bobbytan wrote:
We have all known for a long time that the D3x/D4 is going to be 25 megapixels .... and I am sure the sensor and processor will be far superior to the A900.
Ralph, you are pretty good at talking out of your ass Based on the photos on your site, I really don't think your images would do any worst if they were taken with a "old fashion" Nikon sensor. Perhaps you should rent a D3 and let us know if you have EOFFun
Ralph Conway wrote:
Hi EOSfun. I am really sorry. But I have to follow James, how stupid he is. Tha fact is never any companie in the last decade was interested what photographers needs. Okay. My issue is IQ. Canon is best in it. Did they ever think about what is best for photograpers? No. They where never really interested in. They just sell their gear. Nikon? Ever interested in IQ? No. People bought their gear. When they started to stop, they asked the first time for IQ. And started to copy Canon. They are years back in IQ and Nikonians talj about "features" So they do them its success! Canon nmever thought about. Because they had IQ. Its success. Konika and Minolta where never interested in their customers needs. Sony bought them. Still success. Sony never asked anybody, what is important. Alpha 900 is amess. They know it and try to make it by low pricing. Success!. So what?
You are missing EOSfun? Thats what we created, not Canon. People like you and me made Canon successful. Not Product quality. They do not really care about. If japan would be japan like it was 50 years ago all rensponsible people for that AF desaster would have served it and kill themselfes after. Today they just learned. They act like US or european businessman and lie around, "There is no prolem!" If I would have been Canon I would have solved the problem and given any customer a new working machine and an additional Lens at about € 5000. For steeling my customers time. But proud was an earlier japan. Today its just like everywhere. People are customers. Nothing else. They have to spend their money and its good enough we get it instead of another thief.
Thank you James. You opened my eyes,
Ralph Conway wrote:
Hi EOSfun. I am really sorry. But I have to follow James, how stupid he is. Tha fact is never any companie in the last decade was interested what photographers needs. Okay. My issue is IQ. Canon is best in it. Did they ever think about what is best for photograpers? No. They where never really interested in. They just sell their gear. Nikon? Ever interested in IQ? No. People bought their gear. When they started to stop, they asked the first time for IQ. And started to copy Canon. They are years back in IQ and Nikonians talj about "features" So they do them its success! Canon nmever thought about. Because they had IQ. Its success. Konika and Minolta where never interested in their customers needs. Sony bought them. Still success. Sony never asked anybody, what is important. Alpha 900 is amess. They know it and try to make it by low pricing. Success!. So what?
You are missing EOSfun? Thats what we created, not Canon. People like you and me made Canon successful. Not Product quality. They do not really care about. If japan would be japan like it was 50 years ago all rensponsible people for that AF desaster would have served it and kill themselfes after. Today they just learned. They act like US or european businessman and lie around, "There is no prolem!" If I would have been Canon I would have solved the problem and given any customer a new working machine and an additional Lens at about € 5000. For steeling my customers time. But proud was an earlier japan. Today its just like everywhere. People are customers. Nothing else. They have to spend their money and its good enough we get it instead of another thief.
Thank you James. You opened my eyes,
Ralph, I tend to agree... We're going on forever discussing how Canon sees what Nikon does and how they will react to it, who produces the better camera and if Canon is bleeding because of disappointed users who switch to Nikon etc. I dont know that much about photography but I know a bit about how corporations make their decisions. So this is how I'M GUESSING things stand at Canon H/Q:
- Canon is 70% a photocopier manufacturer. From the remaining 30% the vast majority is P&S and entry level DSLR. This is what they care about, this is their money. These customers buy based on 3 things: Price, zoomability and number of megapixels. Everything else is too difficult to explain to the customer, or even the salesman. Very few people have the time or inclination to study digital photography and understand what they're buying. Say goodbye to the knowledgable photographer's needs, right there.
