That was basically my point. One wonders if it isn't easier (not saying it is - just wondering) to get a robocamera (obviously not Pentax) and learn how to take pro sports than some of the other pro stuff like portraits, products and weddings.
I was a bit surprised at Cameron thinking he needed a robocamera to take weddings with. I've shot quite a bunch of weddings and robo camera features are not an issue. Lighting and quiet are bigger issues. Big negatives are issues. 10 FPS and high speed AF are not issues. If I even use my MZ-S I almost always turn off the AF because I can compose better and focus fast enough without AF. Chasing around sports stuff, then I leave the AF on. If Cameron is either a pro sports photographer or is working towards it, I hope that he does seriously consider other brands because Pentax just really doesn't build bodies that cater to that market. Bruce Sunday, November 24, 2002, 8:02:47 AM, you wrote: >> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Of course, all the pros prior to the 90's apparently weren't WR> capable >> of taking good pictures because they didn't have the robo WR> camera of >> the century. WR> I often wonder why people seem to feel that the benchmark for WR> pro photography has to be the high performance sports WR> photographer (where robo-cameras are an advantage). WR> Most pro work is pretty methodical stuff. WR> William Robb
