August 20, 2014, 12:53:22 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 229
1
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:19:00 PM »
BTW: Does anyone know who invented the hybrid IS that is incorporated in the 100/2.8L IS USM macro? And how many other brands use that in any of their lenses?

atari  ;D

2
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:16:50 PM »
Comparing them to flash-in-the-pan tech companies that were conceived, born, lived and died in a fraction of the time that Canon has been around, is a gross underestimation of the skill that Canon's management has developed over the years.   

I'm not meaning to compare them to such tech companies, this is a different business. I was just using those (which are all safely old history) as arguments that the marketing/managers/etc. DO at times muddle up what the engineers want and hold back big stuff and so on and so forth.

3
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:10:01 PM »
At least, they didn't figure it out until much too late in the game. A significant part of that problem was developing the AmigaOS...there were difficulties in developing that for the RISC platform, which lead to very long development cycles, ultimately resulting in AmigaOS falling far behind Windows on the PC. The other problem with Amiga was the simple fact that it WAS built on RISC processors...Motorola RISC processors specifically. When Motorola left that market, Amiga was left high and dry. The only other real option a the time was PA-RISC, but given the difficulties in developing AmigaOS in the first place, a move to PA-RISC ultimately never occurred. Amiga management missed their window of opportunity, their product was selling extremely well in Europe until the bottom simply fell out, and they never really got a solid foothold in the US. Amiga management did not take the PC competition seriously until it was too late, then they were too inflexible, because of processor architecture, poor product design, etc. to be able to compete with the lightning pace at which the PC evolved from the late 80's/early 90's through the early 2000's.

Well I think that is a bit distorted. The initial most serious problem was way back in the Atari days when Atari had the basic tech for the Amiga. The Atari engineers wanted to move forward with the advanced tech they had under the wings, but Atari management said there was no need. We just wanna make more money and keep milking what we have. The Atari 8bits are selling well, we don't need to spend any money, why bother moving things forward?

But imagine if they had listened to the engineers begging them to move forward ASAP. Suddenly this crazy powerful computer drops on the market and actually has a shot despite the dirty tricks of Apple/MS/IBM, it probably would've simply too much for those companies to obfuscate the truth over. Instead by the time Atari lost the tech and CBM managed to snare it and get it finished and out, the MAC had already landed. Now sure the Amiga was better six ways to Sunday, but with the story that Jobs and Gates had woven to the public about how 'toy' companies like Atari and CBM are nothing to be bothered about and how one should pay more money (for less) to get a 'real' computer if one wanted to be 'real' and 'serious' simply having a machine out there with a fancy GUI interface to an OS and a fast 68000 chip inside and the Apple name on front (and Gates name and a new semi-decently pseudo, a little bit fast Intel chip on the other side) they had enough to play the game and, aided by just generally poor CBM management, keep the Amiga (and later the inferior but still better than the other stuff, Atari ST) hidden under the covers as it were. BYTE magazine made a huge deal about the Amiga in a 1985 issue and that was about the only splash the machine was ever allowed to get in the U.S. The power players squashed it and quieted down the press and the sheep made up a large proportion of the computer store salesforce and it it never caught on to the degree it needed to in the U.S. (although it managed to do fairly well in Europe, at least solely as a home computer, in time).

I'm not sure if you want to really call the 68000 a RISC CPU, although it was a bit more like one than say a modern Intel/AMD found in most machines today.

But then even still the engineers wanted more down with the machines and eventually wanted to move to a new updated custom chipset sooner, but dither, dither, dither and eventually they just got a half-baked intermediate chipset out rather late. Still more impressive than the competition, but the war had so been lost by them, they needed the earth-shattering design and needed it sooner.

By the time they eventually ported AmigaOS to the PowerPC chips after the MC680x0 line ran it's course that was so, so late in the game, most of the battle had long been shot.  It is a bit unfortunate that the Intel chipsets and the interrupt methods and etc. etc. made porting of certain types of advanced OS over to Intel architecture trickier, it could be done, but would take some time and money and they didn't make a start and didn't spend. Although with fantastic management it's not impossible it may have been able to rise. People did get sick of Windows and Apple and Linux rose up to an extent and the AmigaOS had within itself a lot more promise than Linux (so did BeOS, have a lot more promise than Linux as an alternative). But again, so often in tech, the best doesn't become mainstream or make it.

