That is wrong, timbop. The 5D MK II was, what made me thinking (and thousends of semi & pro photographers, too) there is no need for a 1Ds MK III. They stil did it and it was a success, 1Ds MK III made useless. Selling 20-50 instead of one makes sense. That is why Nikon did D700, too. Do you really think a 1Ds III would cost much more in production than a 5D II? Its just a question of numbers. Pros who need it would still buy the 1D X (I would do, if I would need it). But 20-50 sold 5D IIIs would generate much more profit without loosing much 1D X sales. The question still is: Can I afford it to get the job done well? Or can I get the job stil done with what I have (or better even with inbetween, but payable?).
If I would not have to look for money, I would purchase a 1D X, instead of waiting for what will come else.
Uh! Hell! I just got an idea. Maybe I just should go for what I want/need without thinking about the money? Money is spend anyway and not worth thinking about it after ...
Thank you timbop. 1D X is it!
Feb 21, 2012 at 09:21 AM
Previous versions of Ralph Conway's message #10365458 « 5Dx in the wild? »
