *general* term. > > Debatable. A lot of people talked about switching to Contax > after the "N" > > was announced. That camera turned out to be a hunkajunk, but > if they'll > > consider switching to Contax, then why not Pentax? > > Because Contax has the cachet value of Carl Zeiss behind it. > Carl Zeiss and Contax are real brand names, with pro > reputations. [snip] Good point, but there's more to it than that. A lot of people got very excited about Sigma's DSLR, partly because of the Foveon technology, and partly because of the marketing and hype that Sigma fostered. It's the old story... if Pentax came up with a DSLR with a bit of a twist, and marketed it properly, it shouldn't be a problem getting people to switch over happily. chris - 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 .
