Confirmation , as if confirmation were needed, that the target market are well heeled amateurs more concerned with 'bling' than readily identifiable technological improvements. If the target market were 'pros' then presumably considerations of ROI would enter the equation.
I don't get this kind of comment. I really don't.
Whether pro or amateur, clearly not every back is suitable for every scenario.
Whilst I'd love to own the entire IQ2 series (80 for the ultimate in resolution, 60 for the long exposure capabilities, 60 Achromatic for the purity, and 50 for creating 8K timelapses and also probably aerial photography), I can realistically only afford one. And I've not yet bitten the bullet on deciding which (if any) to up/cross-grade from my IQ180 to.
But the thing is, if one is a good professional photographer, then I can't for the life of me understand why one wouldn't be able to afford
at least one of these backs.
Depreciation over 3 years on these things would appear to be around 60% - that's if you buy new from a dealer, and sell privately. So let's consider the most expensive of the lot - the 260 Achromatic. $49K with the value added warranty. Probably worth - at an absolute minimum - $20K after 3 years. That's 29K of depreciation, or a little over 800 bucks a month. Assuming you work just 10 days a month, that's under a hundred bucks a day.
So I actually think Steve is spot on with his comment - these backs are for those who desire them, and who can afford them. Well-heeled amateur or pro alike.
For a decent pro, the ROI would be a no-brainer.
As regards to your comment about well heeled amateurs being more concerned with "bling", than with readily identifiable technological improvements, I'm pretty sure that round these parts you won't find many of those, so perhaps you should be throwing out that insult somewhere else.