Canon’s attitude: what do you think?

Started May 15, 2001 | Discussions thread
Brent Regular Member • Posts: 258
Re: Canon’s attitude: what do you think?

Your lucky. The original firmware probably would have disabled the flash entirely.

You can get around the problem by shooting in raw.

In fairness, I don't think it's a customer support issue -- the new Canon cameras were designed to force people to buy more Canon flashes. It probably wouldn't have cost Canon a nickel more in development to support the flashes the older EOS cameras supported, but that wouldn't have been as profitable.

From a business perspective, it makes sense. But, then, I don't know whether to buy a 420EX when I know full well the next generation of Canon cameras won't support it and I'll have to buy yet another flash.

The practice is certain unethical and probably highly illegal, but who's going to take them to the supreme court over a $200 flash?

Michael W. wrote:

Below is an inquiry I sent to Canon and their reply. Quite frankly
I’m very disappointed in Canon’s attitude. Isn’t
it consumer’s right to expect that their product is to work
properly with “industry-standard” accessories unless
otherwise stated? Please voice your opinion.

Your inquiry as follows: *****
Flash with non-Canon flash is over exposed as if aperture is full
open at 2.0, regardless what the actual aperture setting is.
Flashes used: Vititar 283, Sunpak 383. Can this problem corrected
by sending in, or is Cannon planning to issue a fix via firmware?
Canon response as follows: ******
Dear Michael

Canon only designs,tests and manufactures accessories for our
products. It is therefore up to other manufacturers to meet our
standards and abilities.

Thank you for your inquiry

Canon USA

-- hide signature --

Michael

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
rwh
MK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow