That is true only to certain extent. I tell you what, you get to pick any photographer with a Zenit E, and I want to see he or she go to an NFL game and produce editorial content. This can't be a once of a while artistic shot. I want editorial content week after week. Heck, I'll even let you pick ten photographers if you don't think one is able to do the job.
That is true only to certain extent. I tell you what, you get to
pick any photographer with a Zenit E, and I want to see he or she
go to an NFL game and produce editorial content. This can't be a
once of a while artistic shot. I want editorial content week after
week. Heck, I'll even let you pick ten photographers if you don't
think one is able to do the job.
My point is, equipment can and do limit one's creativity. I can
ride my bike to Florida, but I think my car can make my life
easier. The same car can't get me to the moon, however.
--
Ray Chen
It's not about the equipment, but even the best photographer can't
make a white wall interesting with a pinhole camera.
The Digital Rebel is an excellent landscape and studio camera. Its frame rate is even faster than my studio strobes can recycle, and I have no problem with its metering.
The film cameras also only cost $300, not $900. Also, the film Rebel has no LCD for image review, but I would be very upset if the DR did not have one. They are two different lines of camera, and I would never compare them features by features.
As much as I disagree about Canon's marketing decision, I don't think there is ethical consideration involved. It is just a business decision, whether right or wrong.
You're not "whining"? Ummmm... I didn't use the word first.
You're the one who decided to take unjustified swipes at people who
don't share your view of things, suggesting they were "whining" and
were "spoiled brats." That itself is quite the whine.
Apologies however if I misinterpreted your position and grouped you
with the ones I described. If you say you don't belong in that, I
believe you. But that group definitely exists and is quite
incessant around here, often throwing around the same kind of
personal criticism.
I still think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from though.
My point isn't that you didn't know what you were getting, it's
that you could have gotten MORE if not for a marketing ploy
unrelated to the actual cost of the camera. So the Saturn is not
really analogous. A more apt comparison would be if Saturn made a
particular model and sold it for $15,000, but realized they could
still make profits on it even if it sold for $10,000. So they
decide take the same car from the same production line and disable
a couple of cylinders, rip out the wiring to the radio, tachometer,
etc. and price the car at $10,000, just so they can keep selling
the non-ripped car for $15,000. I realize many have grown up with
a view of the market that sees just about anything as acceptable as
long as the seller can get away with it, but it's something I don't
appreciate. Thankfully, the circumstances where sellers can get
away with such things aren't common. The Rebel was really the only
thing in its market segment for a while. Now that the D70 is being
sold, things should change. I think we already saw some change
this week when they suddenly announced the black model. Personally
I think the black version should be informally know as the Nikon
Rebel.
Maybe not, but then, if you do a lot of NFL shooting, buy a camera that will fit that purpose. Why pound a nail in with a screwdriver when you can just get a hammer? Whether it's the 300D or another camera, get the right tool for the job.
To a guy who rides bikes all the time, the "better" car isn't. I have a friend who likes to fly him and his bike down to Florida and then bike back to Toronto. Takes him a month, but he enjoys it. Or he bikes from Toronto to the east coast. Just for the heck of it, as he says. So the car might be easier, but is it "better"? Depends on what you need I guess.
Film cameras should not be compared to digitals just to make these kinds of justifications. Although model Dxx may share the feature set of model Fxx, it's like comparing an apple to an orange just becuase they both have a similar size. They are very different beasts with very different customers. I don't agree that the "equivalent" digital and film cams are targeted toward similar markets. The digitals are in a different segment because of price and function. They are entirely different products at very different price levels. Yes, the 10D and dRebel are targeted toward different markets, but not as different as the markets of film vs digital.You'll have to forgive me as well if it sounded like I was coming down hard on anyone who didn't feel the camera was anything but perfect. I think I had more extreme and specific people in mind (coughSTANcough) when I wrote that. It's not in my nature to "look down" on people for having a different opinion, and it's usually something I encourage. But some people push it too much, and you get tired of hearing it all the time, underSTANd where I'm coming from?
No, I certainly don't feel I belong to that group either. I try to be open-minded to things. That also means that I usually end up accepting the faults of whatever I happen to be using though, so fail to see why such a big deal needs to be made of certain failings, especially when there are other options.
Yes, I agree, we COULD have gotten more, and it likely cost Canon MORE to take stuff out, than to leave stuff in. The software engineers likely had a lot more written for it, and then when the design was finalized, features were taken out. They likely took a generic fimware, took out what they didn't need, and then integrated it into the Rebel. Doesn't seem like a far-fetched idea to me anways. So it all comes down to market positioning. They can't canniballize the sales of the 10D or they lose money on it, and tick off their 10D users. Yet they still want to offer enough features on the cheap that it will still interest newbies. It's a tough position to be in. We also have to look at the fact that not everything sells at a price based on manufacturing costs. Most things sell based on what they are "worth", not how much it cost to make. That "worth" is basically what people will pay. If people perceive something to be of higher value, they will pay more money for it, even if it costs a company less to make it. Look at 4G Hitachi microdrives. You could buy a Muvo2 for less than half the price of the drive alone. And the Muvo2 price includes the whole player, software, and everything around the drive. So it doesn't cost Hitachi anywhere NEAR the drive selling cost to make the drive. But in a package, by itself, compared to other CF cards and microdrives, it's "worth" the sticker price. And people buy them. You can't blame Canon for the way companies do business, and you can't fault them for doing the same as every other company. Canon felt, with the feature set the Rebel has, that it was "worth" $1000. And since people are snapping them up by the hundreds of thousands, "people" feel it is worth that too. So we need to seperate the idea of "value" from the idea of how much it costs to actually make the camera and adding a percentage on to make a profit.
