July 31, 2014, 04:01:33 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Chuck Alaimo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 61
31
Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

You're suggesting that Ferrari needs to make an SUV, minivan, economy car (like a Honda Civic) and a commuter bike with saddle-bags, so I can always use precisely the correct transport for my needs.  Ferrari makes Ferraris; other people make SUVs, minivans, economy cars and bicycles.

it's more like putting racing tires on your honda civic (L glass on a rebel) then complaining that you can't get the speed of a ferrari (1dx with L glass)....

32
It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

I placed the "wasted" in quotes because an L-lens has other properties than excellent corners that makes it better than non-L's. Thus the lens is not totally wasted, just one of its greatest attributes.

Again, with all things in photography unless you have an unlimited budget you make compromises.  The real waste would be to spend 1K or more for an EF-S prime then realize you want to upgrade to a FF camera cause then your stuck.  Better to make the investment in glass. 

also, the same argument can be made as you upgrade.  If you shoot sports and are on a budget, you get a 7d instead of a 5d3 because the frame rate is higher and you get the reach.  You buy the 100 macro 2.8 instead of the L because you know your not actually doing enough macro work to justify it.  You buy a 6d instead of a 5d3 because you want to move to FF but don't have the budget for a 5d3 and you also want a pair of 600 Rt's.  Compromise goes on all the time because all of these things are EXPENSIVE.     

33
Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

One facet of a good lens can be corner performance (unless that's not what you want, e.g. 50L), but I don't know if it's fair to say that a lens is wasted because the sensor can't see the edges. I think most people using primes do so for speed. Not having zoom glass generally improves optical performance and weight too, but it's the max aperture that draws me to primes. YMMV.





But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?

Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

your drawing thin on valid points here --- so yeah, the extra you pay you lose the corners in the crop --- but you also get a fast lens, and of course (on EF-S the fasted you get is 2.8, and the price is fairly high to get that too) ---- L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.

That's I think the key you are missing - you buy a body to get you through, but you buy lenses to last.  IMO, buying an L prime for a rebel is like making a downpayment on an upgraded body at some point in the future... 

34
Gotta say something about this ---Rebel owners aren't excluded from any of L lenses - in fact, it's FF owners who are excluded from using EF-S lenses.  Hell, some even LIKE using L glass on crop cameras because of the crop factor - one can make a very valid argument that things like soft corners aren't an issue as much using L glass (not just primes) on crop because your getting the sweet spot of the lens!  Either way, on any given day if you followed the path of 100  first time slr buyers, how many of them will actually pursue photography in more than a very casual manner?  My guess is not that many.  I am not saying that in spite, or to be insulting - whats wrong with just wanting a nice camera to take pics of the kids????

I completely agree with that in general.

However, why do the "higher-end" cameras have (or should that be, need) AFMA? Whatever the reason (manufacturing tolerances or deliberate), just because the "Rebel" jobbies lack said functionality, an L-prime in all probability will not work/focus 100% (or even 98%) on said "Rebel" camera(s). This effectively prevents "Rebel" owners from using L-primes on their cameras ... or the other way around, preventing people already owning L-primes from using "Rebel" cameras. (To prove last statement, the 700D is a better camera than my ancient 30D ... in most respects. It thus prevents upgrading through downgrading.)

What I really don't get is ----outside of the the majority of the market, people who learn and want to step up and buy nicer gear ---if they are at that place then they would know what bodies can be calibrated and which can't.  And sorry, if your at that stage and want to keep the budget low then you have to make compromises.  You go with a used body, and rock your L prime on that.  Or, accept the limitations and turn lemons into lemonade. 

Again, nothing is preventing anyone from using an L prime on a rebel - yes you won't get the same functions as some of the higher end bodies but that isn't stopping you from using them.

35
...

OK, I get it. Canon is playing the numbers game: the once-off sale of a "Rebel" camera to a "soccer mom" is sustainable because there are 4 billion people on earth. No way that market is ever going to dry up.

4 billion, yup, and those 4 billion are making more babies too.  These are the folks that buy camera kits like they buy phones - next model, gotta get it.

