Yes, and you’re still not getting it despite multiple attempts.You're the second person to try to use this logic on me today.
The current best-selling camera has it. The best-selling camera didn’t for most of the 16 years Canon has dominated the ILC market.Sorry, but your argument tries to draw connections that just aren't there and can't be substantiated.
Their best selling model has the very feature you claim is unimportant. The majority of their models have the feature you claim is unimportant. Yet, you use their sales to suggest that the feature being omitted from new models hasn't impacted sales. That's quite the logical leap you've made there. It's totally flawed and has no absolutely evidence to support it. But, by your own logic and argument their declining sales after removing said feature will prove that removing it was the wrong decision.
I once read that the problem Canon had with moving to new connection types, was that Digic is (was?) fabbed by Texas Instruments and that it was their tech that was was the problem. I'm not sure if they still do the digic, but it seems digic is way behind the times in the last 4-5 years. They no longer have the throughput of their competitors, or the cpu grunt. EXPEED and BionZ seem much more advanced nowadays, a complete turnaround.USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 probably saved them $5 on a $1000 camera. I agree its ridiculous, and probably done so some future model has something to lure users to upgrade. As for transferring files, I haven't connected a camera to a computer in 15 years since most cameras stopped supporting USB mass storage mode ( where the storage operated just like files on an external drive). A card reader is much more convenient these days.
Yes, it's amazing that no matter how many times you post the same wrong information it's still wrong isn't it?Yes, and you’re still not getting it despite multiple attempts.
And markets aren't static. 16 years ago no one had it. You've made quite the concession from claiming that lack of the features hasn't hurt their sales when nearly all the models have had the feature.The current best-selling camera has it. The best-selling camera didn’t for most of the 16 years Canon has dominated the ILC market.
Yes, it's rather intriquing how you just can't convince some people of things that aren't true no matter how you explain them.I’d try again to explain that Canon has always used feature inclusion/exclusion to differentiate models, and that they’ve certainly done so for the last 16 years, and remained dominant. I tried an erudite explanation, and I tried really dumbing it down for you, but you just don’t get it. It’s painfully obvious that simple logic and abstraction are beyond your mental grasp.
I guess you have “1080p24” tattooed across your butt, because clearly you want to keep that one feature on your mind. Literally.And markets aren't static. 16 years ago no one had it. You've made quite the concession from claiming that lack of the features hasn't hurt their sales when nearly all the models have had the feature.
External Flash Compatibility:EL series Speedlites
no EX Speedlites compatibility?
Is there more than the EL100 spedlite currently available?
Another step back in Features? Aren't the current EOS M are all compatible with EX Speedlites?
I tend to agree that this leak is totally fake.
|All||Optional Electronic Viewfinder EVF-DC1, EVF-DC2 External Flash: EX and EL series Speedlites Speedlite Transmitter: ST-E3-RT/ ST-E2|
Its funny, I absolutely don't want full articulating screen, I much refer the various angle and noticed the M6 MkII seems to have a very basic hinge. I also don't care for IBIS.Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life
I agree with you that probably the customer type of M6 aren't concerned by these features, and this is why I mentionned M5 mk II, for some photographers their style didn't request these features, but many others like to take old lens non-IS and convert them in IS, often these lens are more sharper than the IS version. Very useful for video also. This is a standard for Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Nikon, just missing Canon which promise to give us it in near future. For the screen, this is useful for many type of photography (macro in the grass, over the water and hard to reach place, and of course video). M6 is not a popular option for video as the M50 is, and I will not be surprised that M5 mk II will pick up some feature on the new version.Its funny, I absolutely don't want full articulating screen, I much refer the various angle and noticed the M6 MkII seems to have a very basic hinge. I also don't care for IBIS.
And the controller must process more inputs/outputs (9 vs 4) on the cable at 10 times the rate (5Gbps vs 480Mbps) and provide nearly twice as much power (900mA vs 500mA). While USB 2 is a one way communication (send or receive, not both), USB3 supports both simultaneously. It isn't a trivial change to integrate all of this with the other functions on chip or in the firmware while not affecting other high bandwidth functions.or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.
You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.You feel they are failing to provide what your market wants, we are just saying maybe they know what they are doing and your market isn't worth the cost to them and the last 50 years of data has shown them to be good judges.
It would really piss me off, if M5 II would have IBIS and USB 3, whereas M6 not. Those are two different body types and I see no reason for such a feature differentiation ....Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life
It isn't about maximizing sales, it is about maximizing profit. They can add all sorts of features for relatively little cost, but if those features only appeal to a very small segment of the market then adding them will result in the company likely losing profit. The reason is that the extra revenue from additional sales due to the feature may be less than what it costs to implement them, resulting in a net loss as a result of the feature being added.You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.
All we can say is that 50 years of data shows that Canon can keep selling. But it doesn't show that they achieved all the sales they could have done, with a little more effort.
There are costs associated with every feature in the camera, it costs development resources, it will require some specific hardware capability to implement (which adds to manufacturing cost) and it will require a license. The fact that older cameras have 24p is irrelevant, it does not mean that newer models have to have it as well. Old features few people use are prime candidates for the chopping block when it comes time reduce costs for a low margin product. The market segment that buys cameras like this by and large never use 24p. Canon almost certainly knows this and have left it out to save money. Sure, they may lose a few hundred sales as a result, but the cost of implementing the feature is likely more than the profit those sales would generate, hence Canon actually loses money by including it.You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation. The majority of the cameras Canon does sell have p24. It's mostly just the newly released ones that don't. Maybe the lack of p24 in their new models is going to meaningfully impact their sales. When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?
Further, borrowing your game of twisting things out of context as argument support... Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.
As usual, your argument makes no sense. People who really want p24 aren't going to buy it, so they wouldn't be buyers. As such talking about desires of buyers of the model makes no sense in the context of a feature that's missing. It would be more useful to talk about a survey of potential buyers on what caused them to not buy it. I'm sure you don't have that data though, so just more opinionating by you that you try to disguise as a "fact" behind incredibly poorly reasoned arguments.