All is Quiet, but the Good Stuff is Coming

[bdunbar79]

Not a nice way to treat them, ...

Sorry - are you trying to bring some sense of ethics into a marketing decision? If canon are not being 'nice', where are the complaints from the general public?
A car manufacturer produces cars with poor quality engine and complaints are rife on the internet
An airline treats its passengers badly and it hits the headlines

A camera manufacturer does not put 45-point AF in their newest camera, or does a poor imitation of 4K....and who gives a crap apart from someone who likes to think they are getting value for money? Until that changes, until you (and thousand s like you) tell Canon you are changing brands because they are not giving you what you think you deserve, they will keep doing what they have been doing.

Have you ever considered that by staying within the Canon environment, by buying more bodies and more lenses you are as much an apologist as anyone else who buys their stuff. You are telling their marketing guys 'Hey, you did not put 4K and 45-point AF in your next camera but I don't care'. It is telling them that despite their technological shortfalls, the are doing other things that make up for it. Which is precisely my view.

I have no problem with you saying what you would like, but don't complain about Canon's approach and then keep buying their stuff.

He's captive though. It's Canon's fault he bought their stuff. Now he's stuck.

 

[ahsanford]

Have you ever considered that by staying within the Canon environment, by buying more bodies and more lenses you are as much an apologist as anyone else who buys their stuff. You are telling their marketing guys 'Hey, you did not put 4K and 45-point AF in your next camera but I don't care'. It is telling them that despite their technological shortfalls, the are doing other things that make up for it. Which is precisely my view.

I have no problem with you saying what you would like, but don't complain about Canon's approach and then keep buying their stuff.

Good point. The analogy of staying with an abusive partner or continuing to buy products from a company with a bad human rights record are there. You are enabling a power that is not looking out for you, your views or your sensibilities.

Canon does bad things to you. Yet you are still here. Why not take the empowered consumer route and take your dollars elsewhere? You won't lose that much flipping your gear, and then you'll be in a different ecosystem that more directly supports your needs and sensibilities.

I don't say that snarkily, I say it honestly. Why continue to throw money at a company that causes you this grief?

- A

 

[Loswr]

Why continue to throw money at a company that causes you this grief?

A point I raised earlier, which K ignored. His keyboard says no, his wallet says yes. Canon cares a lot more about one of those than the other.

 

[Loswr]

You guys are something else. I'm trying to wrap my mind around your defense of Canon, and agreement with holding back features for their profitability against your own consumer interests.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around why you think we agree with this. I understand why there is war in the Middle East and famine in sub-Saharan Africa. So you somehow think that means I am in favor of people dying in war and starving to death? Get a grip. Where have I said I applaud Canon for not giving the 6D a 95-point AF system or think it's great that they don't put AF point-linked spot metering in the 5DIV? Understanding ≠ agreement. Understanding ≠ support.

You are the one claiming Canon should have added this feature or that feature to the 6D, and claiming they must do so to the 6DII...but, other than 'I wants it precious' you can't come up with bona fide reasons why they should do so. In particular, reasons why they should have done so for the 6D, which was an exceptionally popular camera in spite of your viewpoint that it's 'crippled'.

If you want to argue against a viewpoint or practice, you should at least make the attempt to understand the rationale behind that viewpoint or practice. You seem to prefer arguing your points from a position of ignorance. Good luck with that.

 

[Don Haines]

You guys are something else. I'm trying to wrap my mind around your defense of Canon, and agreement with holding back features for their profitability against your own consumer interests.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around why you think we agree with this. I understand why there is war in the Middle East and famine in sub-Saharan Africa. So you somehow think that means I am in favor of people dying in war and starving to death? Get a grip. Where have I said I applaud Canon for not giving the 6D a 95-point AF system or think it's great that they don't put AF point-linked spot metering in the 5DIV? Understanding ≠ agreement. Understanding ≠ support.

You are the one claiming Canon should have added this feature or that feature to the 6D, and claiming they must do so to the 6DII...but, other than 'I wants it precious' you can't come up with bona fide reasons why they should do so. In particular, reasons why they should have done so for the 6D, which was an exceptionally popular camera in spite of your viewpoint that it's 'crippled'.

If you want to argue against a viewpoint or practice, you should at least make the attempt to understand the rationale behind that viewpoint or practice. You seem to prefer arguing your points from a position of ignorance. Good luck with that.

Give up Neuro.... he does not get it....

It is not about crippling lower cameras, it's about adding to higher cameras to entice them upwards.......

It's like Mazda putting a better engine and trim in a 6 to lure them upwards from a 3.......

It's like Microsoft putting more memory and disk into a "better" tablet to lure the customers up.....

It's like the guy down the street putting a better finish and materials into his expensive canoe to lure people up from the intro model.....

The more you pay, the better features you get. Period! Game over! End of discussion!

 

[K]

A D7200 owner does NOT give up their AF performance to go to a D750.

Why does an 70D or 7D owner give it up to go to a 6D ? (keeping generations equal here)

 

[Don Haines]

A D7200 owner does NOT give up their AF performance to go to a D750.

