All is Quiet, but the Good Stuff is Coming

[Mikehit]

Every time you talk about Canon crippling cameras you get this sort of "all or nothing" stupid answer. Of course Canon won't, and can't put every feature into every camera at every price point.

But they sure go out of their ways to completely artificially segment or cripple their cameras in ways that make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever, such as the M5 example that I gave above.

So what do you mean by 'cripple'.
What do you mean by 'artificially segment'.
These seem to be buzz words bandied around by people who want high performance products at low end prices.
In the early days Canon produced cameras that were almost identical to cameras at the next 2 levels and deliberately programmed them so those functions were not available. That is what I would call 'crippling'.
But people also use the term to mean 'Canon did not put it in and they could have done at minimal cost without raising the price'.

Every manufacturer of technology (microwaves, cars, cameras, TVs etc) creates product lines at different price levels. The price differentiation is very little about what it costs to put technology in there but is the value perceived by the buyer.

So no, my answer was not a 'stupid' all or nothing response. I typed it because it was as facile as complaints about 'crippling'.

As for 'no rational sense' - do you really believe a company like Canon has been #1 in the world for so many years by making random decisions? Jeez! Just because you do not understand or agree with their reasons does not mean there is not a reason behind it.

 

[ricky_005]

Every time you talk about Canon crippling cameras you get this sort of "all or nothing" stupid answer. Of course Canon won't, and can't put every feature into every camera at every price point.

But they sure go out of their ways to completely artificially segment or cripple their cameras in ways that make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever, such as the M5 example that I gave above.

So what do you mean by 'cripple'.
What do you mean by 'artificially segment'.
These seem to be buzz words bandied around by people who want high performance products at low end prices.
In the early days Canon produced cameras that were almost identical to cameras at the next 2 levels and deliberately programmed them so those functions were not available. That is what I would call 'crippling'.
But people also use the term to mean 'Canon did not put it in and they could have done at minimal cost without raising the price'.

Every manufacturer of technology (microwaves, cars, cameras, TVs etc) creates product lines at different price levels. The price differentiation is very little about what it costs to put technology in there but is the value perceived by the buyer.

So no, my answer was not a 'stupid' all or nothing response. I typed it because it was as facile as complaints about 'crippling'.

As for 'no rational sense' - do you really believe a company like Canon has been #1 in the world for so many years by making random decisions? Jeez! Just because you do not understand or agree with their reasons does not mean there is not a reason behind it.

All you Canon Fan boys need to grow a set ...... You should be thanking Sony for creating some competition in the camera arena. Canon has been feeding you fan boys dog food and they will contiuie as longs as they have fan boys .....sure they are still on top overall but they will be loosing market share over the coming years ..... and there crooked so called leadership will be the new idiots on the block for just setting there watching there market share be taken away ......

If Canon continues there same old school screw you over games they will turn into a use to be.....

 

[Mikehit]

Every time you talk about Canon crippling cameras you get this sort of "all or nothing" stupid answer. Of course Canon won't, and can't put every feature into every camera at every price point.

But they sure go out of their ways to completely artificially segment or cripple their cameras in ways that make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever, such as the M5 example that I gave above.

So what do you mean by 'cripple'.
What do you mean by 'artificially segment'.
These seem to be buzz words bandied around by people who want high performance products at low end prices.
In the early days Canon produced cameras that were almost identical to cameras at the next 2 levels and deliberately programmed them so those functions were not available. That is what I would call 'crippling'.
But people also use the term to mean 'Canon did not put it in and they could have done at minimal cost without raising the price'.

Every manufacturer of technology (microwaves, cars, cameras, TVs etc) creates product lines at different price levels. The price differentiation is very little about what it costs to put technology in there but is the value perceived by the buyer.

So no, my answer was not a 'stupid' all or nothing response. I typed it because it was as facile as complaints about 'crippling'.

