Canon’s attitude: what do you think?

Started May 15, 2001 | Discussions thread
gene Senior Member • Posts: 2,499
Re: Canon’s attitude: what do you think?

Sorry, I wrote a reply. But since I forgot to put in my password, it didn't go through. When i hit the back button, all I wrote disappeared ;-(

Gene wrote:

Michael W. wrote:

I'm about to give up on analogies, but let me try one more shot as
well. Canon G1 is like a computer advertised as
otherwise-proprietary with an advertised UNIVERSAL monitor port.
Realities while all standard monitors will plug in OK only Canon
brand will work PROPERLY (I'm not talking about the ability to take
advantage of proprietary features, I only expect basic
industry-standard functions to work). If this still confuses
people, then I give up.

Michael

PS. on your tire analogy would be quite correct too if it reads:
you buy and put on CORRECT size tires from various manufacturers
and in a month you find out that the car often steers itself into
ditches except when used with tires made by the car manufacturer.

I gave this tire analogy, since I do not run stock size tires on my Neon.

If they (wheels/tires) didn't work, I would have to contact the copmany that sold them to me. But according to you, I should be contacting Chrysler.

While Nikon, Sony, Olympus and others offer proprietary external flash synch only, they TELL ME THE TRUTH UP FRONT, allowing me to make an informed decision.

My Sunpak 344D worked fine with my CP950 and works fine with my CP990. I just had to buy the proprietary cord/hotshoe adapter, the ASE900, which is only around $50.

Bringing this issue to Vivitar or Sunpak would not make any sense. Their current products work very well with just about any other camera that has an industry-standard hot shoe.

It is still Vivitar/Sunpak's responsibility, but only IF they claim it will work with the camera in question, so you are probably right in this case.

If you buy a Windows software that screw up on 99% of all Windows computers, would you expect the software vendor to fix their bugs or do you think that it's ethical or even legal for them deny supporting "3-rd party" computers? Would you bring the problem to Intel or Microsoft instead?

As stated in other post - or at least implied:

Canon = Microsoft/Intel

Sunpak/Vivitar = Windows software developer

We do expect them to fire full-strength... that is not the problem. The problem is that you can set aperture to f5.6 and the camera will expose the flash as if it was set at 2.0 or other sporatic values depending on zoom / shutter speed combination. If you know photography, this is absolutely unacceptable. Manual flash exposure should depend only on aperture setting only, period.

Let's say you brought ANY camera ouside on a bright sunny day. You started taking pictures. The ISO isn't variable (or auto is shut off in the camera) and the camera is in manual. After you set your aperature for the desired DOF, would your exposure change as you changed the shutter speed? How about focal length? Since I'm pretty sure the G1 (as most lenses now) has a variable aperature zoom lens, I would expect the answer to be "Yes it does effect exposure." Then why would a flash that ALWAYS fires full-strength be any different?

If you have a flash that you can set to AUTO, the flash varies the output (using it's own sensor, not the camera's) to compensate for the changes in shutter speed.

If I use my Nikon SB24 or Sunpak 344D in manual mode, I have to set BOTH aperature and shutter speed on the camera to what the flash dictates the settings to be. And since both flashes have zoom heads, I have to adjust them to the desired focal length as well.

But as I stated before, ever since Canon put all their MF users in the cold when they went AF, I wouldn't put it past them on killing 3rd party flash compatability. You might complain about an expensive flash. i know someone who paid $9000 for a MF Canon lens, used even (was $14k new). If he went AF, what does he do with all his old equipment? That's not even talking 3rd party.

Gene wrote:
I would think the analogy should be:

Canon is the computer manufacturer and the flash company is a
peripheral device maker, like scanners, printers, ect. But Canon
isn't an IBM clone manufacturer, but a closed proprietary
manufacturer like Apple was - don't know if they still are.

If you buy third party software/hardware, it isn't Apple's
responsibility to see it work, it's the company you bought the
hardware/software from. If Photoshop wasn't working properly, would
you be complaining to Microsoft? You would if it didn't install -
but you would complain to Adobe as well, and probably prior to MS.

That would be like buying a set of tires for my Neon, bought the
wrong size - but they fit under the wheel well, then complaining to
Chysler if something doesn't work right, since the car was designed
to use tires. But that analogy is slightly off.

Michael W. wrote:
Let me make myself a little more clear… in this analogy Canon
is the software vendor and GENERIC flash makers are the computer
manufacturers. These flash makers never advertise that their
product works for the G1 in specific but they do work with just
about every camera that supports a standard hot shoe. Canon
advertised that the G1 support generic flashes and it works with
NONE. Canon does mention that the G1 will not fire some 3-rd party
flashes… I would not have bought the G1 had Canon told me it
would not work with ANY 3-rd pary flash.

Michael

Michael W. wrote:
That is exactly the point! But you got it reversed.

Michael

Tong Yi Tsui wrote:

If you buy a Windows software that screw up on 99% of all Windows
computers, would you expect the software vendor to fix their bugs
or do you think that it's ethical or even legal for them deny
supporting "3-rd party" computers? Would you bring the problem to
Intel or Microsoft instead?

Bad analogy. It should be the other way around. If you buy a
computer that does not run third party software, but you went out
and bought the third party software anyway, should the computer
maker be responsible for making the software you bought run with
its computer? Even though the software may be on a CD-ROM, and your
computer has a CD-ROM driver, does it automatically mean the
computer should run the third party software? I think not.

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