From: black_boxer_briefs@yahoo.com 
  
 Bruce Murphy wrote: 
  
 > Thad  writes: 
 > 
 > > Bruce Murphy wrote: 
 > > 
 > > > So it's that they're more expensive *when you buy the proper lenses so 
 > > > you can do _real_ photography* 
 > > 
 > > Nah. Everyone knows that a $60 50mm/1.8 gives better optics than many 
 > > $500 zoom lenses. It is not about cost. 
 > 
 > But you wanted to include rangefinders becasue they were high end. 
  
 No - because they are body-lens systems. You are misleading people and 
 fabricating misrepresentations of my intentions. 
  
 > You 
 > wanted to exclude SLRs without completely interchangeable lenses 
 > because they're not flexible enough, except that things which /have/ 
 > extra lenses don't count because they're 'low end' 
  
 My digital SLR is "low-end". There are low-end, middle-end, and high-end 
 digital SLR bodies. 
  
 > 
 > A digital SLR with a fixed high quality 50mm lens wouldn't count as 
 > high end enough to qualify 
  
 I doubt any manufaturer would ever create such a machine, but it would 
 not be included because it does not offer a body-lens system - not 
 because it wouldn't be high-end according to your standards. 
  
 > interestingly enough, so one lens 
 > obviously falls outside your definition of 'high end' regardless of 
 > its quality of optics. 
  
 No. You are misleading people and misrepresenting my views, 
 intentionally. 
  
 -- 
  
 Thaddeus Lipshitz 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)