What next?

[remy.brooks]

im sick of waiting for a 5d mark iii, a 3d or a 7d mark ii. im also waiting for the IS!!! VERSION of the 24-70. it would be stupid of canon not to include the is. i want a camera with 16-21 megapixels. 6-7 frames per second with a boost with a battery grip( maybe 8-9). between 29 and 56 af points and make it full frame. ( no built in flash, nice iso capabilities and hd video. They could easily do something like this for about $3000.

[djjohnr]

What still does keep me with Canon are a few gems in their lens line up (most of which I have) -- and a lot of these gems are actually overdue for some polishing. The problem is that even if they did the polishing, the main part they seem to be doing is polishing Canon's EBIT by adding at least 25 to 50% of the price over that of the predecessor, or even more if they slap a red ring on it in the process, just consider the doubling of the price for the TS-E 24 II, 100L or the near tripling for the 70-300L. So with that strategy they move formerly mid-range lenses firmly into high-end (or at least high-price) territory.

I just switched from Nikon to Canon for the TS-E line due to cost  of body and lenses as well as the quality of the 24mm.  If you want FF with Nikon you're looking at $3k for 12 mpix or $2k min used for a D700 versus $3k for 21 mpix new for a 5d Mark 2 or $900 for a used Mark 1.  On top of that the Nikon PC-Es go for $2k+ new versus $1300 for non-L TS-Es, and you can get the 24mm L Mark 1 as well as the 45mm and 90mm for around $800 used.  Additionally Nikon's 24mm PC-E has a major CA problem (worse then the 24mm L Mark 1) that's not easily fixable in post. 

I really miss the ergonomics and build quality of my D200 though.

[tzalmagor]

I might upgrade one of the ultra-wide zooms, if the price doesn't rise too sharply.

Higher on my buying list is the Sigma 12-24mm II, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, and I wish a good Sigma 135mm