The 300D successor

I completely agree!

To put it more succintly, I think we all just want more bang for our buck and there's no denying that, isn't THAT what truly drives the market?

And, thank God for that because, with time, products continuously offer more and more for less and less.

Those folks who are whining about the whiners are simply loyalists, like some in my family who will always buy a Lexus or always buy a BMW. But no worries and whatever floats your boat. There are more open minded people in this world who don't automatically fall in line w/the status quo to keep the gears of the free market churning and pumping out better products at cheaper prices, year after year.

notpc said:

If someone complains about a marketing tactic that causes the
consumer to end up with less than he could otherwise, you label
them as "spoiled brats"? What an incredibly stupid agenda-driven
line of BS. You speak, not like a consumer, but like an arrogant
camera company representative with contempt for the consumer.

notpc said:

DMahoney wrote:

The 300D is the digital version of the film Rebel. So it makes
sense to have the same feature sense. From the sounds of it, the
film Rebel is successful and has a definate market, so it makes
sense to offer a digital version of the film Rebel. Feature for
feature. Do the film guys complain that their Rebel is crippled? I
don't know. Maybe they do. But in these days of automation, I am
sure that most of the film Rebel will be all software controlled,
just like the digital version. If no one is complaining there, why
are we such spoiled brats that we have to complain here? It's a
waste of space that could be used for good things.

Well, good question. Why should you not let Canon know what you
want? Funny, it seems Canon ALREADY offers what you want. The 10D.
If you tell Canon you want all these extra features, they will tell
you to get a 10D. Go buy one. You say you want a 10D for the 300D
price? Don't we all. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Either look
for one used, or pony up the extra for a new one. All the whining
in the world isn't going to change their market position, and their
well-defined lines. They make 100,000 a month, and likely sell them
all too. What's a couple people complaining going to mean to them?

Don

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Edward Karaa said:

I think the real issue here is that the 300D hardware is capable of
doing much more than it has been programmed to do. Someone here has
given a very good analogy: it's like selling you a car with the
airconditioning installed but without the switch to turn it on.
Many functions of the 10D have been artificially disabled by
software as clearly stated in Phil's review and proven partially by
the russian hack.

Click to expand...

People seem to think that since it is just software, it should be free, or programmed to do more than was done. The hardware MIGHT be capable of doing more. No arguement. But we aren't buying a piece of hardware and cobbling it together with a piece of software and making it run. It's not a computer, it's a camera. A closed system. You don't go get the Operating System of choice, install it and then go shooting, you buy the camera you want, and use the features it has. How it goes through the process of doing what you want is irrelevant. Would it feel better if it was just a bunch of gears and mechanics that did everything? It does what Canon says it does, and that's what matters.

Edward Karaa said:

Many of the shortcomings of the 300D are not clearly stated by
canon. I do not care about the FEC because I rarely use flash. But
the connection of the AF points with metering system for instance
is quite frustrating. The FTM issue. The AI issue... etc.

Click to expand...

There ARE quirks to using the camera. In general it does what it is supposed to, but there are some things that don't work as well as they are supposed to. It's not that they don't work at all, they just don't work perfectly. Most products are like this to some degree. If what it does doesn't work quite WELL enough as you would like, get another camera that does those things better.

Edward Karaa said:

Let's face it, the film rebel targets the lower end of the market,
no serious amateurs or professionals would buy it. But many serious
amateurs with a low budget (like myself) have bought the 300D
unaware of the issues and these are the ones doing the complaining.

Click to expand...

I agree, most of the people dropping the cash for this camera will be someone more serious about their photography, or they would just buy a film cam, or a cheap p&s. For the price, it affords an entry into the world of DSLRs, and probably a big step up from what we could have before. But there are going to be compromises. Even though it's a lot of money, it's still the bottom-of-the-line DSLR. Yet we want it to have all the features of the more expensive cameras, because we can't afford them. I know, it's easy to just say "you want a 10D, go buy a 10D". The extra cash for the 10D was certainly more than I could justify spending on a camera. Heck the DRebel was at my limits, but I bought it, and have to put up with the compromises. Fortunately, the camera can do WAAY more than I need right now, so it isn't a limitation. If I absolutely found I needed a certain feature, then I would have to look into selling the DRebel and step up to something different. But I would never curse the DRebel for not being anything and everything to me.

