zlatko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
skibum5 wrote:
It's not false.
gimme a break
and i never said every camera is crippled if it doesn't have every feature of the advanced model. I've even specifically mentioned many times over the years the large cost of a super high fps shutter and mirror box mechanism, for instance.
And a guy at a Canon show, a Canon employee himself even said they pulled AMFA from the 60D so they could re-introduce it as a 'new' feature for the future 70D.
It's not very sensible to lock a max min shutter speed to 1/125th or whatnot. If Leica did that, they had some marketing agenda down the line or in some way or another or they have let MBA types take over too much decision making, ones with no clue about photography and then they just put together a very poor focus group or something. But even if the focus group, for some unfathomable reason (I mean just think about it, when is AutoISO most important, when things are changing so fast that you have no time to reset things yourself, when conditions are changing like that it tends to hint that in most cases you are talking about action photography and when are shutter speeds like 1/125th or 1/250th considered good for action? Sure for some who just use it for some static snaps for a little convenience maybe those speeds are fine, but for every other scenario, including the one where using it would be more than just a little convenience such speeds are crazy low) claimed that 1/125th is a good limit spot, there is no technical reason to have any limit at all, so why lock it in? It shows something, somewhere is going horrible wrong.
Although the limit isn't as bad with a Leica since they are not likely used to shoot wildlife and sports and such and probably mostly for street photography/landscape/art. (That said, even for street photography/people, 1/125th can be getting a bit on the dicey side in some cases, although I guess many tend to use fairly wide lenses with Leicas )
And with Canon it's pretty clear what is going since they have slowly, slowly dribbled it out over ten years, removing one tiny little cripple after another and touting the improved mode each time. And again this is a TRIVIAL, utterly trivial feature to implement without limitation, it's about the simplest thing to create on the entire camera, literally.
Anyway, it seems clear to me that it is impossible for Canon to ever make a mistake or ever have designed or carried out anything less than in an ideal fashion so I won't bother responding to you anymore. It's pointless. They could do anything under the sun and it would be 100% perfect and never anything to do with marketing ever.
And the thing is AutoISO isn't even really that big of a deal. So it's absurd for them to play games with such a minor little thing.
And as for AMFA, that is not so much a feature as something that just lets the equipment perform to spec, so playing games with that is simply wrong IMO. And yeah you can send gear in to Canon for adjustment, but then you are without gear for a week or two and things can bump around in shipping, plus what if they are busy? I got a 40D, the microfocus was way off, nobody else had another copy in stock, 1D3 mirror AF fiasco, Canon told me they were too busy fixing 1D3 to bother adjusting my 40D so I ended up going with Nat Geo to Africa with a 40D that I had to basically use in live view 10x zoom mode to focus or shoot at f/8 even when f/2.8 would;ve been nicer or stick to my older bodies.
...Show more →
I don't understand why you are still using Canon if they were "too busy" to adjust your 40D — that was years ago. Sounds like a very basic warranty repair. And you still shoot Canon?
Your point about Auto ISO "only" working on the 1DX and 7D2 remains FALSE. It doesn't work the way you want it too, so you claim it doesn't work. But I've used it thousands of times and know that it works every time and it works GREAT. If you're going to bash Canon at every opportunity, at least don't make stuff up.
And speaking of making stuff up, this whole theory of manufacturer's "playing games" is just a way of demonizing people who design things differently than you would design them. Sometimes the presence or lack of a feature has nothing to do with "playing games" but rather with a very sensible design choice, albeit a design choice that doesn't please everyone.
I have various Canons from a 5D3 to an SL1. When I look at the SL1 menus, there are a lot of features "missing" in comparison to the menus on the 5D3 and other bigger, more expensive cameras. But I knew that when I purchased the SL1. Now I could go on a long angry rant about how Canon "marketing" is "playing games" and "crippling" the SL1 — omitting things that allegedly cost ten cents, etc. And I can probably find a Nikon or Sony that delivers some extra features for the same price. Or I can put on a rational hat and realize that the SL1 is not designed for the typical 5D3 user. It's designed for the typical SL1 user. Not *every* SL1 user in the world, but the typical one, at least in Canon's estimation. That typical SL1 user does not want AFMA or a slew of other features, does not want to use them or hear about them, or see them in the menus. That typical SL1 user may look at the already stripped down SL1 menus and already feel that it's wa-a-a-a-y too complicated, with far too many things they need to know just to make a photo. More features can equal more things to go wrong, and more things to deter a potential buyer. That's a consideration that people at Canon may take very seriously, even while the typical 5D3 or 1DX user may not appreciate it.
The point is, you don't actually KNOW what deliberations go into any product design at Canon or any other manufacturer. Even so, you spout off with theories about marketing malevolence and crippling this or that, etc. Clearly, anyone can be critic and engage in this public blame game — it's the easiest thing in the world. It doesn't take any actual knowledge.
|
