Canon's bad marketing - big mistake

[rlarsen]

If Canon's marketing is so bad why has the release of their newest camera been so extraordinary ? I've never seen anything like it and I've been a pro for 36 years.
It seems that many people are convinced Canon will never introduce any other cameras other than the coming 1-DX.

For people who demand extremely high-megapixel cameras they are available to purchase today.  And if the new Nikon is what your demanding work requires you're in luck ! No need to complain, you can purchase them, or large format cameras.  How have these people survived up until now.

For years I wished the 5D MKll had a faster motordrive, better AF, and a more robust body. Since it didn't have those features, I used other cameras for my work and survived quite well.

For years I've seen huge, wonderful photographs on the walls inside galleries and even bigger ones on walls outside buildings.  What's the problem, really ?

[scottkinfw]

I am not sure I agree with you, I am on the sidelines waiting to decide.  However, I don't think your argument is logical in that you won't upgrade from a 40D because it isn't a D800, and you won't switch to a Nikon.  Shouldn't you base your decision to upgrade on what you will stick with- Canon?  You should compare canon offerings to determine if the camera is limiting your photography, and decide on that?  Just makes more sense to me.

I won't switch to Nikon, and am waiting a bit to pull the trigger on the 5DIII.

I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer, but have been shooting Canon cameras for many many years now.  My current camera is still an EOS 40D, yes.  Didn't want to upgrade to a pro model until I knew a bit more about the beautiful art of photography.  Didn't want to upgrade to 50D, 60D or even 7D, because the difference in final image quality was too small for me.  Been seriously upgrading on lenses though the past few years.  2012 promised to be the year of taking things to a higher level.  I had very high hopes for the 5D Mk 3.

After reading a lot and looking at many pictures I think Canon is making exactly the same mistake as Nikon did a few years ago with the introduction of their D700.  I think that was a far better and far more sophisticated tool than the 5D 2 in allmost every respect.  Except for resolution (and video).  The 5D 2 had allmost twice the resolution of the D700 and that was what people wanted at that moment.  Being the lesser camera than the D700 they still sold truckloads more than Nikon with their D700.

Now we see the same thing happening with the D800 and the 5D 3.  I am absolutely convinced that the 5D 3 for the majority of people will be a far better and more versatile camera than the D800.  Except for resolution (and maybe sharpness).  But, just like a few years ago, that is exactly what people want at this moment.  My guess is that Nikon will be selling truckloads and truckloads more of the D800 than Canon of the 5D 3.  Let's not forget that the whole media landscape currently is about high, higher and highest resolution.

Nikon and Sony, 2 of the biggest multinationals in photography equipment, have picked the card of high resolution.  That alone should say enough.  If you want to sell a lot of your product, than give the people what the people wants.  As the Romans already knew.  That's the most basic rule in marketing.  Canon doesn't seem to be willing to accept that as a fact.  If and when the market dictates the need for high resolution cameras, than it's very foolish and dangerous to neglect that.  The 5D 3 may be as good as it gets, but taking a look at photos from the D800 makes my stomach turn with envy.  Never seen anything like this from a DSLR.  The amount of detail is simply from another planet and makes the 5D 3 look rather pale.

I am convinced of the fact that a good photographer needs to study the composition of his photo before taking it.  But I can assure you that many of these so called very good photographers will be cropping on the D800 photos like never before, applying the rule of thirds, etc. in post processing and presenting stunning photographs.  Of course they will never admit this, but nonetheless Nikon gives them the perfect tool to do this, without being noticed by the majority of people.

I, for myself, will not be turning to Nikon, because I have too much invested in Canon glass and I'm not making any money out of my photography.  So I won't buy the D800.  Guess I will be sticking with my 40D for another while.  I have the money, but I won't buy the 5D 3 either, because next to each other the photos of the 5D 3 aren't worth looking at when compared to those of the D800.  We're not even talking about the price difference here.  I am a faithfull Canon customer, but very disapointed in Canon's marketing strategy.  Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.  But that's only my opinion.

[gmrza]

You analogy works for the computer business as well. I am a Windows user, I use a bunch of software packages that are Windows only. It would be strange if I wanted to convert entirely to OSX. I would have to buy not only new hardware but also new software and actually learn it. Doesn't make sense even if there are a few features that I do not have access to right now.