The PC clones and Apple actually evolved at a snails pace. Just remember Amiga already had a full GUI OS with a power shell interface to an advanced pre-emptive multi-tasking OS already back in 1985. It tooks years upon years for Apple and Microsoft to finally manage to put decent multi-tasking into their OSes. And it took years for the clone hardware makers to finally push past the primitive Apple II-like basic hardware conceptions and move to custom graphics bus and autoconfig hardware systems and advanced DMA controllers and get the mish-mash of sound and graphics third party hardware organized in a way that could be reliably controlled almost as if all machines used the same custom hardware chipsets and it took a lot of power for the non to the metal programming through graphics libraries to overcome the huge speed penalties by not writing straight to the hardware (OTOH the freedom of the non to the metal let a few third party graphics guys then explode forth and have the cash and sales to then drive graphics hardware forward at a terrific rate and at some point that proved to be a bit better than the main maker using sole proprietary hardware system to drive things forward and eventually, now we have a bit of the best of both worlds, lots of the fancy system architecture originally imagined by the original atari/amiga kinda guys mixed with advanced custom chipsets but not proprietary and locked into a single set or two (although today we are basically down to Nvidia or AMD so it's almost proprietary in a sense, but they can drive many different levels of chipsets and old and new all at once through the libraries in uniform fashion which is different).

And it also took crazy fast CPUs to overcome the hideous bloated programming used to produce Windows OS. at one point in time it was said that I think just to do a single task switch Apple OS and Windows OS had to run through 4x and 16x times the code just to do the same thing as in AmigaOS, I forget at his point whether it was Apple or Windows that was the 4x vs the 16x). Heck a 16Mhz 68020 based AmigaOS machine had much of the OS feeling at least as snappy as a 130Mhz Intel Windows box circa 1999 (although obviously stuff like decoding a jpg would be much fast on the 130Mhz machine). And we are stuck with the nasty registry system on Windows, the source of much of the horror and nightmare of a Windows box. And the archaic dynamic library system and some other core components of Windows, especially, but even with Apple/Linux.


Quote
However, failing to be competitive because you built a rigid system architecture and did not really recognize your most significant threat until it was too late, is different than purposely gimping your products to "bring your customers back for more in the 'next release' of Product X".

They didn't fail to realize the threat. APple and IBM clones and such were selling better from day 1 and they were a threat from before it ever got released. And they did gimp things. Atari put them off and put them and off and wanted to milk the 8bits and they dribbled out cheap to produce little 8bit updates while sitting on advanced stuff. CBM kept putting off updated the chipsets and carrying out other things and sitting on stuff that should've been done too. And they didn't make a good go at swapping certain architecture elements at the end either.

Quote
The former is just bad management...and that does happen. The latter is just plain idiotic and terribly bad economic and business practice, and is GUARANTEED to ruin your company. It would take the most incompetent of management staff to come up with an idea like that, to purposely withhold features in a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE with the unproven hope that you'll somehow keep your current customers and bring them, as well as new customers, back for more with the next round of releases. In reality, the exact opposite is going to happen...a competitor is going to leverage your idiocy for their own benefit, and steal all your customers away.

And yet it happens. Atari did that to a huge degree. And they did more or less go out of business. CBM did it to some extent. And they are out of business. Nokia sat on tons patents and ideas. Kodak sat on a lot of stuff.
etc. etc.

Canon is sitting on lots of patents (granted some might take a good deal of money to be able to implement even more than some of the stuff mentioned above would have).

And they certainly play all sorts of silly little games with things like AutoISO and MFA and basic video usability features and it is certainly curious why magic lantern can get radically more detailed video out of the 5D3 than the 5D3 is able to produce with the firmware as shipped (although maybe that is simply down to DIGIC being utterly abysmal at processing images to high quality, it's hard to say).


