« on: June 09, 2014, 02:53:36 AM »
The PENTAX-M versions are the best. And really don't throw away that 50mm f/1.7 lens ... cheap and brilliant.
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.
If I have to prove to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up.
Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun?
How about a circumstantial evidence? Sony is down in the stocks and Canon turned a profit. Proof enough for you?
Marketing (sic= should be market research) dept doesn't count as the few people. They record what people want, they don't impose their own wants.
Trendsetter based marketing is not a basic marketing theory. Is it what they taught you at school? You should ask for your money back.
This is a very risky technique that will work only under certain conditions: Is the number of trendsetter significantly large? How likely are they to influence the rest of the market? Can the company sustain the slow growth in the beginning until the trend catches? What is the likelihood of competition waiting the initial lag phase and then ramping up just as the log phase is reached.
Yes, that is one possibility. That is why I generalized it to an economically valid reason. However, unlike you I don't have access to Canon's business secrets to state it as a fact.
Don't make such comments that make you look silly just for the sake of arguments. So this is why Sony isn't bringing out FF E-mount lenses? Because very few people need them?
I am guessing you have never used a macro lens, or shoot small birds with a 70-200 f/2.8?
You are stating the obvious, and acting smug for doing so . Of course the different A7 cameras cater to different markets; my point was, bringing out the A7s while the A7/r setup is still lacking the lenses might imply that the stills market isn't as profitable as they hoped, so they are trying to boost the entire line by bringing out the video-centric model.
... but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting.
On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models).
They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.
So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.
Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models.
IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.
Canon's so-so M is something of a failure but has niche uses ...
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?
Given Sony's haphazard approach to long term product development I doubt they'll have a 'full stable' of lenses in our lifetime. But you can continue to dream...
If you are unhappy with Canon's perceived failure to offer (choose any of the following) high megapixel body, mirrorless full frame camera, more dynamic range, shadow detail) I propose the following:
Send me a check or Pay Pal me $2,000 as a deposit, telling me what feature you want improved.
After you and 50,000 of your like-minded friends have sent me these checks, I will forward the money to Canon as a deposit for them to use in developing the camera feature you want. It is no guarantee they will comply, but I suspect the fact that 50,000 people have demonstrated a willingness to place a $2,000 down payment on the camera of their choice, will indeed get Canon's attention.
Basically, you must put your money where your mouth is. This has the added advantage of demonstrating whether or not there is a demand for the features you find so significant.
If, after two years, any account has not reached the threshhold of 50,000 participants, I will refund the money minus a small handling fee.
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...
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 ...
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...
I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.
What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.
oh, gawd, no! I like Fuji more than Canon. But Fuji believes in doing good for the consumer, even if to their detriment at times. It's a noble Japanese custom... Apparently not so much so for Canon... Well, Canon DID eventually release some updated firmware that unlocked hardware features that could have stayed hidden...
Yes, this might be interesting.
QuoteOh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.
I'd like to know why. I have Pentax too. I like it but I tend to fall back to Nikon or Fuji more now.
Nice try, but no cigar. Your argument was that your friend is a "fanboi" locked into the Nikon system due to the financial constraints of switching to the Canon (or another) system. I assumed that he is a professional photographer specialising in portraits and weddings - which you have confirmed. So I wrote what I wrote from that perspective. But if you had instead said that your friend is an enthusiast who scrimped and saved for almost a year in order to buy a D800 camera, then my post would have been quite different and I would have in all probability agreed with you.QuoteNow, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.
The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional.Actually, I follow the definition of the Oxford dictionary, i.e. "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation".
The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems. For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business. Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.I wouldn't know as I haven't seen his work, but do take your word for it. However, even as a "part-time pro" what I wrote stills holds. If that D800 isn't generating the money to pay for itself within a given timeframe, then it's bad business management.
I think you have misunderstood my use of "best product possible". By "product" I did not mean that a photographer must use the (perceived) best cameras and lenses; I meant that a photographer must provide his/her clients with the best possible photographs ("product") that it is possible for said photographer to produce given his/her tools (i.e. cameras, lenses, etc.) and skills.Quoteyour friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possibleHere's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs. I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it). And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level. There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock. Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business. Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market.
And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay. If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment. In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.True and I agree. But would also like to add that if your clients aren't willing to pay for the "quality of a D800", but are satisfied with what a "Rebel plus kit lens" produces, then that's what you use in your business. The objective is to make money, not flaunt your expensive gear.
I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack. I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras.Same here.
The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.Here I must differ. There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of a professional photographer. If someone, as you said, can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack, but still generates 100% of his/her income from photography, then he/she is per definition of the word a professional photographer.
Please try to broaden your perspective.Ditto.
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.
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.
Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.
<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>