Maybe it's because there is such a small "real" market for such a camera. Most photographers have seen the price and either know they'll buy or know they won't. There's enough information to keep speculation down, but not enough to draw any real conclusions with. Oh you'll find the occasional complaint about how ISO 102,400 is unusable, or it sucks because of the 1.3 crop.
I am waiting anxiously for more information, because this is somewhat like a dream we're all trapped in. I think Canon's newest product is a vaccuum, because they've sucked all the excitement out of this camera. BTW, mine's on preorder.
why have another thread of bitching and chart scientists professing the trials and tribulations of Noise vs. SNR vs pixel density vs. really taking the damn pictures already...
(1) The camera is expensive, thus the interest is diminished.
(2) Consumers are cautious about the camera performance, after a lengthy and sobering MkIII melodrama.
(3) Canon is probably doing a heavy handed control of premature (?) camera test info publication by their contract photographers and others.
I, for one, am certainly not hot to trot. For starters, I ain't gonna give them $5k for "that", nor anywhere near it, even if the camera could fly on its own after ducks and take their pictures at the same time. Secondly, it will be a long while yet before a statistically meaningful operating experience feedback starts to gel out.
Consequently, my current interest in the subject is marginal and largely academic.
I'm sorry but $5000 for a cropped camera with an unproven AF is ridicules. Even the MK III with a working AF was overpriced for a cropped camera at $4500. I assume they are charging $500 more since the AF will work this time.
