amd
•
Contributing Member
•
Posts: 604
Re: EOS-M is dead. I'm moving to Sony...
1
Brian Slater wrote:
amd wrote:
btw.: I know the OP will disagree, but Fuji really delivers on the feature+compact+lenses side. But then, they are looking at a different niche again. The thing that differentiates Fuji from most others (Canon/Nikon): They deliver everything they can, without crippling or holding back for strategic reasons. This then again leads to people whining why they bought the expensive XH1, when the quickly after released X-T3 seems to best it in so many ways... Hard to make everyone happy while gaining market share!
I like Fujifilm cameras, and they have a great lens lineup. But I think it is a stretch to accuse Canon of crippling cameras and to claim that Fuji delivers everything they can. It's more about scheduling: Fuji does not have a large market share, and tends to release top of the range products in which they put all the latest technology they can muster. But they then also release lower cost models that DO compromise on features to meet a cost target. Canon does the same, but tends to start at the lower end, and they almost always release their top of the range model after their entry level model(s). They also update less frequently, and I'm quite grateful about that because it means I am not tempted to upgrade very often, until significant improvements have been made, and I don't have the same feeling that a quick succession of new bodies has obsoleted what I own, like Fuji XH-1 owners must feel now.
I agree, with crippling and all in, I made quite strong statements. You are right that with Fuji there is to some extent the position of the small disruptor, and they do segment their camera (X-T20, X-T100...) as well. But not delivering everything they can could marginalise their market position. Also Canon is champion in segmenting the markets, making sure there is minimum overlap only. Market leaders always behave differently from niche players.
Still there are examples where I think Canon did overdo, and a lot of people agree. The firmware in the M3 was crippled like crazy. The 6d MK II was clearly deliberately making sure it would not steal market share from the 5d. The M10/M100 leaving out the hotshoe makes no technical sense. The only time I remember Canon did deliver a significant firmware functional update was on the 7d... Chances that Canon would backport a new function to an older model are very low, even if they could.
Fuji on the other hand made lot of people buy the X-E3 over the X-PRO2, as the E3 had virtually all the functions, plus getting the upgraded AF. The X-T3 is embarrassing XH-1 buyers. They backport significant new functions to old models, even though a new model introduced it. Why are they doing this? Not because they are nicer people, but they rather disrupt their own product then waiting for the competition to marginalise them. A market leader would never do this. There are great books about this (The innovators dilemma ...).
I'm not blaming Canon for what they are doing. It's very logical. As a customer I have the power to vote with my wallet. Something I prefer to do over complaining and victimising myself. I love my M2 for what I payed, I think my 5dIV is awesome and I'm having lots of fun with my X-PRO2.
Guess I'm a happy customer who's business strategy background makes him a bid judging ...