# DPReview Interview With Canon Execs, \



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 19, 2018)

```
During the CP+ show earlier this month, DPReview had the chance to interview a few Canon executives about all things Canon imaging. DPReview asked most of the questions us enthusiasts wanted answered.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up">From DPReview</a>:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p><strong>How important is it for Canon to add higher-end mirrorless products to your lineup?</strong></p>
<p>At Canon we have what’s called a ‘full lineup strategy’. This means that we want to satisfy all of the demands in the market, so we have mirrorless and also DSLR, which combined makes an EOS hierarchy. We want to fill the gaps to satisfy customer demands across the board.</p>
<p>The new M50 is an entry-level model, because that’s where the high-volume sales are. We want to establish ourselves in this market, and then move forward [from there]. In accordance with the full lineup strategy, we will be tackling [the mid-range and high-end mirrorless market] going forward.</p>
<p><strong>The EOS M50 offers 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS AF, but not at the same time. Is there a technical reason for this limitation?</strong></p>
<p>With the EOS 5D Mark IV, we do offer 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus, so technically it is feasible. But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV. Given the position of the product, we wanted to achieve the optimal balance [of features] in a camera in that range. We’ve optimized the M50 as best we can [for its market position], and within those parameters, the combination of 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus was not possible. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up">Read the full interview at DPReview</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Image Credit // <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up">DPReview</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 19, 2018)

Um, yup  Crop and no DPAF in 4K is cost / marketing decision, as suspected. 

_With the EOS 5D Mark IV, we do offer 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus, so technically it is feasible. But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV. Given the position of the product, we wanted to achieve the optimal balance [of features] in a camera in that range. We’ve optimized the M50 as best we can [for its market position], and within those parameters, the combination of 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus was not possible._

And lack of 4K in the rest of the lineup is a lack of perception by Canon into the marketplace- in other words, they were wrong about 4K, and do not have infallible market research, as many have stated. 4K came up faster than they anticipated.  

_The cost required to introduce [features like 4K] into cameras dictates the kind of features that we can introduce [in products of different classes]. 4K is important to offer in all market segments, and in the M50 we’ve achieved 4K at 25 fps, and that’s the best we can do at this time. We can’t introduce all of the features [in an entry-level camera] that we could in a higher-end model. Another point is that consumption of 4K footage in terms of devices to view 4K video – the penetration of those devices in the market, and their adoption, was a little faster than we expected._

I think most of us knew this all along


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 19, 2018)

I don't think there's anything surprising that a much cheaper much smaller much less powerful beginner's camera can't keep up with the much more expensive much more powerful professional one. If the M50 could do video as well as the top DSLRs then it would be in the same price range, not one fifth of the price.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 19, 2018)

wow thanks for the article but that is such bullshit! Keep it up Canon, protect your 5DIV in the meanwhile I'll sell mine and buy an A7III and a6500. Idiots.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

The most interesting parts to me were the discussions about the future of the mount on a mirrorless, and the EF mount.

It also interested me that they thought that autofocus and viewfinder were not yet competitive with DSLR, which is my experience, too. I am not a fan of subject tracking for still photography, because it is not close to 100% accurate and sometimes doesn't do what I want/expect. Putting that aside, I still vastly prefer DSLR autofocus for still photography.

Also, that we can expect a "professional" (read: 1D series) camera in Tokyo 2020 was cool to hear.

The wide angle photo of the camera room in South Korea was very cool; I hadn't seen that one before.



lexaclarke said:


> I don't think there's anything surprising that a much cheaper much smaller much less powerful beginner's camera can't keep up with the much more expensive much more powerful professional one. If the M50 could do video as well as the top DSLRs then it would be in the same price range, not one fifth of the price.



Exactly!



ichiru said:


> wow thanks for the article but that is such bullshit! Keep it up Canon, protect your 5DIV in the meanwhile I'll sell mine and buy an A7III and a6500. Idiots.



Which part did you think was bull?

Is it that you simply don't like that Canon does not lower prices and add features features of flagship models down to the more entry level models (ie A7iii price), do you not like the direction that they're charting out, or what?

The 5DMk4 is a very different camera from the A7iii and A6500. If you're happy with it, you might not be happy with the Sony -- and vice versa. As you own a 5D4 already, what is about the 5D4 that you aren't happy with?


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 19, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> I don't think there's anything surprising that a much cheaper much smaller much less powerful beginner's camera can't keep up with the much more expensive much more powerful professional one. If the M50 could do video as well as the top DSLRs then it would be in the same price range, not one fifth of the price.



I'd agree for the most part yep, I think the limitations on the 5dmk4 will mean that the lower priced options will be reduced further than need be though.

Giving the M50 dpaf in 4k would have been good, and with the crop, it'd still be under the performance of the 5dmk4. 
If they released a firmware update to the 5d, like the same 4k codec as the m50 and no crop, then they'd have far more room to move underneath that price point


----------



## MintChocs (Mar 19, 2018)

I think Canon are taking a huge gamble that they will win the mirrorless market. They might do so on the lower end but on the mid level FF I think they will lose to Sony. APS-C owners of the XXD/80D might move to Fuji. Canon is safe at the 1Dx level.


----------



## Woody (Mar 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> With the EOS 5D Mark IV, we do offer 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus, so technically it is feasible. But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV.



So, it's the usual Canon crippling at work again! ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 20, 2018)

The word crippling should be banned from use by those who use it wrongly. Crippling means what is now considered crippled had the features to begin with and then those features were taken away. 

But hey, I'm all for every camera at every price point all having the same features. The m50 should absolutely have all the same features of a 1DX II at an M50 price. : : :

Where do these people come from?


----------



## Woody (Mar 20, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> And lack of 4K in the rest of the lineup is a lack of perception by Canon into the marketplace- in other words, they were wrong about 4K, and do not have infallible market research, as many have stated. 4K came up faster than they anticipated.



We just carried out a little experiment couple of days ago in our lab. We used three 65" televisions with different configurations: (i) 1080p input into 4k TV (ii) 4k input into 4k TV (iii) 1080p input into 1080p TV. We used identical scene for comparison.

When we viewed the output at normal viewing distance, more than 1 m away, none of us (there were six of us in the lab) could tell the difference. We could only tell the difference when we stood 30 cm away from each screen and pixel-peep at specific areas of the scene. Sure, configuration (ii) gave the best output, but it was only visible when we pixel-peeped at 30 cm distance from the TV.

I feel Canon was not wrong. 4k is over-hyped. It's great for pixel-peepers and serious video editors. But for the man-in-the-street, it's an overkill.


----------



## gmon750 (Mar 20, 2018)

ichiru said:


> wow thanks for the article but that is such bullshit! Keep it up Canon, protect your 5DIV in the meanwhile I'll sell mine and buy an A7III and a6500. Idiots.



Such an ignorant post.

So go ahead. If you think that new Sony is going to make photos from a 5DM4 suddenly obsolete and unusable, then it just proves that you're more a weekend shooter and not someone that really is in a position to use either camera to its fullest extent. Either camera provides photo quality that most will never be able to distinguish.

So give it a rest. Threats of jumping ship get really old.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

Woody said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > And lack of 4K in the rest of the lineup is a lack of perception by Canon into the marketplace- in other words, they were wrong about 4K, and do not have infallible market research, as many have stated. 4K came up faster than they anticipated.
> ...



This is the way I've felt since day 1 of the 4k mania. I really, really don't get it for the average person, considering the file sizes and the difficulty in post. I would think that really good 1080 would be much more important.


----------



## RGF (Mar 20, 2018)

*Re: DPReview Interview With Canon Execs, *

A lot was missing there.

First only a tiny mention of the top end of the market - the 2020 Olympics in Japan. Perhaps 1Dx M3, maybe 600 DO? or 500/600 w/ drop in converters?

What about a step down - not entry level but the 5D M5 and 7D M3. Both these cameras are seriously lagging behind Nikon. I suspect that Canon's refresh will be behind the current Nikon counterpart (D850 and D500). I find it frustrating when a company cuts features from products in order to protect the top of the line.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

*Re: DPReview Interview With Canon Execs, *



RGF said:


> A lot was missing there.
> 
> First only a tiny mention of the top end of the market - the 2020 Olympics in Japan. Perhaps 1Dx M3, maybe 600 DO? or 500/600 w/ drop in converters?
> 
> What about a step down - not entry level but the 5D M5 and 7D M3. Both these cameras are seriously lagging behind Nikon. I suspect that Canon's refresh will be behind the current Nikon counterpart (D850 and D500). I find it frustrating when a company cuts features from products in order to protect the top of the line.



