EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist

[Loswr]

"I just wish I could focus entirely on my struggle with the elements when photographing rather than worrying about the shortcomings of my tools. I am not enjoying this!"

This statement says it all. What craftsman worries about the shortcomings of quality tools! It's not the tools that are the problem if there is one. As others have said if you can't get first rate photos with what's out there it might be time to find some other hobby or occupation.

If the nail doesn't go in straight, it's usually the hammer's fault. :

 

[Loswr]

as i said in my post you quote on top, i'm done with the emotional argument with you. you seem not to be....

Did you say that?

I said "I'm gone". Google 'Alzheimer' or 'reading comprehension'...

Now I am done.

If you think you implied it, you failed. It's that metacognition thing, again...seems to be a significant problem for you. Regardless, you're clearly not done tossing out inane one-liners unsupported by facts.

 

[Old Sarge]

I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS.

But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.

I think that is called "living in the real world." Not always a pleasant place to live....but in the final analysis, much less frustrating than living in fantasy.

 

[romanr74]

On a serious note Neuro: Are you stoned?

If the nail doesn't go in straight, it's usually the hammer's fault. :

If you think you implied it, you failed. It's that metacognition thing, again...seems to be a significant problem for you. Regardless, you're clearly not done tossing out inane one-liners unsupported by facts.

 

[Loswr]

I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS.

But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.

Personally, the former half of this quote is more of the type of comments I like to hear. I think we can all acknowledge there is a reality that we don't always agree with. Particularly when it comes to what we personally would like in a camera. I don't think we've gathered on a rumor site to strictly discuss "reality." I personally like hearing people discuss what they think would make their photography equipment even better or what they think is lacking. It's also nice to hear what people do appreciate about what they currently have. I think there is room for both of these types of discussions here.

Statements of the type in the first part are great when posted, they often lead to good discussion and sometimes good ideas for further improvements. Unfortunately, such statements are almost always followed by a second clause that is an unsupportable assertion which doesn't follow logically from the first clause.

For example:

"The 11-24L lacks a drop-in filter slot, so it's a terrible, useless lens."

"I want a high MP 1-series body, the 1D X II has only 20 MP so it's a failure."

"Canon doesn't make a FF mirrorless camera, if they would do so they'd sell millions of them but since they haven't and Sony does, Canon's business will suffer."

 

[Loswr]

as i said in my post you quote on top, i'm done with the emotional argument with you.

On a serious note Neuro: Are you stoned?

On a serious note, romanr74: have you suffered a traumatic brain injury? That and psychosis are among the causes of habitual prevarication.

 

[Orangutan]

you don't have to explain it, it is understood. yet that doesn't imply the other end of the business equation must perfectly like it and shall not be allowed to express...

I think you misunderstand: no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.

 

[romanr74]

no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.

And some posters extrapolate market share into infinite wisdom. All good then...

 

[Orangutan]

no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.

And some posters extrapolate market share into infinite wisdom. All good then...

If you truly believe this you should read more carefully. If this is supposed to be funny...it's not.

 

[romanr74]

If you truly believe this you should read more carefully.

is true for this:

And some posters extrapolate market share into infinite wisdom.

but not for this:

The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, [...], while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits [...]

correct?

 

[Loswr]

you don't have to explain it, it is understood. yet that doesn't imply the other end of the business equation must perfectly like it and shall not be allowed to express...

I think you misunderstand: no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.

I think when people complain about 'not being allowed to express', what they really mean is they don't want their statements of opinion refuted by facts and data.

 

[ritholtz]

no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.

And some posters extrapolate market share into infinite wisdom. All good then...

How do we measure success of the company? Sales, profits and returns are common measure used if certain company is a success or failure. When someone says Canon doomed or going to fail, looking into this information is obviously first place to start with.

 

[Mikehit]

Absolutely.
People complained about specifications of the 5D2 and the company kept growing
People complained about the time it took to release the 7D2 and complained about how it was out of date before it was even released and an indicator of Canon's lack of imagination. And the company kept growing
People complained about specifications of the 5D3 and how they were going to impact future growth... and yes... the company kept growing
People complained about how the 1DX2 had not really taken the 1DX line forward and developments were disappointingly incremental...but the Professionals really like it and buy it for the total package...and it looks like the company is still growing.

I wonder who Canon is listening to?