As for the D800, yes the details are pretty amazing but are for meaningless out of context. If we're talking about huge prints and excessive cropping syndrome, yes, the extra MPs play an important role. But if we'll be honest for a moment, the vast majority of work ends up mostly in digital form on the web. A year from now when there will be plenty of D800s and 5D3s on the market, I challenge you to browse the top images on flickr or 500px and guess which camera was used in each photo. You won't be able to tell.

Most wedding photographers probably have massive prints hanging on the wall at their studio, of shots that were taken with a 1DsII or a 5D classic.  The newer kids on the block probably all have a 20" x 30" print from a 5DII image on the wall.  As you've rightly pointed out: DSLRs have matured, and as Niel v Niekerk points out that if you can't get a decent image off any of the pro /semi-pro cameras that the manufacturers now have on the market, photography is probably not your thing.  - It's not about the camera anymore.

What probably matters more is how you can sell the final products you produce.  - My wife recently had a client land up spending 5 times what he originally planned to, all after looking at the albums and other products she has in her studio.  Never once did he ask what camera she uses.  Right now, she is much more concerned about submitting her portfolio for full membership of the AIPP rather than buying a new camera, because being able to display the AIPP logo on her promotional material is going to get her more clients than a new camera ever will.

[scottkinfw]

That cartoon is so funny.  I am a plastic surgeon, and it is like dealing with some of my patients!

Glad to share to the misery.

sek

Ok, I'm going to apologize for the threadjack, but I'll use the fact that I really don't see this thread as going anywhere useful as an excuse.

...I've never had so many brides ask what camera I use as I've had in the past few weeks. Its crazy!

And, personally, I find it kind of offensive to judge me by my equipment rather than my ability.

This was posted here a while back, seems relevant to your concerns:

Wedding Photography

[pwp]

Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.

It may cost them your money.  They're not getting my money for the 5DIII either, but that's only because 18 MP is plenty for me, so they're getting double the amount of my money for the 1D X.

When you're crunching through huge jobs processing a few hundred image files the last thing you need is unnecessarily massive files, they're slow to open, slower to render global changes in post-pro and chew up admittedly cheap storage at an alarming rate.

I notice the difference in PP workflow speed with 16 mp 1D4 files compared to 21mp 1Ds3 or 5D3 files. 16mp is hugely adequate for everything I shoot for demanding clients. Canon's getting my money for a 1DX too.

Remember being totally gobsmacked by output from the original 12mp 1Ds & 5D classic? Believe me, it's still good. 22 mp is way more than enough for over 99% of pictures taken on the planet every day.

Some technical shooters, some high end art shooters, some architectural shooters & others do genuinely need 36+ mp, and many of these already have MF. For them a D800 will be a tempting, relevant bit of kit.

Paul Wright

[roumin]

I just upgraded to the new 5D3 from a 7D and love it.  I had 50D, 60D, 7D and loved all of them as they took phenomenal quality photos.  I seriously would have been turned off if the 5D3 had a higher MP.  Its already a data nightmare to deal with 22MP RAWs - little alone 36MP.   I still would have bought the 5D3 if it had just 18 MP.  Just look at the success of Nikon 3Ds with 12MP.  If you want a wall sized prints, buy a medium format and SHUT IT!

You never hear high-end professionals whine about who has better camera.  its just a tool dude.  i am certain if you trade cameras with Joe McNally, he would still kick your butt.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Pass the P[opcorn!

[gmrza]

Pass the P[opcorn!

Amen to that!

[kdsand]

I'm sure you know brides are often just a little unreasonable.   
[/quote]

True, but like I said, the majority of them are awesome. Anyway, it beats working for a corporate slave-driver. 
[/quote]

So so true.
Freedom from corporate = priceless.
 

[briansquibb]

I have the interesting situation where I shoot with both the 1D4 and the 1Ds3 so I am getting images at 16mp and 21mp

I have to adopt different techniques for each as my target media size is A3.

With the 1D4 I have to get it as near full frame as possible so I only crop to the 1:1.414 ratio, whereas with the 1Ds3 I have some more lattitude to throw some pixels away.

I wonder if given 36mp I would become sloppier with the composition and framing?

PS Both are great cameras and am still learning to get more from each, although I have greatest affection for the 1Ds3 whereas the 1D4 is clinically the best tool.

[Tcapp]

I'm sure you know brides are often just a little unreasonable.   