As for 'no rational sense' - do you really believe a company like Canon has been #1 in the world for so many years by making random decisions? Jeez! Just because you do not understand or agree with their reasons does not mean there is not a reason behind it.

All you Canon Fan boys need to grow a set ...... You should be thanking Sony for creating some competition in the camera arena. Canon has been feeding you fan boys dog food and they will contiuie as longs as they have fan boys .....sure they are still on top overall but they will be loosing market share over the coming years ..... and there crooked so called leadership will be the new idiots on the block for just setting there watching there market share be taken away ......

If Canon continues there same old school screw you over games they will turn into a use to be.....

Wow! anyone who shows any understanding of product design and marketing is a Canon fanboy....for the record I own Canon DSLR s as well as Olympus and Panasonic mirrorless.

I see you prefer tho throw insults rather thane explain in a rational fashion what you mean by 'crippled' and 'artificially segment'. As for Canon leadership being 'crooked'....

If Sony are so great why are they making cameras whose stills capacity are below those of Canon? Why do Sony make the A7rII and the A9 if not for 'artificial' market segmentation? They produce a camera that can shoot 20 fps but....at 12-bit not 14-bit...if you use lenses with the correct Sony native lens mount....All they need to do to keep you happy is throw video in there and 'presto!' they have you eating out of the palm of their hand.
Good luck!

 

[dak723]

All you Canon Fan boys need to grow a set ...... You should be thanking Sony for creating some competition in the camera arena. Canon has been feeding you fan boys dog food and they will contiuie as longs as they have fan boys .....sure they are still on top overall but they will be loosing market share over the coming years ..... and there crooked so called leadership will be the new idiots on the block for just setting there watching there market share be taken away ......

If Canon continues there same old school screw you over games they will turn into a use to be.....

Yes, I really want to thank Sony for giving us the A7 series! A camera that is fundamentally flawed due to a too-short flange distance that gives you very poor IQ away from the center, and the worst lenses I have ever owned. So, yes, thank you Sony for allowing me to realize how good my Canon 6D and Olympus E-M1 really are! Thank you, thank you!

 

[Rockskipper]

Everyone talks about the 'cannibalising effect' without really thinking about the business implications of this.

There are people who will buy a 6D and a 7dM2 instead of a 5DM4 because they want a backup body and prefer to carry around cameras that are more tailored to their single needs (as in landscapes and BIF, no need to change lenses) and not have to worry about having their only camera stolen or broken. I know several enthusiasts who think this way, and a few have added the M5/6 to their bag also instead of buying the 5DM4. So Canon may come out ahead on profit w/o selling a single 5DM4.

 

[peterzuehlke]

well, I hope good stuff is coming, and Canon doesn't break both its legs. I am afraid they will cripple the 6DII. probably still get one. Don't carry around one series anymore. Love my 6D but I think that they made the auto-focus really as bad as the 5DII, even though there was quite a bit of time interval there, to clear out any NOS 5Dii cameras. For a long time new 6D cameras were cheaper than used 5Dii cameras. And Sonys, for what you can shoot with their few reasonably priced native lenses work pretty well. (performance in small quiet rooms, for instance) Definately shooting two systems now, not including the occasional crazy 4x5 work.

and a side note, waiting for that 85mm IS too, but a friend of mine picked up the Sigma Art 85 (a friend who has 3 times the number of red stripe lenses that I do) on the weekend and the images look spectacular.

 

[rrcphoto]

And, anyway, it's completely obvious that Canon's crippling isn't a question of business rational

you really don't know that.

you see it as one camera at a time. canon sees it as the m5 is coming out, the M5 Mark II is already through it's design phase and into prototype, and the Mark III is entering into specifications soon.

They may very well hold back a feature not to "protect" a current camera, but to leave them room on the next version for an upgraded model - especially on camera models that have a 1-2 year life span. that doesn't give them much time in between camera models to get done the actual real work. Not only that but canon has to plan that out what the M10 II, III will have, what the M6 II and III will have and how they all will fit in with each other.

*that* is a *very* common business decision.