Well, just because they didn't talk about 5D, doesn't mean that 5D isn't in the lineup.

The question was very specifically about Tokyo 2020, so I think for sure that will mean a 1D, because he says,:

"The Tokyo Olympics is a very important opportunity for us. If we look at the professional camera market, we would like to introduce a professional model at that time. Having said that, we take reliability very seriously. "

I don't read that as a lens, and second, they're pretty clear in the article that professional = 1D, plus, if you look at the Canon photography room in 2018, it was all 1D's and 200-400.


----------



## -pekr- (Mar 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The word crippling should be banned from use by those who use it wrongly. Crippling means what is now considered crippled had the features to begin with and then those features were taken away.
> 
> But hey, I'm all for every camera at every price point all having the same features. The m50 should absolutely have all the same features of a 1DX II at an M50 price. : : :
> 
> Where do these people come from?



Oh my, another this camera for the price of that one argument. And I thought it is just Neuero, who has no clue how to eventually differentiate 6DII to 5DIV, unless giving 6DII an old-school sensor.

Looking at the bunch of guys interviewed, it looks like a nice panopticum, well suited for a retirement house already, if they can't identify essential features and how to further differentiate their product lines.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 20, 2018)

Woody said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > And lack of 4K in the rest of the lineup is a lack of perception by Canon into the marketplace- in other words, they were wrong about 4K, and do not have infallible market research, as many have stated. 4K came up faster than they anticipated.
> ...



I think a lot of it comes down to the input being displayed - there's a huge difference between 1080 and 4k (even compressed 4K) when I'm viewing the timelapses I shoot. I haven't shot a lot of wildlife, but the other side of 4k is the better colour when downsampled to 1080 too.

Not saying that it's useful all the time, but I feel there's a significant improvement in viewing quality for most of what I do at least. I'd really like to see canon including the option on more models, without large compromises


----------



## JP (Mar 20, 2018)

It's just like the D30 all over again... Just wait... hold your horses... you switchers will be sorry... ;-)


----------



## hne (Mar 20, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



I have to agree here. When you have high-contrast details that are in a static position on screen, you have use for extra resolution. But even then, I wouldn't pay extra for 4K resolution unless I had a reason to go for a TV with a diagonal larger than the viewing distance. At the 65" diagonal mentioned, I fully believe a person with normal eye sight would be able to distinguish between the sets at a 1m distance given some really nasty input like white text on black background. But only if you knew what to look for.

Now, REC2020 includes quite a bit more than allowing for higher resolutions. The larger colour gamut and additional allowance of dynamic range would be clearly visible from any practical distance, for example.

I'm with Canon in the team that can't understand why people want 4K resolution everywhere.


----------



## BillB (Mar 20, 2018)

Talys said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Part of what is going on is just internet entertainment. Any difference that can be hyped will be hyped and asking whether there is any practical significance can be a real buzzkill, in addition requiring serious work to come up with a useful answer. A lot of the buzz isn't really about about actually improving image quality. Otherwise there would be a lot more discussion about using tripods and processing 4K files.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The word crippling should be banned from use by those who use it wrongly. Crippling means what is now considered crippled had the features to begin with and then those features were taken away.
> ...



That's ok...you criticize, and Canon will sell lots of cameras, even if you have no clue as to why.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> *The EOS M50 offers 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS AF, but not at the same time. Is there a technical reason for this limitation?*
> With the EOS 5D Mark IV, we do offer 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus, so technically it is feasible. But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV.



Mr. Tugela. Paging Mr. Tugela...



neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The digic 8 will do on a higher end model what it can do on a lower end model. The limitations on using PDAF when shooting 4K in the M50 are a clear indication that the processor is operating at the very limit of it's capabilities. Going to a larger body is not going to change that.
> ...



Mr. Tugela, would you care to expound further on how the lack of DPAF + 4K in the M50 is a technical limitation of Digic 8? We're all eagerly awaiting to hear how you know more than Canon about their cameras. Please, do enlighten us with more of your expertly expertish expertise and your truly dizzying intellect.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The word crippling should be banned from use by those who use it wrongly. Crippling means what is now considered crippled had the features to begin with and then those features were taken away.
> 
> But hey, I'm all for every camera at every price point all having the same features. The m50 should absolutely have all the same features of a 1DX II at an M50 price. : : :
> 
> Where do these people come from?



+1


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 20, 2018)

My take is that we will have to wait a year or more for Canon’s first FF mirrorless offering. There will be a lot of speculation on this forum between now and then. Also there will likely be a couple of SLRs before the FF mirrorless >
5Dsr II
7D III


----------



## bf (Mar 20, 2018)

If Canon just limited M50's capability assuming it's lineup they made a huge mistake. No one will chose it over a DSLR like 5DmiV due to the features! They just lose more customers who would invest in M50.
When I look back, they didn't offer DPAF for years in their mirrorless cameras and they lost customers like me till they offered it in M5+6.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 20, 2018)

hne said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



Not sure how "scientific" Woody experience was, but its not the experience we have had. Compression plays a big part of how good a 1080P or 4K picture is and how the picture pipeline is handled. Many 4K TVs display 1080P badly, likewise 4K delivered over say cable compared to say bluray will look very different. 
No question well presented 4K will look better than 1080P/2K including at "normal" viewing distances. Now there is an optimal viewing distance and its true the higher the K the closer you need to be to get the full benefit. But and its a big but generally speaking if you view that 4K picture at a 2K viewing distance its generally better than the 2K image. The "missing part" is oversampling its generally accepted in the industry that shooting say 4K and oversampling to 2K will provide a better picture than shooting 2K for 2K output. 

8K will never practically get displayed, but it will become a capture format oversampled to 4K, we already see 6K & 8K cameras from the likes of Red, Sony & Arri in video, many high end movies are already shooting this way. 

In a typical multiplex cinema with a movie screen of 56ft diagonal to see the full benefit of 4K you should sit in the first three to four rows at the front of the theatre, for 8K it would be in the no mans land between the screen and the front row. However oversampling retains the wider color gamut of REC.2020 which will definitely make the pictures look different and generally speaking these cameras have better dynamic range and better signal to noise ratios. Many other things make up a difference (format, lens choice etc.) 

Canon are right and Canon are wrong about 4K / 8K, right from a practical viewing distance point of view, wrong about image information and the benefits of oversampling.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

bf said:


> If Canon just limited M50's capability assuming it's lineup they made a huge mistake. No one will chose it over a DSLR like 5DmiV due to the features! They just lose more customers who would invest in M50.
> When I look back, they didn't offer DPAF for years in their mirrorless cameras and they lost customers like me till they offered it in M5+6.



Wait... you're saying that nobody would choose the small, $740 entry level mirrorless over the full-size $3,000 flagship DSLR, because of features.... and this is unreasonable?


I'm not sure what you want. A $750 mirrorless that does all the same things as a $3,000 dslr? I think you'll be waiting for a while.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 20, 2018)

Bye bye, don’t let the door slap you on the ass on the way out! 
I don’t suppose I’m the only one who doesn’t care!



ichiru said:


> wow thanks for the article but that is such bullshit! Keep it up Canon, protect your 5DIV in the meanwhile I'll sell mine and buy an A7III and a6500. Idiots.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 20, 2018)

Which part did you think was bull?

Is it that you simply don't like that Canon does not lower prices and add features features of flagship models down to the more entry level models (ie A7iii price), do you not like the direction that they're charting out, or what?

The 5DMk4 is a very different camera from the A7iii and A6500. If you're happy with it, you might not be happy with the Sony -- and vice versa. As you own a 5D4 already, what is about the 5D4 that you aren't happy with?
[/quote]

Simply put? The crippling part was bullshit... I mean they are being very straightforward about it too. 

I am not happy about the lack of an EVF, a tilt screen, truly widespread autofocus points (through the viewfinder). I could definitely use a stabilized sensor as well as 10 fps. I shoot Canon for the L glass... I enjoy the colors as well but damn I feel everybody else innovates better than they do and yeah that is frustrating.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 20, 2018)

Such an ignorant post.

So go ahead. If you think that new Sony is going to make photos from a 5DM4 suddenly obsolete and unusable, then it just proves that you're more a weekend shooter and not someone that really is in a position to use either camera to its fullest extent. Either camera provides photo quality that most will never be able to distinguish.

So give it a rest. Threats of jumping ship get really old.