Why does an 70D or 7D owner give it up to go to a 6D ? (keeping generations equal here)

Because they value the image quality of FF more than they value the better AF system of the 70D, or the superior ergonomics and ruggedness of the 7D...... but remember, they now have both, and Canon sold two cameras and is even happier.

 

[bdunbar79]

A D7200 owner does NOT give up their AF performance to go to a D750.

Why does an 70D or 7D owner give it up to go to a 6D ? (keeping generations equal here)

You really don't know why? How about you think about money and business? It costs more money to put the same AF system as in the D7200 in the D750 and likewise for 70D/7D to the 6D. Nikon was willing to take that margin hit by doing so in the D750 whereas Canon was not willing to do so in the 6D. Does that answer your question/pondering?

 

[ahsanford]

A D7200 owner does NOT give up their AF performance to go to a D750.

Why does an 70D or 7D owner give it up to go to a 6D ? (keeping generations equal here)

Nikon has a generalists' pyramid-like approach to broadly getting a little more in every area when you move up the ladder. Good-better-best is the approach.

Canon (rather famously) doesn't do this. They tend to have a 'type of shooter' based model to their portfolio.

The 70D line was aimed at hybrid shooters who frequently pivot from stills to video: hockey dads and soccer moms, vloggers and gadgety-gearheads.

The 6D was squarely aimed to deliver higher quality output with less creature comforts -- think landscapers, dedicated portraiture folks, university art students, etc.

Those are wildly different use-cases, and they have different needs. It stands to reason they'd pack different stuff on board.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Nikon and Sony know that it's not easy being green from the envy of losing market share to Canon.

 

[K]

It is not about crippling lower cameras, it's about adding to higher cameras to entice them upwards.......

Glass half full, half empty?

You can say it that way. I'm comparing across brands.

Someone else mentioned that the 6D is an upgrade from a crop and this is the attraction. Really? 19pt AF down to 11pt - this is an upgrade worthy of a FF rig?

It's like Microsoft putting more memory and disk into a "better" tablet to lure the customers up.....

Actually, the very best example of how Canon and parts of the camera industry go against normal market behaviors (thanks to the protectionist factor of being committed to a system) is the tech industry. The very best, bleeding edge technology is always released as soon as possible and for the best price possible vs the competition. The SECOND someone holds back, they are in serious trouble. Specs, speeds and prices are extremely competitive. No one makes money hold back speed or specs on graphics cards, CPU's, etcetera.

This is why innovation in DSLR's is pathetic to say the least and awful in cameras in general. These brands have their clientele and don't worry much.

The more you pay, the better features you get. Period! Game over! End of discussion!

More I pay hmmm...

Canon 6D $1400

11 PT AF from 2008.
4.5 FPS
1 Card Slot

D750 $1,500

51pt AF
6 FPS
2 Slots
Tilt Screen

You're so right. $100 more, gets you better features! Even at release price, the difference between the two was small, but the feature set difference is not small. What is really sad is the 6D2 is about to be released with specs that I don't believe will even match the D750 from 2014, and yet will be $2000+.


Someone tell Canon right now, to UP the price of their 6D2 by $100, and give it D750 specs or better (it is 2017 afterall).

I'll pay the extra.


Thanks Don, you've helped us determine the truth in all this. $100 is what is holding us all Canon consumers back. Because we want to spend $2,000 instead of $2,100, Canon is forced to nerf the camera out of necessity.


It's all our fault.


LOL.

 

[K]

Talk about moving the goal posts.

What is the 6D?

An entry level FF?
An camera for a specific shooter?
An enticing upgrade for crop users?

Its amazing the extent to which people will go to defend the indefensible. 11pt AF from 2008. Digest that.

I guess when you starve someone nearly to death for long enough, then offer them dirt to eat - they'll like the taste. That's Canon's business model. Here's your 45 pt AF recycled from years ago...

Heck, the 45pt is still a rumor. There's still a possibility Canon does something extra insulting and gives us 19pt.

 

[Loswr]

What is the 6D?

An entry level FF?
An camera for a specific shooter?
An enticing upgrade for crop users?

Its amazing the extent to which people will go to defend the indefensible. 11pt AF from 2008. Digest that.

It is a top-selling full frame camera. Digest that.

In fact, right now it's the top-selling FF camera on Amazon. That probably gives you indigestion.

 

[K]

A D7200 owner does NOT give up their AF performance to go to a D750.

Why does an 70D or 7D owner give it up to go to a 6D ? (keeping generations equal here)

Nikon has a generalists' pyramid-like approach to broadly getting a little more in every area when you move up the ladder. Good-better-best is the approach.

Canon (rather famously) doesn't do this. They tend to have a 'type of shooter' based model to their portfolio.

The 70D line was aimed at hybrid shooters who frequently pivot from stills to video: hockey dads and soccer moms, vloggers and gadgety-gearheads.

The 6D was squarely aimed to deliver higher quality output with less creature comforts -- think landscapers, dedicated portraiture folks, university art students, etc.

Those are wildly different use-cases, and they have different needs. It stands to reason they'd pack different stuff on board.

