NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
> They give it a 91% rating and
> compare it to the Sony Alpha A-700 and the Nikon D 300.
>
Now, this comparison makes more sense as the prices are in the ballpark.
> they didn't compare it to one of the higher
> end Canon/Nikon offerings. We need to remember it is the photographer
> standing behind the camera who makes the difference.
Yes, anyone who thinks that spending $5000-$8000+ on a Nikon D3 is going
to make their photography "better" than some cameras even less than half
that price is deluding themselves. That level of camera more caters to
those that don't have the capability to capture exciting sports shots
without 10 frames a second, so need to whip out that many thousands so
they can weed through hundreds of shots for a few that luckily caught
what works.
Some pay Nikon prices really just to say they use Nikon, but find the
need to point out insignificant reasons such as the method by which it
converts to black & white in the field, or some trivial thing like that
as the actual reasons they chose to pay double for the brand, or didn't
like another. Considering the expense of the top glass, "buying the
system" is always a dumb mantra, though it helps makes the financially
comfortable enjoy overpaying.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|