 

[Mikehit]

I am afraid they will cripple the 6DII.

Please define 'cripple'

 

[K]

It's very difficult to reason with Canon apologists or fan-boys.

It is very simple...you must ask simple questions.

What should a consumer expect from a $2,000 body?

To determine that, one should review the various offerings across the industry at that price point.

The best specs in this price range is currently Nikon with the D750. Thus, it is very fair to say that whatever specs it has, Canon should be able to implement 2 years later...

Yet, here we are - a month before announcement, hoping that Canon sells us a $2,000 body that we know with a lot of certainty will not have specs to match a 2 year old Nikon for $1,500.


But for some strange reason, people defend Canon for offering substantially less. All kinds of excuses are made such as "Canon makes a bajillion dollars, they don't have to" hmm whose side you on? Your own as a consumer or Canon's? "Canon users don't want those features" ..oh yeah sure I bet. I'm sure everyone would riot and throw their 6D cameras back at Canon if it had a 51 pt AF system... "If you want those features, get a 5D series" umm...the whole discussion is about the $2K price point, thanks for conceding that Canon is a lower value in bodies.

It goes on and on.

Why all the defensiveness? Easy answer. People are trapped in the Canon system. Trapped might be wrong word, they are "invested" in lots of glass. Same is true of Nikon users. Because of this, they just accept whatever the manufacturer offers and because these consumers lack MOBILITY in terms of being able to switch systems, they are captive consumers of sorts.

Thus, you have two companies - Canon and Nikon, with mostly captive consumers. The logical question then becomes - why does Nikon offer more in their bodies to their users? And Canon, against all market trends and specs and standards - offers up CRIPPLED $2,000 body?

Hard to say. Apologists again will use the "Canon makes a bazillion dollars" argument to establish what is right. Maybe the glass-half-empty version of that is that Canon users are suckers? Maybe. Have to be fair here.

I think the answer is that Nikon builds their bodies outside of Japan and can save money doing so and passes that savings to you (except the glass, which pro glass is made in Japan). Canon builds them in Japan, but they also have a philosophy of trying to force up-selling. As even with Japanese manufacturing costs, some of their decisions do not make any kind of economy-of-scale sense in favor of omitting features. It is intentional crippling. Just admit it.

To be fair, Nikon users have their gripes too. They are very happy with their bodies, but they do know that Canon has better glass on average in the professional realm and often for less money. See the price of the new 70-200 2.8? It's nearly $1,000 more than the Canon, and it was just released to finally match what Canon has had out since 2010. But to compare to introduction price, it's $400ish more - ouch!

Which is better to have updates on? Glass or bodies? Most keep screaming glass, glass, glass. I would argue the opposite.

The fact is, Nikon pro glass is fantastic and offers more resolution than you can practically use for anything short of massive, gallery wall sized prints of landscapes. And even then, it's still OK. In other words, there's nothing about Nikon glass that hinders anyone.

Can the same be said of Canon bodies? Yes. But in the world of bodies, technical advancements lead to direct and significant improvements in IQ.

One generation better glass does not lead to as big of an improvement in IQ as a generational leap in bodies. Can anyone argue that the 5D4 blows the 5D3 away in IQ? I'm not talking about a well lit studio shot. Anyone who has owned that generation of Canon knows shadow lifting was atrocious in the 5D3. It was pretty much garbage. Even a minor lift avoiding serious noise issues still led to extremely dull tones. Can anyone argue that the AF system from the 5D2 to the 5D3 wasn't revolutionary? I don't think they can.

These specs and advancements absolutely do lead to a better ability to capture critical moments, nail focus, or improve the image captured. These things far outweight the relatively SMALL advantage in glass that Canon has. Contrary to the internet preaching glass, glass, glass. Yes, glass is more important versus a single body when deciding where to put your cash once brand is decided. But it does not become more important when comparing bodies of different brands both of whom have outstanding glass.