Quote
To be strait up, I DO NOT believe that Canon management is incompetent on that level.

Maybe not to that level and it may take them more expense and risk to implement more stuff than it would have some of the other companies.

But they have even made statements, on video tape and shown on youtube and such, where they have been caught saying stuff like why in the world do we need to bother putting out a high performance FF body, sure we can we are kings, but we are kings so we have no need, Nikon doesn't even have a FF so why do we need to bother, we will sit, we have no need. I mean they obviously could've charged forward back some years ago and just made Nikon look beyond silly, but they played conservative instead (maybe it's just as well though as Nikon might have been barely around by now and maybe with little pressure it would be ages for Canon to ever think about improving DR and such).

Quote
Canon isn't a petty corporation. They are not a corporation utterly driven by the short term (if they were, they wouldn't be one of THE MOST innovative companies in the world.)

the little MFA and AutoISO games and such demonstrate a bit otherwise


Quote
I don't think Canon is another Amiga...Amiga really had terrible management.

Yeah I'm not saying that and the camera business is a bit more locked in and safe so even acting like that it's harder to get hit like that, plus it's tricky for other companies to buy out press and pull snow jobs over the public when it comes to camera performance the way Apple and IBM and Microfsoft were able to do, so it's certainly quite a different scenario. But there are light hints of it.

Quote
However Canon may be too comfortable, they may just be riding the wave of past success...and that could be a problem. (However, that STILL doesn't mean Canon's management is sitting in their corner offices plotting ways they can keep their customers coming back for more by withholding features...that would be SUICIDE for them in the current market environment!)

you can see little hints of the latter though in the dribblings out of certain minor features and talk of well if we do the sensor this time we can hold back on the body performance and if we do the body performance this time we can get away with not spending to go to new fabs yet, etc.    and yeah the $$ calculations are different than in the examples above though

and they certainly could've charged the video farther, faster, they really caught the film (movie) guys by storm and they begged for them to charge forward and dominate, but they played the regular game and

anyway I'm certainly not saying that Canon will be a mere shell in a couple years as happened with Atari

i am saying that I don't think it was the engineers who wanted to put in silly little limits on min auto iso shutter speeds and so on and so forth, it's the other guys who tend to order that kinda stuff to be done and in some cases the other also do tell them to sit on stuff so they can milk the current stuff more (it's all a balance, don't sit long enough leave a bit of money on the table, sit way too long and totally blow it long or even semi-short term)

4
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 19, 2014, 02:14:32 AM »
You seem to have only "heard", I am guessing third hand, about these "things" that "must" occur in companies like Canon.

Wrong. First and second hand as well as third hand.


Quote
Your throwing FAR too broad a net over "marketers" if your definition is that broad.

As I said I did cast a pretty wide net with the term.
And many who are not strictly in some official marketing department make marketing-type decisions all the time.





Quote
There isn't some evil force at a company like Canon snickering in a corner office somewhere, saying: "Meheheheeee. Let's....REMOVE AFMA from the 40D! Yeah! That'll keep em coming back to the 50D!! Yeah! That'll sell us some more cammies!! MEEEHEHEHEHEHEEEE!"

actually there can be and no it is not ludicrous

Quote
That kind of thinking is BAD for business.

it can be in the long run, many are too driven by the short term, or make calculations and decide they can weather this and that and despite negative reactions it won't hurt in the end etc.

companies are far from always perfectly and ideally run, big players become small players, companies disappear




Quote
I don't believe anyone at Canon is purposely forcing engineers to "muck it all up", forcing them to delay features, etc.

Stuff like that has happened at Lucent at times. It happened at Atari and CBM and on and on and on and on. (specifically being careful to mention companies that are no longer around or not in any remote form as they used to be just to keep it safe)
You must be kidding if you think management never tells engineering to sit on stuff and hold off.


