I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.Reliable and resilient? Ugh! You do realise that means your camera will be even more out-dated in a few years time? Why would you want a perfectly good camera that will produce great images for years, when you could be replacing it every year and living on the cutting-edge of tech? Get hip, daddy-o, and swing with the times!
Go out and buy the latest Sony then, let's see how it copes with being battered, how long it lasts, how reliable it is, whether it can focus as well as the new Canon. Because unless it can saying that Canon is over-priced or based on old tech is to miss the point. It's innovative to put some new tech in a camera, it's actually bloody hard to make it reliable and resilient. That's the difference,
Replacing quite expensive gear every year? I replace my gear when it's broken and have paid off, not sooner. Who needs cutting-edge technology, when previous generation is 95% as good as the new one? Unless you're a pro and can deduct new gear from taxes (which still isn't that easy and cheap) or a rich person, who don't need to think abot paying bills and feeding family, because his income exceeds majority of popuplation, I don't think there are that many people, than can afford spending for 5D3 or 1Dx every year. A new 5D body every year basicly means around 250 USD spend monthly. In my world, this is not a spare change to me, especially for a hobby and not a working tool.
Khalai, read Lintoni's quote again. Sarcasm. I think you missed that.