Edward Karaa said:

The 300D will probably be remembered as the most controversial DSLR
from canon.

Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? Controversy is good. Look at "Passion of Christ" if you don't believe me.

Don

Funkmasterta said:

I completely agree!

To put it more succintly, I think we all just want more bang for
our buck and there's no denying that, isn't THAT what truly drives
the market?

Click to expand...

Oh of course, more bang for the buck. Why do you think the DRebel sold so well? It offered TONS of bang for the buck. Back 7 or 8 months ago when it was released. If that STILL wasn't enough, we should have waited a little longer 'til something with even MORE bang for the buck ame out! The market has changed now, since the competition is out, so things will be heating up as the "budget" war gets going!

Member said:

And, thank God for that because, with time, products continuously
offer more and more for less and less.

Click to expand...

Exactly! The future products are going to really be something to look forward to! But that will be the future products. Not the ones we have in our hands right now.

Don

Edward Karaa said:

What will happen actually is that I will wait for canon's next
upgrade of the 10D, whatever it is called, and will keep the 300D
as a back up. You never know with these electronic gadgets. The
300D has already failed me a few times with ERR99 messages, and I
think it is always a good idea to have another camera body for
important shoots.

Cheers,
Edward

Click to expand...

That sounds like a plan too! I keep my old digital cams for backup, just in case. Would hate to be left out in the cold if something broke. All we need is a little patience, because the next models are right around the corner! Hope you enjoy the next 10D revision! Should be one heck of a good camera!

Don

Hi Phil,

I'm with your in many ways. I'd probably have a Sony 828 or a Minolta A2 if not for the 300D. I just didn't know if I was prepared to start toting a SLR around again, and I didn't want to spend $1500 on a body plus hundreds more on a lens to find out -- especially since I knew that in a year the body would be obsolete.

The 300D was a great way to try things out! FWIW, I'd still not pay the 50% or more premium for the 10D -- the missing features are just not worth that much to me. If I didn't have the 300D I'd be tempted by the D70 but the Canon upgrade path and greater variety of lenses might also have me leaning towards the 300D, either this gen or next.

Personally I think the kit lens, as maligned as it is, is almost worth the price of the camera. That's been a very pleasant surprise.

DSC

philbarrett said:

cheers

phil

Donald Cooper said:

Certainly Canon had to work to "dumb down" the 300D in order to
differentiate it from the 10D. And I understand why that makes
perfect sense despite knowing that it cost them more to take the
features out than it would have to let them stay in.

I don't get your position at all. Are we supposed to "pretend" that
the 300D hasn't been intentionally crippled? I don't see what
difference it makes one way or the other. It's just reality.

Personally the fact that the 300D is crippled doesn't bother me at
all. If I thought that the added features of the 10D warranted the
high premium you pay for them I'd have a 10D. And you don't see me
complaining about it. I understood the choices when I decided what
camera to buy.

Plus, as I mentioned, some of what people call crippling, like the
AI Servo, may in fact just be a design decision based on the target
market.

DSC

philbarrett said:

Donald Cooper said:

If the 10D successor has a different sensor and/or better handling
that would remove the reason for crippling the 300D in the way it
is now.

Click to expand...

why pander to the trolls by referring to the 300d as crippled if
you think yours is crippled then go out and buy a camera that is
less crippled.........say d70 or d10 for example and loose yourself
in the eutopia of non crippled cameras.And leave the rest of us to
enjoy the beauty of our restrained but ultimately satisfying
cameras.

cheers

phil

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

From a design point of view I'd think a white or silver body would be better. A black body will got a whole lot hotter -- and I mean significantly hotter -- than a white one on a sunny day. And heat is the big problem with digital cameras.

