MichaelBernard wrote in post #10764843
How can you say that the 5d is inflated in terms of value? For entry level full frame the value is awesome.
At the same time the 5D was selling for $2,500 new, the 1D MkIIN was selling for $4K plus,. the 5D other than it's FF sensor had none of the 1D's advanced features, no weather sealing, lackluster 30D AF system,. the same old battery that had been around since the D30 released in 2001, it had next to no improvements regarding sensor tech vs, the MkIIn, it was just larger with the same exact pixel pitch..
Now the MkIIn is selling used for less than 1/4 it's original price,. where as the 5D, again, with none of the MkIIn's refinements, is still getting close to half it's original price used.
IMHO the demand for it is impressive, and is clearly what drives it's used price, but compared to the entire 1 series as it stands, the used price is inflated.
Compared to other FF? I conceed it is a good value, but this thread is not asking about other FF, it is comparing it to other cameras that again, outpace the 5D in every aspect.
So the next conclusion, the next heresy I will state, is that "Full Frame" (sic) is in itself greatly over valued.
I see many on this thread jumping up and down saying "you don't need fast FPS to shoot sports" "you don't need fast AF", "you don't need more MP" "You don't need lower noise" etc.. etc.. " so the 5D is better".
But what happens to these same "you don't need" people when someone says "you don't need the 5D's larger (older, less advanced, noisier, lower MP) sensor to do the job"
What happens then?