- The 1DX segment for them is tiny in terms of numbers. The only reason they support it is prestige, because P&S customers see white lenses on the TV at the Olympics and that makes them buy more Canon P&Ss (dont ask me why, no idea, consumer psychology is an abyss for me).
- 5D segment is so tiny they dont even care about. It must be... what? 1% of their sales, if that. If they cared about it they would have updated it a year ago to stay ahead of the game. I'm guessing that even if every 5D user switches to Nikon and buys Nikon lenses and flashes forever, no manager would lose their performance bonus because of it. For all we know the 5D ranks in importance somewhere between an Ixus and a printer.... They will release something eventually, when they're done updating their photocopiers or whatever, but dont think that anyone's career is depended on it.
- I doubt if the photographer's needs or wants are anywhere on the top of their priorities. These companies are driven by bottom lines, not necessarily tradition or photographic quality. If these things coincide then we have a happy... coincidence , like the 5D is. If the bottom line is red they will happily switch to selling photocopiers or washing machines or whatever makes them a buck.
Like I said, this is just my guesswork...
Spyro
Edited by Spyro P. on Sep 10, 2008 at 04:42 AM GMT
Edited by Spyro P. on Sep 10, 2008 at 04:43 AM GMT
I'm not exactly sure how this thread works, but it looks like I'm supposed to quote someone, spit out a bunch of nonsense, and then hope that nonsense makes someone else mad so they quote me? Well, let's give it a shot and quote Ralph since he looks like an easy target...
Ralph Conway wrote:
Hi EOSfun. I am really sorry. But I have to follow James, how stupid he is. Tha fact is never any companie in the last decade was interested what photographers needs. Okay. My issue is IQ. Canon is best in it. Did they ever think about what is best for photograpers? No. They where never really interested in. They just sell their gear. Nikon? Ever interested in IQ? No. People bought their gear. When they started to stop, they asked the first time for IQ. And started to copy Canon. They are years back in IQ and Nikonians talj about "features" So they do them its success! Canon nmever thought about. Because they had IQ. Its success. Konika and Minolta where never interested in their customers needs. Sony bought them. Still success. Sony never asked anybody, what is important. Alpha 900 is amess. They know it and try to make it by low pricing. Success!. So what?
You are missing EOSfun? Thats what we created, not Canon. People like you and me made Canon successful. Not Product quality. They do not really care about. If japan would be japan like it was 50 years ago all rensponsible people for that AF desaster would have served it and kill themselfes after. Today they just learned. They act like US or european businessman and lie around, "There is no prolem!" If I would have been Canon I would have solved the problem and given any customer a new working machine and an additional Lens at about € 5000. For steeling my customers time. But proud was an earlier japan. Today its just like everywhere. People are customers. Nothing else. They have to spend their money and its good enough we get it instead of another thief.
Thank you James. You opened my eyes,
I don't know how stupid James is, but because they had IQ. Its success. Konika and Minolta where never interested in their customers needs. My issue is IQ. Canon is best in it. Nothing else. Punch babies. Eat kittens. "There is no problem!" If I would have been Canon I would have solved the problem, with my fist in a babies face. Canon never thought about. For steeling my customers time. People are customers. Nothing else. If japan would be japan like it was 50 years ago, there would be big boom. Today they just learned. You opened my eyes, to a cream surprise.
Spyro P. wrote:
I doubt if the photographer's needs or wants are anywhere on the top of their priorities. These companies are driven by bottom lines, not necessarily tradition or photographic quality. If these things coincide then we have a happy...
The Veyron doesn't make any money for VW. The R8 prolly doesn't make much money for Audi. Honda or Toyota sure as hell isn't making any money in their F1 presence. But they all do it, it's called presence and "being seen as an innovator".
Brother makes copiers, too. For some reason they aren't regarded quite as highly, even though I am not convinced they are any worse...