[/quote]

Dude. I was using original 5Ds until last year... I was satisfied with image quality but upgraded for other reasons. You can call me a weekend shooter all you want but I am not sure how that explains my gear is 100 % paid by my business. Jumping ship is not something I want to do as I love my L glass... but you'd have to be hiding your head in the sand if you can't even imagine how that is super tempting at half the price!?


----------



## ichiru (Mar 20, 2018)

Valvebounce said:


> Bye bye, don’t let the door slap you on the ass on the way out!
> I don’t suppose I’m the only one who doesn’t care!



Well for one Canon should care because there are loads of other people doing the same out there my friend =D.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 20, 2018)

bf said:


> If Canon just limited M50's capability assuming it's lineup they made a huge mistake. No one will chose it over a DSLR like 5DmiV due to the features! They just lose more customers who would invest in M50.
> When I look back, they didn't offer DPAF for years in their mirrorless cameras and they lost customers like me till they offered it in M5+6.



it took until DPAF and DIGIC 7 to finally come around before it was really ready for mirrorless. 
the earlier forms of DPAF also had alot of caveats as far as what lenses would work on it.

with DPAF it's more than "just the sensor". DIGIC gives it the performance necessary to operate efficiently.

I'm also curious by people claiming x, y or z .. such as "If Canon just limited M50's capability assuming it's lineup they made a huge mistake"

how so?

by offering an entry level camera with entry level features?

we have NO idea what the limitations or the engineering challenges were to making 4K "better" on the M50.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 20, 2018)

Virtually every product on earth has entry level, and mid / high level products which are basically the same product with different features or packaging.

Bread
Butter Milk
Automobiles
TV Sets
The list goes on forever.


A person who does not understand this must have been living in a cave.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The word crippling should be banned from use by those who use it wrongly. Crippling means what is now considered crippled had the features to begin with and then those features were taken away.
> 
> But hey, I'm all for every camera at every price point all having the same features. The m50 should absolutely have all the same features of a 1DX II at an M50 price. : : :
> 
> Where do these people come from?



How is it not crippled if the rep himself says the camera should be able to do it but doesn't?!


----------



## BillB (Mar 20, 2018)

ichiru said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The word crippling should be banned from use by those who use it wrongly. Crippling means what is now considered crippled had the features to begin with and then those features were taken away.
> ...



When a camera is designed to a price point, something has to get left out. Pretty much all cameras are designed to a price point, at least to some extent. So, by your logic pretty much all cameras are crippled. I guess you can used crippled that way if you want to, but it seems pretty silly to me.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

ichiru said:


> Simply put? The crippling part was bullshit... I mean they are being very straightforward about it too.
> 
> I am not happy about the lack of an EVF, a tilt screen, truly widespread autofocus points (through the viewfinder). I could definitely use a stabilized sensor as well as 10 fps. I shoot Canon for the L glass... I enjoy the colors as well but damn I feel everybody else innovates better than they do and yeah that is frustrating.



If you wanted an EVF, why on earth did you buy a 5D4, and not an A7R2? I mean, that s like buying a corvette and saying why isn't the engine quiet like Tesla. 

At the end of the day, you may love Sony EVF, or I suspect, if yore fair about it, you'll love some things and dislike others. They have just not been perfected yet, but despite this, some people have preference for them, which is fair. But don't buy a DSLR and be upset I doesn't have a EVF!

By the way, the A7R3 10fps is 'crippled'. Unlike the A9, 10fps mode doesn't update the viewfinder in real time, so for most purposes it is really a 8fps camera. 

Which is to say it isn't really crippled at all, because it's a cheaper camera nd records more pixels. But if e want to bastardize the word...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

ichiru said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Bye bye, don’t let the door slap you on the ass on the way out!
> ...



Only in your mind, my friend. Of course there are people switching from Canon to Sony. But there are also people switching from Nikon to Canon, and from Sony to Fuji, and every other possible direction. The thing is, Canon has been _gaining_ ILC market share, and expects to gain more. So these 'loads of other people' you mention are irrelevant...as are you, my friend.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Virtually every product on earth has entry level, and mid / high level products which are basically the same product with different features or packaging.
> 
> Bread
> Butter Milk
> ...



Indeed. We call them trolls.


----------



## bf (Mar 20, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> bf said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon just limited M50's capability assuming it's lineup they made a huge mistake. No one will chose it over a DSLR like 5DmiV due to the features! They just lose more customers who would invest in M50.
> ...


If the hardware is not there, I don't blame them but this interview says the feature is limited considering M50's position in the lineup. That's what does not sound good to me.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

bf said:


> If the hardware is not there, I don't blame them but this interview says the feature is limited considering M50's position in the lineup. That's what does not sound good to me.



I really don't understand your point of view. The interviewee actually said that providing 4k DPAF was not possible at this price point. Assuming it means what you think it does, and the hardware is _capable_, but is configured to have the option disabled -- although is not what h said...

Would you prefer that they sold the M50 for $1,000 and gave it 4k DPAF, and simply did not have a $740 option?

As Mt Spokane put it, TVs and computers and microwaves and refrigerators and... well, everything else you buy works the same way. The manufacturing cost differences between 4 different models may be very close, but the prices they sell at may have a large gap. Just look at iPhone memory, or Surface hard drive space, or Samsung television sets, or Panasonic microwaves, for example.

And there is always the other possibility, of course, which is simply that it not being possible just means that the hardware is NOT up to snuff, and Canon can't make enough money producing a $740 camera that has 4k DPAF.

I simply would not read too much into "technically it is feasible" since it is in 5D4, because "technically it is feasible" to have 16fps and 4k60p, since that's in 1DXII.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 20, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > *The EOS M50 offers 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS AF, but not at the same time. Is there a technical reason for this limitation?*
> ...



Simple, the processor lacks the computational power to do it all.

You are forgetting that the higher end DSLRs have an extra processor dedicated to focusing and exposure. The 5D4 uses a Digic 6+ for image processing, but it also has a Digic 6 solely for use with focusing and exposure. Likewise the 1D cameras have three processors, dual current model processors for image processing and an older model processor for focusing/exposure/tracking as part of the focusing system. That is why it can handle DPAF and 4K at the same time. The M50 only has one processor, which has to do everything, but it can't do that all and still stay in it's thermal envelope. Hence no DPAF and 4K. The computational demands are too great. That is the technical limitation Canon is talking about. Sure, they could make a camera that could do both, simply by adding a extra processor, but that would greatly increase the cost and complexity of the camera, which in turn would result in it being priced out of the target market.

Unless you think the Canon exec is lying, in which case I can't help you.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 20, 2018)

Woody said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > And lack of 4K in the rest of the lineup is a lack of perception by Canon into the marketplace- in other words, they were wrong about 4K, and do not have infallible market research, as many have stated. 4K came up faster than they anticipated.
> ...


 it's about what people want even if they dont need it once it exists. since 4k exists and is known a lot of people ask for it and to make money as a video guy, you might need to tell people you have it. this is why people switch to sony and they make money with sony now. Canonrumors is too photocentric so anything related to video here is like talking to a brick wall. if you are a pro you know what will make you money and make life easier, and 4k ilc cameras is one of those.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 20, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Tugela said:


> Simple, the processor lacks the computational power to do it all.
> 
> You are forgetting that the higher end DSLRs have an extra processor dedicated to focusing and exposure. The 5D4 uses a Digic 6+ for image processing, but it also has a Digic 6 solely for use with focusing and exposure. Likewise the 1D cameras have three processors, dual current model processors for image processing and an older model processor for focusing/exposure/tracking as part of the focusing system. That is why it can handle DPAF and 4K at the same time. The M50 only has one processor, which has to do everything, but it can't do that all and still stay in it's thermal envelope. Hence no DPAF and 4K. The computational demands are too great. That is the technical limitation Canon is talking about. Sure, they could make a camera that could do both, simply by adding a extra processor, but that would greatly increase the cost and complexity of the camera, which in turn would result in it being priced out of the target market.
> 
> Unless you think the Canon exec is lying, in which case I can't help you.



I'm not forgetting anything. In fact, I recently listed the number and function of processors in a thread on M50. 

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34584.msg710095#msg710095

You might want to review that information, so you can properly understand the function(s) of each processor. Of relevance here is that in the 5DIV, the Digic 6 is dedicated to processing data from the metering sensor. Those data are handed off to the Digic 6+, which handles AF (along with image/video processing). 

The M50 has Digic 8, two generations above Digic 6/6+. 

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your ineptitude when it comes to knowledge of Canon's processors, among other things. 

Things such as reading comprehension, clearly, since you state that Canon referenced a technical limitation for the lack of DPAF + 4K in the M50, when they stated no such thing.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 20, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ichiru said:
> 
> 
> > Valvebounce said:
> ...



