I am sure Canon will not miss me (but will miss the $$$). I sure won't miss their bodies after I sell them!
This quote alone was worth my going from reading this post on my iPhone (and no, not an apple fan boy despite loving my iPhone and iPods, I built my pc from scratch on my own with my own knowledge and everything and refuse to have it any other way, as well as refusing to pay the obscene premium price of their computing products, even if they have amazing displays) and getting on my computer to respond.
First- I don't want to make any arguments (although I so know I am... >
but you all have made very valid points. There's only a few considerations to consider. First and foremost, I don't know the exact value of the company, but I know it's easily a multimillion to billion dollar company, and one less person buying their cameras- they won't miss that money, there are hundreds more out there who are
interested in them. Secondly, even if you're adjusting for inflation, and taking into effect the depreciated value of the dollar (and to make sense- gas costs more, people are not making that much more than they were when gas was a dollar a gallon cheaper- at least most people are not... and we're in a bigger deficit than ever before...), it's still only 500 dollars more than the intro of the Mark II
. I don't know what you make or what everyone's budgets are but I do think you can manage to find a way to cut back for 2-3 weeks on something (food), especially if you live alone and have no family to worry about. Pretty sure living on Top Ramen for 2 weeks- far less than any college student has spent on the stuff, I know- would save you a few hundred in a heart beat. And what do you have to complain about? An excess intake of msg? Exercise more and burn it off
A great post by someone else also posted this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3873.0
about the inflation and the fact that it actually costs less
to buy the Mark III than it really should. And because that fanboyism term is thrown around so freely- I'm no fanboy of anything except my soda and beer of choice. If one company makes a superior item to another, be it a tool, a hamburger (okay, fanboy of 3 things, I forgot about In-N-Out), computer parts, whatever it is- I'll buy the superior product if I can afford to, and have a great enough desire to. You have clearly had a poor experience with Canon products, and for that- I'm sorry. It doesn't mean you have to degrade yourself online with the trolls who poke fun, spam and otherwise annoy everyone just to get a rise out of you by posting snide replies to your response, even if you're new to a forum. Just saying- why in the first place are you still here if you're attempting to get out? That's like a smoker trying to quit smoking going to a smokers convention... or Vegas.
And to remain slightly on point to the OP- Nice shot that you got with the lower end glass and a lower end camera. There's no arguing in the value of that. But as someone else stated- just because it's a higher end camera, doesn't mean that the higher end cameras will give a better ratio of perfectly focused shots to attempts made. Just do a search and find the dozens of articles and pros who will agree with that. Why do higher end cameras allow for so many more actuations? Because the pros who use them for a living, shoot that many more pictures. Sure they still have a higher image quality, and the low-light performance is obscene, but the fact remains that it's a bad statistic to choose a camera body by. Trust me, if a pro could get by making more perfect shots with less actuations, and you didn't take the ISO noise, and other image qualities and camera features into account, I mean only went by actuation counts, then the cheaper lens with less actuations would be of more benefit. I'm just saying... and it's just an example..
And lastly, to whoever was talking about sub-L lens primes outperforming some L zooms? Umm, yes. The nature of the beast. A prime has less glass and even one as cheap as the 50 1.8. And yes, many will agree the 1.2 L is not worth it when the 1.4 and 1.8 non L's shoot better and are all below half a grand in cost. But that is comparing apples to oranges. Show me a (16-35L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200L) that are outperformed in aperture, image quality or anything else by a sub-L, equivalently ranged zoom. I've already noted and agree the 50L prime is outperformed by sub-L lenses, it's out there, and I'm sure it's the case that there could be some better ones, but what's more important in the long run anyways? Happiness, or an argument that someone who pays more should get better shots? I'm happy with my cheaper as well as my more expensive lenses, upgrading my 20D to a 5D Mark III and being out that much more money. I'm happy with the fact that in the end, it's all just a camera, and ya know what? It all won't matter in another ten years because there will be a NEW equivalent camera to b**** and complain about
. So let's all get out and shoot!!!