- A

This is a very fair, reasoned response and I can agree with it to an extent. It also doesn't reek of fanboyism.

I subscribe to the PRICE & PERFORMANCE measure. All other industries compare in price ranges. No one makes the argument that a Hyundai is better than a Lexus or equal just because it is "different" and aimed for a "specific driver" ...it might be better on the wallet yes, but aha - there's the KEY. Canon isn't priced in a budget fashion. They charging as much as Nikon and giving less.

At the $2000 - $2300 range at release date - Canon for FF is way, way lower value than Nikon. For $3,300 range semi-pro bodies, they are both equal value. This shows Canon isn't interested in offering much in the entry realm.

A first time buyer not committed to a system would have to be insane or ignorant of the details to go with Canon.

 

[K]

A D7200 owner does NOT give up their AF performance to go to a D750.

Why does an 70D or 7D owner give it up to go to a 6D ? (keeping generations equal here)

Because they value the image quality of FF more than they value the better AF system of the 70D,

True, but why should they have to sacrifice anything for their money? Nikon users don't. They get the D750 which is better in every single way.

or the superior ergonomics and ruggedness of the 7D...... but remember, they now have both, and Canon sold two cameras and is even happier.

That's great for Canon and their shareholders, but now the buyer has to sacrifice image quality when shooting action, or can have image quality, and miss focus and shots. No having the cake and eating it. The D750 shooter has cake and eats it for his money spent.

Remember, equal dollars spent.

Oh, and the Nikon owner gets to keep his D7200 also...

 

[K]

**snipped out the Canon fanboyism***

A time old classic, the Amazon best seller list. Does best seller mean better specs?

I'm thinking some cell phones have outsold the 6D....


When this argument comes out on this forum, you know their digging deep.

 

[Loswr]

A first time buyer not committed to a system would have to be insane or ignorant of the details to go with Canon.

A person would have to be insane or ignorant to suggest that a first time buyer not committed to a system would buy a camera without a lens.

6D + 24-105mm variable aperture zoom: $1800
D610 + 24-85mm variable aperture zoom: $2000

6D + 24-105mm f/4: $2000
D750 + 24-120mm f/4: $2150

Now, tell us again which is the better value? Oh yeah, the Nikon because the 6D is crippled. :

 

[Loswr]

A time old classic, the Amazon best seller list. Does best seller mean better specs?

I'm thinking some cell phones have outsold the 6D....

When this argument comes out on this forum, you know their digging deep.

Silly me for bringing data into a discussion. It's really pointless to do so when someone's opinion is crashing around so loudly in their head that they can't hear anything.

 

[Don Haines]

It is not about crippling lower cameras, it's about adding to higher cameras to entice them upwards.......

You can say it that way. I'm comparing across brands.

I was referring to with the same brand... Canon, Nikon, whatever.... pay more and get more features....

As to comparing between brands, that is a lot more difficult and how old the release is has a major effect on what features you get at a particular level... but what I have noticed through the years is that at a given price point, a Nikon body tends to have better specs/more features than a Canon, and that Olympus beats them both. With lenses, it's a different story and the equivalent Canon lens seems better than the equivalent Nikon lens....

That said, when Canon introduces the 6D2, it should be better speced than the D750, and when the replacement for the D750 comes out, I have no doubts that it will be better than the 6D2.... This is the problem with comparing cameras at a snapshot in time..... whoever has the latest release wins the spec battle.

 

[Mikehit]

**snipped out the Canon fanboyism***

A time old classic, the Amazon best seller list. Does best seller mean better specs?

I'm thinking some cell phones have outsold the 6D....


When this argument comes out on this forum, you know their digging deep.

Let's look at it another way.
You are saying people would have to be stupid to buy the 6D over the Nikon.
So tell me why people are buying more 6D than more D750? That is irrefutable. Not a defence of Canon, but a statement of fact. Why does 'the market' prefer 6D to D750? If you want to say 'the D750 is superior' then surely, with Canon having been behind on technology for at least 5 years, then by now Nikoon should have taken a significant market share from Canon. Surely it would be a case of 'if the D750 is superior, more people will buy the D750 than buy the 6D'. But they don't. You can't explain it so instead you claim that:


"...they are buying more 6D than D750 because they are locked into the Canon system"
So tell me why are they buying more Canon at entry level which locks them in later? You claim...


"...they are getting into the Canon system because they don't know 'the full story' when they buy the lower models'
So who is not telling them 'the full story'? What facts are not available to them, when even at entry level Nikon is supposedly superior to Canon.


If someone makes a superior car, even at base level, word will get round and it will become a better selling product. Market forces.
You quoted tech industries. If someone makes a superior computer, or a superior phone, or a superior tablet, word gets round very quickly and it becomes a top seller and that is obvious on Amazon or any other tech magazine that reflects the market.

Yet it seems, according to you, sales are no indication of a superior product. According to you people are being duped from the very moment they walk into a shop to buy their first camera. That the data is not available to enable them to select the best product. That the data is not available to them to see a superior development path in their new hobby.

So tell me - why did you buy into Canon. Because you were clearly duped.