Anyway, once you remove the brand-loyalty and also separate out being trapped in a system and make it a simple question about specs and value - then yes, Canon shamefully cripples some cameras. It really is a middle finger to their buyers. Unfortunately they won't stop - not with hordes of fanboys taking the slap to the face, and then asking for more. Not only do they ask for more, but they defend it like zealots.


I should make a Canon fan-boy quick start manual for online defense:


Undecided consumer: Canon should have ________ specs on the 6D
Fan Boy Response: Get a 5D4 if you want that.

Undecided consumer: But $3,300 is too much for that spec
Fan Boy Response: You want everything for free - you want a 1DX2 for the price of a Rebel. Some nerve.

Undecided consumer: Wow, um no - I didn't say I wanted anything unrealistic like that. Other brands offer this spec at a lower price
Fan Boy Response: Canon is market leader, so their decisions are the best and right - you can't argue with that.

Undecided consumer: Their decisions might be good for themselves and their shareholders, but maybe not for me the consumer...
Fan Boy Response: Nikon is trash. Canon glass rulez. Good luck over there.

Undecided consumer: Ooookaay.
Fan Boy Response: I wish Canon would give us a full-frame Rebel...

 

[K]

I am afraid they will cripple the 6DII.

Please define 'cripple'

6D

 

[Loswr]

It's very difficult to reason with Canon apologists or fan-boys.

It's very difficult to reason with Canon bashers and DRones. People want different things and have different needs, but the simple minded often assume everyone wants the same things they want.

I'm sorry it seems to bother you so much that far more people choose to buy Canon ILCs than the other brands which you seem to prefer. You can try and find a way to deal with it, or you can keep coming here and complaining. Good luck with your decision.

 

[Mikehit]

I am afraid they will cripple the 6DII.

Please define 'cripple'

6D

I'm guessing you don't understand English very well....or do smart alec comments pass for intellectual discussion in your neck of the woods?

 

[K]

I am afraid they will cripple the 6DII.

Please define 'cripple'

6D

I'm guessing you don't understand English very well....or do smart alec comments pass for intellectual discussion in your neck of the woods?

I'm guessing you won't take off the blinders so I have to spell it out.


6D had and has a lousy 11 pt AF system. That was a blatant, middle finger to the consumer crippling of the camera to protect the 5D3. In 2013 when the 6D was released, an 11pt system was already ancient by DSLR standards.

It was basically a 2008 era 5D2 AF system but with -3ev center point. Fan boys make such a big deal out of the -3ev center point that they think it makes up for the fact it has a lousy 11 points total.

Also, the other points are not cross type!!! It has one single cross type point in the middle. In a $2,000 FF body? Seriously? In 2013? That year Nikon had 39pt and 51pt AF in cameras costing the same or less (with dual slots mind you)


So the 6D was a $2000+ FF body with what basically amounts to a single focus point. Excellent! Great for focus and recomposers. Apologists will say "blah blah blah - pro work was done with the 5D2" which is a retarded argument since we can argue that pro work was done with 3MP cameras that couldn't get past ISO 1600...The excuse making is ridiculous to say the least.

Here we are in 2017, and the 6D is still Canon's entry FF camera...sporting what is essentially a 1 decade old AF system.. LOL.

As to the 6D2, even with a 45pt system - it still isn't up to date or on par with the competition. The whole reason Canon pulled that 45pt system out of its dustbin closet was to avoid having to provide the 61pt system of the 1D and 5D. Nikon offers the 51pt system of the D4S on the D810 and D750 and it works great.


Honestly, for the 6D2 to be on par with the industry and to do things right by what is available in technology and for the price, it should have the 61pt system. Nikon does it, why can't Canon. <--real question. Let the excuse making begin.

 

[ahsanford]

Honestly, for the 6D2 to be on par with the industry and to do things right by what is available in technology and for the price, it should have the 61pt system. Nikon does it, why can't Canon. <--real question. Let the excuse making begin.