True, but like I said, the majority of them are awesome. Anyway, it beats working for a corporate slave-driver. 
[/quote]

So so true.
Freedom from corporate = priceless.
 
[/quote]

Almost worth paying the extra 7-15% self employment income tax!

[MazV-L]

I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer, but have been shooting Canon cameras for many many years now.  My current camera is still an EOS 40D, yes.  Didn't want to upgrade to a pro model until I knew a bit more about the beautiful art of photography.  Didn't want to upgrade to 50D, 60D or even 7D, because the difference in final image quality was too small for me.  Been seriously upgrading on lenses though the past few years.  2012 promised to be the year of taking things to a higher level.  I had very high hopes for the 5D Mk 3.

After reading a lot and looking at many pictures I think Canon is making exactly the same mistake as Nikon did a few years ago with the introduction of their D700.  I think that was a far better and far more sophisticated tool than the 5D 2 in allmost every respect.  Except for resolution (and video).  The 5D 2 had allmost twice the resolution of the D700 and that was what people wanted at that moment.  Being the lesser camera than the D700 they still sold truckloads more than Nikon with their D700.

Now we see the same thing happening with the D800 and the 5D 3.  I am absolutely convinced that the 5D 3 for the majority of people will be a far better and more versatile camera than the D800.  Except for resolution (and maybe sharpness).  But, just like a few years ago, that is exactly what people want at this moment.  My guess is that Nikon will be selling truckloads and truckloads more of the D800 than Canon of the 5D 3.  Let's not forget that the whole media landscape currently is about high, higher and highest resolution.

Nikon and Sony, 2 of the biggest multinationals in photography equipment, have picked the card of high resolution.  That alone should say enough.  If you want to sell a lot of your product, than give the people what the people wants.  As the Romans already knew.  That's the most basic rule in marketing.  Canon doesn't seem to be willing to accept that as a fact.  If and when the market dictates the need for high resolution cameras, than it's very foolish and dangerous to neglect that.  The 5D 3 may be as good as it gets, but taking a look at photos from the D800 makes my stomach turn with envy.  Never seen anything like this from a DSLR.  The amount of detail is simply from another planet and makes the 5D 3 look rather pale.

I am convinced of the fact that a good photographer needs to study the composition of his photo before taking it.  But I can assure you that many of these so called very good photographers will be cropping on the D800 photos like never before, applying the rule of thirds, etc. in post processing and presenting stunning photographs.  Of course they will never admit this, but nonetheless Nikon gives them the perfect tool to do this, without being noticed by the majority of people.

I, for myself, will not be turning to Nikon, because I have too much invested in Canon glass and I'm not making any money out of my photography.  So I won't buy the D800.  Guess I will be sticking with my 40D for another while.  I have the money, but I won't buy the 5D 3 either, because next to each other the photos of the 5D 3 aren't worth looking at when compared to those of the D800.  We're not even talking about the price difference here.  I am a faithfull Canon customer, but very disapointed in Canon's marketing strategy.  Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.  But that's only my opinion.

I saw the 5Dmark iii for real and the real raw files in front of me on the computer screen for the first time today and I was extremely impressed (it belonged to a veteran pro friend and he was using it for product photography) any doubts I had about purchasing it myself vanished when I saw how tack sharp those unprocessed raw files were.
I recommend you stop passing judgement on the camera based purely on what you've read/seen on the internet, instead ask one of your local pros if they mind showing you firsthand what the camera can do!

[rlarsen]

I just finished visiting the very popular Sports Shooter website, and you might be interested to read all the posts from pros complaining and warning about the new Nikon D4 and D800.

[eeek]

I remember years ago when the megapixel craze really started.  I had an XTi and a photographer friend asked me to explain to him why megapixels were important.  They were tons of cameras that had more megapixels and his question was 'why is your camera that has less megapixels better than this point and shoot that has more?'  He told me I would be asked that a lot.  And he's right, over the years, I was.  And every time it was by some one who really didn't understand what it meant.  More has never meant better in the photography industry.  But people still chase that dragon like it's the only thing that matters.  I cannot wrap it around my head why you (and many others) are jumping up and down over this.  After years of following the 5D2, I can honestly say that the majority of people never asked for more megapixels. They asked for better resolution, better autofocus and better low light performance.  What they asked for is what Canon delivered.

[suburbia]

I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer

I stopped reading