Canon and nikon both do this same game - they have their pro gear and the prosumer gear then the rest of it.  People looking to get a decent camera for under $1000 aren't buying L lenses!!!!!! - whether their prime or not, they won't be buying them unless they learn a thing or 2 and want to learn more about photography - and even then they may opt for something like the 50 1.4 because it's close to 1k cheaper.

That is a very condescending attitude towards owners of "Rebel" cameras. It is also, IMO, a shortsighted one if you are in the business of selling cameras AND LENSES. Basically, you are excluding an owner of a "Rebel" camera from purchasing an L-prime; from which this person will probably migrate to FF as and when the ol' wallet permits.

Gotta say something about this ---Rebel owners aren't excluded from any of L lenses - in fact, it's FF owners who are excluded from using EF-S lenses.  Hell, some even LIKE using L glass on crop cameras because of the crop factor - one can make a very valid argument that things like soft corners aren't an issue as much using L glass (not just primes) on crop because your getting the sweet spot of the lens!  Either way, on any given day if you followed the path of 100  first time slr buyers, how many of them will actually pursue photography in more than a very casual manner?  My guess is not that many.  I am not saying that in spite, or to be insulting - whats wrong with just wanting a nice camera to take pics of the kids????

36
If you ask a typical 'entry level' user (those who buy the majority of cameras), may very well think "Kelvin" is a character on the TV show Lost, or an offensive guard for the Pittsburgh Steelers.  Of those who know that it's a unit of temperature (albeit one they've never seen on a thermometer), almost none of them will associate it with color temperature for white balance (assuming they even set WB to anything other than Auto, assuming they even get their cameras out of fully automatic mode).  Maybe you feel the need for Kelvin WB on an entry-level dSLR…but once again, you are in the minority (an even more miniscule minority than usual, in this case).

The Kelvin scale is part of the science curriculum taught in secondary schools over here in southern Africa.

But given what you've written, why does Canon then include that colour-shift graph thing in ALL THEIR CAMERAS?

As for the SD slot in the 5DIII, most likely the camera had simply entered the design-locked period of development when the Secure Digital UHS-I standard came out.  Perhaps it escaped your notice that the SD slots in the 1DsIII and 1D IV are similarly 'throttled'.  The 6D is compliant with UHS-I and supports faster SD card writes, as are all cameras of a more recent design age than the 5DIII (e.g. 70D, T5i/650D, EOS M).

I said I just wrote what I've read ... yet you pounce ... on nothing!

For the 'enthusiast with three or so lenses' there are EF-S lenses that deliver excellent IQ (10-22, 17-55/2.8, 15-85), and there are L-series lenses.  Canon has provided those folks with plenty of options. 

None of those three are primes. All L-primes are "full-frame" and a thus "wasted" on a "crop-frame" camera.

Canon is primarily interested making a profit.  A market segment is important to them only insofar as it has the potential to generate that profit.  Whether or not you, me, or anyone else is 'genuinely OK with' that is totally irrelevant to Canon.

In order to make a profit, COMPANY must sell stuff to consumers. If the consumers do not like what COMPANY offers, then COMPANY doesn't sell stuff and thus COMPANY doesn't make a profit. Irrelevant indeed.

I kind of think you want canon to go bankrupt with this idea that a few want it so it must be so because the logical points are on the contrary to what your saying. EF lenses are designed for FF, yes, but that doesn't mean that they don't work and that doesn't mean that they don't work quite well.  Also, you seem to not understand that the vast majority of cop users don't want a lens that doesn't zoom, nor do they want to pay more than $300 for a lens.  It would be mostly wasted money putting out a line of 'L' series EF-S lenses.  It makes way more sense to have all the L's EF - L lenses are not eveyone lenses - for one they are specialized and 2 they are pricey - 1 L lens is likely to cost more than the average user is willing to pay for their whole kit.  And then add that what if, what if they decide to take it to the next level but they've already spent a ton of $$$ on expnsive EF-s lenses - that's a disgruntled customer who will be more liklely to switch systems because they have to replace EVERYTHING anyways. 

and yes, I do have to side with the rest of folks here - the average slr user will never learn anything about photography.  I just recently had one of those average users asking me a ton of questions at a gathering.  I showed her the modes, explained what the manual controls did, showed her how to manipluate it.  I'd watch her walk off and snap some shots...within a minute she's back on auto, pop up flash and all. 

