I've always believed that any product that had the word photographic labeled on it, immediatly doubled in price. I swear a roll of duct tape that sells for $2.99 at Wallmart would go for $7.99 at Adorama.
Digital has taken this to a new extreme. I remember with my Kodak 760 the lens mount was defective and Kodak wanted $600 to repair it. Nikon repair was $30, but Kodak was 20x that price.
Right then and there I knew that digital photography was going to be very expensive.
At the time I had a very smart studio manager that said, "you know someday we're going to look back at film and say, I remember when we could shoot and process 12 frames for $15.
I think he was right.
So my point;
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']You have to take it off[/span]
Is this a design flaw or is it a planned element of the camera?
With the current 645 style sensors it looks like a design flaw, after all how are you going to switch from horizontal to vertical on a beach, in the wind, on a ladder, etc. etc.?
Or, (now we get to my point) is this just another way to move us to the next level of digital backs?
Is the thought process to say "see, now that you bought the Leaf/Sinar HY6 it's hard to switch orientation, so I guess you had better buy our Aptus 66S you know the square sensored model"?
So stepping back, my $25,000 Valeo witha $6,000 upgrade to the A-22 which will require another $6,000 upgrade to a 54S will then require another $9,000 upgrade to the 6x6 model all for the pleasure of not having to take the back off to change orientation? Add to that the cost of new cameras and lenses and let's see let me total this up . . . ah it' doesn't matter, it's just money even though it is BMW 7 series money.
Sometimes I think the Canon guys must be laughing thier asses off. In fact a lot of people are surprised their is no 1ds2 or 3, but I think it's actually a blessing.
Once again we're going to look back at those 1 dollar a frame film days and laugh.