Well, after trying to find it for a few hours, I've read in the manual (WOW)!

[José Luís Malaquias]

Unless you want to question the Britannica Encyclopaedia definition, here's what an oligopoly is:

market situation in which each of a few producers affects but does not control the market. Each producer must consider the effect of a price change on the actions of the other producers. A cut in price by one may lead to an equal reduction by the others, with the result that each firm will retain approximately the same share of the market as before but at a lower profit margin. Competition in oligopolistic industries tends, therefore, to manifest itself in nonprice forms such as advertising and product differentiation. Characteristic oligopolies in the U.S. are the steel, aluminum, and automobile industries.

You may argue that they didn't include the photograhic industry, but I don't think that is a big stretch of imagination (few producers who affect but do not control the market, ring a bell?).

In case what they say is too dense for you (which I doubt, since you strike me as a very smart person), what they are saying is that in an oligopoly (which is not a cartel, the latter being an ilegal practice, the former being a common trend) the competitors have the perception that if they compete on price all they will get is the same market share with less profits, and so they are intelligent players, and have an understanding (a gentleman's agreement, if you will) that they will not compete over price, because that's bad for them all, and instead they differentiate their products to keep neck to neck competition to a minimum.

You will forgive me, but that's what we have here.

Which is fine with me. Just don't tell me that this is a free market. It is an oligopoly and you can't move me one inch out of it, and unless you think Britannica is also off, you should probably at least concede me that.

 

[Jeremy Kindy]

It is very funny how people have the tendency to think that they
cannot make things change...that they cannot make a difference and
they don't even try.

Yes, I do sometimes get into that mindset. I need to get out of it. In fact, if it weren't for those two things (metering selection and focus selection), the DRebel would be the backup camera for me.

get it? people complain, things have at least some chances of
getting fixed.

Canon, release a firmware fix that lets you select the metering mode and and focusing in the creative zones, and I'd be a happy camper!

--
Jeremy Kindy

 

[José Luís Malaquias]

Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else, but last night everyone was all over me with "if you don't like it, don't buy it, it's a free market", and since you were my main debater, I thought you might have also upheld the thesis that this is a free market. If you didn't, then I apologize. This whole dispute wasn't with you.

I agree with you that manufacturers diferentiate their products, rather than compete over price, but if you look at the Britannica definition that I gave you before, that is what an oligopoly is all about.

I don't know who, but I never told you to accept this because it is
a free market. I have only said that, in the real world,
manufacturers differentiate their products through features.

Paul

 

[Daniella68313]

I'll stand with the "market segmentation" crowd with this one.
Why? Because that's the way the market is. You pay more for more
features, all else being equal. It IS intentionally crippled - so
that it does not compete with the 10D. Is that wrong?

yes it is wrong if it impair the founctionality of the camera. If it does now work according to expectation because of it, then yes it is wrong. Because we still paid 1000$ for that camera..and we are intitled to receive a product that is reliable and predictable.

I'd say figure out what

YOUR basic needs are and get the camera that meets those needs.

I would definitly consider an efficient metering as basic. do I need to go back to a 300$ digital camera to get it?

You certainly have the right to complain, and I applaud you for
using it. However, from the limited experience I have with your
posts, I first thought you hated the camera and did not own/use it
because of these faults. Knowing you a little better now, I can
see that's not true, but that was my first impression.

well I do not hate the camera. I like it but I am not the type of person hiding my head underground and not seing the faults. I do use it so I can criticize it if I wish.

I wonder how people will feel when Canon will release a 400D without crippling at the same price tag as the 300D? maybe they will get the picture right then.

They will eventualy do it..it is just a matter of time. Many people accept the crippling because the 300d is the first DSLR which break the 1000$ price tag barrier. So they are so greatful for it that they are willing to accept just about anything.

How does the camera know what's the subject and what's not?

It does not...that is why the decision should be ours...not the camera.

Should

it care?

it obviously does not care, nor Canon.

Should the camera should meter so that the brightest part

of the image is just under the "blown highlights" level?

In evaluative it should meter the whole scene so it is well balanced between the highlight and dark zones. it should make an "average" of this. It still might blow out highliths, but you will not get somethign like this:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23374969

Now if I use partial metering I would expect something like that but NOT with evaluative. That means that when I am using the center focusing point, all I get is partial metering. There is no evaluative. Depending if I focus on the light or the dark zone..that is drasticaly changing the exposure..too drasticaly. it is unpredictable. You must then pay reall attention to focus right on between the dark and light zone..then you get something more balanced like this:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23374967

Out of about 75 shots of those lemurs, only that one was more or less properly exposed. All other were either totaly overexposed or underexposed..is that normal?

