I get it, yeah, 40 grand is a big pile of cash. But this gear is clearly aimed at two markets. The first and likely largest group is the affluent hobbyist photographer, the second is the high end professional. If you're in the first group, you could care less about the cost. If you're in the second group the price shouldn't be a huge deal. I've owned my P65+ about a year and a half. In that time it has paid for itself as well as the IQ180 upgrade in capture fees. It's all just numbers. If you're business model works with this, then cool. If not, use something else and move on.
CB
Everyone works in a different style and business model. Our studios line item everything, but in the last few years the only line item that matters is the bottom line, so what we add to a project in terms of equipment is either for personal satisfaction or whatever is specific to the project.
Now I'm not against 80mpx, don't even know what that looks like, but I would be falling in the floor heart pounding astounded if any client in any situation, could tell the difference between 40 and 80 mpx.
Maybe the CIA or the Copy Art crowd could, but even then it would take a magnifying glass on a 100% crop.
I think most of the reason anyone buys the 80mpx back is to say they have the highest resolving back in the world. Maybe in some instances that works for sales, or on the shelf in the study, but in what I do, they wouldn't ask.
In fact the only camera I think anyone will notice on set, (other than a movie camera) is that chrome, stainless steel hasselblad. I think it's bloody beautiful and the only issue I have is why didn't hasselblad make them all that way from the start?
Man a case with two of those bodies would be like opening up that glowing briefcase in pulp fiction.
IMO
BC