I have a couple of workmates who are interested in photography and have cheap/old Canon DSLRs. One of them, who now has a 1100D and a couple of kit lenses and produces decent results with them, asked me my opinion as he was thinking of upgrading. He presented his options as the 70D or original 7D, which are now around the same price.
My first response was that they both had one problem - they were made by Canon, who have the worst sensors on the market. A quick check of DXO ratings really took him aback: 70D - 68, 7D - 66, K3 - 80. His 1100D scores at 62. He knows I just bought a K3 and it goes for about the same price as the two Canons. Anyway, he doesn't want to change lenses, even though he just has cheap kit lenses.
My second response was that he would see a much clearer improvement in his images if he upgraded to a better lens rather than a better body, and that it would cost him much less (I had the Tamron 17-50 in mind). At that point he did what ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY I've ever suggested this to: the eyes glaze over, the mouth starts to move but no sound comes out, and the brain leaps into gear trying to think up valid reasons why the lens suggestion might not work and it had to be a new camera.
I pointed out it would be cheaper, the results would be better, his wife would see the results and not be so unhappy about the expenditure, nothing shifted him. He wanted a new camera and he was going to have one, and never mind the results. He even insisted it had to be a Canon, despite showing that the models he was looking at had markedly inferior IQ to similarly priced alternatives.
I don't understand. Why do people not prioritise results over new gadgetry? Why does a lens not qualify as a new gadget to play with? People won't see reason and it makes no sense