Yes, the 6D's AF was highly likely nerfed to protect 5D3 sales and (presumably) keep the production cost down to maintain margins for Canon. I don't know how one does not come to that conclusion.

But I do need to correct you: Nikon did not put flagship AF in their D600/D610 rigs -- everyone was so enamored with the D750 that folks forgot that rig was a mid-level FF setup vs. the true entry-level setup of the D610. Nikon put a 'nice but not as good as the best' AF system in the D610. I believe it was 39 points or so vs. the 51 points of D810. But as we all know, point count is not remotely reflective of the performance of the AF system in real use -- I'm confident the D750/D810 setup would comprehensively outfperform the D610 setup once subjects were moving at any speed.

But I think that's besides the point. Canon did it because it could -- it's brand reputation and pent-up demand for a reasonably priced FF rig was such that they gambled folks wouldn't care. And most would argue that gamble paid off -- the 6D sold very well despite a very simple AF setup. That's not Canon apologism at work here, it's just the facts. The brand's overall strength allowed them to get away with a sub-market-level AF feature set.

- A

 

[K]

It's very difficult to reason with Canon apologists or fan-boys.

It's very difficult to reason with Canon bashers and DRones.

Well, the DRones as you call them are low ISO, high DR monkeys that worship DXO. They are trolls and know nothings. I'm a Canon user and prefer Canon, and would like to see a little more value in a FF body.

People want different things and have different needs, but the simple minded often assume everyone wants the same things they want.

At this price point, Canon isn't offering up all that they could or should. Certainly, you can find some caveman who wants 3MP and ISO 800 max with a single AF point. I'm sure you can find several on this forum. That doesn't justify Canon appealing to the modest requirements of a few in order to neuter a camera body. This is more apologetics at work.

I said clearly, even the cavemen - if you gave them a better AF would they reject it in outrage? I don't think so. There's no reason Canon can't offer better AF and dual slot at the price it sells that body for.

So sorry that I'm hitting this forum with a reality check. Really hits a nerve with some users here when it is pointed out with very sound, logical and factual arguments what Canon's faults are.

It's like the DR nonsense. Now that Canon has 13ish stops on their new sensors -- users are enjoying it and talking about it. Amazed by how much they can cleanly recover now. Whohooo! Welcome to 2013. Give a decent AF system to the 6D2, and users will praise it. Deny it, and users will make excuses and justifications for why their old, obsolete system is "good enough" for them. These are all characteristics of brand worship.

 

[Loswr]

I'm a Canon user and prefer Canon

Good Lord, man...why? It's clear that Canon is personally screwing you over by crippling their cameras. They're screwing us all over. What would possess you to ever buy a product from such a company, knowing as you must that every time you buy a product from them, you send a clear, wallet-driven message that they're doing exactly the right thing?

 

[K]

Honestly, for the 6D2 to be on par with the industry and to do things right by what is available in technology and for the price, it should have the 61pt system. Nikon does it, why can't Canon. <--real question. Let the excuse making begin.

But I think that's besides the point. Canon did it because it could -- it's brand reputation and pent-up demand for a reasonably priced FF rig was such that they gambled folks wouldn't care. And most would argue that gamble paid off -- the 6D sold very well despite a very simple AF setup. That's not Canon apologism at work here, it's just the facts. The brand's overall strength allowed them to get away with a sub-market-level AF feature set.

- A

This is a fair analysis. But I think it falls short in that it doesn't address the mechanism at play here is the fact that users of these cameras are for the most part, stuck in a system due to glass purchases. I do agree there is brand strength and support for the system overall. But the biggest factor is being committed to a system.

So why short change your customer base just because you know it isn't easy for them to jump the fence?

I would wager that only a small percentage change systems because of the costs involved. Sure glass holds value better than bodies, but it is always a loss. That is enough to deter the vast majority of users.

And, given that -- the source for the tolerance, the "putting up with it" and "not caring" and other disappointments is not motivation, but rather deterrence because of the financial consequences of switching.

