Thanks for the response. I can understand your confusion on my latest post. It is hard to emote sarcasm over the internet, especially when it is in written form.

Although I understand the differences between one camera and the next, I find it difficult, even with Nikon, to figure out why they named it the way they did. For instance, the D300 and the D300s. The ‘s’ stands for video. It used to stand for increased fps, or speed. In the case of Canon, I don’t understand why they use a simple way of naming the cameras instead of going: Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, etc. In terms of a pro, it makes no difference what it’s named. As for the consumer market, I think it would make a huge difference in terms of marketing and profit. To a consumer, not a pro, what is the difference between a Mk3 and Mk4? At first glance, yes there is probably an upgrade, however at face value, nothing that would make me spend the extra $1000 or so to get the next body in a series. Perhaps I should have explained this better in the post.

To respond to, “there’s more to the story than just evil- ole’ Canon…” [sic] I’d have to agree. In fact, I do direct people to Laforet’s blog to read it in his own words.

Thanks again for the comment, I hope this clears things up. And I appreciate that you enjoyed my stuff.

Matthew

If you read Laforet’s blog, you’d understand that there’s more to the story than just evil- ole’ Canon… I encourage people to go to the source, read his blog in his own words.

“how do they expect people to understand which camera is which”. I’m surprised you got where you are without knowing how to read stuff like FPS, MP, and even colorful diagrams from Canon’s website. (or advertising videos).

How does Nikon expect people to understand the difference between the D3 and the D3x?