Personally I don't care much about the color, but if I had a choice I'd want the lighter color one so long as it wasn't hideous. Assuming the insides are the same of course ......

ECRAN said:

Black bodies are generally used by pros who are apt to take better
pictures. Therefore, it stands to reason that cameras with black
bodies do in fact take better pictures! Why should anyone have a
problem with that!?
G

Click to expand...

Danny,

The sensor size would be more important than the megapixels. And even with the same sensor, the 10D succesor wouldn't have the AF and handling that a 1D has And that's a very big deal.

DSC

DannyV said:

Jun2 said:

I think 10D II will be 8M pixel.

300D successor should have all 10D function with a new faster
processor and more buffer. But still in polycarbonated body just
like 300D and D70.

Click to expand...

Assuming the rebel stayed at 6mp this would let Canon clearly
differentiate the rebel and the 10D. The only question would be, if
the 10D II would then be too similar to the 1D MII. It will be
interesting to see how this plays out.

DannyV said:

Jun

pixie2004 said:

Everybody talks about purchasing the 10D if we want the missing
features or wait for a 300D successor. The sad fact is that this
supposed 300D successor surely will be a 8 megapixel black bodied
camera with the same limitations as the 300D because everybody here
says that putting the missing features in this camera would eat the
market of the 10D. I hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11
300D tips and russian hack at
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
300D FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html

Click to expand...

DMahoney said:

DMahoney wrote:
And in a way, what's wrong with thinking from the companies
perspective? By doing that, one can understand where the company is
coming from, and be better informed when making purchasing
desicions.

Click to expand...

That's all fine and good. I already know the company's perspective and understand why they did it. But I'm not going to adopt it as my own view of how it should be done. We're on opposite sides... they want as much of my money as they can get; I want to keep as much as I can. I'll always argue for MY interests. They have enough resources (and virtual reps on these forums) to argue for theirs.

DMahoney said:

Thinking from the consumer's preferences isn't always realistic,
becuase the consumer wants all the best stuff, for nothing. Every
company would go broke! They have to offer something that
consumers want, and for a price they are willing to pay. If the
300D cost more than consumers were willing to pay, it would not of
sold! That's a guarantee! And that is where the idea of "worth"
comes into play. That is not company thinking, that is CONSUMER
thinking. Don't blame Canon for making something the consumer will
snap up like hotcakes, blame the CONSUMER for buying them like
crazy, giving Canon the message that they "did right". Personally,
I think they did right, and gave them my cash. That's not company
thinking, that's MY thinking. As a consumer. I think Canon did a
good job of challenging the marketplace to come up with "more for
less". And at least one competitor has bitten, with the D70. Do you
think Nikon would have come out with it if Canon hadn't "tested the
waters" first? Or would they have made the price much higher? Hard
to say, my predictions into alternate realities aren't as good as
they used to be!

Click to expand...

DMahoney said:

Right, but look at the product life cycles. The 10D was still
somewhat early in its life, whereas the D100 was nearing its end,
due for a replacement coming soon anyways. The D100 had already
made its money. Product life cycles are VERY important to
development, and everything is based around it. If the D100 was
still very new, I think Nikon would have a different story to tell.

Click to expand...

DMahoney said:

And I guess Nikon could have done that with the D100 when it came
out, but didn't. Didn't, in fact, until competition FORCED them to
do so. Nikon is just as guilty as any other company. Because of the
need to compete in the Digital Rebel era, the D70 was born. Nikon
didn't have a sudden change of heart, become more ethical, or get a
sense of ideology or altruism. They got competition. So they
responded. Nikon could have done it earlier too, but there was no
need.

Click to expand...

DMahoney said:

And I assume consumers flipped them the finger too. The difference
is, gas is an essential product, necessary to our society, and
since they have market domination, almost a monopoly when they work
together, there is not much we can do. We don't really have an
alternative. Canon does NOT have a monopoly, they are not essential
to our society as a whole, and we DO have other choices. But until
the Rebel came along, all the other choices cost twice as much.
Likely as "artificially inflated" as anything else.

