Film SLRs used to be "picture-taking" machines, basically for everyone. Recall the herds of SLR-touting tourists in the 80s. Why shouldn't DSLRs be for everyone? Admittedly, with knowledge, skill, and experience, you'll get better results, but that does not imply DSLRs is only for a smalll elite group.
Then buy the body alone. For often less than $100, the kit zoom is one of the best bargains in photography
You have that option with a 1-Series or buying glass that meets your performance criteria. Then again, after snarking about $100 for the kit lens, I suspect you're trying to get away with either TC's or inherently slower glass?
The 400 f/5.6 rocks and, the only downside I see to it compared to other current-generation lenses is IS. Otherwise, the Bigma, 70-300 IS, and many others are superb.
The 10-22 is superior, as is the 16-35, 17-40, and Sigma 12-24, a truly amazing lens. If you want prime alone, the 20, 35, and 50 are all excellent standard-series primes.
Because at this point, they may have very well wanted to make one, and indeed probably have, but given the first four requests they probably figured they were in for more of a thankless headache than it was worth and punted.
Yeah, I want the sub $10,000 Bentley and Maserati too. Greedy b*stards all of 'em.
Because expectations have gone WAY up since then. Now people expect completely accurate exposure, dead-on autofocus, and neutral white balance, all with zero input from the photographer. They expect to be able to shoot movies. They also expect perfect WYSIWYG capture, which they can do by viewing a screen held at arm's length. They get it from their digicams, and they darned well expect it of cameras that cost many times as much.
This just shows that you do not understand the technologies involved, sorry. EF-S may save size slightly on wide angle lenses, but a 500mm EF-S lens will be the same size and weight as an equivalent EF lens.
And so, anything Canon should do in its own interests that doesn't also happen to provide a commensurate benefit to you as well is some sort of transgression on their part?
Again, this is unreasonable... why? Revenues, market share, and results would seem to indicate they're making some pretty wise business decisions that haven't been keeping the public away in droves... Hell, why stop at Canon? Why aren't you screaming your head off at Leica and Hassie?
Well, I choose not to speak to your "hole" point, (for several reasons), but I'm very interested in why Canon or photography is different from anything else to the extent that if it's so offesnively-priced and short on value, I'd suggest just not buying it and being happy instead. I mean, come on. To what extent are they supposed to do things at their own expense just to make YOU happy? Perhaps you could include your suggestion to CAJ HQ along with the affidavit from your employer that you've decided to lower your own pay rate because you could still do your job without all those unnecessary and excessive wages they've been paying.
I agree.... It should be better. Great, you can stop down to f/8 and get an ok shot at certain focal lengths.
This is a marketing limitation by Canon and I agree that it is dumb. Let me stick any lens on there that I want and it AF works then great. If it does not, then that's ok too. Instead 3rd party manufacturers have to create lense that lie (Simga 50-500mm), or we have to buy teleconverters that lie, or we have to tape pins. Silly stuff.
Usually these are the cheap lenses anyway. It's kind of like the cheap stereo receiver that says it does 100 watts of power to all 5 speakers. Sure, it can send a 100 watts to each, but with so much distortion that the sound is awful.
Hmmm... I have no experience since I use the Canon 10-22mm (and like it very much).
I would love a 500mm (or even 600mm) f/5.6. I have the 400mm f/5.6 and absolutely enjoy how light and sharp it is. I really don't need f/4 for this range.
--
