ahsanford said:
K said:
Right now, the D750 is a 24mp FF with 6fps, a very good 51pt AF system and dual card slots. With tilt screen too. For $1,500 on sale now. Their sensor already has on chip ADC, and produces incredible DR and image quality.
This is a camera that has been out a while now.
Fair question in response: Imagine for a minute if the 6D2 was just a D750 with Canon badging, ergonomics, controls and DPAF, and cost $2000.
How well would it sell?
- A
I think it would sell incredibly well. Better than the 6D, and better than any Nikon FF. I think it would sell so well, it would indeed cause some people who buy 5D3/4 to instead opt for it. Some people really need that better AF and memory card security. But they don't need an all metal body or some other pro'ish features of the 5D.
I'm not sure why it is so distasteful to some people to point out Canon's obvious holding back of features at this price point.
Several arguments are made that hold no water whatsoever. Nikon has no problem whatosever offering up these kinds of features in a DSLR. They profit from this. Just because their other products do not (point and shoot), does not mean that they are "desperate" and thus put in more to get more sales and deal with slimmer margins. That is ludicrous and goes against all market principles.
Market forces dictate that consumers get more and and more features, for a lower and lower price. Now, that can mean smaller profit margin or maybe not - that is on the manufacturer and how they can streamline their costs on their end.
There's no question that in the entry level FF, Canon is way behind Nikon. It should also be noted that it isn't a completely free market dynamic. There is a protectionist factor here. That is, investing in a system. Canon users are consumers that do not have full freedom in their buying decisions as they are invested in a system.
Since I answered a hypothetical -- Here's a question to answer (not for you A, but for the other guy trying to teach us about markets).
What if lens mounts were all standardized and Canon and Nikon lenses were fully interchangeable, 100% perfect function. --- How would the 6D sell in relation to the D750?
I'll answer, 6D would get MURDERED and wouldn't even be on the market. Who the hell would buy a 20mp, 2008 era 11pt AF, 4.5fps, 1 slot camera with mediocre controls, no tilt screen vs 24mp, 2+ stop of DR, 2-slot, 51pt AF that is very good, tilt screen, 6fps ...? No one, that's who!
I think the above question fully proves my point that Canon's offering is not in line with what the rest of the market is providing. That Canon is resting on its laurels on its great glass line up, and also getting a pass on implementation of features because they are protected by users being invested in their system aka reluctant or unable to choose differently.
The other guy is right about one thing, adding features does cost more money. But as I've argued before on this forum, at the Canon pricing level - these features should be a given. Thus, what is happening is, Canon is omitting them so Canon can save money, but sells the body for the same price. Sure, they increase their profit, but it is diminishing the VALUE for the consumer. And again and again - they get away with this because people are married to the Canon glass and system.
For whatever reason, Nikon doesn't have this kind of outlook in spite of the fact that their users are also married and tied down to their system and all their glass. They are ok offering up those kind of robust specs at that price point. Giving their users more value. Yes, their users have many thousands of dollars in high end glass invested too. Nikon has the same ball and chain on their users that Canon does.
Now, I talked a lot about people being married to a system, and it is true. However, what about new comers that are not? Nikon mops the floor with Canon on this. Canon is surrendering this market to Nikon for no reason. Sure my evidence is anecdotal and my perceptions alone - but all the lower level, entry level, part time pros I see are running Nikon significantly more than Canon. When Canon comes up as a topic, I keep hearing the same thing over and over "I wish I had Canon" "BUT" (big but), "expensive" ...
But wait - expensive? The awesome 6D everyone defends here is $1,300. Canon is judged expensive, because they are judging the entry point for a suitable pro camera based on critical features recognized as useful for pro use. Namely, decent AF, decent FPS and DUAL slots so you don't lose your whole shoot and destroy your reputation because a lousy memory card failed. The 6D is completely disregarded as a viable choice. The first Canon in the lineup that meets the kind of specs and requirements Nikon users have, is the 5D.
That entry point is $1300 - $1500 for Nikon. $3,200 for Canon.
Which goes back to the "crippling" accusation. Canon, because of protectionist factors in camera buying of their users, artificially sets their feature set (instead of being influenced by market to dictate features included) in such a way to set the Pro level entry point at the 5D, at $3,200.
Anyhow --
If Canon can put together 45pt af, 5fps and dual slots -- it will still be weaker than a D750 from 2 years ago - BUT at least they will be closer in regards to proper value at that price point. This forum hoping for already obsolete specs for a camera that has not been released yet is PROOF of another sorts of the nature of Canon and their intentional lagging behind in value offering.
Am I crazy to make such an observation? Folks, it is 2017. Why would it be unreasonable for the 6D2 to have:
24-28MP
6 fps
45 - 63pt AF
2 slots
Tilt screen
Not unreasonable at all. Even these specs above just bring Canon on PAR with norm specs in this day and age, rather than push the limits further.
Such specs are not even rumored. Suggesting those specs causes fan boys here to scream bloody murder that "you want a 5D4 for $2000"
Simply put, Canon users are not even hoping for typical specs of this age. They are cheering for 2014-2015 specs at best LOL. If they are lucky, they'll get them.