Your bias towards a given brand is admirable, I really do respect that. Meanwhile I personally prefer keeping my horizons open and I am completely able to keep my love for Canon intact (I have over 20 K invested in them) and criticize them all day long for what they do poorly, this camera being a great example of that. 

I am fully aware of the ILC market shares meanwhile I do not know a single reviewer out there would place the Canon mirrorless anywhere above the competition. Sales are on Canon's side right now but how long can it last when loads of it are from pure fanboyism? Let's be real man, Canon has an awesome name and they're riding on it because of it's past success more so than it's present. 

Meanwhile... we'll see where Canon stands where it enters the professionnal and full frame mirrorless market. And yup, if they didn't care about what people like me think, they wouldn't even be discussing a mirrorless camera. They will catch with the times, I just wish they would hurry the hell up. Don't you!?


----------



## EduPortas (Mar 20, 2018)

> The new M50 is an entry-level model, because that’s where the high-volume sales are. We want to establish ourselves in this market



Yep, just like we said about 1,000 times on this forum.

So again, there's no super secret strategy when talking about Canon products. Mainly bc they lead in sales in almost every imaging category.

The key word here is "establish", not "break in" or "disrupt" the market, like Panny or Sony have done.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

ichiru said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ichiru said:
> ...



I'm biased toward *reality*. You claimed that, "Canon should care because there are loads of other people [switching to Sony]." The reality is that Canon is gaining ILC and MILC market share. My point was that reality renders your statement moot. Sorry if that's a tough pill to swallow.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

ichiru said:


> I am fully aware of the ILC market shares meanwhile I do not know a single reviewer out there would place the Canon mirrorless anywhere above the competition. Sales are on Canon's side right now but how long can it last when loads of it are from pure fanboyism? Let's be real man, Canon has an awesome name and they're riding on it because of it's past success more so than it's present.
> 
> Meanwhile... we'll see where Canon stands where it enters the professionnal and full frame mirrorless market. And yup, if they didn't care about what people like me think, they wouldn't even be discussing a mirrorless camera. They will catch with the times, I just wish they would hurry the hell up. Don't you!?



What about people who actually choose Canon cameras because they think they're a better camera? The M50 has more features that I'll use every day, like dual pixel autofocus, a fully articulating viewfinder, and lossless compressed RAW, as opposed to features that I won't, like PDAF/Contrast Hybrid 4k AF, resampled (uncropped) 4k, or lossy RAW compression?


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 21, 2018)

Talys said:


> ichiru said:
> 
> 
> > I am fully aware of the ILC market shares meanwhile I do not know a single reviewer out there would place the Canon mirrorless anywhere above the competition. Sales are on Canon's side right now but how long can it last when loads of it are from pure fanboyism? Let's be real man, Canon has an awesome name and they're riding on it because of it's past success more so than it's present.
> ...



Is the new cr3 a lossless compressed raw? That's interesting for the likes of any future high resolution models. I thought I'd seen that it was a lossy compression, so had kinda written it off


----------



## unfocused (Mar 21, 2018)

I just re-read the interview and I’m surprised by at least one thing. DPReview has been very vocal and consistent about criticizing Canon on two fronts - dynamic range and autofocus. Yet, when they had the chance to confront Canon directly on this, they wimped out. 

I know these industry interviews are almost always fluff, but it would have been nice if they had actually asked some tough questions.

We might have gained some insight into the next generation of sensors and autofocus.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 21, 2018)

ichiru said:


> Your bias towards a given brand is admirable, I really do respect that. Meanwhile I personally prefer keeping my horizons open and I am completely able to keep my love for Canon intact (I have over 20 K invested in them) and criticize them all day long for what they do poorly, this camera being a great example of that.
> 
> I am fully aware of the ILC market shares meanwhile I do not know a single reviewer out there would place the Canon mirrorless anywhere above the competition. Sales are on Canon's side right now but how long can it last when loads of it are from pure fanboyism? Let's be real man, Canon has an awesome name and they're riding on it because of it's past success more so than it's present.
> 
> Meanwhile... we'll see where Canon stands where it enters the professionnal and full frame mirrorless market. And yup, if they didn't care about what people like me think, they wouldn't even be discussing a mirrorless camera. They will catch with the times, I just wish they would hurry the hell up. Don't you!?



It's amazing how self deceived people have to be in order to make Sony look good in their own eyes.

Canon and Sony are competing for the same customers in the same market with the same group of products, Canon's stance on Mirrorless is utterly irrelevant, and so is Sony's.
No one honestly cares if their camera does or does not have a mirror, everyone cares how well any camera takes pictures.
Sony is going to have to keep this up for at least another decade before they can comprehensively compete head to head with Canon.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 21, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I just re-read the interview and I’m surprised by at least one thing. DPReview has been very vocal and consistent about criticizing Canon on two fronts - dynamic range and autofocus. Yet, when they had the chance to confront Canon directly on this, they wimped out.
> 
> I know these industry interviews are almost always fluff, but it would have been nice if they had actually asked some tough questions.
> 
> We might have gained some insight into the next generation of sensors and autofocus.



To their credit, DPR has been fairly positive about the new generation of Canon sensors.
Ironically, I like the way the 1DX samples look more than the 1DXII, so once again opinion differs, I like the old sensors, but at least DPR's primary source of negativity has been shut down.


----------



## Talys (Mar 21, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I just re-read the interview and I’m surprised by at least one thing. DPReview has been very vocal and consistent about criticizing Canon on two fronts - dynamic range and autofocus. Yet, when they had the chance to confront Canon directly on this, they wimped out.
> 
> I know these industry interviews are almost always fluff, but it would have been nice if they had actually asked some tough questions.
> 
> We might have gained some insight into the next generation of sensors and autofocus.



The autofocus issue is kind of tough, because DPR and Canon have different ideas on what makes good autofocus.

DPR thinks crows over subject tracking, face tracking, eye focus -- the technology perspective. The readers and youtube watchers are really impressed by green boxes following subjects in the EVF, yay. OMG, when the person moves, the green box follows the eyes! I mean, it's not like DPR ever says, a 5D4 or 6D2 can't get a fast AF lock on the center point.

Canon associates autofocus with raw AF performance, in terms that sports photographers at major sporting events need -- so in their pro body (1DXII) how many frames out of 16fps sets can end up on a website or magazine.

The target audiences also have totally different type gear. The guys who like the DPR reviews are looking at little cameras with (relatively) little lenses; the way Canon looks at AF, there's a super tele attached to it and the operator is very experienced, often with a monopod or gimbal. And if it's a handheld, smaller lens, they know how to use that sucker to get good shots out of it.

One crowd thinks of 40-50 megapixels as OMG awesome I can crop this guy out of 1/8 of the frame; the other simply shrugs picks a bigger lens so that the 20 megapixels isn't much cropped at all. It matters because when you're not deep cropping and you have superb optics that let in 2-3x more light, you just don't need to worry about dynamic range much.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 21, 2018)

Talys said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I just re-read the interview and I’m surprised by at least one thing. DPReview has been very vocal and consistent about criticizing Canon on two fronts - dynamic range and autofocus. Yet, when they had the chance to confront Canon directly on this, they wimped out.
> ...



You were doing great until you mentioned Megapixels.
It has been noted many times on this forum that there is no “landscape oriented” 1D body being made right now, and that is something lacking in Canon’s current strategy.
The insane popularity of the D850 can’t be ignored. My bet is the D850 is eating a lot of sales that the D5 could have had because people want both aspects (sports and landscape) in one body.
A repeat of that design philosophy in a modern 1D would be no less popular than the 1DSMkIII was in 2007.


----------



## 5D2-shooter (Mar 21, 2018)

If Canon want to be taken seriously for mirrorless they need to increase the range of native M mount lenses, preferably ultra-compact and pancake type designs to keep the whole package compact. So many new EF lenses throughout the industry are trying to out-do each other with huge heavy f1.4 prime lenses. M mount needs some nice light compact prime designs, perhaps even f2.8 to keep them small.


----------



## bolray (Mar 21, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> *The EOS M50 offers 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS AF, but not at the same time. Is there a technical reason for this limitation?*
> With the EOS 5D Mark IV, we do offer 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus, so technically it is feasible. But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV. Given the position of the product, we wanted to achieve the optimal balance [of features] in a camera in that range. We’ve optimized the M50 as best we can [for its market position], and within those parameters, the combination of 4K video and Dual Pixel CMOS autofocus was not possible. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up">Read the full interview at DPReview</a></p></blockquote>
> <p>Image Credit // <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up">DPReview</a></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



Based on this it seems clear that M50 could have both features but marketing department was twisting their arm to prevent this. I wonder how long can they sustain this attitude?
