On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam Maas <a...@mawz.ca> wrote: > I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the pricing. Oh, and the > performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII was 5fps and had > AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either I'd say it was a > better value. Right now it's more expensive here in Canada (same price > in the US according to B&H) and is pretty much unobtanium to boot > which changes the value proposition. > > -- > M. Adam Maas
Is 'build quality' that much of a factor if one only realistically uses the camera for 2 - 3 years before upgrading to the newest and latest. Build quality is desirable, I'm sure no one would argue that, but I wonder. Different body types, magnesium vs. a steel & plastic body, weather sealing. There's no doubt there may be advantages, but at what cost to the end consumer, and if the camera only sees 2 - 3 years of use, was that extra expense of sufficient benefit, or does it merely serve to gratify that materialistic side of our egos? Hey I like a quality product just as much as the rest of us. Back in film days where one might plan on using the same camera for 5, 10, 15 years, I think build quality was a larger factor. Today if any camera I owned suffered a catastrophe sufficent to require repair I'd probably junk it in favor of a newer model. I know the Mark II supposedly does not have weather sealing that matches some competitors, but how often will I be actually need that weather sealing? If I was standing taking pictures in the pooring rain, I'd be providing some kind of protection to the camera and lens anyway. Since you've used the Mark II, was there anything specific about build quality that was not up to par or even better than the average DSLR? The lower frame rate is fine since I'm not shooting action, and even a slower AF than some, is not a big deal for the same reason. I'm largely looking at it for general landscape photography, large enlargements, and specifically for night/astrophotography and the automation add-ons Canon has for that. Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. It's almost getting to be like: Do I use the quadruple quilted toilet paper to wipe my butt or do I go for the cheaper stuff, because it's all going to get flushed anyway? Not that any of this is cheap. Tom -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