I don't know how stupid James is, but because they had IQ. Its success. Konika and Minolta where never interested in their customers needs. My issue is IQ. Canon is best in it. Nothing else. Punch babies. Eat kittens. "There is no problem!" If I would have been Canon I would have solved the problem, with my fist in a babies face. Canon never thought about. For steeling my customers time. People are customers. Nothing else. If japan would be japan like it was 50 years ago, there would be big boom. Today they just learned. You opened my eyes, to a cream surprise.
joeisayo wrote:
The fact Canon is more worried of Sony rather Nikon is disturbing if you're a pro. It shows Canon is more concerned with the high $$$ amature/Serious amature than the much smaller pro market.
has canon stated they are more worried about sony?
yeh the SLR market is really a small market, last year in 2007 there was a 101million digital cameras sold worldwide, 7.5million of those were digital slr's ......
stanj wrote:
The Veyron doesn't make any money for VW. The R8 prolly doesn't make much money for Audi. Honda or Toyota sure as hell isn't making any money in their F1 presence. But they all do it, it's called presence and "being seen as an innovator".
Brother makes copiers, too. For some reason they aren't regarded quite as highly, even though I am not convinced they are any worse...
Yep agreed. Thats why Canon is putting effort in their 1D series, its their version of F1. I doubt if they make serious money off them though. I've been trying to get my hands on a sales report by product to prove myself right or wrong, but Canon doesnt disclose that info unfortunately.
But If you look at their latest financial report, all they're discussing was the 450D and how important it is to them and how that and the 40D keep driving their sales increase. Not a word about 1D or 5D.
So, my gut feeling is that there are no elaborate plans or conspiracy theories behind the late release of the 5D. To the people who make the decisions its an immaterial segment and therefore it can wait, simple. The fact that the planets aligned with the 5D and the camera met theirs and our expectations looks like a coincidence to me... Hopefully it will happen again!
loudtiger wrote:
has anyone noticed that the image on the "destined evolution" website has changed/ it looks like there is gradually more light on the camera...
you now can see Canon on the pentaprism
Ah, now that would be an interesting marketing ploy...showing a bit more "moonrise" over the body with each passing...er....time interval as determined by Canon!
digitalbug30d wrote:
you now can see Canon on the pentaprism
Yes, it's definitely changed. You can also see more of the lens and also it says "EOS". Which is not that helpful. But it's certainly a semi-pro form factor. Now I'm going to have to obsessively look at that page with my morning espresso each day.
loudtiger wrote:
has anyone noticed that the image on the "destined evolution" website has changed/ it looks like there is gradually more light on the camera...
bobbytan wrote:
So you want a 1Ds III feature set/spec for $2,000? Well, guess what .... we ALL do .... but it ain't gonna happen unfortunately, not for another couple of years at least.
Lighten up, Bobby. I was merely saying that I'd rather have a value-priced body with essential features than a all-bells-and-whistles body with a lot of useless specs.
How you manage to extrapolate that into 1Ds3 feature set for $2k, I am not quite sure.
The rest was a slightly flip way of saying that most people who are earning from their photography would probably prefer to pay as little for their body as possible, as specsmanship and pride of ownership are pretty low on their list. Commercial photographers aside, I know few income-earning shooters who look forward to sinking $5-8k on cameras every couple of years. That was my thrust when I said "price is probably one of the most important pro features"
digitalbug30d wrote:
you now can see Canon on the pentaprism
Is there a popup flash ?
Perhaps some DPP/CS3 pros should play with that picture and expose more details with curve/level/layer-mask/highlight-shadow/brightness-contrast control.
sirimiri wrote:
Ah, now that would be an interesting marketing ploy...showing a bit more "moonrise" over the body with each passing...er....time interval as determined by Canon!
The next full moon date is Sept. 18th. Interesting coincidence, no?
Based on the photos on your site, I really don't think your images would do any worst if they were taken with a "old fashion" Nikon sensor. Perhaps you should rent a D3 and let us know if you have EOFFun 
, like the 5D is. If the bottom line is red they will happily switch to selling photocopiers or washing machines or whatever makes them a buck.
it looks like there is gradually more light on the camera...