In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...
Kind of ridiculous to compare a $99 lens with a nearly $300 one and base
your judgment on the camera heavily on that.

But both are the normal kit lens that the majority of first-timers will buy
the camera with, no? So it is a comparison not so much of camera bodies but
kits, but what percentage of buyers will understand the difference? After
all, there is no use in buying the camera without lens for them.

But who sticks with the kit lens? Almost nobody. And you're forgetting
the utility of an extra $200 to throw towards a decent zoom.

A lot of people. Why do you think camera store "kits" with superzooms are
so popular? For those that don't, the extra lay-out would in at least
the Canon case be quite pointless.


Canon is simply doing its usual 'low price at all costs' thing.

You mean catering to the market to maintain their #1 position? Yeah,
that's horrible.

In that case you should not be arguing that teh comparison is unfair, as
the Canon kit buyers are getting what Canon designed for them - a lower
quality cheaper combination.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++