Quote
Canon may have certain rules about features that they intend to keep "premium", such as AF-point linked metering. That's a simple business decision, not some evil plot to milk their customers for all they are worth,

it depends upon the specifics and how you see it



5
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:24:38 PM »
What concrete evidence do you have that the Canon marketing department had "them" do anything? That makes no logical sense. I've worked for a number of very large companies, and dealt with marketing people. NOT ONCE has a marketing person EVER told me what to do. The politics in most large companies simply won't allow that kind of thing to happen. Such a demand would have to go through umpteen channels, up then down then up again when the demand steps on someone elses turf and gets kicked back.

Well it depends upon what exactly you mean by the marketing term.
I just mean as opposed to the engineers.
I seriously doubt any engineer would think oh gee I better remove this MFA I just spent this time perfecting from the 40D. Or gee I better make sure to limit the fast min shutter speed in the 5D3 AutoISO Av shutter speed to happen to be just low enough to not really be useful even though it would have taken, if anything a few seconds less time, to have not put the limit in at all.

I seen and heard tale of all too many times where the whole MBA/manager/marketing types just come in and force the engineers to muck it all up. Or keep saying, no not yet, not yet, not yet, gotta milk more, gotta milk more.

And they do come up with all sort of schemes to calculate how they can minimize what they give without quite pushing people over the edge of leaving, which can be very annoying to those trying to push tech forward.

It's a totally different mindset.



Quote
From what I've found and read about MFA in older cameras (40D, 30D), it was something that may have been designed just for service center use. Assuming that's the case, then the functionality was included in the 40D, but not as a consumer function. As someone who has used BackyardEOS, an astrophotography software tool, for about six months now, I can attest to the fact that Canon includes a LOT of functionality in their firmware that is not directly accessible by menu options in the camera. When you dig into the Canon APIs, you learn that a whole range of awesome things are possible using it.

from what I heard it didn't seem to be that sort of thing at all, but basically what they put in the higher level cam and later the 50D


Quote
You can hook into that functionality via the API and do cool things...but then your on your own, as you rightly should be. So sorry, don't buy and never will buy the line that Canon Marketing is the sole reason that certain features of their cameras are disabled. That kind of thinking steps from a mentality steeped in anticoproration crap, and I honestly cannot stand that sort of thing. It's naive. Go work in a large company  like Canon for a year...the politics and turf and dominions wars will make your ears and eyes bleed...

How is it naive, as you just said, it will make your ears and eyes bleed (at least if you are in engineering).

Maybe you are reading too much into my use of marketing, thinking I mean a single person who is preparing some ad campaign or a few reps who go to trade shows. I was casting a very, very wide net with how I was using the term.


6
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:02:28 PM »
In the first case it's a direct quote from a Canon guy at a show in Europe.

I'm not doubting that a Canon employee at a trade show might say something like that. I just doubt that he would have any access to the information to justify such a statement. Canon has never been enthusiastic about AFMA. I think they see it as a way for customers to really screw up their camera settings and create extra work for their service centers. I think they dropped it from the 60D because they viewed it as a consumer product and didn't want the headaches. I suspect they took so much grief for doing that they they decided with the 70D to just bite and bullet and include it.

This seems far more logical to me than some kind of secret conspiracy at Canon to keep their customers buying upgraded cameras. I honestly cannot see Canon purposefully screwing their customers over for an extra buck. Historically, that has the opposite effect...you piss your customers off, and they go elsewhere for their needs.

And yet 40D MFA code got disabled.
Marketing had them cripple the min shutter speed for AutoISO Av on the 5D3 for no sane reason.
etc.


7
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:59:10 PM »
Schrodinger's Camera is coming--it's currently alive and dead--which one it stays, remains to be seen.

Hah! Very nice! :D And, really about as true as it gets. We won't know till we know. Just wish Canon would hurry up and release it already. :P Alive or dead.  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvCvsRp5ho

Yes indeed, we shall only know the truth when it is announced and reviewed.  Hopefully in a few weeks!

And yes, "Wanted, Dead Or Alive" is the PERFECT theme song!  We will either salivate to get it, or turn sadly away, but we want to know WHICH!  We've waited long enough to find out!!!

