DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17431431
Well you can have a camera that has just-as-good picture quality, but nowhere-near-as-good ergonomics. Or it might require more post processing to get to the same results.
For a professional, both of those issues are economic hemorrhages that threaten his mortgage payment. Ergonomics and extra post-processing both measurably effect the bottom line to an extent that quickly overcomes the additional cost of the identical backup.
The point had been well mentioned before that if the cheaper camera were fully qualified, there would be no economic advantage to using the more expensive camera. The reason a pro buys a more expensive camera is because it will either solve problems that cost him money, or provides solutions that make him more money. Buying a backup that fails either is false economy for a professional.
For instance, when I upgraded from Canon 10D to 20D, then to 5D, then to 5DII, each time it was because the new camera permitted me to produce new and more lucrative portrait products. It was the 5DII that finally enabled me to abandon my medium format film cameras--and that was a HUGE economic benefit. Each upgrade actually paid for itself within weeks simply because I could offer more profitable products. I would not have bothered buying them (at least not immediately--not until my current cameras wore out) if not for that fact: They were going to make me money that the old cameras could not make.
Those products became staples in my repertoire--people hired me for them. If I had to shoot even two or three jobs in a year with the lesser cameras, I would not have been able to offer those products that had become my bread and butter and quickly lost more money that the difference in price of the cameras.