The new canon mirrorless will have to use a new camera mount, because science. If the new full-frame mirrorless is not a curved sensor (lighter, and cheaper lenses) with IBIS (again lighter lenses) then why would we buy a canon mirror-less camera; that too their first attempt? They really need to study their users.

the thing is none of the kit decisions are a perfect fit from a design POV. the 6D is a compact FF DSLR but no IBIS so you still need to buy lenses with OS making the kit bulky. if I try to build my kit around lighter lenses (i.e. f/4 lenses) the IQ is low or I have to use prime lenses. again the IQ suffers. 
OR I enjoy the oldschool lenses. that too sucks if I use the focusing screens meant for manual focus lenses as the viewfinder is too small and gets too dark(if you put a f/4 lens).

I mean I love my 50mm f/1.8 STM but only because its small.
do you feel the same way?

I for one am waiting until september (6 months post A7iii launch) before deciding to jump ship or not.
atlease I have the ability to use manual focus lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 21, 2018)

ichiru said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ichiru said:
> ...



How is it biased to state facts like market data? People like you keep coming here - and have been for years - saying they are switching, and everyone they know has too. But there is no data to suggest that is happening in enough numbers to have any relevance to Canon's strategy - they are doing fine, so why should they care even if you have switched? They can't chase every single customer; so long as the aggregate figures are fine, they're happy.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 21, 2018)

Talys said:


> One crowd thinks of 40-50 megapixels as OMG awesome I can crop this guy out of 1/8 of the frame; the other simply shrugs picks a bigger lens so that the 20 megapixels isn't much cropped at all. It matters because when you're not deep cropping and you have superb optics that let in 2-3x more light, you just don't need to worry about dynamic range much.



To be fair, there is a point beyond which there are no bigger lenses, and then higher res + cropping is the only way to go; admittedly, this concerns a tiny minority of people/shots/situations, but it's not necessarily either/or. I don't disagree with your general points though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2018)

bolray said:


> Based on this it seems clear that M50 could have both features but marketing department was twisting their arm to prevent this. I wonder how long can they sustain this attitude?



Agreed, it's called product differentiation. How long can they sustain it? Considering that all manufacturers do it, and Canon has been doing it since they were the Precision Optical Instruments Laboratory and sold Kwanon cameras, I'd say it's quite sustainable. 




bolray said:


> The new canon mirrorless will have to use a new camera mount, because science. If the new full-frame mirrorless is not a curved sensor (lighter, and cheaper lenses) with IBIS (again lighter lenses) then why would we buy a canon mirror-less camera; that too their first attempt? They really need to study their users.



The new Canon full frame mirrorless could easily have an EF mount, because 130 million EF lenses. 

I'm sure Canon has studied their users, but they don't care about you individually. As pointed out above, if you 'jump ship' it really doesn't matter to them, because the aggregate data show they're gaining users. But if jumping ship makes you happy, good for you. The only question is, why wait? Just do it!


----------



## ranonar (Mar 21, 2018)

> But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV.



If they had asked _anyone_ outside of Canon Inc., they would have know that the issue with 4k and DPAF isn't about the choice between the M50 and the 5D4. It's about the M50 and a Panasonic or Fujifilm or Olympus, or even a Sony.

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2018)

ranonar said:


> You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.



If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are _gaining_ marketshare.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 21, 2018)

ranonar said:


> > But given the position of the M50 in the lineup, we can’t include all of the features available in a product like the 5D IV.
> 
> 
> 
> If they had asked _anyone_ outside of Canon Inc., they would have know that the issue with 4k and DPAF isn't about the choice between the M50 and the 5D4. It's about the M50 and a Panasonic or Fujifilm or Olympus, or even a Sony.


Or maybe it's about processing power. 4k takes a lot. DPAF must take some; maybe there's just not enough.



> You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling


Of course, they're not interested in "one buyer," they're interested in market share. Looking at sales number for the last one or two decades, they seem to know how to do that quite well.

So, they can listen to the market analysts who have steered them right for decades, or they can listen to some guy making his first post on an Internet forum.


----------



## ranonar (Mar 21, 2018)

> If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are _gaining_ marketshare.



When a market collapse into a niche, like the sales of DSLRs since smartphones cams get better and better, you'll have the edge to argue with an increase of market share? Please praise the leader of the dot matrix printer market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2018)

ranonar said:


> > If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are _gaining_ marketshare.
> 
> 
> 
> When a market collapse into a niche, like the sales of DSLRs since smartphones cams get better and better, you'll have the edge to argue with an increase of market share? Please praise the leader of the dot matrix printer market.



So all those other manufacturers you mentioned —Panasonic or Fujifilm or Olympus, Sony— they are immune to the impact of smartphones, but Canon is not? 

Yes, the industry is under pressure, and the ILC market has contracted significantly (although it does seem to be leveling off). But the point is, within that contracting market, Canon is doing better than everyone else. So your claim that, "Canon is lost with this snotty attitude," is baseless. 

You're welcome to make another attempt to justify your bogus statement, but I doubt you'll have any better luck.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 21, 2018)

ranonar said:


> > If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are _gaining_ marketshare.
> 
> 
> 
> When a market collapse into a niche, like the sales of DSLRs since smartphones cams get better and better, you'll have the edge to argue with an increase of market share? Please praise the leader of the dot matrix printer market.



Ah, I see: you're looking out to the future several years. Here's your mistake: transitions between technologies are weird times. During the transition the old tech may not have completely eclipsed the new. This was true even with old "pin printers:" early laser printers were very expensive both to buy and maintain. Early inkjet printers smeared and stained, and were fiddly. It took several years for laser and inkjet to supplant pin printers. Some printing is still done by impact printers; e.g. NCR forms.

Your idea that mirrorless will take over is probably correct, but the path to that transition is not at all clear, and will depend on how the technologies evolve, and how they're received by the market. Please go back and review the very educational episode of South Park featuring the underpants gnomes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Ah, I see: you're looking out to the future several years.



No, he/she is just moving the goalposts. The initial argument was that the M50 wasn't competing with the 5DIV (which makes perfect sense), and that it can't compete well against Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus or Sony (which I suspect time will prove wrong). 

I trust that Canon has a plan for Step 2.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I see: you're looking out to the future several years.
> ...


I suspect ranonar wasn't entirely clear what he/she was saying.



> I trust that Canon has a plan for Step 2.


They have for decades, it's a safe bet they'll continue.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 21, 2018)

I have read through all of the discussion on this thread, and I've tried to make sense of it. The main conclusion I have reached is that I must be an idiot. I guess there are worse ways to waste one's time.

Apparently people have quit buying Canon cameras even as its market share has increased because the market has collapsed due to smart phones. The few who are left are switching to Sony cameras. Canon continues to accelerate both trends because they refuse to add more high-end chips to lower priced cameras to match the specs of their flagship lines at a quarter the price. People differ over whether that means Canon is evil or is just prudent in business and understanding of technology.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 21, 2018)

stevelee said:


> People differ over whether that means Canon is evil or is just prudent in business and understanding of technology.



You have to be quasi-evil to be prudent in business


----------



## kkamena (Mar 21, 2018)

bolray said:


> the thing is none of the kit decisions are a perfect fit from a design POV. the 6D is a compact FF DSLR but no IBIS so you still need to buy lenses with OS making the kit bulky. if I try to build my kit around lighter lenses (i.e. f/4 lenses) the IQ is low or I have to use prime lenses. again the IQ suffers.
> OR I enjoy the oldschool lenses. that too sucks if I use the focusing screens meant for manual focus lenses as the viewfinder is too small and gets too dark(if you put a f/4 lens).
> 
> I mean I love my 50mm f/1.8 STM but only because its small.
> ...




Your IQ suffers using primes??????? or is this a my $100 lens is not as good as a $2,000 lens augment?
Please switch to Sony you are their customer base.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 21, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > People differ over whether that means Canon is evil or is just prudent in business and understanding of technology.
> ...



I'm not quite that cynical, but you have a point.

I don't see anything dishonest or deceptive about saying for X amount of money you can have a camera that does some stuff, and for more money you can get one that does more stuff and some of the same stuff better. I don't believe in the chip fairy who gives good little boys and girls more processing power for free. But those who do are entitled to their opinions.


