neuroanatomist said:
nhz said:
...but I got a lot of insight in their marketing strategy.
Despite all the new marketing mumbo-jumbo every year, most of it are incremental changes and revisiting the common parts bin.
Well, then...you
should understand that Canon's goal is to profit from camera sales and not implement every new technology as expeditiously as possible, and that their marketing strategy has pretty effectively supported that goal for many years. Sadly, you don't seem to grasp those realities.
Generally speaking, in this modern electronics age - it is to a company's benefit to release the newest and best technology as soon as possible. There's rarely an advantage to holding back. However it doesn't mean the newest tech has to be cheap, or offered across all models. Lower end Intel CPU's lack tech that the highest end chips have. It makes sense. Segmenting, within market-driven forces, is reasonable.
The camera industry is a little odd. They aren't subject to the same direct, blazing fast market forces the rest of tech industry is. Canon and Nikon can get away with things that other industries cannot because their customers get committed to a particular system. There's an investment in place that isn't easy to switch due to costs.
If all bodies were compatible to all lenses 100% - it would be a very, very different camera industry. Without being tied down to a collection of proprietary glass - anyone could shop any body - and this kind of competition would drive newer tech and features much more rapidly. Bodies would be much more capable than they are today and less expensive too. It would also force innovation in order to stand out. Features that exist today and now, but that are just a dream for DSLR's would probably already be incorporated.
All that said, does Canon hold back on trickling down tech to lower models? A little. Do they profit? Yes. They can do that because users are "stuck" with Canon. Nikon does the same thing, just with different features on that side. So crossing the fence doesn't help. You'll just gripe about other things. Beyond those two, there's no real DSLR competition. It's almost like US politics. Two parties, both rip you off just in different ways, no real alternatives. No reason for them to have to change.
The only real competition those two companies have, is at the point of entry. Someone for the first time deciding Canon or Nikon. Those people are not ready to spend $3,000 on a camera. So they have to pack as much tech as possible in the cheapest price point they can and appeal to a widest base possible. They aren't holding back on entry cameras at all. Cost of production is all that holds them back, and that is market driven because entry level consumers don't want to pay $500 more to have more advanced AF, or ISO 2 million.
Those that decide to move up, usually have some glass already and follow that path within their brand. Or, if they switch early on - either way, they are committing to a system. And in the mid-level to higher level equipment, the tech progress isn't so great where it COULD be, because the asking price of that gear is quite high.
Anyway, this thread is about the 80D - and to help it get back on track - I say the 80D has a pretty healthy set of upgrades and advancements. Canon did not go stingy on this camera. By example, the 6D was stingy.