> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach it 
> to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't that 
> be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio just to 
> record the sound of a broken music box?

Maybe you just want to take sports photos for the web?  Like this one:

http://freefootballstreaming.com/goal.jpg

That is under 2 MP yet you would absolutely need a multi-thousand pound lens 
to get that shot (purely because flood lights are not that bright compared 
to daylight, and when you're zoomed in that much on action you need a 
*really* fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur).

Post a reply to this message