EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing.,.
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing.,
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing.
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing..
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing.
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing....
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing...
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing..
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way... Can't stop it now, one of the reasons they don't update their Super tele lenses. They are making a killing with their marketing.
EB-1 wrote:
They are all consumer products. I doubt Canon is going like Leica with super-expensive since the volume is too low. Eventually they should have a FF body with more pixels, though I'm not convinced they will jump to 102MP immediately.
Everyone has a budget and lenses are useful far longer than cameras. I'd rather spend $16K for a lens and $2K-$7K for a body. In the old days I'd average a new body every year with about 4 years total use per body. I only need one 600/4 and it could be used for 8+ years, so the overall lens cost is less critical. Maybe nowadays the improvements are slower, so say 6 bodies/8 years. That could be like $4K x 6 + $16K = $40K or $5K/year for the big tele setup.
EBH
Canon has sussefully change that way of thinking, now it is a R5II , R1 paired with a 100-500 f/7.1, 200-800 f/?, 800 f/?, 600f/11. Just smart marketing, Much easier to make a camera than a lens. Look at their success. Now even Sony and Nikon are in on the game. High end cameras and junk glass are where the money is. Canon is pioneering the way...
Apr 10, 2026 at 08:11 AM
Previous versions of gkinard1952's message #17018391 « R7II Rumours »
