Sprout Crumble wrote:
One of my biggest disappointments with Canon has always been the complete ignoring of previous models on release of a new one. It would've made Canon a lot of friends to implement many of the 30D upgrades into a firmware release for the 20D, indeed the 1D2n as well, but they simply chose the usual route.
Its a shame and indicative of Canon, more so than any other camera maker, being aloof from its users and overly greedy. They used to be so much more accessible but thats success for you.
Well, one can say many things in response, maybe I'll say one or two or most or all of them...
- it isn't always possible to do things in firmware. I agree that Canon in general has done very little in that route; but I have zero information as to how much they could have done. Do you?
- any company that continues to put out world-class products, that among other things offers the only "full frame" digital alternatives, that have outstanding high ISO performance, etc., etc., can hardly be called "aloof". I would suggest an alternative: "generally responsive and innovative."
- greedy? The XTi is excellent value. Many of their cameras are, perhaps all of them. They are selling as many as they can - do you expect them to lower price when they are selling so well at current prices? Some have argued that Canon has had to lower prices on a few occasions when they overpriced.
- what "accessible" relationship did you have with Canon in the past that you do not have now?
- Canon has certainly done some puzzling things - inconvenient mirror lock-up, no correction to the open card door, lose images problem - which seem to indicate inadquate response
The 5D is supposed to have better low-light AF where the 20/30D could certainly be improved but they're certainly fundamentally similar. The 5D is vastly closer to the 30D than to the 1D series.
Look DaveMart and n1x0n... with all due respect, please don't bring your dpr forum wars over here to FM. We have enough problems with off-topic posts, pros and amateurs duking it out in the pro forum, way too many "which lens" posts and the like to deal with your flaming wars.
Mods, my apologies for an off-topic post to deal with off-topic posts. Feel free to delete this if you want.
stanman wrote:
Look DaveMart and n1x0n... with all due respect, please don't bring your dpr forum wars over here to FM. We have enough problems with off-topic posts, pros and amateurs duking it out in the pro forum, way too many "which lens" posts and the like to deal with your flaming wars.
Mods, my apologies for an off-topic post to deal with off-topic posts. Feel free to delete this if you want.
Please note that I have attacked no-one - I like to think I am a generally good-humoured member of all forums I frequent.
I responded to an attack - possibly I should have just refered it to the forum moderators.
Out of respect for the forum I therefore delete the post I made, and would ask that the moderators similarly delete the unjustifiable attacks made on me.
Regards,
DaveMart
JRMDC wrote:
Presumably the price from your chosen outlet has also fallen, to your benefit, in part because of buyer anticipation for the 40d.
I'm not sure that there is / was any great anticipation of a 40D. Upgrading the sensor to the 400D MP level does make some marketing sense but I don't get the feeling that lots of folks having been hanging back with their purchases to get a sensor that they didn't even know existed until two weeks ago.
JRMDC wrote:
- it isn't always possible to do things in firmware. I agree that Canon in general has done very little in that route; but I have zero information as to how much they could have done. Do you?
Canon made no secret of the changes. Amongst their own claims were 'improvements to the AF software, improvements to the algorithms controlling the buffer' etc. Its reasonable to expect those to be firmware changes. Indeed, I don't see how else it could be done. Are you seriously saying that adding those things to the 20D would've been hard, or cost Canon any money?
- any company that continues to put out world-class products, that among other things offers the only "full frame" digital alternatives, that have outstanding high ISO performance, etc., etc., can hardly be called "aloof". I would suggest an alternative: "generally responsive and innovative."
Your quoting technical details and I'm fully aware of the products quality and innovation. The contents of my sig prove that. Its all my own money. They don't really listen to their users though. The MLU issue has been a vocal bugbear for some time and a tiny change to implement even in a firmware release. No action though. There are other examples. A pro sports photographer mate of mine said he's been asked for comments a couple of times but you always get the impression that Canon's more curious rather than actually considering changing things.
- greedy? The XTi is excellent value. Many of their cameras are, perhaps all of them. They are selling as many as they can - do you expect them to lower price when they are selling so well at current prices? Some have argued that Canon has had to lower prices on a few occasions when they overpriced.
Market conditions mean the XTi HAS to be value but its obvious they're taking excessive advantage of their market dominance at the moment. All the latest lens releases have strirred considerable comment on their prices and rightly so. The 5D price also stirred debate. The very rapid price drops on that model simply proved that Canon had pushed too hard in that case.
