p.5 #1 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
Gawd, the bitching and griping that goes on around here is amazing!
It's as if you guys think that Canon owes you the camera with the specs you want, at the price you "think" you deserve (judging from all the whining that goes on around here every time Canon announces a new product, or doesn't announce the product you want).
And/or, it's as if you guys think you know more about camera design, marketing and sales than Canon!
Don't like their products? Don't buy them! (I know, it's a revolutionary concept....)
If you can't figure out how to take great pictures with Canon's offerings, you should be looking in the mirror, not at the tool. Or, by all means, go over to Nikon, and bitch about their shortcomings (I'm sure you would be just as unhappy after making the change, but at least you'd be whining over there rather than over here).
p.5 #2 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
MintMar wrote:
And I don't think that people here want 1Ds for a Rebel price. I, for example, want a D700 style camera for a D700 style price, that's fair, isn't it? And spare yourself sending me to Nikon. D700 doesn't take EF lenses yet.
The D700 seems like a good example, but that was Nikon's top mid-sized pro camera.
Canon already has a top mid-sized pro camera - the 5D3.
To ask for something with lesser performance at a lower price is fine, but can anyone really expect pro-level features on a budget-priced camera? To expect a D700 at an entry-level price doesn't really make sense.
And, yes I do think the Nikon D600 has much better specs than the Canon 6D. Probably a better sensor as well.
We can speculate, ponder and wish all we want for something more, but for the next few years, this is what we have in this camera range.
p.5 #3 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
There's a big difference between the camera with the specs I want and the camera with the specs it should have. The camera with the specs I want is the 5D3, at the 7D price point. The camera with the specs it should have is the 6D with at least the Rebel AF system, THREE AXIS electronic level instead of just one, and 100% VF coverage instead of 97%.
I think that's quite a reasonable specs for a $2100 camera, no?
p.5 #4 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
n0b0 wrote:
There's a big difference between the camera with the specs I want and the camera with the specs it should have. The camera with the specs I want is the 5D3, at the 7D price point. The camera with the specs it should have is the 6D with at least the Rebel AF system, THREE AXIS electronic level instead of just one, and 100% VF coverage instead of 97%.
I think that's quite a reasonable specs for a $2100 camera, no?
At the time when mirror-less toys cost more than Rebel nothing to surprise me in 6d cost. It is overpriced but most likely will be cheaper sooner or later.
p.5 #5 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
n0b0 wrote:
I'm in the target market and I don't think the value of this 6D camera is as good as it should be at its price point, not when a $800 Rebel has 9 cross type AF.
I agree. The 6D has a value to me (new) of about $1800 -- about $400 less. I'm sure it will get to that level in less than a year. By then, there may be other exciting possibilities on the horizon, so I don't want to get too shook up at this point about the 6D, especially trying to guess about its IQ and AF functioning.
p.5 #6 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
StarNut wrote:
Gawd, the bitching and griping that goes on around here is amazing!
Agreed with your entire post. I didn't interpret that interview as Canon admitting to crippling anything either, just explaining the specific niche its intended for.
p.5 #7 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
If you don't want to see bitching and moaning, don't come to an internet gear forum...
I think just about everyone here wants Canon to succeed and is disappointed every time they release something that, on its face, looks to be less attractive than the competition. No on thinks they are owed anything.
Mike Owen/Canon: It's a variety of reasons, really.
I mean, yes,
there is the cost side of things
but what we've tried to do with the autofocus system on the 6D is to
actually improve low-light performance. It goes down to EV -3.
So when emphasizing low-light performance, we've always had to make elements of the AF system larger, which limits our ability to put in more cross-type points.
DE: So it's a conscious design decision. You really wanted to emphasize low light.
MO: Yes, absolutely. It was a decision that we felt that this type of camera
in this particular user group, auto focus performance is not 100% critical.
But low-light performance for autofocus is important. And it's just about that trade off
p.5 #9 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
Eric Gottesman wrote:
And limiting the Nikon D600 to 1/4000 shutter isn't intentionally crippling that camera?
As a Nikon user (not an apologetic fanboy), it isn't what I would have wanted, but it does maintain the same lowest EV capability of the D700. I would guess that Nikon managers probably decided that was a feature they were willing to trade to keep costs down. I wouldn't buy a D600 for a number of reasons actually.
A few years back, intel adopted a design philosophy on their processors to only add features/speed//etc if they could do it while maintaining or decreasing performance/watt. This was probably a similar design. I'm sure Canon probably figures that for an entry level FF DSLR (and I'm sure this camera will get lots of mommy shooters and upgraders), having one AF point that works in any light levels is more useful than 40-50 AF points that the aforementioned users may or may not use. I bet the sensor is a bigger marketing point than the AF anyway.
I certainly have to say that if I was buying my first FF DSLR and was picking between a 6D or D600 based on specs, I would pick a D600. The 6D will still be a great tool for a lot of people though.
p.5 #10 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
I didn't detect much honesty in the early responses. When a PR flack begins a sentence with 'honestly', that's a cue that bullshit is about to commence. A few comments I took issue with:
[Why are the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 so expensive?]
> With these new lenses we've included IS which is an additional cost to a non-IS lens.
Aye, it is. It's such an expensive technology that you include it in a $150 kit zoom.
> It's been on the market for 11 years and you can’t compare the price point then versus a brand new lens with the latest technology.
Why not? When the old lens came out, it was brand new with the latest technology. You can account for inflation and exchange rates, but product development doesn't justify raising the cost. The Model T and an Accord are the same price in inflation-adjust dollars.
[Why is the 6D's AF what it is?]