Users DO care. But when up against liquidating a whole system - they don't care THAT much...But this is a separate issue. On body lone, for value alone - they lose bigtime.

Because people are so brand loyal or always have to make excuses for what they spend thousands of dollars on -- they create all kinds of absurd excuses, justifications and apologies ...many of which we see in these threads.

As I've said before, who's f'ing side are these people on? Are they paid by Canon? They think and act like shills. Really bizarre.

 

[ahsanford]

So why short change your customer base just because you know it isn't easy for them to jump the fence?

Because the goal of the business is to make money, and market leaders with entrenched competitive advantages don't have to go hog wild with feature-based value propositions to get that money. Pentax does. Sony does. Nikon does (to some extent). They are all chasing Canon for units, share, etc. and have to offer more at the same price point.

Should Canon (someday) fall to 2nd place, they will need to offer more-per-dollar than the market leader to gain those units back.

As for your other comments, though I'm often pegged as an apologist in this forum, I just see a company playing it's hand well here. But I am also a grownup who doesn't buy a new rig / migrate systems every 18 months because it gains me a stop of base ISO DR or has more AF points. I don't say that as a fist-shake at those who do -- I'm just saying that there's less drama in my head about feature sets / keeping up with the Joneses as many others here.

- A

 

[Loswr]

There's no reason Canon can't offer better AF and dual slot at the price it sells that body for.

So sorry that I'm hitting this forum with a reality check. Really hits a nerve with some users here when it is pointed out with very sound, logical and factual arguments what Canon's faults are.

I rather think you're the one in need of a reality check. There are plenty of reasons for Canon not to add the features you keep insisting they should. The main reason is that it's their choice, not yours. The fact that the 6D sold like f*cking hotcakes inspite of being 'crippled' is pretty good evidence they didn't need to give it the 1-series AF system, a 1/250 s Xsync, dual card slots, a popup flash, an articulating LCD, a coffee maker, a hotshoe-mounted philosopher's stone to transmute lead into gold, or any of the other things you wanted in the camera.

It's not hard to understand, for most people. Canon's goal is not your goal. Canon is not your friend, guy. They're not your buddy, pal. The one shared philosophy is that both you and Canon want more for less. The difference is that Canon holds all the cards here. Well...most of them. You can choose not to give them your business. But you haven't. Heard the phrase, 'put up or shut up'? Well, no need to shut up...Canon couldn't care less.

Reality: Canon is ILC market leader, has been so for >14 years, and sells more ILCs than any other manufacturer, many of whom include more 'features' on their cameras at a given price point.

Fantasy: Canon needs to do ______ because I say so, or else. Or else what? Exactly.

Reality. Check and mate.

 

[K]

I'm a Canon user and prefer Canon

Good Lord, man...why? It's clear that Canon is personally screwing you over by crippling their cameras. They're screwing us all over. What would possess you to ever buy a product from such a company, knowing as you must that every time you buy a product from them, you send a clear, wallet-driven message that they're doing exactly the right thing?

Look, all fanaticism aside, the clear truth is that Canon cripples some cameras. No getting around that. 6D is low value. 6D2 is shaping up to be low-value also.

What is wrong with stating that?


***

You lash out against anyone who says anything against Canon which questions your ability to have a balanced perspective.

I'm much more balanced since I think like a consumer, not a Canon representative. I will state clearly that the 7D2 is a great value and a good camera. Sure, the only gripe is the old-tech sensor in it compare to the competition. But all the rest is excellent. The price is right too. Given it is APS-C, that weaker sensor is less of a factor since all crop is crap. Splitting hairs at that point.

5D4, decent value. Sure, the critics can find cameras that beat it at any spec. But there's no camera that does it ALL and pretty well. Jack of all trades, master of none.

80D is a fantastic enthusiast camera. Tons of features for the money. Priced right.

I've said this before on this forum. So your accusation that I'm a basher is worthless.

6D / 6D2 is crippled crap to try and upsell people to 5D4.