 

[romanr74]

you don't have to explain it, it is understood. yet that doesn't imply the other end of the business equation must perfectly like it and shall not be allowed to express...

I think you misunderstand: no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.

I think when people complain about 'not being allowed to express', what they really mean is they don't want their statements of opinion refuted by facts and data.

If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...

 

[Mikehit]

If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...

You mean:
"Canon don't know what they are doing" - counterargument that they are #1 so probably do
"Canon should make FF mount compatible with EF lenses" - counterargument - not the way they have chosen to design their EF-S lenses they won't
"Canon can implement mirrorless technology immediately and should do so" - counterargument - mirrorless technology does not yet offer the level of capability to maintain the standards relevant to their core market (action, sports and wildlife)

Someone wanting video, mirrorless or whatever is an irrefutable fact. Raising comments like the above is personal opinion and totally refutable and all the responses above are perfectly valid.

 

[romanr74]

If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...

You mean:
"Canon don't know what they are doing" - counterargument that they are #1 so probably do
"Canon should make FF mount compatible with EF lenses" - counterargument - not the way they have chosen to design their EF-S lenses they won't
"Canon can implement mirrorless technology immediately and should do so" - counterargument - mirrorless technology does not yet offer the level of capability to maintain the standards relevant to their core market (action, sports and wildlife)

When complainers word their arguments in the way they did, then all the responses above are perfectly valid.

So let us stay factual then...

Talking for myself: I mean none of that! I never said any of that!

I only challenge if market share (or other sales numbers) are the perfect indicator for the validity of current product decisions (which will reflect in future sales numbers). They are obviously a very strong indicator that business decisions (product being one component of them) were right in the past.

 

[Mikehit]

I only challenge if market share (or other sales numbers) are the perfect indicator for the validity of current product decisions (which will reflect in future sales numbers). They are obviously a very strong indicator that business decisions (product being one component of them) were right in the past.

I totally agree with that and your previous post that relying on past success can lead to complacency and it is a trap that a lot of big corporations fall into time and again. But I don't think anyone has quoted sales figures to justify the current design but in response (as I said) to claims Canon do not know what they are doing.

I will adapt a discussion I have had with colleagues in the past to make it relevant to photography: They could pack the 5DIV with all the technology and the best sensor, all the best video and all the best AF systems, touch swivelly screen - they could make it so that the only between 5D4 and 1DX is the more durable build. At $3,500 it would probably slay the market and although unit profit wold be reduced the high volume would overcome it.
They could also make a lower end (a 7D variant if you will) with all that stuff but APS-C instead of full frame.
Then make a plastic-bodied version at $300 as a loss leader.

All makes sense, right?
Odd that no company on earth does that with their product lines. I wonder why. If I want to buy a photocopier that simply does 20 pages per minute instead of 8 I can't - the faster one comes with all sorts of add-ons that they could also add into their lower end models. Ditto for washing machines, cars and anything else.

Canon concentrates on AF performance and less on other things. Sony concentrate more on video and cross-platform compatability and their AF is not as good. Buy whichever suits best.

 

[Loswr]

I think when people complain about 'not being allowed to express', what they really mean is they don't want their statements of opinion refuted by facts and data.

If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...

Oh, really?

Suppose someone stated that a particular entry-level camera model was a failure, and that a competitor's roughly similar model was a much more compelling offering for dSLR buyers. Then, suppose there were data showing the relative sales of the two models, indicating that the model which was supposedly a 'failure' was, in fact, much more popular with camera buyers – and thus refuting the statement that it was less compelling for buyers.

Do you believe those data would be relevant or meaningful?

I'll start with the very low end failure:

-Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else.

It's the 1300D. Nikon makes a MUCH more compelling camera to draw the first SLR buyer. Their Nikon D3400 has:

What do you have to add?

I'll add that Nikon's 'MUCH more compelling camera' costs $150 more right now on Amazon (body + 18-55), that's 30% more expensive. That is probably one of the reasons the D3400 which you call 'MUCH more compelling' is #81 in Amazon's DSLR sales ranking, while the T6 [aka 1300D] which you call a 'poorly featured failure' is #20 on that list. So it would seem that from the perspective of both buyers and Canon, the T6 is rather successful.

the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...

If you think sales figures are relevant to a discussion of which camera model is more compelling to buyers, then why would you respond as you did? Your response, "...the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___..." is clearly not aligned with your statement that, "If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever..." So perhaps the problem is exactly what I've previously suggested – you have a serious defecit in metacognition.