Never said you had to defend it. But until the world gets a big
shift in the way it works and conducts business, it's something you
have to live with. Not from Canon, but with EVERYTHING you buy.

Click to expand...

DMahoney said:

Well, where would be the fun in that?! I am not saying I personally
BELIEVE in the way the system works, or that it will stay the same
when I become Emperor of the world, I am just saying the way it is
now. And looking at the way things are done, I don't think Canon
did anything horrible or reprehensible. If anything, they forced
the hand of the market to make cheaper, but still quality digital
cameras, and that IS good for the consumer.

Click to expand...

DMahoney said:

Right, it's done how it's done. Should it be that way? Maybe not,
but that's the way it is, which is what we have to deal with day to
day. I don't know if I even have a better way to do it. I'm no
economist. But it's still fun to debate. I don't plan on actually
changing any minds. If I do, that's a bonus. If someone opens their
mind just to see another point of view, even better! I debate for
me. It forces me to think through my position and my logic more
thoroughly, and allows me a glimpse into other ways of thinking,
which might give me a better understanding of people in general.
My position is, given the circumstances of the way business is
done, I think Canon did a great job in bringing the Rebel to market!

Click to expand...

Wow. If you're not on Canon's payroll, you should be.

That sure is a lot of effort put into getting around one simple fact: A company deliberately defeatured a product they could have left more functional for the same price. Period. You, the consumer, get less than you could have.... and you can't think of anything better to do than stretch creative market-can-do-no-wrong arguments to defend the people who, for marketing reasons, offer you less for your money.

Are you doing this just because you get a charge out of it?

You do have a valid point about gas being more essential (in our current society) than photo equipment. Principle remains the same though.

I'm not even going to get into that car motorcycle analogy because it's not at all aligned with the concepts we're talking about. You're comparing whole products that differ in actual production costs while my point concerns nothing more than features that would have cost the company nothing to leave enabled.

Why should people not compare and evaluate what they get for the price? Comparing reveals a point you're trying to obscure in your pro-company marketing position. The point is that the features are NOT related to a vast cost difference. If spot metering can be put on the G5 it can certainly be put on the Rebel. There is no NEED for it to have fewer features than a camera half its price. To say you somehow shouldn't compare the 2 is a ridiculous twisting and stretching of things just to prevent the obvious from being noted. People aren't that stupid. They can clearly see that hmmmm..... this feature set is available on this camera for $500 but a lot is missing on the $900 one. They want me to pay $1500 to get what could be available for $900 and IS available on a $500 camera. Of course when people notice and point out that crazy difference and the manipulation behind it, people like you rush in to defend the company and try to confuse the obvious. Again, you're advocating a position that a company representative would take, not one that's looking out for a consumer's interests.

I really don't get what your motivation is behind this defense. I've explained where I'm coming from and what my motivation is for feeling the way I do; I don't, however, understand your motivation for making these elaborate defenses. Defenses that just excuse tactics that leave you, the consumer, with less.

DMahoney said:

DMahoney wrote:
Nope. It's just the way "it is".

Click to expand...

That wasn't a response to anything you had written. The point was that Nikon's way defies what he had said about the level of features that price point "should" have. If that's "just the way it is" then there are no "shoulds," at least according to the D70 practice.

DMahoney said:

The Nikon has a few more features for a few more bucks. Seems like
the price is in line to me. Now, to be fair, I think there have
been a lot of people since the beginning who have said that they
would have liked a few more features on the Rebel, and would have
paid a little more to get them. Maybe in the future, the DRebel
line will play out like the film Rebel line. A couple different
model with more or less features, so you can "fine-tune" what you
want. But in the meantime, Canon has to start SOMEWHERE. And a
successful start it has been, judging by sales.

Click to expand...

My point is they could have started where the D70 did.

