Why is the marketing department always blamed for poor design and engineering decisions?
The marketing department is always blamed for things like this, but have you guys worked in a large company? The marketing department has little if any power - as if they are able to drive product design decisions
- Its difficult to compare film to Digital. There are so many variables with film and digital. The truth is show in the prints.
- The majority of old lenses used in the film days are not nearly as sharp as the ones made for digital. (few exceptions: 70-200L 2.8, 135L)
- Having a sensor the exceeds the capabilities of your lenses is a good thing!
1. This means you will get the maximum potential of your lenses.
2. If you want to get the full potential of your sensor you will have to look to newer lenses made for digital. (Example: 70-200L IS F4)
3. Consider 3rd party / exotic / alternative lenses (Example: Nikon 14-24 F2.8)
One more thing to consider...
Resolution isn't everything. There other factors that come into play. Excellent color and contrast is very important to me, more important than having a lens that exceeds my digital sensor.
To answer the threads main question: No but they should create better lenses which will keep up with their new camera line up.
David Baldwin:
I don't care about megapixels frankly - the 10 megapixels of my 40D provide surprising amouts of detail, but I need Ff to produce shallower depth of field and 35mm type perspectives. Megapixels now have exactly zero capacity for making me reach for my cheque book.
David, this is exactly describing what I think and feel.
Dawei Ye wrote:
Why is the marketing department always blamed for poor design and engineering decisions?
The marketing department is always blamed for things like this, but have you guys worked in a large company? The marketing department has little if any power - as if they are able to drive product design decisions
People not in the know generally seem to lump together marketing and product management in such discussions.
I think there are pros out there that influenced Canon's decision to have larger MPs, just like having a video on 5D Mark II. So the answer is depends, Canon can come up with new sensors or crop factor.
BrianP wrote:
With the recent 50D review, it begs the question. Should Canon stop here? Should Canon have already stopped?
I think there is a general misunderstanding of the dissatisfaction expressed in this thread by those who are not seeking more megapixels in their next camera.
People are not trying to hold back the advance of technology, but rather to steer it in the direction they feel is more useful to them. And they don't want to be forced to pay the price for features they don't need. It is short-sighted to think that these people are just plain ignorant and in the long run they will be better off if they just silently accept whatever comes from Canon, Nikon, etc. Their voices are important to shaping the direction of future offerings, and should be taken into account along with whatever the designers and engineers and markers have to say.
We really don't have very many choices in the marketplace for serious-user DSLRs. There aren't nearly as many companies involved as there are for cars, computers, or TV sets. It is very difficult for consumers to express their opinion by going to another brand when they have more invested in glass & accessories than the cost of the latest body.
Personally, I am not yet convinced that more megapixels are the way to go. Same for full frame - isn't it a legacy from the film days? Haven't the crop bodies served us well so far? Digital needs to catch up to what film cameras could do in regards to dynamic range, or even surpass it. And I'd like to see them take a few giant steps forward in the area of lowering noise in high ISO images. Video has no place in a professional DSLR. GPS and WiFi are useful to some but should be keep as add-ons so that the majority who will never use them don't have to pay for them. There is room for improvement in weather-sealing to both bodies and lenses.
People who look upon a DSLR as a tool used in making a living can do without a lot of the bells & whistles that marketers use to lure P&S shooters to Rebels, and Rebel shooters to mid-level DSLRs. And theses professional photographers are the ones who will buy new pro-level bodies repeatedly.
There is a space in my Pelican case, ready for Canon's affordable full frame amateur body (with moderate megapixels).
Its just up to Canon when they choose to produce such a camera. Of course its up to them whether they even do so, but until then I don't see any need to buy any more kit from them, especially L lenses. This cuts both ways, they don't have to supply me with the camera I want, and I don't have to give them any more money.
Sooner or later Canon will realize that concentrating exclusively on full frame 20+ megapixels is a big opportunity cost, because alot of knowledgeable amateurs won't/can't afford the higher 5D2 cost, particularly in the biggest financial crisis for a generation, or two.
I have nothing against the 5D2, its just that I don't feel its cost is justified for me personally (don't particularly want video, wireless file transfer, 20+ megapixels). Before the last Photokina there was a rumour that Canon would bring out more than one full frame body, I believe the camera I was most interested in was dubbed, unofficially, the 7D. I was very disappointed that this camera was not announced too.
Where is the 7D? Its the camera my heart and my bank manager are holding out for. My Pelican is still awaiting that new body, till then my 40D will do. Alot of us out here are looking for a "value for money" modern Canon full frame, and megapixels just aren't that exciting for most of us amateurs (I feel about "megapixel enthusiasts" just like many of you here feel about "pixel peepers"! - similar affliction really).
The Pros will pay anything they need to get the best kit - and thats just ticketyboo with me, but sadly Canon appear to be forgetting about the rest of us. Looking at Nikon's really competitive D700 pricing here in the UK, seems to me that Nikon at least may be waking up to basic financial realities.