If you don't think sales figures are relevant to a discussion of which camera model is more compelling to buyers...well, metacognition deficits are among the least of worries for a low grade moron.

 

[romanr74]

I only challenge if market share (or other sales numbers) are the perfect indicator for the validity of current product decisions (which will reflect in future sales numbers). They are obviously a very strong indicator that business decisions (product being one component of them) were right in the past.

I totally agree with that and your previous post that relying on past success can lead to complacency and it is a trap that a lot of big corporations fall into time and again. But I don't think anyone has quoted sales figures to justify the current design but in response (as I said) to claims Canon do not know what they are doing.

I will adapt a discussion I have had with colleagues in the past to make it relevant to photography: They could pack the 5DIV with all the technology and the best sensor, all the best video and all the best AF systems, touch swivelly screen - they could make it so that the only between 5D4 and 1DX is the more durable build. At $3,500 it would probably slay the market and although unit profit wold be reduced the high volume would overcome it.
They could also make a lower end (a 7D variant if you will) with all that stuff but APS-C instead of full frame.
Then make a plastic-bodied version at $300 as a loss leader.

All makes sense, right?
Odd that no company on earth does that with their product lines. I wonder why. If I want to buy a photocopier that simply does 20 pages per minute instead of 8 I can't - the faster one comes with all sorts of add-ons that they could also add into their lower end models. Ditto for washing machines, cars and anything else.

Canon concentrates on AF performance and less on other things. Sony concentrate more on video and cross-platform compatability and their AF is not as good. Buy whichever suits best.

We agree that the 5dmkiv secenario you describe doesn't make sense. Product differentiation is a relevant factor in the approach to market to maximize sales and earnings. Market segmentation is a relevant factor to achieve the same target. You have different customers out there with different budgets and you want to address as many of these as possible. You have customers out there you're able to sell more than one product at the time if they are reasonably differentiated. All good, all economically useful...

Where people sometimes seem to struggle is when they compare what they consider (correctly or incorrectly) as direct competitors between Canon and other brands, and they believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I chose that formulation on purpose to accomodate for the fact that the subjective impression might be wrong. Yet I share the feeling that Canon at the moment is giving rather conservative specs to their products vs. competition and that they might be a little bit in complacency mode. Future sales numbers will be able to tell if the feeling was right or wrong.

 

[romanr74]

I think when people complain about 'not being allowed to express', what they really mean is they don't want their statements of opinion refuted by facts and data.

If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...

Oh, really?

Suppose someone stated that a particular entry-level camera model was a failure, and that a competitor's roughly similar model was a much more compelling offering for dSLR buyers. Then, suppose there were data showing the relative sales of the two models, indicating that the model which was supposedly a 'failure' was, in fact, much more popular with camera buyers – and thus refuting the statement that it was less compelling for buyers.

Do you believe those data would be relevant or meaningful?

I'll start with the very low end failure:

-Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else.

It's the 1300D. Nikon makes a MUCH more compelling camera to draw the first SLR buyer. Their Nikon D3400 has:

What do you have to add?

I'll add that Nikon's 'MUCH more compelling camera' costs $150 more right now on Amazon (body + 18-55), that's 30% more expensive. That is probably one of the reasons the D3400 which you call 'MUCH more compelling' is #81 in Amazon's DSLR sales ranking, while the T6 [aka 1300D] which you call a 'poorly featured failure' is #20 on that list. So it would seem that from the perspective of both buyers and Canon, the T6 is rather successful.

the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...

If you think sales figures are relevant to a discussion of which camera model is more compelling to buyers, then why would you respond as you did? Your response, "...the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___..." is clearly not aligned with your statement that, "If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever..." So perhaps the problem is exactly what I've previously suggested – you have a serious defecit in metacognition.

If you don't think sales figures are relevant to a discussion of which camera model is more compelling to buyers...well, metacognition deficits are among the least of worries for a low grade moron.

Neuro, I was admittedly an asshole with you on this one because to my mind you too often and too fast refer to sales numbers, and I believe that overall business decisions are more relevant to sales numbers than pure product decisions/specs. So in my opinion this is partly meaningfull/relevant but cleary not sufficient. And you're clearly not a saint neither when it comes to communication stile...

At some point in time I hope you will find back to a somewhat cultivated discussion pattern (as I believe I did quite a few posts ago).