topstuff: Truly professional tools.
A farmer will pay $200,000 on a tractor.
A photographer can spend $80,000 on a new body, back and a few lenses.
It a tax deductible expense. Clients will pay for it.
Why all the focus on the prices? For the level of pro these are aimed at, it is not a problem. If they want it, they will pay it.
There are jobs where only gear like this will do and 35mm would not even be considered.
Having said this I would like to remind you that a lot of photographer (me included) had a lot of analogic cameras such as field camera, Hasselblad or Mamiya... with lenses and so on... selling analogic for peanut may disturb someone (me included)...It is much easier to add staff rather to sell part of your life or change system... And remind one more thing... the camera and lenses alone are not enough for good printing... you need to have professional software such as a RIP, a lot of color profile and some good plug ins plus the knowledge to use them together
@ Rubenski - Nice question... I'm a professional photographer and I'm using a Leaf Aptus 22... and I think is good enough for commercial and personal work...There are differences between a Nikon D3s (or else) and a Digital back... but not as many as people may think... Post productions makes the differences... Personally, as a professional photographer who work for magazine and advertising, I don't think is necessary to have that amount of megapixel... for magazine you just need a 30/40MB file... As a Fine art Photographer it's a little bit different... I'll love to have a bigger back only because I love bigger, reeeeaally bigger prints...
Photographic Jewellery... I think that too... Whatta disapoinment...