Most of the "modern photography" argument is concentrated on AF performance
It was, some 2 years ago. Now it's about megapixels.
The funny part of the story is that AF marketing was largely using the PJs as "models" of photographers worth following. Which was quite adequate, since the largest segment of the 35mm market is formed by snapshooters (and this is not to belittle them). If you analyse what you need when you're doing snaphots of your dog running in the yard, with the kids after it, you'll realize that you need about the same tools as a PJ. The ultimate P&S with auto-everything.
But during the last few years, the PJ modus operandi has dramatically changed. It was influenced by the new medias (The Net), and its requirements: get it fast and in digital format please, and quality doesn't matter that much any more, 640x480 is fantastic and 320x200 just great (look at www.cnn.com and watch their TV channel). And if you look in the newspapers, you'll notice a lot of 640x480 jpegs printed there too. So guess what. Suddenly the 35mm PJ "flagships" are in disgrace, and you can't use those anymore for your marketing.
And if you don't believe me, just look again at the available 9/11 images. The first guys that were alerted and got there were the PJs. All the shots from the beginning are of really poor quality, most of them are frames grabbed from video footage. Then the non-PJ guys with the big gear managed to get there too, and you can find shots of really good quality.
cheers, caveman
