DaveMart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.48 #5 · 'Unofficial' Photokina RUMOR Thread | |
Hrow wrote:
A lot of good points have been made here over the last several pages and it is good to see Guy weighing in on the Canon forum again. I would urge people to remember that Canon's goal is to make money. The fact that this segment of the company makes its money through cameras is almost secondary. Their goal is not to make the best camera, merely the most profitable one.
From that perspective, the 400D will be a huge success and represents a timely upgrade of features to counter offerings from Sony and Nikon. The bar on the low-end is not being raised as a result of new technology or consumer demand but as a reaction to market forces. Basically, it is all advertising and the game is to see whose is bigger. Just think of the number of times someone has come up to you and said "nice camera, how many MP?" and you'll realize that Canon is approaching "their" market very creatively.
On the upper end, Canon has had to deal with only Nikon and so far Nikon's lack of a decent sensor has kept them from playing a very influential role. There hasn't been any real pressure on Canon to dramatically improve the Series 1 bodies in the manner that Guy is referring to. Perhaps Leica or the MF backs can exert the needed pressure because so far Nikon seems incapable of doing so. At this level, the corporate gains to Canon are primarily secondary and result from advertising association. Basically their pro bodies are selling their consumer bodies for them and don't represent a significant independent profit center. As long as they are doing that job there is no vested interest in substainally upping the bar. Pressure from users only comes from enough people switching systems but even there people switching to Leica and MF don't represent a real threat because those companies don't have consumer products in competition with Canon.
Sony entering the fray is probably the best thing that could have happened for us. With any luck, Canon will just try to stomp them out before the get a toe hold and use the force of their entire line to do so. If not, the best we can hope for is that Nikon finally pulls their heads out of their butts and realizes that it ain't 1972 and they aren't in Kansas anymore.
Excellent analysis. Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that the money to develop all the dream cameras at the top end comes from teh millions of cameras sold lower down, and that the people who buy them are not necessarily being misguided or foolish.
If you are a hobbyist and can only afford the lower level, then for instance cameras like the D50 or D80 may have a lot going for them, and would be my preference.
But if your priorities are compactness and portability together with convenience at a good price as you are an occassional user, then the 400D has been designed with you in mind.
Canon know their market, anad that is not solely to cater for enthusiasts and dedicated hobbyists.
Fortunately for us, Canon seem to see their role as to provide imaging solutions across the whole market, even going so far as making a dedicated astronomy camera in the 20a, which must have cost them a fair amount of money.
Sure, a couple of new primes would be nice - but little birdies are telling me that we may even get a 200/2 IS, so the Canon range ain't bad, just missing a couple at wide.
Regards,
DaveMart
|
very well said BTW. I also agree on Tom's and daves comments and some of these facts that we talk about like market share and such play big roles on what you buy. reason I said be careful , don't get caught up in the hoopla. Even for Pro's we have to analize every purchase we make to see if there is a gain to it, and will it give you what you are after. we just don'y buy blindly, so my advice is always do the research and find the best product that makes photo sense than deal with the money issue as asecondary issue.