the average user just doesn't get it, nor do they really want to - it's that idea of if i pay more then i have to do less - hence why so many people look at a pro's work and say --- wow, you must have a nice camera.  LOL, for a while I got really pissed everytime that got said to me, I immediately took it as an insult - that there's no skill involved - just a nice camera and any monkey can push the button.  Then I realized that it isn't an insult - they just don't know any better - nor do they really want to.  Now I am not saying every entry level slr user falls into these categories, but, that is what drives the market - soccer moms buying an slr at bestbuy...so yeah, advanced features like WB and other things like that would be lost on the vast majority of users ---

while kelvin may be tough in science class, science class doesn't relate it to colors - this is what I leanred of Kelvin in high school - "The kelvin is a unit of measurement for temperature. It is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units (SI) and is assigned the unit symbol K. The kelvin scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute zero, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics. The kelvin is defined as the fraction 1⁄273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).[1] In other words, it is defined such that the triple point of water is exactly 273.16 K."  Basically, science class was not a photography class for us.  Hell, I don't even remember it being brought up in the photography classes I did take.

37

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.


Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

Exactly.

And, no I don't buy anything based on sales figures. But I also don't presume my individual preferences determine a company's strategy. The statement that Canon needs to "fight back" implies they are losing some sort of competition and I pointed to their sales figures because they indicate just the opposite; and ultimately that is the only competition that really matters.

It's perfectly understandable to state that you were comfortable with your 5DII and for your purposes the current generation of full frame cameras didn't offer enough improvement to justify trading up. But, there is a world of difference between that statement and concluding that Canon needs to fight back.

How dare you bring sound logic to this debate...  LOL

38
Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

See, this is what I don't get.  As you (AVTVM) demand for smaller, FF, and mirrorless you - while on the other end you have sella who doesn't need FF and doesn't mind larger form factor.  This is all being said in a thread about how canon must respond to the new d800, which isn't a mirrorless camera. 

So that brings me right back to the question I asked - how many canon users are buying A7's because of DR/MP, vs how many do in fact want/desire/need mirrorless?  I would be willing to bet the latter is true, most are buying an A7 for DR/MP reasons.  I draw this conclusion because the A7 appeals to a segment of folks who like canon and want to stay with canon but want more DR/MP now - folks with 10k in glass that they don't want to sell it all off to switch systems nor do they have the $$$ to add the additional system.  these users can flirt with sony until canon does come out with a high MP body- because we all know it's gonna happen it's just a matter of when. 

39
Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?
IF it included the operational benefits you describe, then maybe yes. (it didn't work in the case of Pentax' K-01)

From what we see currently, people are using the A7r because it's providing the extra MP and DR you can't get anywhere else but Nikon at the moment and still allowing you to use your EF lenses.
So it's the ONLY option to choose from for a best-of-both-worlds compromise.

That's part of my point --- people like it but only to a point.  Case in point is that there is a D800 and it does have an ecosystem of lenses and support but canon folks are using the A7 because it has essentially the same sensor but no lens selling has to go down.  I have no issues with using dual systems, and if I had more income I would probably have dual systems but it is a huge investment. 

Either way - a good point to really take note of is the big Q - how many canon folks are buying A7's for the DR/MP points vs how many truly want a mirrorless camera? 


40
I don't get one part of this.  Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???).  Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off - and if it does who knows what form it will take.  Pro grade equipment or mass market equipment.  so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them.  Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...

A few points, if I may.

Quote
Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???).

The "Metabones" adapter is (a) a stop-gap solution for Sony whilst they build a full stable of lenses, thus (b) enabling Canon/Nikon users to spread out the cost of the transition to Sony over a period of time. Nice of them, huh?

Quote
Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off ...

Mirrorless is already soaring with the eagles. Please accept it.

Quote
so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them.

Actually, Olympus did most of the market research and it is now all done. Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and FUJIFILM are now applying the results of that research and reaping the benefits. By the time Canon (and Nikon and Pentax) finally get going, all those people who are willing to embrace new technology (in the form of mirrorless) will be already using other systems than theirs. Now, you might argue the adapted lens stance, but remember that a company like Canon does not make the bulk of its "photographic" profit from the sale of 600mm lenses ... they make it from the sales of xxxD/Rebel with a single kit lens jobbies.