----------



## Talys (Mar 21, 2018)

bolray said:


> the thing is none of the kit decisions are a perfect fit from a design POV. the 6D is a compact FF DSLR but no IBIS so you still need to buy lenses with OS making the kit bulky. if I try to build my kit around lighter lenses (i.e. f/4 lenses) the IQ is low or I have to use prime lenses. again the IQ suffers.
> OR I enjoy the oldschool lenses. that too sucks if I use the focusing screens meant for manual focus lenses as the viewfinder is too small and gets too dark(if you put a f/4 lens).
> 
> I mean I love my 50mm f/1.8 STM but only because its small.
> ...



There's nothing wrong with building a kit around f/4's instead of 2.8's. I don't really know what you're talking about with 50mm/1.8. 

I don't love the 50mm/1.8 because it's small -- I love it because it's a great-performing hobbyist lens that is super cheap.

IBIS has not made any GMaster lenses less bulky, because it's not a replacement for in-lens optical stabilization. Guess what, most GM lenses have optical stabilization and are as bulky as DSLR counterparts. That's because IBIS isn't as effective.

But you're conflating systems and issues that it's dizzying, because if you're using a Sony, the viewfinder going dark with an f/4 is not an issue. The viewfinder on an EVF will always be bright, as long as there is some light and you have exposure set correctly, whether you're using a manual focus lens or not.

On the other hand, if you love old, manual focus lenses, you're probably not going to love a system where every native lens is focus by wire.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Simple, the processor lacks the computational power to do it all.
> ...



The primary upgrades in the Digic 7 and 8 are the image processing capabilities (such as the hardware encoders). The computational capabilities are pretty much the same, which means that an extra processor is still required to handle the extra workload associated with managing PDAF when the processor is being stressed with a 4K datastream.

The Canon guy was clearly talking about what was technically possible and what was practical for the particular market space the M50 was aimed at.

The idea that Canon are delibrately making their consumer products inferior to the competition so as to not compete with the professional market (which has completely different demands regarding build quality and professional specifications) is beyond rediculous.

Cameras like the M50 have lower capabilites and specs compared to high end products because THEY ARE MISSING A WHOLE LOT OF ELCTRONICS SUCH AS SUPPORTING CHIPS, EXTRA MEMORY, FASTER CONTROLLERS ETC, all of which COST MONEY THAT JACKS UP THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT, PUTTING IT OUT OF THE PRICE RANGE OF THE TARGET MARKET.

FFS, do you know nothing about product development and market targeting? The M50 is a stripped down product that lacks a lot of the electronic functionality that higher end products have, SO OBVIOUSLY IT CANT DO THE SAME DAMNED THING AS THEM!!!!

There is no plot to "artificially segment the market".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2018)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



There's no need to shout, I can read just fine. It's unfortunate that your inability to substantiate your claims has you so manifestly frustrated, but really that's your problem, not mine. 

Your argument hinges upon your contention that Digic 8 cannot support both DPAF and 4K simultaneously, but as usual you provide no evidence to support that contention (and given your multitude of previous technical errors and misconceptions, no one should be inclined to believe you without such evidence). The Canon interviewee clearly stated that DPAF+4K was technically possible, but not appropriate for the market segment of the M50. 

As for artificial market segmentation, it's not 'plotting'...it's a standard business practice. Including a feature/function of which a product is capable without added cost of goods is still not free. Testing, documentation and support cost resources and money. The 1D X II does not have in-camera HDR...do you believe it lacks the feature because in-camera HDR exceeds the processing capabilities of the its Dual Digic 6+ processors? 

Of course the issue of DPAF+4K isn't about differentiating the M50 from professional dSLRs (I stated that earlier). But the M50 isn't Canon's last MILC, and future entry- and mid-level bodies will need to be differentiated from the M50. These strategies are mapped out years in advance. 

Frankly, your lack of technical knowledge, poor comprehension of product development processes, and generally weak business acumen render this discussion essentially pointless. But perhaps we can revisit this issue when a successor to the M5/6 or M100 is announced with DPAF+4K running on its Digic 8 processor.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 21, 2018)

kkamena said:


> bolray said:
> 
> 
> > the thing is none of the kit decisions are a perfect fit from a design POV. the 6D is a compact FF DSLR but no IBIS so you still need to buy lenses with OS making the kit bulky. if I try to build my kit around lighter lenses (i.e. f/4 lenses) the IQ is low or I have to use prime lenses. again the IQ suffers.
> ...


----------



## ichiru (Mar 22, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > People differ over whether that means Canon is evil or is just prudent in business and understanding of technology.
> ...



...well... yeah.... damn it you have good point lol


----------



## Talys (Mar 22, 2018)

ichiru said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



Not really. The problem is, nobody puts themselves in the shoes of the manufacturer.

Everything that Canon or Sony or Nikon does has inherent risks, and therefore, they need some prospect of profit to justify continued investments. It _should_ be their goal to make hay while it rains -- to maximize their profits when they can -- because at another point in time, it could be tougher, and they may need reserves to though it out and make it through. 

It's not like if your favorite company gives you a great price today, you're going to support them with charity when it's a tough year for them.

It's competitive forces and market demand that set the prices. In fact, Canon isn't setting the price and feature set of the M50... you are, in a macro sense. If people don't buy it, the prices will need to come down. If people buy it like crazy, then supply will be constrained, and sometimes, you'll even see price gouging by resellers.

If the market determines that the most it will pay is $750 for a DPAF or hybrid AF 4k consumer camera, one of two things will happen -- someone will make one, or nobody will make one. It just depends on whether, looking at their business as a whole, it makes sense. 

Should the company exercise either option, it's not being evil at all. It's just practicing common sense.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ranonar said:
> 
> 
> > You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.
> ...



Neuroanatomist no one is denying Canon is doing great sales wise. They are definitely doing some things right I mean... yeah that's pretty obvious and nobody here ever argued that. And I would even argue that historically Canon has proven they can pull through a whole lot in the long term. But is it really that hard for you to conceive their business decisions may not ultimately be the best at the present moment?!

I cannot see the future and you can tell me all you want about not caring about my opinion blah blah blah. I respect yours . Meanwhile it is generally accepted in the industry right now that Canon's success in the mirrorless segment is a bit of a surprise given they entered the market relatively late (new camera models and lenses are only accelerating in the last year or so) and play pretty much catch up on most feature sets (refresh rate, autofocus speed, dynamic range, etc, with one of the few exceptions being their absolutely brilliant video dual pixel autofocus). I bet Nikon will make a killing in the mirrorless segment as well when they pull their own act together. And I would even speculate that their success is easy to explain; these two companies (Canikon) have an amazing reputation. Now; you are 100 % allowed to disagree with that next statement but I feel, and I know of countless other people in the photography world that share my opinion, that this reputation and those 'free passes' Canon is getting are eventually going to run out if they keep the same business attitude. Again it's an opinion, shared by many, disagreed by many, including you. I cannot read the future anymore than you but I do wish to express I absolutely love my Canon gear and if I am pissed it's only because I don't understand why 'smaller' brands such as Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus and Pentax can have all the features I want and Canon can't. I don't doubt they will catch up but they are sooo slow (even Canon reps admitted that in an earlier interview). I have shot Canon for over 12 years. I had digital SLRs when Canon used to have lower noise and better dynamic range than Nikon. Now the roles are reversed and yup I was relieved when the 5DIV came out and then bammm here comes the 6DII with a sensor that is years behind technology wise (again, except for dual pixel AF). Now you're going to say again nobody cares and you are right! Nobody cares about my single opinion (although that is about the sole purpose of a forum on rumors i.e. the discussion of opinions !) but you see it is not a rare opinion, and that's the real issue. You may find many supporters of Canon here on a Canon forum of a Canon website but that is it. The excitement for Canon cameras is being threatened and I fear it may go the same way the iphone did; i.e. staying relevant but being completely overtaken by the competition https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6581377/meeker-2016-ios-android.jpg. Iphones are still amazing phones but in terms of innovation and ability to attract people solely on brand name... it's not what it used to be. 

Believe me I hope as much as you that Canon will continue to lead the industry (which is why I am checking this site daily for the last 3 years, lately in particular for a mirrorless Canon camera) but I am a skeptical at the moment and yeah I will be happy to come back when they prove me wrong.

Anyways, no hard feelings man, this forum is about discussions and opinions, I respect yours.

Cheers.


----------



## ichiru (Mar 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> ichiru said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



True you make a good point about the risk taking. An excellent point actually. But in my limited knowledge of business I do understand that the greatest gains are usually made at considerable risks and vice versa the fewest gains at the fewest risks... again generally speaking. It makes sense that a company the size of Canon would not want to risk too much.