DMahoney said:

And you can go BUY the camera you think you "should" have. But you
can't expect companies to make EVERY camera something you would
buy. They offer different features and options for different
people. If you don't like what model X has, then go with model Y.
Or with a different company if you need. If the Rebel was the ONLY
game in town, maybe, but it's not. There are lots of options out
there. And maybe people need to get away from comparing SLRs to
compact p&s. Sure you can get a cheaper p&s with more features. And
you, with your consumer vote, can laugh all the way to the bank
when you go buy that cheaper p&s with all the features you want.
But don't look down on other because they feel having an SLR is
worth paying a little more for. Even if it has fewer features.

You also say that a G5 has more features than the DRebel, and we
are just led to believe that features should be limited to the
highest priced models. But in your example you use one of the
higher priced compacts to justify your rationale. You kind of
argued against yourself. If you want to compare fairly, you should
compare budget compacts to the budget Rebel. How does THEIR feature
set stack up. Compacts and SLRs are two different class of camera.
Maybe you don't feel such a distinction should exist, but it does.
And it's not fair to compare a higher-end compact to a budget SLR.
They both take pictures, agreed, but they are not the same. Let's
take cars and motorcycles. They both get you where you need to go.
Both are vehicles. An expensive motorcycle might cost me $15,000,
so following your logic, a sports car should be no more than
$15,000. And if it is, it should be even FASTER than the
motorcycle, and have better handling. True, it's not a GREAT
analogy, there are very quantifiable differences between the two,
the amount of materials, physics and a bunch of other things, but
it somewhat applies. They are two different classes of the same
thing (vehicles) much like compacts and SLRs are two different
classes of the same thing (cameras). Actual cost for these two
classes can be totally different. A budget of one class can be more
expensive than the high end in another class.

Don

Click to expand...

But as a way to be competitive it's possible that a company could pursue strategies that build trust and loyalty among customers. I wasn't suggesting pure altruism as a motive. Like you said, it matters what the consumer thinks, and it's in our benefit to make sure the companies know what we want and expect. If people were more informed about what they're being offered and made decisions accordingly, companies might decide that manipulative marketing practices like defeaturing aren't in their best interests.

DMahoney said:

DMahoney wrote:
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.

Don

Click to expand...

SwC said:

I think you can compare them. There is a difference between
components used (cost, quality, etc.) and features. I for one am
glad that many of the components (like the CMOS) do come from the
10D. They are proven and give me the same quality at a lower
price. As for features, I expect less for less money. It really
is not rocket science, this!

Click to expand...

WHY would you expect fewer features unless costs warranted it? Again, this is only an issue because the camera was deliberately DE-featured. It would have cost them nothing to leave them enabled.

SwC said:

Canon did no such thing, as there was no precendent. I.e. there
was no existing 300D to "de-feature". What they did is release a
camera with less features than their existing bottom of the range
camera (10D) and charge less for it. Common business practive from
manufacturing to service industry. If they had release the 300D
with a similar feature set to the 10D, then it would have been a
10D replacement. And it would have cost more.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. The 300D WAS defeatured. Firmware hacks prove as much. And no, it need not cost more if they were left enabled. The release of the 300D simply revealed something that the 10D was very overpriced (at least at the time of the 300D release -- perhaps not at it's own release date). There's no need to have 2 cameras in this segment other than to manipulate the consumer into paying much more for features that cost the company virtually nothing. The D70 is exposing all this very well.

DannyV said:

DannyV wrote:
Yes you can compare them, go look at the features of these two
cameras if you have not already. The DRebel is clearly a duplicate
(feature wise) of the film rebel. This is how companies market
products, they would not, for example, come out with a camera
called a DRebel and give it the features of the 1Ds.

Click to expand...

Who cares if digital X has the same features as film y? They are not sold to the same market segment. It's certainly not how consumers think of cameras. People don't go out locked into looking for a particular feature set only to ponder at the store, "honey, do you think we should get the $1000 digital or the $200 film?"