I'm really waiting on the 5D4 even more, since even if the 7D2 doesn't do too much for the sensor (unless of course it does  ;D ;D and then we are totally golden), the 5D4/1DX2 story might be different. So yeah just bring those last two on for they are Wanted, Dead or Alive!!!!!!!! And then we can finally know whether Canon is in the game again or whether some may finally hit the point to stop whining and just switch (not that the Nikon side is all roses, the lenses are not as exciting for one, but if the 5D4 and 1DX2 drop the ball sensor-wise, maybe it's time Nikon's issues be damned).


8
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:55:51 PM »

I'm not doubting that a Canon employee at a trade show might say something like that. I just doubt that he would have any access to the information to justify such a statement.

Yeah I do agree, it does seem more likely that he wouldn't have that info, although it's not impossible.
But why would he say such a thing since it doesn't help 60D sales in any way that I can see and it would seem he could make up some less damaging sounding excuse easily enough, so on that hand it seems like he got frustrated himself and let something slip? But yeah it is a bit surprising he might know such details, but I think he was slightly higher up, still....


Quote
Canon has never been enthusiastic about AFMA. I think they see it as a way for customers to really screw up their camera settings and create extra work for their service centers.

service centers? just hit reset to zero. at the very worst it is fixed with a single email or phone call. and I have to think there are fair more cameras that get sent in for poor focus (which is very often due to poor calibration) than there are people who are so clueless that they can't figure out what reset all to zero means.


Quote
I think they dropped it from the 60D because they viewed it as a consumer product and didn't want the headaches. I suspect they took so much grief for doing that they they decided with the 70D to just bite and bullet and include it.

Neither of us knows for sure, but I personally doubt that.

Except the statement isn't even true. This forum was filled with rave reviews from actual users (mostly wedding and event photographers) about the incredible improvement in high ISO performance offered by the 5DIII when it came out. I'm not interested in re-opening this old debate, but there are plenty of people who think the 5DIII sensor was a vast improvement over the 5DII.

Well that depends. And the landscape forums tend to have much different view. Anyway yeah I don't want to get into that. (also the high iso stuff they did was took the least effort and least expenditures to improve at all)


Quote
In the last case, the guy is a verified Canon employee (NOT in the camera division though)...

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Canon basically said to their non-imaging employee: "that's nice, we have an entire engineering department to do this work. Please go back to doing what we are paying you to do."

yeah perhaps. apparently one of their guys came up with a scheme that he believed they could use on the current old fabs to improve DR and their group sent it over to get it patented and were apparently met with a quick wave off, they were under the impression that is was some business manager type who waved them off and that it never even got shown to engineering over there (but yeah a lot of ifs and questions in teh story, all I can say is they felt a little put off by it all and some doubts over management at DSLRs grew in their minds, although it's certainly possible that the true, deeper truth wouldn't come across badly and it may be differen tthan it seems)


9
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:47:48 PM »
AFMA is hard to do right. It is not a one-shot deal, it is about shifting a probability distribution onto the center, and that takes lots of readings under controlled conditions.

When you consider how many people get it wrong and how few people even bother with it on high end cameras (and those are supposed to be the "best and brightest") putting it on lower end cameras is a disaster waiting to happen. If I were Canon, I wouldn't put it on lower end cameras and would be working on an automatic AFMA scheme so that the camera could calibrate itself.

It's just not that hard to make it give you at least a bit better result. And there is always the incredibly difficult, almost impossible anyone with less than a 170IQ to handle, option to hit RESET ALL TO ZERO if it goes badly.

10
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:24:30 PM »
I tend to concur.   When it comes to removing AFMA from the 60D, it seems far more likely that it was removed because the 7D was kind of taking over for the xxD line when it comes to a more premium body with a more demanding user.  Still probably not the wisest move, and it's nice to see its return on the 70D, which goes a long way to putting the xxD line back where it belongs--which is why the 7D2 has so much room to move up, way beyond the xxD in general and the 70D in particular. 

Only the 7D was not taking over for the xxD line and MFA is not a feature or a bonus, it is simply something to make something function to spec and basically not be broken.