I used Av mode on those photos...not wanting to do anything else but to concentrate on the perfect moment and control the aperture.

• even though there are times that such a "avoid

blown highlights" metering mode would be really nice to have.

then you use partial metering with the AEL button...simple.. but give me that evaluative when I need it!

We already have partial metering with the AEL button...why make the evaluative as partial as well? that makes it work as if there is no evaluative mode at all when you are using the center focusing point. not so if you are using more than one focusing point..but then you rarely have the point that you want in focus. my this is a hard message to get across..

Canon feels that it should be dependent on the focusing point, and
I doubt you or I could do anything to change that.

again that fatalist attitude.. nobody can change that so why even try huh?

I often don't like

the 10D's selection when I use all 7, so I typically use the center
or I set it for each shot.

but then with the 10D you have the choice of selecting evaluative or somethign else. not so with the 300d. with the 10D, does it act as partial meetering when you use evaluative and the center focusing point? or does it really make a difference from the partial metering? with the 300D I cannot really see a difference wether I use partial or evaluative...that is not normal.

Then, I focus, meter and recompose the

picture, compensating as needed for the tone of the subject. From
the looks of your galleries (300D ones, anyway), you're doing
pretty well with exposure.

I am doing ok about 90% of the time. I have problem with the very contrasty subjects...can't take any decent photos of them or very fiew good results.

One more comment about market segmentation:

One thing that really PI$$ES me off about Canon - the battery grip
for the DRebel is $60 cheaper than the one for the 10D. Why? You
tell me! I don't know...they look the same...why didn't they just
use the same grip for both cameras? I'm sure they could have made
it fit with the DRebel. Then they wouldn't have had to go through
the trouble of making a new grip.

Obviously Canon does not care about its customers...they are in for the money alone.

As my brother says:

you can't afford to individually design products for each market segment,
so you have to find ways to use the same product in multiple segments,
typically by disabling some of the features. they would actually cost
more if there were separate designs at each point.

I bet that all segment would be realy happy if the 300d woudl not be crippled. Do you think the 10D users would be so angry if the 300d would have a selectable metering and AI focus? I bet not.

 

[Daniella68313]

do you think you have evaluative? have you tried using the central focusing point and comparing the so called "evaluative" and the partial metering with the AEL button? try it on contrasty subject and have fun.

use the central focusing point, then focus on something dark, then try it this time focusing on something light. then do the same with partial? see any difference? not much..that is not what I call evaluative. I would also use evaluative most of the time, I always used it with my previous cameras...it never behaved as it does with the 300d because it was not linked to the focusing point, it was evaluating the full scene without weighted too much on the focusing point.

Evaluative metering: this is what I need MOST of the time, so I do
not mid thatthi is the default. But I can have

Partial metering any time, just need to press the * button...
But if it is still not enogh, I can have

Centerweighted avarage metering: mode.

So why do you complain at all?
:-(

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

 

[pbleic]

Daniella:

This IS the way evaluative metering works on Canon SLRs. It is well known and has been in existence for years. Since you have so much experience, I would have thought you knew this when you bought your camera?

Paul

use the central focusing point, then focus on something dark, then
try it this time focusing on something light. then do the same
with partial? see any difference? not much..that is not what I
call evaluative. I would also use evaluative most of the time, I
always used it with my previous cameras...it never behaved as it
does with the 300d because it was not linked to the focusing point,
it was evaluating the full scene without weighted too much on the
focusing point.

Evaluative metering: this is what I need MOST of the time, so I do
not mid thatthi is the default. But I can have

Partial metering any time, just need to press the * button...
But if it is still not enogh, I can have

Centerweighted avarage metering: mode.

So why do you complain at all?
:-(

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

--
Paul
------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

 

[Daniella68313]

sigh..to bad because that would surely solve my problem faster than the firmware hack, hehe...

I am afraid that the Olympus C740 (maybe C730, can't remember) story will repeat itself with the 300d. Olympus released the C730 or C740 with higher mega pixels but removed some of the existing features of the C720 like the very basic manual focus! can you imagine?! people who bought it were very disapointed about that of course.

the next model, Olympus had put back all those features and the C730 or c740 owners were forgoten. that was a bad marketing decision and I don't think Olympus ever made that mistake after. Minolta had better understanding of their customers. Kudo Minolta for releasing a firmware enhancing kit for the Dimage 7.

I hope that Canon will release that type of enhancing kit once they will release their new not crippled 400D or so.

it is surely worth trying.

Besides, this forum would be boring without these discussions, and
no one livens them up better than Daniella.

