"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message

news:1bhh80hradtq3bnml9s48kcfg7jf651nlm@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:46:37 GMT, "kay & wand"

> <l_wand@REMoVEaBUSehotmail.com> wrote:

> >i'm a hooker - get paid to shoot and produce everything tv doco's to

> >weddings. if it walks through the door with cash in hand, i'll do it!

> >

> >frankly the top end 'prosumer' cameras are pretty much of a sameness. most

> >people it seems need to justify their choice by slamming the opposition

> >rather than praising the benefits of what they own.

> >

> >the truth is, and i keep repeating in the ng, is that it really doesn't

> >matter a toss what you shoot on as long as the client likes it enough to pay

> >for it, or as happens to me with surprising regularity, they throw in a

> >bonus for a job well done.

> >

> >again, from my pov, i prefer sony, but that's after 30 odd years in

> >broadcast. i've shot with all the latest prosumer cameras before deciding on

> >the one best suited to my usage - and now i'm happy.

> >

> > (until something comes along with MUCH better spec and better ergonomics.

> >then again, i'll have to have enough clients willing to pay for that

> >upgrade - and seeing as there hasn't been any breathtaking advances since

> >the intro of the vx1000, i't might be a long wait. (yes, i know, low lux,

> >flip out monitors, whathave you, but they really don't matter that much.

> >lens quality, versitility, robustness, practical audio, etc., are much more

> >important).

> >

> >leslie

> Well said. To many starting out get hung up with tech aspects that

> don't have real world advantages.

Yes. I generally advise people to ignore the "specs",

likely-unimportant "features", and marketing hype and

judge gear (comparatively, if possible) on the quality

of its basic output and on its ease of use when deciding

on purchases. Seems like an obvious and logical

approach to buying, but..............;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com