Well, since the car has some stuff removed, it would cost less in actual materials, therefore would cost less. And the more expensive car, with more features, would command a higher price because it is the "value-added" edition. (There's that word again!)
No one said you had to appreciate it, but that doesn't change the way things are done (unfortunately).
Yes, now that they aren't the "only game in town" things should change. And I am guessing that we will see this reflected in the next version of the Rebel. That doesn't help us out NOW, but for a number of months we could say that we could take pictures just as good as any other DSLR and have ALMOST the same features, for half the price! I enjoyed that about my buddies D100 that he picked up a month before the Rebel came out. I guess nothing lasts forever!
Or the 300D70Personally I think the black version should be informally know as the Nikon
Rebel.
I haven't spent any time in the marketing industry, I just try to see what goes on around me. And this is pretty much how I feel. But I can also agree with the poster who earlier said that it is hard to justify the extra cost difference if you only need only small feature like FEC. The user may not need all the "extra-ness" that the 10D brings you, so ponying up the cash for the 10D is not going to be worth it. But something that's left out might be essential, but hard to cough up extra dough for, JUST for that one feature. But from a companies standpoint, you have to make the cut somewhere. You can't offer ten in-between models just to get that one extra feature on each one. I feel for the people who are stuck in between, I really do.
For the most part, I DO agree with his arguement. I think one way of looking at it (which seems to be the way the camera companies are looking at it) is that a digital SLR is a film SLR with a sensor where the film would go. And if a company looks at it this way, it would make sense to make digital versions of your film cameras. By now they have well-established lines and are positioned where they need to be. Where this breaks down for you and me, the consumer who has the cash in his pocket, is that the "budget" DSLR ain't so "budget". It's a thousand bloody dollars! That's a lot of bone. A film Rebel might be $200, a DIGITAL Rebel is $1000. That's $800 difference to have a sensor where the film roll goes. Plus not having to buy and develop film on a continuing basis, I guess, and the convenience of instant feeback, on-the-fly ISO adjustments, WB adjustment, and all those other things that add to the "value" of the camera, but it's still an $800 difference for the "same" camera. I think even HEARING the word "budget" and my camera together hurts. Lord knows it was hard enough to come up with the money for it. So after killing myself paying for this thing, I would like to think that my hard-earned green would get me more than the basic, el-cheapo, bargain-basement film version. But I don't think Canon looks at it this way. They see it as a camera. That happens to have a digital sensor instead of film.If the 300D were priced at $200 I might agree with half of your
argument, but I think you've lost sight of the forest by standing
too close to your marketing trees.
compared to digitals just to make these kinds of justifications.
Although model Dxx may share the feature set of model Fxx, it's
like comparing an apple to an orange just becuase they both have a
similar size. They are very different beasts with very different
customers. I don't agree that the "equivalent" digital and film
cams are targeted toward similar markets. The digitals are in a
different segment because of price and function. They are entirely
different products at very different price levels. Yes, the 10D
and dRebel are targeted toward different markets, but not as
different as the markets of film vs digital.
But in the end, they both take pictures. You can easily look at a DSLR as a film SLR with a digital sensor in the place of the film. You can duplicate the cameras, feature for feature. One costs more initially, the other costs more in the long run. You can look at it differently if you want, but what REALLY matters is how Canon looks at it, since they are the one making the cameras. If they look at it as a film SLR with a digital sensor, then that's going to influence how they make their cameras. What we need to do, as the consumers, is let Canon know what WE think, and maybe influence THEIR thinking. We are going to be out of luck with the current version, the one we have in our hands, but we can influence what comes in later versions. And maybe at the same time, we can convince them that there IS a difference between film and digital, and that they should design their cameras differently because of this.
When profit is concerned, no company is ethical. You REALLY think that these big companies REALLY care about how the individual feels? They care about keeping their profit up. And they will offer products they feel consumers will be interested in, to keep them buying, and giving the company more profit. Not many companies are going to cut back on profit so that they "feel good about themselves" when they wake up in the morning. When they look at their bottom line, believe me, they feel good enough! To get altruistic about a company, to think that they offered "more" or better features because they felt it was the right thing to do, is looking a little too rosey-coloured to me. Nikon offered "more" features, for "more" money. They are competing against the Rebel, so are going to offer more features to be more competitive. And THAT'S the bottom line.
Wouldn't make the 10D owners very happy.
I think separating the idea of value from the actual costs of the item is what's wrong with most people's thinking. It's thinking from the perspective of the company's marketing, not the consumer's preferences. Again, I'm the consumer, not the company. And to say they "can't canniballize the sales of the 10D" is more of the same thinking. Nikon did essentially that with the D70 vs the D100. The fact is that they CAN make a camera that good and sell it for $1000..... and they did. Canon could have done essentially the same with the 10D but didn't. As a consumer, I view that a little like the gas station owners who tried to gouge prices the day after 9/11 simply because they thought the market would bear it. Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean I have to defend it. I think it's pretty contemptible.
If you believe it's unfortunate, why are you defending it so vigorously? This issue isn't how it's done, but whether it should be done that way. It seems we actually may agree about that. The bottom line is, I'm a consumer and that's why my point of view is the way it is. I will look out for MY interests no less so than the company will look out for theirs.
Heh heh... that's even better.Or the 300D70