DannyV said:

DannyV said:

And actually, I'd say Nikon's choices here MAY be more ethical.
They could have made the D70 with a Rebel feature set and priced it
the same as the Rebel. The black alone would have given it a
marketing advantage. Instead, they included most of the features
anyone would need/want.

Click to expand...

Nikon did this because they knew they had to win and win big. Come
on they threw in everything but the kitchen sink.

Click to expand...

Canon could have tried to win just as big by making the 300D with the same features as the D70 has.

DannyV said:

Yes, companies are responsible primarily responsible to their
shareholders (owners). Customers, while important, will always be
second on the list. Since there was no competion when the rebel
came out, Canon saw no need to sell a feature laden camera at a low
price. Just because you wish they had, does not make them
un-ethical, just good business people.

Click to expand...

Now you're getting to the point (and basically admitting what I've contended all along). They got away with it because there was no competition in the market segment. Now there is, and their manipulating days with the 300D/10D are nearing an end.

DannyV said:

How would you feel if you had purchased the D100 for $2000 and now
find that Nikon has released a camera for half the price with more
features and better image quality? My guess is, as consumers, D100
owners are not quite so happy.

Click to expand...

Good point, but it's the reality of advancing technology and market competition. It's like the people who bought early DVD players. They paid a lot for something that now costs very little. Overall that's a better way to do things than not offering the best you can for the money on your new products.

Or were you suggesting that Nikon cheated people by pricing the D100 too high?

Dr. Don Sandell208748 said:

Bifunster wrote:
Horse manure........if you want the x-tra features of the 10D pony
up and buy the damned thing. You idiots who want something for
nothing are just that.

Click to expand...

Ah.... another camera company butt kisser.

I suppose you think the D70 is "something for nothing."

SwC said:

SwC wrote:
Which is exactly what car manufaturers do. Volkswagen, for
example, sold several versions on their 1.8l Golf in the 1980s here
in the UK. The bottom of the range Golf 1.8 had less power than
the 1.8 GTi. Same engine block in each, just slightly different
cams, compression ratios, etc. So less power. The cheaper model
even had wiring looms in it for electric windows, but it came with
wind-up (keep fit) windows. So judging by many of the comments on
this board, the 1.8 Golf was crippled version of the Golf Driver,
which was a crippled version of the Golf GTi. Hardly fair!

Click to expand...

Whether it's ethical (to me, not necessarily to you) depends on one thing: did the increase in price for the higher models reflect an actual increase in cost to VW? I don't know the answer because I haven't studied those Golf models. You seem to be suggesting it didn't.

SwC said:

By the same token, I have a cable connection to the internet here
via NTL. It's at 600kbps. They also offer 128kbps and 1mbps. The
control for the speed is set in a config file in the set top box.
So do I have a right to complain that my 600kbps link is crippled?

Click to expand...

Depends on whether providing the extra bandwidth costs them more. From my understanding it does, but I don't work in the broadband industry.

SwC said:

I have also seen people here saying that they use their EOS 300Ds
for "editorial" quality sports photos. Well, I know this may be a
contoversial statement, but an EOS 300D (or a film EOS 300/300V)
are probably not aimed at people who want a hardened photo
journalistic workhorse. For that, may I suggest a 1D or perhaps a
10D. I have a 300D, and I know exactly what it's intended position
in the market is. Right at the bottom of the range.

Click to expand...

Why not suggest a D70? What is the intended position of that?

SwC said:

Coming back to the VW point above, I think I'd be more that a bit
cheeky if I had bought the standard VW Golf 1.8l (back in the late
80s/early 90s) and then complained that it was a crippled Golf GTi
and started bitching about the fact that VW should have sold me a
GTi at the same price.

Click to expand...

IF (and that's a big if) it cost them no more than the 1.8l, then you'd have a perfectly rational argument.