85/L mk2 increased $500 for no apparent reason. 70-200/4.0IS over double the price of its sibling, 50/1.2 more expensive than anyone predicted, 17-55/EFS over a grand despite fitting only a sensor type that Canon consider lower-end. There are at least indications of excessive profiteering at the moment.
- what "accessible" relationship did you have with Canon in the past that you do not have now?
We used to go drinking every friday night but they never call now. And it was their round.
- Canon has certainly done some puzzling things - inconvenient mirror lock-up, no correction to the open card door, lose images problem - which seem to indicate inadquate response
Fits my definition of aloof mate. It'd be nice to think that Canon listen to what their users want and thats now incredibly easy with the advent of the internet and especially online forums. Your own examples are ones that have been circulating for ages and yet nothing has been done.
Same with wide primes, IS on the 400/5.6 etc. Instead we got an update of the 85L that has barely changed its nature. How many were asking for that? Given the price rose five hundred bucks, how many wished they'd kept their mouth shut?
I basically like what they've done but I just get that strange feeling that we're not pushing Canon in the direction we want, rather that we're being pulled in the direction they want to go. Kinda tail wagging the dog. Maybe paranoia on my part but the feeling remains.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head and chuckle.
The costs associated with the production of any one of Canon's DSLR's is staggering. Saying they are gouging, profit engineering, or screwing the consumer is just incorrect and assuming they would drop the price when the market is otherwise willing to bear it is naive.
I dare day that Canon offers good value for money in that you can pay $799 for a D50/kit or $899 for an XTi/kit or $1299 for a Nikon D80/kit. Same with a Nikon D2h for $3100 or a Canon 1Dm2n for $3500. In either case which would you rather have? You may pay a bit more for Canon, but you get FAR more. (emphasis on MAY pay)
As for accessibility and feature requests...consider this:
Canon is an enormous organization: 115,000 employees in 2005 spread accross the entire planet. What a person says about an MLU to a "Canon rep" is going to take quite some time to materialize as a product change. (assuming that the cost/benefit analysis and overall market demand* are favorable) Of course, that is assuming that the "Canon rep" in question is somone that can actually make it happen. Unless you are speaking Japanese to a corporate R&D employee, you aren't speaking to the right person.
Regional marketing, like that at Canon USA or Canon UK, doesn't control beans in the product R&D cycle. I know this for first hand fact.
*FWIW: Bloomberg recently reported that Canon expects DSLR unit sales of 2.2 million in 2006. I wonder how many of those 2.2 million people need/want an MLU, or in fact even know what it is.
There's a snowballs chance in hell of a 30D replacement this year. Even if Canon have a 40D ready to go they would not screw over their customers by releasing it less than a year after the 30D. PMA will be the most likely date but even that will only be 12 months from 30D release.
I don't expect anything more of real interest to be announced. Certainly no new lenses and at best a 1DsII N
Hrow wrote:
I'm not sure that there is / was any great anticipation of a 40D. Upgrading the sensor to the 400D MP level does make some marketing sense but I don't get the feeling that lots of folks having been hanging back with their purchases to get a sensor that they didn't even know existed until two weeks ago.
We ALL knew that new sensors were in the works. We ALL know that new sensors are now in the works. We All fully expect that Canon will spend 2007 doing lots of sensor development. Come on now!
My impression - correct me if I am wrong, I am not a Canon engineer - is that firmware is not the entirety of the software that runs a camera. It is merely a partof the software, not to mention whatever capabilities are hard coded onto the DIGIC chip. So yes, until I learn otherwise, I am not convinced that Canon can do something so complex as, for example, altering a buffer algorigthm, through a firmware change. Does anyone know different?
It's not just technical "details" - that is a choice of words that minimizes, ignores the totality. It is an excellent camera system, albeit with flaws. Specific incidents of nonresponsiveless, which I recognized in what I wrote, is quite insufficient for a claim of aloofness given the overall quality of the product line, which can't happen but for recognition of photographer needs.
Please define excessive profiteering. Please define the "correct" price according to your system of beliefs and knowledge. That is not just rhetoric. It is very easy to claim "high prices," without having thought through what it should be. And I agree in some cases, or rather, to be precise, I don't see the justification for some prices, such as the initial price for the 70-200/4 IS. I agree that Canon apparently blew it on initial 5D pricing. They screwed up. Businesses do sometimes. As for the 17-55 being overpriced because "low-end", it appears to be that those users don't necessarily consider themselves to be "low-end" but rather have chosen the APS-C format for various other reasons. By all appearances, that is one fine lens. I'm sure it's users are thrilled that you called them "low end."
