Those who play first, curse later - have you ever tried to set up a 1-series without rtfm...
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.
Oh give me a break! You really can't think that "youtube" comments are representative of anything other than the opinions of the handful of individuals who comment – who, for that matter, could very well be Sony employees for all you know.At least one of the comments did not come from a Sony employee.
No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.Nonsense! Canon's only incentive (like all the others) is maximising shareholder value. Innovation and product improvement are happy side effects of this. Innovation helps when you are trying to attract new customers (which is why there's such a turnover of models at the bottom end of the market.) It may help to secure brand loyalty when customers go from one lens to (say) four. After that, the customer is locked in and you give them the minimum that will prevent them from walking away in disgust.
But the more system unique equipment a photographer owns, especially if expensive, the less likely they will switch to another system....Yay.... at least one other person gets it!
Of course, the camera manufacturers might not like this freedom. Locking in customers is a good business practice. You don't make money by making it easy for your customers to go elsewhere.
Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.
No, it isn't nonsense. If there is only ONE sensor supplier, then you either pay what the supplier wants or you don't get their sensor, then you have no product. It would in reality simply raise prices for the end user.
Contracts end and have to be re-negotiated, companies sell off divisions, the buying companies may and very often do have a very different vision, it’s not nonsense. ‘Ransom’ isn't exactly the best word though.Of course contracts can end and they can be re-negotiated. On the other hand, they can be set up to protect both parties. For example, an option can be sold on a specified product to be delivered at a specified price on a specified date and with a specified performance. You can agree to terms that will be acceptable if either party cannot fulfill their part of the deal. The important part about contracts is you can't break the laws of physics and you can't break the laws of of a country. Everything else can be negotiable.
Competition makes everyone better and can only benefit consumers. There are always better ideas and our money helps move technology forward.I'm not convinced this is either true or applicable. It certainly works when the item or service is fungible but it's complete bs if one source has access to technology that excludes the others from catching up. It's also bs if circumstances prevent the customer from changing supplier.
Trying to turn a negative experience plus the requirement to expend significant additional cash doesn't translate in my mind to a satisfied customer base.
A $ from an unsatisfied customer is worth as much as from a satisfied one. Actually, an unsatisfied customer upsold to newer or more expensive gear is preferable unless....I think there's merit in both perspectives but converting camera upgrades into grudge purchases does not strike me as a sustainable business strategy.
Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision. If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination. The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17. The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17. I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor. I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.I did a direct comparison of the TS-E 17 + 1.4x against the TS-E 24. I set both up at f/8 and focused using a live view and a loupe. My images demonstrated conclusively that the my 17+1.4x combination was equally sharp on axis and at least twice as good in the corners.
I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much. Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).