My disagreement with your point of view is that it sees only the consumer's side. Yes, the consumer wants as much as he can get, but the company has to balance the consumer's wishes with profit. If they don't build a product that meets the needs of their customers, it will fail. So, they have to meet their customers' needs, but they also have to make sure that they do it profitably. They also can't just look at a single product, they have to consider the impact of any new product on the rest of their product line. One product should not cannabalize the sales of another, unless that other product is at or near the end of its life cycle anyway (possible explanation for the D70/D100 issue).

Since the DRebel is selling like hotcakes, i think Canon did a good job of meeting consumer needs. Just remember, 99% of all the people who bought a DRebel NEVER visit an online photo Message Board and probably don't care about the issues that get so many people on here so worked up.! The people on this board are a sub-segment of the broader DRebel market.

As a consumer, I certainly want as much as I can get for my money, but I also understand the reasons I may not be able to get everything I want from every product.

You also seem to think that looking at things from a company's perspective is a bad thing and makes you a mouthpiece for that company. I am pro-business, pro-free-market. As a stockholder in a number of companies directly, and many more through mutual funds, I hope the management of those firms are putting MY interests as a stockholder as their primary focus. I don't own any Canon stock directly (some of my mutual funds may, but I'm not sure), but I sure expect them to make decisions which enhance shareholder value for THEIR shareholders as their primary focus and ensuring that there is adequate differentiation between products in their line is a key element of that. I don't know if you own any stock or any mutual funds, but you better hope that the management of any companies you own stock in don't behave they way you expect Canon to.

notpc said:

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.

Click to expand...

What TRAP??? Phil's review is OK, if you can read you knew what to expect. I really don't understand WHY you are so angry at Canon??????
--
Pictures from Japan: http://www.pbase.com/tomas_cermak

As one with a 'non-cripled 10D', it might be 'better' but boy is it heavier!

Has me reaching for my point and shoot sometimes I know I would not have with a 300D, and I don't think the 'non-cripled' bits are that much of an improvement. By the time you master the bits on the 300D, they'll have 12+mpixel ones at the same price ...

Sterling said:

BobT said:

riversen said:

Thanks. I cannot agree more. I am at a point that my 300D is
quite satisfying and has much more to offer than I can even think
about currently. When and if I outgrow it, then I will explore the
next level of cameras.

philbarrett said:

Donald Cooper said:

If the 10D successor has a different sensor and/or better handling
that would remove the reason for crippling the 300D in the way it
is now.

Click to expand...

why pander to the trolls by referring to the 300d as crippled if
you think yours is crippled then go out and buy a camera that is
less crippled.........say d70 or d10 for example and loose yourself
in the eutopia of non crippled cameras.And leave the rest of us to
enjoy the beauty of our restrained but ultimately satisfying
cameras.

cheers

phil

Click to expand...

--
Say cheese,
Robert

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't think my view is any more biased from the consumer's side than yours is from the marketer's side. We both understand the facts, but I'd prefer the company treat the customer differently. Believe it or not, there's more than one way to go about pleasing them. Not all companies do it the same way. There are companies that create goodwill and loyalty by treating the customer with respect (i.e. not purposely limiting features that wouldn't cost them anything just to artificially segment a product line). Doing it another way can work. From your comments, you seem to be coming at this from a more ideological or political perspective. Perhaps that's caused you to extrapolate from my real position. This isn't an argument against profit or for nationalization of industry in order to mold it to my liking. I simply want consumers to be aware to a point that companies will be motivated to offer products featured and priced more in line with consumer desires and production costs.

jdf6395c said:

jdf6395c wrote:
My disagreement with your point of view is that it sees only the
consumer's side. Yes, the consumer wants as much as he can get, but
the company has to balance the consumer's wishes with profit. If
they don't build a product that meets the needs of their customers,
it will fail. So, they have to meet their customers' needs, but
they also have to make sure that they do it profitably. They also
can't just look at a single product, they have to consider the
impact of any new product on the rest of their product line. One
product should not cannabalize the sales of another, unless that
other product is at or near the end of its life cycle anyway
(possible explanation for the D70/D100 issue).