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Canon made no secret of the changes. Amongst their own claims were 'improvements to the AF software, improvements to the algorithms controlling the buffer' etc. Its reasonable to expect those to be firmware changes. Indeed, I don't see how else it could be done. Are you seriously saying that adding those things to the 20D would've been hard, or cost Canon any money?
Your quoting technical details and I'm fully aware of the products quality and innovation. The contents of my sig prove that. Its all my own money. They don't really listen to their users though. The MLU issue has been a vocal bugbear for some time and a tiny change to implement even in a firmware release. No action though. There are other examples. A pro sports photographer mate of mine said he's been asked for comments a couple of times but you always get the impression that Canon's more curious rather than actually considering changing things.
Market conditions mean the XTi HAS to be value but its obvious they're taking excessive advantage of their market dominance at the moment. All the latest lens releases have strirred considerable comment on their prices and rightly so. The 5D price also stirred debate. The very rapid price drops on that model simply proved that Canon had pushed too hard in that case.
85/L mk2 increased $500 for no apparent reason. 70-200/4.0IS over double the price of its sibling, 50/1.2 more expensive than anyone predicted, 17-55/EFS over a grand despite fitting only a sensor type that Canon consider lower-end. There are at least indications of excessive profiteering at the moment.
We used to go drinking every friday night but they never call now. And it was their round.
Fits my definition of aloof mate. It'd be nice to think that Canon listen to what their users want and thats now incredibly easy with the advent of the internet and especially online forums. Your own examples are ones that have been circulating for ages and yet nothing has been done.
Same with wide primes, IS on the 400/5.6 etc. Instead we got an update of the 85L that has barely changed its nature. How many were asking for that? Given the price rose five hundred bucks, how many wished they'd kept their mouth shut?
I basically like what they've done but I just get that strange feeling that we're not pushing Canon in the direction we want, rather that we're being pulled in the direction they want to go. Kinda tail wagging the dog. Maybe paranoia on my part but the feeling remains. ...Show more →
JRMDC wrote:
We ALL knew that new sensors were in the works. We ALL know that new sensors are now in the works. We All fully expect that Canon will spend 2007 doing lots of sensor development. Come on now!
Nah, he's right, people didn't hang back, they just went and bought a Nikon.
JRMDC wrote:
We ALL knew that new sensors were in the works. We ALL know that new sensors are now in the works. We All fully expect that Canon will spend 2007 doing lots of sensor development. Come on now!
I don't disagree with your point about people expecting sensor improvement. I just don't think 30D sales have been hampered by people expecting an upgrade to 10mp. In fact, I don't think most people here think a 40D is even all that likely and the vast majority of potential 30D owners don't even know that there is a rumor floating around about a 40D. If people don't know about something that doesn't exist I fail to see how that is having a dramatic impact on 30D sales.
If you were to suggest that sales have been slowed by people waiting for an across the board improvement in digital bodies I would have to agree. I, for one, am waiting. However, the hefty increase in DSLR sales would indicate that any reticence on the part of existing buyers is more than being made up for by new entrants into the market which means that Canon is in a very enviable position.
Hrow wrote:
I don't disagree with your point about people expecting sensor improvement. I just don't think 30D sales have been hampered by people expecting an upgrade to 10mp. In fact, I don't think most people here think a 40D is even all that likely and the vast majority of potential 30D owners don't even know that there is a rumor floating around about a 40D. If people don't know about something that doesn't exist I fail to see how that is having a dramatic impact on 30D sales.
If you were to suggest that sales have been slowed by people waiting for an across the board improvement in digital bodies I would have to agree. I, for one, am waiting. However, the hefty increase in DSLR sales would indicate that any reticence on the part of existing buyers is more than being made up for by new entrants into the market which means that Canon is in a very enviable position. ...Show more →
I was critcizing the statement "didn't even know existed until two weeks ago." The market knows, even if only a fraction of the individuals in the market know.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. I myself was waiting for an across the board improvement until a combination of frustration with the 300d buffer and the incredible prices on used 20Ds make me take the leap.
Apologies if in editing I got the attributions wrong above.
Of course Canon has to come out quickly with the 30D upgrade, or their new entry level model would kill it.
Also, in the past, 2 of the many differences between the XT and the 20D have been in the focus system and the RAW buffer. Now that the new XT matches the 30D in these respects, I would not be surprised if Canon upgrades both the focusing and the RAW buffer on the 40D to maintain the same differential between the 2 models.
Edited by hfillmore on Sep 06, 2006 at 06:21 AM GMT
Edited by Jeff on Sep 06, 2006 at 07:30 AM GMT (Reason: un-embedded links)
and at best a 1DsII N 