henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups could be at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decisions around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H (for sports) and FF (for studio). This, more than anything, is likely why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\".
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups could be at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decisions around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H (for sports) and FF (for studio). This, more than anything, is likely why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\". I think most of the dissatisfaction started when Nikon changed the game and made a full-frame sports/action camera (the D3), a product that some feel Canon has yet to respond to.
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups are at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decisions around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H (for sports) and FF (for studio). This, more than anything, is likely why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\". I think most of the dissatisfaction started when Nikon changed the game and made a full-frame sports/action camera (the D3), a product that some feel Canon has yet to respond to.
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups are at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decisions around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H and FF. This, more than anything, is likely why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\". I think most of the dissatisfaction started when Nikon changed the game and made a full-frame sports/action camera (the D3), a product that some feel Canon has yet to respond to.
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups are at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decisions around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H and FF. This, more than anything, is why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\". I think most of the dissatisfaction started when Nikon changed the game and made a full-frame sports/action camera (the D3), a product that some feel Canon has yet to respond to.
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups are at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decision around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H and FF. This, more than anything, is why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\". I think most of the dissatisfaction started when Nikon changed the game and made a full-frame sports/action camera (the D3), a product that some feel Canon has yet to respond to.
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups are at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decision around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H and FF. This, more than anything, is why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\".
I think most of the dissatisfaction started when Nikon changed the game and made a full-frame sports/action camera (the D3), a product that some feel Canon has yet to respond to.
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy. I\'m sure there\'ll be a full-frame sports/action camera someday, or perhaps the next APS-H model will be so good that most people won\'t care.
henryng wrote:
Canon on the other hand like to add features to sell more camera and ignore the fact a lot of those essential feature improvement will help us to capture better images.
Do you really think Canon doesn\'t care about photographers, or about enabling peopel to make better images? If that were true they would have been out of the camera business a long time ago.
The one thing I can say, after being both a Canon and Nikon user for many years, is that Canon has always had much more of a separate development focus in its 3 product tiers (entry, mid, and pro). The result is that there is often less \"familiy resemblance\" across its products than in the Nikon line, which seems to flow from a more holistic design vision.
You can cite examples of this: Consider that the 1D Mark III when it shipped had a \"joystick\" (the rear multi-controller), BUT there was no way to use it to select the active focusing point, a well-loved feature on the 5D. It was as if the 1-series designers had not ever considered that idea (this was eventually rectified by a firmware update). Similar examples abound, and only recently have the camera lines begun to share menu and UI features. This bifurcation goes way back to the F-1 and the Canon A and T-series which were vastly different mechanically and ergonomically.
I believe the possibility of more independent internal groups are at least partially responsible for what many perceive as Canon \"hording\" features for its 1-series cameras (like weather sealing and \"pro\" AF). It\'s probably not some corporate conspiracy to cheat you of your money, but natural competition between product groups that helps shape the decision around feature differentiation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that for NIkon, the DX format was also a \"professional\" format adopted in two generations of its flagship cameras, and the D300 inherits and benefits from this design focus. For Canon, the \"professional\" formats have always been APS-H and FF. This, more than anything, is why the xxD models have always been solidly \"prosumer\".
With the 7D, perhaps Canon is changing its own internal game. In any case, people griping about the lack of a true competitor to the D300 should be happy.
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:52 PM
Previous versions of garyvot's message #7472583 « Canon 7D »