Quote
Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...

Nope (see above), but to reiterate: neuroanatomist made the argument regarding the majority and the minority. Well, does the majority of Canon users own a 600mm lens - or even any L-lens, for that matter? Nope, these people (who own grand lenses) form the minority and thus a niche market. And since the majority on this forum feel that niche markets are negligible, it means that the minority of people who actually do own a Sony with Canon glass and thus still contributing to Canon's revenue can effectively be disregarded. This then leaves the majority purchasing xxxD/Rebel cameras with a single kit lens ... how long will this last? A whole heap of 'em have already found that their iPhone is just as good and a whole lot more convenient than an oversized Canon DSLR camera. The P&S market already croaked because of it ... and I tell you as a fact that crippled "entry-level" DSLR's are next in line.

The future lies in (a) mirrorless and (b) high-MP mirrorless ... and the future is NOW.

Mind you, IMO, I see mirrorless differently than you.  I see a major issue with mirrorless being the form factor - IE everything smaller and lighter.  While that may appeal to some that doesn't apply to all of the market.  Did sony put out a decent FF mirrorless?  Yeah, they did but it's not without issues.  What I absolutely love about the adapter right now is that it does prove a point that many would use mirrorless if it were in the same form factor as the current ecosystem.  I'd rather wait until mirrorless jumps a few more steps, until it matures.  think of it like this, there is a lot of real estate inside a 5d series body - Plenty of room to have it's native mount be EF (so all the L lenses we currently have work still, it's just another body upgrade then...).  Little things like - without a Mirror to "slow things down," I want things like higher flash sync speeds--- little things like that!

Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?

41
Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles.

Let me try this again from MY understanding of basic economic principles. In order to succeed, most companies need at least two types of products, i.e. foundation products and mass products. The former (foundation products) are what you build your company reputation on and are also the products that support your company through any lean years, recessions and failures to predict the swing of the market. The latter (mass products) are the hugely popular products you sell to the masses at huge profits, i.e. the cash cows, and which support the growth and development of your company.

For Canon, IMO, the 1D-series and the 5D-series are foundation products, whereas the 6D and the "xxxD"-series with their kit lenses are the mass products.

Mass products come and go, but foundation products stay for the count. It is therefore vital for any company to always maintain this distinction within the company itself. Placing reliance on the revenue from the mass products for the financing of essential corporate functions is always a one-way ticket to insolvency.

But, due to the fickleness of the mass market consumers, a company must always be ready with the next big mass market "thing". IMO, in cameras, this is mirrorless.

Problem for Canon, IMO, is that not only do they not have any decent mirrorless cameras or a "high-MP" (portrait/architecture/landscape) camera waiting in the wings, they are also allowing their competitors to actually steal the early adopters of this "new trend" away from them. You snooze, you lose.

(I could go on, but I've probably lost everyone's attention by now.)

There are certainly less charitable assessments that could be made – perhaps some people just enjoy being trolls and don't really believe what they write.

Or it could be research into the thought-patterns of the influential persons within the market. For example, what I've determined through my incessant ramblings/trolling/flaming is that (a) sales figures sell products, (b) a product sells simply because it is the best of what is offered and not because it is actually any good, and (c) extremes sell best.

Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.

Two things then ... obviously the "regional managers" of those brands have a better understanding of the importance of placing products on shelves; and perhaps we here in Africa could be a significant untapped market for those brands ... if they only tried.

I don't get one part of this.  Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???).  Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off - and if it does who knows what form it will take.  Pro grade equipment or mass market equipment.  so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them.  Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...

42
the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

     

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Waiting for the next best thing in the electronics industry is a losing game.

Buy what you need/want/can afford when you need/want/can afford it, and don't worry if x months down the road there is a better version, because that's a near guarantee.

never said we should be "waiting for the next best thing."  This is why I actually like Canon's mindset with gear refreshing.  Put it on a reasonable time table so that by the time the next thing comes around, it fits in nicely with most of our own purchasing cycles.  the 5d3 came out and now it's used and we as users aren't worrying about Canon throwing us for a loop with a 5d3a or something silly like that (like ---if canon said, fixed the DR issue, here's a new 5d3 with more fps greater dynamic range and no banding at base ISO). 