> It's a variety of reasons, really. I mean, yes, there is the cost side of things, but what we've tried to do with the autofocus system on the 6D is to actually improve low-light performance. It goes down to EV -3.
You know what's crazy? My 5D II goes down to -3 EV. I tested it last night. Nobody has ever complained about low-light focus lock with that camera. All of them have bitched about the outer AF points. What probability you actually emphasized low-light and this isn't just a post-hoc justification for crippling the new body? I'll wait for the breakdown of manufacturing costs associated with cross points.
p.5 #12 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
2008: We didn't put more than 1 cross-type AF point in the 5DII because nobody complained about the AF in the 5D. Plus the AF assembly would be too big to fit in the body.
2012: We didn't put more than 1 cross-type AF point in the 6D because for these users AF isn't that important. Plus the center AF point is bigger to enable the -3EV spec so there wasn't room to put cross-type points in the other AF points.
Anybody else notice a pattern here? I smell a familiar odor emanating from Canon mouthpieces over the years.
p.5 #13 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
GC5 wrote:
No on thinks they are owed anything.
You may not think you're owed anything by Canon, but there are lots of folks around here who regularly and frequently bitch that, e.g., the 5D3 doesn't have more/better features, AND doesn't cost less. And they're very serious.
They frequently whine that Canon's products are "overpriced," even as they fly off of shelves. Shows how much they know about economics.
One can only infer from all this bitching that they are embittered because they feel that Canon has failed to give them what they are entitled to.
I know that they're speaking from aggressive ignorance and/or absurdly self-absorbed viewpoints, but they seem sincere in feeling that either (i) Canon doesn't understand the camera market (I know, it's absurd, but there it is), or (ii) Canon's only out to screw them (at least in this, they're vaguely correct--Canon, like any other purveyor of goods, is in business to make as much profit as they can, not to please those-who-can't-be-pleased).
I feel that some of Nikon's new offerings (at least the D800 variants) may well be more attractive than some of Canon's competing offerings (although I don't want to have to deal with processing 36mp, I would appreciate the greater DR), but the differences are (i) fairly small, so that they materially affect only a tiny portion of the buying public, and (ii) ephemeral, in the sense that the nature of the tech world is that competitors leapfrog each other. Sure, I would love it if my 5D3 had the dynamic range of the D800E, but my camera really isn't the limiting factor in the quality of my photographs (like practically everyone here).
p.5 #14 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
StarNut wrote:
I know that they're speaking from aggressive ignorance and/or absurdly self-absorbed viewpoints, but they seem sincere in feeling that either (i) Canon doesn't understand the camera market (I know, it's absurd, but there it is)
Thank you!
There is a difference between
1) Whining about why a camera is no good because it doesn't meet your requirements, and
2) Contributing meaningful analysis about a cameras capabilities, strengths weaknsess, competitive market positions (Based on data!) and other PROFESIONAL ANALYSIS.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular.
This is a trend that trashes every Forum, and FM is no loger that much better than most, like DPReview, which I abandonded 8 years ago. It always devolves into petty fights and quibbling, by angry and obsessive people, about trivialities.
p.5 #15 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
A lot of kittens in this thread. Instead of a whipping for punishments you must have been put on a time-out (the problem with peeps today). It's like kids screaming in a grocery store while mom is yelling 'stop it Johnny', but Johnny kicks and ignores her. WOW!
p.5 #16 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
Well StarNut, I'm not much of economist but I seem to remember something about a rational consumer who always wants more for a lower price, or something. Is there an economist in the house to put me straight?
People here clearly feel passionately about their kit, and for the prices we are asked to pay, why not have a good bitch if we are asked to compromise?
I've noticed that the internet serves a valuable function: it gives us all a forum for having a grumble, a safety valve that allows us to blow off steam. The precise mechanism is that we come here to have a good whine, and Monito gets whine at us whiners in return! Its a continuous and beautiful circle, self perpetuating and symmetrical.
In the meantime, if the 6D were 3/4s of its original launch price it would appear to be great value, and the complaints would vanish (largely).
p.5 #17 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
jj_glos wrote:
They didn't cripple anything, they engineered a design that they feel fits the market segment that they are aiming for. If it doesn't meet your needs then you are not part of the intended market. They want you to buy the more expensive 5D3 not the cheaper 6D is you are after top AF performance.
Can come up with a definition of this segment? I am struggling, honestly.
p.5 #18 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
David Baldwin wrote:
The precise mechanism is that we come here to have a good whine, and Monito gets whine at us whiners in return! Its a continuous and beautiful circle, self perpetuating and symmetrical.
p.5 #19 · Canon finally honest and openly admit AF crippling
The bitching is basically about two things:
1) We're not approaching this from a clean slate. Most of us have a lot invested in Canon gear. If Canon's camera line stagnates, or they deem that significant improvements will only come to those who spend vastly more, that matters. They've never released a perfect DSLR. There's always a compromise that we work around and a reason to upgrade. This stuff isn't cheap to start, and the sensation of being squeezed for class-parity improvements is not a pleasant one.
2) Contempt for users expressed by intentional product differentiation decisions that have no justification in Canon's costs. Nickel-and-diming. There's no technical reason why, for example, MFA is not on low-end bodies. It was probably more expensive to remove it than it would have been to leave it in. Likewise, there's no reason, cost or otherwise, that the 1D X can't shoot 4K video; the taxation argument only applies to file length, not resolution. And with the 6D, we've got an AF system that dates back 8 years and a $2000 body that doesn't have a joystick. What was the argument to pull that? It might get caught on things?
The fact is, as above, we're all voting with our wallets. These products may 'fly off shelves' to some people, but there are quite a few semi-professionals and advanced amateurs that won't take the bait.