... in the meantime, as consumers it's normal to see more excitement for brands that take risks, invest a ton in R&D, put out products that we can't even understand how they make a profit given just how loaded they are with features, etc. Of course there are arguments towards other brands too but I am just trying to make a point... 


By the way, I don't know if anybody here has ever checked it but it's shocking how much more traffic sony alpha rumors . com gets vs canonrumors.com. Yup it's meaningless in terms of sales but it does make it seem as though Sony cameras generate much more enthusiasm.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2018)

ichiru said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ranonar said:
> ...



Generally accepted by who? Who's surprised? What industry?  By bloggers and vloggers? That industry? Forum commenters? That industry? 

If only stupid Canon had business giants like yourself to steer the ship of industry, they might be #1. :


----------



## ichiru (Mar 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ichiru said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well I suppose given your nickname it's not hard to imagine why you don't really pay attention to anything that isn't praising Canon.


----------



## BillB (Mar 22, 2018)

ichiru said:


> True you make a good point about the risk taking. An excellent point actually. But in my limited knowledge of business I do understand that the greatest gains are usually made at considerable risks and vice versa the fewest gains at the fewest risks... again generally speaking. It makes sense that a company the size of Canon would not want to risk too much.
> 
> ... in the meantime, as consumers it's normal to see more excitement for brands that take risks, invest a ton in R&D, put out products that we can't even understand how they make a profit given just how loaded they are with features, etc. Of course there are arguments towards other brands too but I am just trying to make a point...
> 
> ...



It is a mistake to confuse internet buzz with actual sales, or even the potential for actual sales. The word incredible comes up a lot on the internet. The meaning of incredible is unbelievable, another which also comes up a lot. A lot of the internet buzz is unbelievable, so what does that say about the people who believe it? The people generating the buzz tries to convince us that magic toys will let us make incredible high DR pictures and unbelievable 4K videos, but not that many people care about making unbelievable high DR pictures or incredible 4K videos. Some people care about improving their photography and making better videos and realize that magic toys don't make that much difference, but that putting in time and work can help.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 22, 2018)

I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems like once again, the majority on this forum measure success and desirability with innovation. Not exactly sure why this is, but creating internet buzz, or comparing things with smartphones ( a relatively new technology, thus changing faster) is not the only way to look at products. What struck me as I read the interview was the Canon execs mentioning "reliability" as an important goal for their cameras - also, "speed, ease of use and IQ". For many photographers (but not the techie crowd, apparently) these are very important characteristics of what we want in a camera. 

One recent example that all spec sheets and innovations aren't created equal. One thing that I find very useful, and one of the best innovations in recent years, is Canon M5's ability to move the AF point using the touch screen while using the EVF. It is quick, easy to use and works really well. I just got an Olympus E-M1 mark II to try out and one thing I was really looking forward to was their version (called the targeting pad) of moving the AF point using the touch screen. On the spec sheet it is the same, but on the Olympus, it doesn't work very well (at least I haven't been able to get it to work well). It doesn't seem to work well with your thumb, although that is the finger that is there on the touch screen. The AF point moves erratically, sometimes actually moving in the opposite direction, due apparently to the width of my thumb. It works better using my index finger, not ideal ergonomically. If I'm not in a hurry, I can get the point where I want, but compared to the much cheaper Canon M5, it is NOT quick, easy to use or reliable.

I think we have seen the same thing happening when comparing Canon to Sony cameras. When people actually use the cameras, they find that the Sony disappoints them in some areas, not really doing what the spec sheet makes one think it can. Canon cameras, on the other hand, almost always exceed the buyer's expectations. Even the "evil 6D II" gets good reviews from those that actually use it.

Not saying Canon is perfect, but given the choice, I will choose "easy to use and reliable" over "innovative but not that reliable" every time. Perhaps there are enough folks like me that keep Canon at #1 in market share.

OK, back to the Canon bashing! ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2018)

ichiru said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ichiru said:
> ...



Can't answer the questions?


----------



## syyeung1 (Mar 22, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems like once again, the majority on this forum measure success and desirability with innovation. Not exactly sure why this is, but creating internet buzz, or comparing things with smartphones ( a relatively new technology, thus changing faster) is not the only way to look at products. What struck me as I read the interview was the Canon execs mentioning "reliability" as an important goal for their cameras - also, "speed, ease of use and IQ". For many photographers (but not the techie crowd, apparently) these are very important characteristics of what we want in a camera.
> 
> One recent example that all spec sheets and innovations aren't created equal. One thing that I find very useful, and one of the best innovations in recent years, is Canon M5's ability to move the AF point using the touch screen while using the EVF. It is quick, easy to use and works really well. I just got an Olympus E-M1 mark II to try out and one thing I was really looking forward to was their version (called the targeting pad) of moving the AF point using the touch screen. On the spec sheet it is the same, but on the Olympus, it doesn't work very well (at least I haven't been able to get it to work well). It doesn't seem to work well with your thumb, although that is the finger that is there on the touch screen. The AF point moves erratically, sometimes actually moving in the opposite direction, due apparently to the width of my thumb. It works better using my index finger, not ideal ergonomically. If I'm not in a hurry, I can get the point where I want, but compared to the much cheaper Canon M5, it is NOT quick, easy to use or reliable.
> 
> ...



Absolutely agree. There are 2 types of users, one cares more about the actual shooting experience, and one focuses more on the spec sheet.

My mirrorless collection includes a Sony (a6300), Olympus (em10ii) and Canon (eos-M). On paper and in internet forums, EOS-M is by far the worst of the three. However, in actual shooting, I enjoy shooting with the M the most and that's by a considerable margin. I somehow just cannot get comfortable with the a6300 both in actual use and in the final output. I prefer the OM much more than the Sony. To me, Canon and OM to me are photographic equipment, but Sony is a tech gadget. I would be very interested to try the A7III, but I suspect it will just give me the same experience as the a6300.


----------



## Talys (Mar 22, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I think we have seen the same thing happening when comparing Canon to Sony cameras. When people actually use the cameras, they find that the Sony disappoints them in some areas, not really doing what the spec sheet makes one think it can. Canon cameras, on the other hand, almost always exceed the buyer's expectations. Even the "evil 6D II" gets good reviews from those that actually use it.
> 
> Not saying Canon is perfect, but given the choice, I will choose "easy to use and reliable" over "innovative but not that reliable" every time. Perhaps there are enough folks like me that keep Canon at #1 in market share.



This sums it up perfectly, for me 

There are so many things on the Sony spec sheet that sound fascinating, but in practice are just either not useful, or implemented in a way that makes it too awkward to use, and some basics that glaringly fall short. I could go on and on about it, but what it boils down to is, I'd trade 10 features that are so cool but not really usable for just one that's very well implemented.




syyeung1 said:


> I would be very interested to try the A7III, but I suspect it will just give me the same experience as the a6300.



Its big brother, the A7RIII often felt like that. A lot of times, it's just little things that I don't think a camera maker would ever do -- like an MF focus ring that takes a 360 degree rotation to go from MFD to infinity. Or the ability to program any button you like to autofocus... but not be able to take an auto exposure reading at the same time. Or a touch screen, where there are practically no touch-enabled commands or menus, even when a big huge button screams "tap me".

I mean, nobody is going to win an award for that kind of stuff, but going back to a 6DII, I sure appreciate the simple stuff, like the back AF button -- even if I can't reprogram it to 12 different places.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 22, 2018)

I downloaded the 610-page PDF manual for the 6D2 that is just an English version, not the short version duplicated in a variety of languages. I have it available on my iPad as well as my computer, I will occasionally browse through sections of it even when I'm not trying to look up something specific. I see all sorts of modes and features that I am quite unlikely ever to use, but it is interesting to see that they are there. And while I don't bother to learn about them in depth, if the situation ever comes up to use one of them, I can always go back and look them up, and I will have a vague idea that lets me know to try to use them.

Some of these things probably are or once were innovative. I see no reason to care. Perhaps a lot of these things could be bullet points in a feature list. Maybe there is somebody who would be influenced by some of these features to buy the camera. I'm not likely to be that guy.


----------



## -pekr- (Mar 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ranonar said:
> 
> 
> > You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.
> ...



Do you really need to ask such questions? Look, you can sell million od devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousadns for the higher price. The turn-over is going to be identical. Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ....


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 22, 2018)

syyeung1 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems like once again, the majority on this forum measure success and desirability with innovation. Not exactly sure why this is, but creating internet buzz, or comparing things with smartphones ( a relatively new technology, thus changing faster) is not the only way to look at products. What struck me as I read the interview was the Canon execs mentioning "reliability" as an important goal for their cameras - also, "speed, ease of use and IQ". For many photographers (but not the techie crowd, apparently) these are very important characteristics of what we want in a camera.