And it would be a curious thing for a canon guy to say if not true, since for what purpose would he say such a thing otherwise?

11
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:19:02 PM »

One of their reps flat out said they removed MFA from the 60D simply so they could make it a 'new' selling point again for the 70D...

An EOSfun poster...said Canon left the 5D3 sensor old school since the marketing guys wanted to push new boundaries in profit margin per body with the 5 series and felt that adding the new 1 series AF would mean they could get away without really bothering a lot with the sensor.

A Canon guy in Australia said the DSLR division in Japan didn't seem to care a whit when their division sent them some scheme to improve DR and basically told them to get lost.


Sorry, but these all sound like goofy, water-cooler conspiracy theories.

In the first case it's a direct quote from a Canon guy at a show in Europe. I forget, but I believe there is also evidence in 40D firmware code that the feature had been in there but pulled seemingly late in the gaeme (which was extremely annoying since Canon had the 1D3 mirror fix fiasco right at that time so they were too busy to bother calibrating lenses to bodies in any timely matter then, which caught up a lot of 40D users, I ended up having to shoot better part of a sports season and take it on a nat geo trip fairly badly out of calibration, if marketing hadn't pulled the MFA, it wouldn't been zero issue.) And it would be pretty curious thing for a Canon guy to make up and let slip regarding the reason for pulling it from 60D.


In the second, maybe the EOSfun guy was full of it, but he a history of popping up right before an announcement and dropping hints that always turned out to be true.

In the last case, the guy is a verified Canon employee (NOT in the camera division though) and, as I said, maybe something got lost in translation and the way the one group took it was not what the other group really meant (maybe they had something better, realized the idea would not actually work, etc. and then when they said no thanks it came across as too brusk in a lost in translation between cultures kinda thing).

Anyway, yeah the last two are not given, but the first one is. And also the Canon guy in Europe who many years ago kept going on about how Canon was so far ahead of Nikon in FF that they had no need to do anything at all but sit there on top of the hill, that was real, there even used to be video of it online, not sure if it is still up anywhere or not.

12
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:13:37 PM »
Schrodinger's Camera is coming--it's currently alive and dead--which one it stays, remains to be seen.

Hah! Very nice! :D And, really about as true as it gets. We won't know till we know. Just wish Canon would hurry up and release it already. :P Alive or dead.  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvCvsRp5ho

13
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:28:54 PM »
Now it is true that the 5D3 ended up being able to deliver stunningly good 1080p 24fps RAW video and it got some usability features, which made it quite the revolutionary camera in the end. But all of that was 100% solely thanks to a very small and very dedicated group of hackers (OK, granted they (Canon) had to have designed the underlying hardware but if they had it locked up and it never meant for that and if the in cam video is all smeared and it ships with no usability features....).

14
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:05:13 PM »
Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:

Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).

Canon is still thinking that they do not have to produce the best and most innovative products in the low and mid price segments. Sales figures show that the market analysts are right. Canon is still the best power seller on the market. And the analysts know that in future time, the market wil not grow and other brands are coming in. Sony will be very active, maybe an 5DIII and 1DX mirrorless competitor is coming in the near future.
The slow reaction on the D7100 and the still "no reaction" on the excellent D800/810 is well calculated. No need to hurry, Canon products are still sold well. There are not many persons switching to Nikon, because the majority of Canonians will not be able to spend a lot of money on new expensive lenses. The average Canon customer will be satisfied by new Canon products, even if other brands will produce superior products.

And the rumored prices of the 7D successor are just rumors. Some Canon fans in Japan think that there will be an hefty price increase on Canon products on coming products. Analysts say, that customers are willed to pay the increase. The increasing number of tests and scores, where Canon products are often just a few points /percents better than e.g. third party lenses, will prompt the average (and scores fixed) Canon fan to buy this "bettert product".
If you can see that in their pictures? I do not know.