Releasing new gear on a more paced out schedule allows us to do what you said, because we know what we have and we know the replacement will be in 3-4 years - not 2, or even 1.  Like i said, I would be rather frustrated with nikon right now if I were on that side of the fence.  First, wow, have to choose between 2 d800's, then came the flop that was the d4, followed by the d4s (great camera unless you shelled out a ton of $$$$ on the d4

I guess I just put a little responsibility on the consumer. If the D800 offers what you need, get it. If it doesn't, don't get it, or return it. Same goes for the D4. Nikon isn't withdrawing money from your account and then mailing you a camera. Did they make some blunders? Sure.

Can most people afford to refresh bodies every two years? No. So don't get the S. If Nikon waited another year to release the S, would it change anything? Not for previous D800/E owners. On the other hand, if they recognize flaws in their products, and refrain from releasing a ready-to-go replacement, that absolutely screws anyone who will purchase the old version between the time the replacement is ready and the time it is released. Remember, not everyone buys things immediately at market entry.

Anyway, this is silly and tangential, so I'll bow out.

LOL...mind you I did say "if" I was a nikon user i'd be pissed.  i am not so I can just say thank god the 5d3 6d combo suits my needs.

With that said though - the d800 was supposed to be the follow up to the d700 - the d600 was meant to be an entry level FF option.  But, and who knows on this one - nikon either had to use the 36 mp sensor because sony said you have to, or, nikon had such a case of MP envy that they went over the top on it.  Nikon had a large user base of d700 users that were waiting for a mk2 of that body - that user base was a lot of wedding togs who just said screw it and kept their d700's, bought d3s's or bought then sold d800's.  The d600 is a gimped d800, much like the 6d is a gimped 5d3 - the d600 is not the d700 successor.  So again, if I were a nikon wedding shooter, yeah I'd be a little pissed off ----luckily I am not!

43
the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

     

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Waiting for the next best thing in the electronics industry is a losing game.

Buy what you need/want/can afford when you need/want/can afford it, and don't worry if x months down the road there is a better version, because that's a near guarantee.

never said we should be "waiting for the next best thing."  This is why I actually like Canon's mindset with gear refreshing.  Put it on a reasonable time table so that by the time the next thing comes around, it fits in nicely with most of our own purchasing cycles.  the 5d3 came out and now it's used and we as users aren't worrying about Canon throwing us for a loop with a 5d3a or something silly like that (like ---if canon said, fixed the DR issue, here's a new 5d3 with more fps greater dynamic range and no banding at base ISO). 

Releasing new gear on a more paced out schedule allows us to do what you said, because we know what we have and we know the replacement will be in 3-4 years - not 2, or even 1.  Like i said, I would be rather frustrated with nikon right now if I were on that side of the fence.  First, wow, have to choose between 2 d800's, then came the flop that was the d4, followed by the d4s (great camera unless you shelled out a ton of $$$$ on the d4

44
the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

     

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Ok, what of the huge amount of D700 users who wanted a D3 lite replacement?
The D700 was Nikons best performing DSLR in terms of sales by a long long way and far out sold the replacement D800. There was literally half the wedding market selling all their Canon kit and going with Nikon because of that particular camera. When the D800 was released, their only option was to buy a mint S/H D700 or pay nearly double ($4K) for the D4. These buyers genereally need two DSLR bodies...that's $8K!!! There were a lot of really irratated pros and semi pros who no longer had a viable replacement path...they were effectively abandoned by Nikon. The D800 was a fine camera but certainly not a D700 mkII.

Meanwhile back in Canon land, the 5DIII was released keeping all their existing user base happy with a clear and logical replacement plan. Which left a lot of Nikon users pretty green with envy and angry / frustrated with their brand choice. Some even migrated back again. Most pros / semi pros have a three year cycle of camera buying. After which the DSLR is in a pretty shabby state (most nikons have all the rubber falling off by then) and need to be replaced on the reliability factor alone. One of my 5DIII's is up for renewal early next year. If I bought a 1DX, i'd move that camera to a 5 year cycle instead of three.

+100 --- that's what I was talking about!!!!

45
the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

     

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 61