> ...



I've never really understood the tech gadget argument - is it ergonomics/feel of the camera that you don't like, for the first part of your statement? Final output is generally pretty straightforward, and I definitely Feel there is a distinct difference in raw output yes

I completely understand a camera not being as enjoyable to use as another, I feel the same way about my 6d vs the a7r3, but more for finding the Canon has a few drawbacks to my shooting that I don't have with the sony. I'd put that down to personal expectation on how I'd like my camera to work /run.


----------



## BillB (Mar 22, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ranonar said:
> ...



But the turnover isn't identical, as Neuro points out. The real guestions are about margins and volume. If volume is lower, then your margins have to be higher to come out the same. We don't have much idea of how much money anybody is making selling cameras at this point, because pretty much all the players are relatively small parts of pretty big corporations and their survival depends on their corporate bosses belief that they are worth putting money into. So I don't think we have much more than guesses about who is losing and who isn't at this point.

To you "lost" apparently means unable to interest creative people, so Canon is lost because only "blogging moms" will buy Canons in the future. Well, we shall see. There must be a lot of blogging moms out there, or at least Canon seems to think so..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ranonar said:
> ...



You aspire to one day have the business acumen of a common garden snail. At this point, it looks like you'll never gain even that level of understanding, but there's always hope!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2018)

ichiru said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ranonar said:
> ...



Here's the thing – the areas where you say Canon is behind, dynamic range, 'innovation' (they're not, really, except on the Internet), etc., are areas where they've been behind for many years. The areas where they are ahead (reliability, lens selection, value), they've been ahead for many years. What does their market performance over the past several years tell you about the relative importance of those factors?

Obviously, nothing is certain. 

As for, "...it is generally accepted in the industry right now that Canon's success in the mirrorless segment is a bit of a surprise," what is your basis for that? Given their brand reputation, I doubt many people with actual knowledge of the market found it surprising. Internet armchair experts may have, but that says more about their poor grasp of the market than anything else. 

Cheers.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 22, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ranonar said:
> ...


Certainly, why not? I mean that sincerely...what's wrong with the question? 



> Look, you can sell million od devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousadns for the higher price. The turn-over is going to be identical. Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ....



First, I think Canon knows how to do arithmetic, and they probably can do those calculations better than anyone on this forum.

Second, think of Canon as the Honda or Toyota of the camera world, not the Mercedes or BMW, and certainly not Ferrari. Canon and Honda seem to be doing fine, financially. 

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 22, 2018)

I’m reminded of the old joke about a car dealership’s TV ad that said, “We lose money on every deal, but we make up for it with volume.”

I tell that if someone asks about my singing, too.


----------



## -pekr- (Mar 22, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.



This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read  Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.


----------



## Talys (Mar 22, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.
> ...



Two things.

First, knowing your customer and being profit-driven are not mutually exclusive characteristics. To the contrary, to maximize your profits, you must understand the demand side of the equation. Also, customer goodwill is a part of being customer-driven. That doesn't mean just giving people cheap products -- reliable products are very important (would you buy another Kitchenaid fridge if the icemaker in the last one kept breaking?), as are professional services for your most demanding customers.

Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.



So you're saying that maybe a design/engineering team could build a feature into a product only to be told, "Take that out," by marketing? Shocking. Simply shocking.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 22, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.
> ...



To be fair, you are taking Orangutan's comment out of context. He was responding to the sexist and elitist statement..._ "you can sell million of devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousands for the higher price...Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ...."_

The statement is not only offensive but it is factually incorrect. Factually incorrect because it is certainly not true that creative people belong exclusively to a group that either designs or sells products to high-end customers. Designing and selling quality products at an affordable price can require much more innovation and creativity than selling high-end products to people with lots of disposable income. Elitists don't have a monopoly on creativity. In fact, it is often just the opposite. 

I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model. 

I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.
> ...



I don't get your point. As someone who has spent much of his life marketing, I can't imagine any marketing team telling management to remove a feature desired by consumers. Most marketing departments are interested in adding as many features as possible at the lowest possible cost. After all, the marketing department is interested in boosting sales. Lower prices and more features will sell more product than higher costs and fewer features. 

Much more likely that either the design/engineering team or the accounting department will resist adding a feature. Engineers don't like to add features that require them to change the way they've always done things and accounting departments don't like to see the profits cut. 

I never understand why people complain about marketing departments, when they are the consumers' best friends.


----------



## Talys (Mar 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.
> ...



Not that I'm disagreeing, but this isn't what if was trying to get at. 

A lot of us work for businesses that need to stay profitable to stay in business, and I would hope that most in this circumstance would want their company to do well. We are driven by different things, usually not just the company's bottom line. I think a lot of people in engineering are passionate about their profession. 

My point is that Canon (or other businesses) aren't employed by tens of thousands of people who are just trying to squeeze every last dime out of every prospective customer. There are product managers whose job it is to stratify products so that there is a blend of features and price that they think will be attractive. But they aren't evil either, or even trying to take stuff away from folks. 

If a camera can be profitable at $900, is it better to just do that, or split it into a $800 and $1000 version? Well, on a personal level, you'd be happy if the $800 version did everything you wanted, less so if you had to spend $1000. But that's just the world we live in; there is nothing shocking or evil about it.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 22, 2018)

unfocused said:


> -pekr- said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Well said!


----------



## -pekr- (Mar 23, 2018)

unfocused said:


> -pekr- said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



No, he was not and you should learn of how not to put things out of context yourself. Just go and re-read prior conversation - those two paragraphs I left did not put the third one out of the context. To your "sexist and elitist" accusation - I have used the "quotes", as the term "blogging moms" was used in subsequent discussions re m50 release. It was used mostly as an attack quote to Canon, rather than to harass any social group of ppl.



unfocused said:


> I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model.



And you are of course wrong again. Company not caring who's buying their products is a ******* one. It is quite normal to address your adverts to particular sex. Apart from corporate IT, I work in advertising, run LED screen business and I don't need to be tuaght how to scope the target audience. Where is the sexism in there, if I target a wedding advert to women in particular or some children related stuff to moms? You are making stuff up ....



unfocused said:


> I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.



This is my last warning to you - one more false accusation to the person you know nothing about re sexisms or other aspects of social life, and you get reported to moderator for a blatant accussations.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 23, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > -pekr- said:
> ...


 Yes, I was. The terms "blogging moms" and "creative ppl"(sic) jumped out at me from your message. I should have called out those ridiculous ideas explicitly; fortunately, unfocused did a great job in follow-up.



> To your "sexist and elitist" accusation - I have used the "quotes", as the term "blogging moms" was used in subsequent discussions re m50 release.


Do you mean "subsequent" or "previous?" Maybe you should have referred to the original use of the term: you can't expect people to know your context.



> It was used mostly as an attack quote to Canon, rather than to harass any social group of ppl.


If that was your intent, you didn't do it very well.




> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model.
> ...


We all know marketing targets different segments of potential buyers, so that is not in dispute; it's also not what you misunderstood about my post. Go back and read Unfocused's post -- pretty much perfect.



unfocused said:


> I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.





> This is my last warning to you - one more false accusation to the person you know nothing about re sexisms or other aspects of social life, and you get reported to moderator for a blatant accussations.


Oh, you're one of those. Look, if you're in advertising, you should be aware when a marketing campaign fails, and it's time to backtrack and try again. This marketing campaign, 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34716.msg713571#msg713571

was a failure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Oh, you're one of those. Look, if you're in advertising, you should be aware when a marketing campaign fails, and it's time to backtrack and try again. This marketing campaign,
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34716.msg713571#msg713571
> 
> was a failure.



Indeed. I guess his point was that he thinks he's one of those 'creative ppl' and he's a much better photographer than all those 'blogging moms' becuase he buys more expensive gear that fewer (and thus, more elite) people own. But then, that's the sort of sentiment I'd expect from a -pecker-.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 23, 2018)

ichiru said:


> The excitement for Canon cameras is being threatened and I fear it may go the same way the iphone did; i.e. staying relevant but being completely overtaken by the competition https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6581377/meeker-2016-ios-android.jpg



So the operating system only installed in single manufacturer’s phones is less used than a free operating system found in practically every other manufacturer’s phones? Shocking.

It’s hard to draw the parallel to canon.


----------

