Wonder what R3 owners might feel right now.
I think they'd be astonished that anyone thinks their main criteria for a camera is the pixels per dollar.
Could afford two R3's and RF glass, but I just don't think Canon deserves my money with these ridiculous pricing.
The sales volume is down 90% from the 1990s and 2000s, so fixed costs are amortized across far smaller production runs. What is ridiculous about this to you?
I share your apparent interest in not just performance but price/performance, but I've bought my RF outfit all mint used, before the April price increases, and can probably sell it for what I paid. So the net cost to me in the short term is nearly zero and medium-term probably low as well given a slower product replacement cycle that I forecast. I'd agree that used EF gear purchased today will probably lose less money in absolute terms than used RF, considering how much the EF prices have already fallen. However in most cases the lower image quality means you're getting less for less money: not a bad trade, if price/performance is of more interest than mere performance.
I also had a 16-lens EF system and can do about the same shooting with a 7-lens RF system. I also had bought my EOS-1Ds MkI, MkII, and MkIII for over $7500 each when they were new, and probably got less than $1500 for each when I sold them. The R5 was less than half of that. I also went through three generations of trinity zooms, for instance, for the EF in 20 years, each being a large improvement over the previous generation, whose value fell substantially. I'm not sure there is a case to be made that in general EF gear was cheaper to own current models of, per year, for a given range of apertures and focal lengths, even if you set aside the lower image quality. You're implying that Canon for some reason suddenly got "ridiculous" with pricing with RF but I think I spent more money in absolute terms on EF than I will on RF and there's utterly no question which outfit is making better photos.
