From: pack-news@rattus.net 
  
 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. 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' 
  
 A digital SLR with a fixed high quality 50mm lens wouldn't count as 
 high end enough to qualify, interestingly enough, so one lens 
 obviously falls outside your definition of 'high end' regardless of 
 its quality of optics. A mass of contradictions. 
  
 > > Thanks for clarifying. 
 > 
 > Thanks for misleading people and misrepresenting my views. 
  
 Now, don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you're capable of *huge* 
 further feats of elitism yet. I wait eagerly for you to give up the 
 act and just go with one of those group names that I initially and 
 many others have subsequently suggested that really represent your 
 intentions for this group. 
  
 B> 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)