sigh...i think your missing the point ...
Yes, sorry, I now realise I missed your point. You mean that peripheral equipment becomes more expensive for the D800, than the 5D3, to the point of eradicating the $500 price difference advantage. I think you would have to be a very heavy shooter for that to be true, and for most people the cheapest current computer with a couple of external 2 TB drives would be plenty for both configurations.
Cheap hard drives are currently around 5 cents/GB. A D800 requires 63% more space than 5D3. Translating the $500 price difference into pure hard drive space, you would have to shoot (and store) a total of 500000 raw images before the difference in harddrive space requirements between the 5D3 and D800 became worth $500. If you include backup space, that becomes 250000 images. That's a lot of raw images. If you shoot that much, $500 is likely a negligible expense. Using a $150 CF card for the D800 instead of a $100 for the 5D3 is not going to change this conclusion.
Your other point seem to be that it is inconsistent to first complain about expensive bodies and then praise expensive lenses. You may be right, but are you sure those are the same posters?
Praising expensive lenses?
Not quite sure where you got that from? If I was that guy I would have shelled out the extra dough for the IS version of the 70-200 2.8. Do I appreciate L glass? Hells yeah I do? Do I want to spend a $3-500 more for a prime lens that takes in less light but has IS? No, thats a feature I can personally do without. I'd much rather keep it at 1.4, with better optics and better AF and no IS. Make it like the 70-200 line where you have the option of both and that would be the best of both worlds. I'm not at all praising expensive lenses!!!!! We are talking about adding IS to a to a lense which used to be a 1.4 and now making it a 1.8 ----Sorry, I don't want to pay $800 for that (Look at the lineup...the earlier 24mm 2.8 - $359 - on the new IS version $849. And the old 28mm 2.8 runs at $259- the IS version runs at $799. Based on that ---if the 50mm 1.4 was priced at $369, add IS and its easily set to hit the street at $750-850. At that point I start thinking about the 50mm 1.2L.... $369 vs $1600...I am probably opting for the 1.4...but, if the 1.4 becomes a 1.8 with IS and is priced at $800...well then the 1.2 starts looking to be the one for me (find it used for $12-1300, even better!!!)
Long and short of it is....I have been pondering picking up a 1.4, and this news makes me say I should do it soon before they make the 1.4 a 1.8 with features I don't need.
And as to the memory ---I did preface that by saying I am an event and wedding shooter ---that means I shoot a lot - so yes...I am a
very heavy shooter as you say. That makes the memory issue a big thing for me, as well as the time in post. I personally dislike the idea of using 64 gig cards (thats too many eggs in one basket for me). I use 8 and 16 gig cards. I also try to go for 400x or higher. And I find sRAW file sizes to be perfectly fine for most applications. if I know I am shooting just for the web, or simple candid's which for weddings I do a lot of candid shots which don't require the flexibility of full sized RAW for post work, and print just fine up to 16x24, even 20x30 in a pinch. For the important shots, I switch to full RAW ---and thats mostly because there is more flexibility if post. For portrait sessions, its RAW all the way. But then again, for a portrait shoot I'm not taking 2,000 or more shots.