Keep going, Daniella. We'll hack their firmware to death, and
you'll show them what great pictures you can still take with a
properly hacked 300D.

It was a rather poor attempt at humor.

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

 

[Daniella68313]

Daniella:

This IS the way evaluative metering works on Canon SLRs. It is
well known and has been in existence for years. Since you have so
much experience, I would have thought you knew this when you bought
your camera?

no, I was actualy expecting evaluative to be just that..evaluative. I was expecting that evaluative mode of the 300d to behave as the evaluative mode as all my other previous digital cameras..but it does not.

there is just not enough difference between the partial metering and the evaluative to make me think that there is actualy an evaluative metering going on.

 

[Daniella68313]

Are you saying that when you select the center point you are only
getting partial metering? I use center point all the time and file
viewer says I'm getting evaluative all the time.

No I was not talking about the camera being in partial metering, but the camera evaluative metering being about the same as the partial metering. there is no much difference.

I just read a possible work around for my problem. My problem come from that I have the subject pretty much filling the frame so where ever I focus will be considerably weithed. I guess I must zoom out and frame the full contrasty object within the focusing braket, lock the exposure and then zoom in again...taht would give me evaluative metering. But I can't do it if my subject is filling the frame past the focusing braket.

Please respond
Steve

I guess this would be for Daniella, but also for anyone else
thinking along the same lines.

First off, I completely agree with you: Canon made a very weird
choice in what to cripple. They could have made a "feature-reduced"
D10 with a set of features that made more sense than what they put
in the 300D - some really whiz-bang neato things and others that
make you say "what?!?". No argument from me there - the 300D
feature set could have been planned alot better and still kept
smaller to avoid hurting their higher-end camera. And just like you
I wish they'd thought about it more.

But all the people talking about economics raise very valid points.
And lead me to ask you, what is the point of all the complaining
and posting? Do you think it will make a difference? Even
complaining to Canon, even if all the members of this forum hit
them with a mass-mailing complaint campaign and jumped up and down
outside Canon USA headquarters, it wouldn't matter. You know why?
Because we all bought 300D's already! And because they're selling
so fast that stores everywhere can't keep the damn things on the
shelves! And because sales of EF lenses have probably doubled at
the same time! Canon just don't care, and while that sucks for me
and you, if I was running the show I wouldn't care either. I'd be
too busy checking out the value of my stock options.

Until Nikon, Olympus, Minolta or someone else comes out with a DSLR
that can match Canon in the price point, we're stuck. When that
finally happens though (a year maybe?), THEN we will start to see
some competition. Until then I just don't see anything that could
possibly make Canon give a hoot. Life sucks.

Tell you what. If everyone gets together and chips in say $50 each,
we could probably come up with a pretty hefty bribe. Track down one
of the Canon firmware developers and get him to write us a new
version.

Neil

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

 

[José Luís Malaquias]

You mean that you raise this hell and now you would be ready to jump ship to the 10D forum, and leave us here alone at the mercy of the Canon Soldiers? Shame on you!!!! LOL

I am afraid that the Olympus C740 (maybe C730, can't remember)
story will repeat itself with the 300d. Olympus released the C730
or C740 with higher mega pixels but removed some of the existing
features of the C720 like the very basic manual focus! can you
imagine?! people who bought it were very disapointed about that of
course.

the next model, Olympus had put back all those features and the
C730 or c740 owners were forgoten. that was a bad marketing
decision and I don't think Olympus ever made that mistake after.
Minolta had better understanding of their customers. Kudo Minolta
for releasing a firmware enhancing kit for the Dimage 7.

I hope that Canon will release that type of enhancing kit once they
will release their new not crippled 400D or so.

it is surely worth trying.

Besides, this forum would be boring without these discussions, and
no one livens them up better than Daniella.

Keep going, Daniella. We'll hack their firmware to death, and
you'll show them what great pictures you can still take with a
properly hacked 300D.

It was a rather poor attempt at humor.

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

 

[Daniella68313]

No that is not correct. Using the center focus point is not truely
Partial metering. There is a difference but it is minimal.

yes exactly..the difference is very minimal. I bearaly notice it. It is as if we only have partial metering to a different degree of emphasis that is very similar.

Easy to

test. Point your camera at a small light source like a light bulb.
Half press and use just the center focus point. Take note of the
metering suggestions. Now do the same thing only use the Partial
Metering button. There is a difference.

The point is that the difference is marginal and appears to be
heavily tied to the focus point, more so then if you let the camera
choose focus and it picks two different focus points.

yes, at least that is my experience with it.

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918