Since the DRebel is selling like hotcakes, i think Canon did a good
job of meeting consumer needs. Just remember, 99% of all the people
who bought a DRebel NEVER visit an online photo Message Board and
probably don't care about the issues that get so many people on
here so worked up.! The people on this board are a sub-segment of
the broader DRebel market.

As a consumer, I certainly want as much as I can get for my money,
but I also understand the reasons I may not be able to get
everything I want from every product.

You also seem to think that looking at things from a company's
perspective is a bad thing and makes you a mouthpiece for that
company. I am pro-business, pro-free-market. As a stockholder in a
number of companies directly, and many more through mutual funds, I
hope the management of those firms are putting MY interests as a
stockholder as their primary focus. I don't own any Canon stock
directly (some of my mutual funds may, but I'm not sure), but I
sure expect them to make decisions which enhance shareholder value
for THEIR shareholders as their primary focus and ensuring that
there is adequate differentiation between products in their line is
a key element of that. I don't know if you own any stock or any
mutual funds, but you better hope that the management of any
companies you own stock in don't behave they way you expect Canon
to.

Click to expand...

My point is why, if you can afford it would you not buy the best body to go with the best lenses? It makes perfect sense to pay just that little bit more for the 10d if you want those features.It really is that simple.As I said in an earlier posting we all new of its limitations (300d)so why moan now.Surely the prudent thing to do is to buy the absolutely best one can afford. With me thats the 300d.If I had the extra cash and wished for the extra features then I would have purchased the 10d....simple. Its no trap you cannot expect a 10d for the price of a 300d.Is that simple enough for you do you now understand my point?

Edward Karaa said:

Sorry but I don't understand your point. I have always owned
affordable camera bodies and spent my cash on good lenses. Camera
bodies are upgraded almost every year, but good lenses can be used
for ages, and they are the most important factor in giving you good
quality pictures.

Off course I understand your point about buying the best lenses, we all do and we are all in common agreement about buying the best lenses one can afford...but come on surely if you are going to spend such serious cash then you really really need to be spending that little bit extra on the body to go with that big cash spend on the lenses.If you do not wish to spend the extra on the body then you, like the rest of us, will just have to live within its limitations,!

Click to expand...

you pays your money you makes your choices!

simple

cheers

phil

Edward Karaa said:

philbarrett said:

$10,000 dollars of lenses????????wow and your moaning about a few
hundred bucks???? Seems a bit pointless to me, if you can afford
all that brass on lenses why not get the 1d and be done with
it...eutopia! I know I would.....damn $10,000 I can only dream

p

Click to expand...

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

When the 10D replacement is finally announced and the speculation is over (hurrahh!) I probably will buy one, to go alongside my 300d. For me the 300d is a great camera, but one that i bought as a bridge because i) it has the same sensor as the 10D ii) it was a lot cheaper and iii) it would have a longer product life than the 10D which had already been available for 9 months. I really would like the 1.3x crop over the 1.6x crop, but since I have bought a Sigma 12-24mm lens this is less of an issue and the 1.6x crop is a boon at the longer end (300mm +).

The greatest assets that the 300d has is it's size, weight and unobtrousiveness. The 10d is a big ugly and obvious camera, the 300d is sweet and small and that's why I'll keep hold of it when the 10D's replacement is out. I also like the way I can add the battery pack to beef up the handling, it makes a modular camera. Let's face it a 300d with the battery grip and extra battery is still smaller and lighter than a 10D without the extras.

Yes there are limitations to it's functions that are irratating, but so does the Eos 300 film camera and canon have yet to release a eos 30 (Elan7) DSLR. The 10d is close but not close enough.

Gareth

pixie2004 said:

Everybody talks about purchasing the 10D if we want the missing
features or wait for a 300D successor. The sad fact is that this
supposed 300D successor surely will be a 8 megapixel black bodied
camera with the same limitations as the 300D because everybody here
says that putting the missing features in this camera would eat the
market of the 10D. I hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...