This sounds like a Canon user's worst conspiracy theory nightmare---and I doubt it's true.  Why have such an ironclad NDA if the product isn't pushing boundaries? In addition, if Canon was just planning to "keep pushing inferior product because the cattle will keep buying it," why develop new technologies like DPAF, that have no real equivalent in other companies?  If it was true, the 70D would have had a conventional sensor--probably based on the existing 18MP sensors that have been the buttered bread of the Rebel line for the last 5 years!  Like most myths, this takes a certain element of truth--Canon has milked the same sensor tech with moderate improvements for the Rebel line for 5 years--and extends it past the breaking point.  I don't think the 7D2 will be a conservative design--it's true we don't know for sure what it will be yet, but I think it unlikely it will be a "warmed over" 70D.  And if it is, it will not succeed, especially if it's priced north of $2,000. 

Another salient point, the camera must be a LONG way out from delivery if they haven't already started printing brochures, manuals and boxes!  That material doesn't just spring into being in the many thousands of copies needed overnight!

My (extinct Canadian) two cents worth anyway! 

Note, I'm not trashing you Daniela--I just don't think the source of this rumour is reliable.  ;)

These are all good points too. I was thinking why the super secret, super secret then. Although I was thinking it could mean they are developing stuff, good stuff, but will only use it if they see sales plummeting. A bit of a dangerous game and certainly a very annoying one for their user base at the least.

Who knows. It seems clear that Canon has thought along these lines in the recent past at least though.
One of their reps flat out said they removed MFA from the 60D simply so they could make it a 'new' selling point again for the 70D. I mean come on, what kinda cheap games is that?

An EOSfun poster with close ties to Canon used to sprinkle interesting tidbits and was all gung-ho Canon but even he seems to have disappeared and soured a bit and he said Canon left the 5D3 sensor old school since the marketing guys wanted to push new boundaries in profit margin per body with the 5 series and felt that adding the new 1 series AF would mean they could get away without really bothering a lot with the sensor.

A Canon guy in Australia said the DSLR division in Japan didn't seem to care a whit when their division sent them some scheme to improve DR and basically told them to get lost. (hopefully something was lost in translation between the two divisions, certainly possible)

But maybe crazy good stuff is just around the bend. Maybe by next spring it will all be hear and the calculated waiting was not referring to stlll more years of holding back but just the past few releases and now they are ready? I could very well imagine that.


15
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:57:46 PM »
Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
...
Canon is still thinking that they do not have to produce the best and most innovative products in the low and mid price segments. Sales figures show that the market analysts are right. Canon is still the best power seller on the market. And the analysts know that in future time, the market wil not grow and other brands are coming in. Sony will be very active, maybe an 5DIII and 1DX mirrorless competitor is coming in the near future.
The slow reaction on the D7100 and the still "no reaction" on the excellent D800/810 is well calculated. No need to hurry, Canon products are still sold well. There are not many persons switching to Nikon, because the majority of Canonians will not be able to spend a lot of money on new expensive lenses. The average Canon customer will be satisfied by new Canon products, even if other brands will produce superior products.
...

Well Canon understands the situation that a lot of people are in quite well. And that's how they planned it. Trap people early and you've got them for life. I didn't expect that they'd use that as an excuse to be lazy and fail to deliver.

If Canon are going to be so complacent and consider us to be caged animals that they've already caught then I've got news for them because whilst I haven't seriously considered switching brands before, I am now.

In 12 months time either the Canon DSLR that I own will have substantially better IQ or I won't be using Canon any more.

Seriously Canon, you think you can take us consumers for granted?!

+100

Anyway I was already saying that they were converting to this attitude years ago, before Nikon even came out with their first FF, you should have heard the way their top rep in Europe was talking at that one show. Nothing but giving one the impression other than: hahahaha we are the kings on the mountain, we rule all, we have no need to do anything, hahaha why do you ask such a foolish question about producing a FF camera with any speed or performance ahahaha we are kings, what need, we are infinitely far ahead of Nikon for sensors, they have no FF and won't for a decade ahahaha (the real ahahaha was when Nikon introduced a fast, performance FF less than a year later), we are kings on the mountain. We will sit as is and sell. We have no need, how can you ask such a question. We are kings.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 229