Does Canon hold back advances for the future?

[lungdoc]

I know nobody can answer this definitively - but do you think Canon holds features back for future releases or are the current cameras as good as they can realistically make them (within reason for their price)? It seems that more sophisticated focus systems (eye focus, multiple AF points) were available on film cameras than on corresponding digital cameras -say an EOS 3 versus a 5D, or Elan 7 versus a 30D. Is it just that it's harder to put such features onto a digital camera or is it that they were already so far ahead at the time that they didn't need to and could save such items for future upgrades? Just curious, to me the focus system performance on my 30D is good but not perfect and probably of more concern to me than ever-increasing pixels.

[Stephen Scharf]

Yes, when Canon brought out the 5D, they mentioned that they thought about including ultrasonic dust removal, but decided that at the time, it would be too expensive to implement with the target initial price point of the 5D. They said they would implement it at a future date, and they did.

[Hermeto]

Just like any other manufacturer in any other industry, Canon puts the most advanced features into their most advanced models.

[lungdoc]

Just like any other manufacturer in any other industry, Canon puts the most advanced features into their most advanced models.

Yes, but the features I mentioned like 45 point AF were available in 1998 on the EOS 3!

[Hermeto]

Every manufacturer uses features and technologies that have been researched, developed and tested, and some of them have even been implemented before.
Hardly any of them are coming straight out of the Patent Bureau.

[Lightstream]

ECF isn't all it's cracked up to be.. when it works, it works great, but it has a narrow range of tolerances with regards to the position of my eye, relative to the viewfinder window.

I've got the Elan 7NE, supposedly the most advanced and the last ECF implementation by Canon. When it does work though, it is nice, but tires out my eye real fast - you have to put in some work to move the AF points, it's not as natural as someone simply looking around.

Conceptually though, I would say ECF is absolutely brilliant. For fast-moving sports and with AreaAF, it could make an awesome AF system. It's just the implementation needs to be worked on a bit. Maybe Canon will surprise us some day?

[number six]

Canon has a history of intentionally crippling lower-end cameras so they won't draw sales away from higher-end models.

The prime example is the 300D and the 10D - both have the same processor, but the 300D's stock firmware intentionally did not implement a number of useful features.

Then a couple of Russian hackers dug into the firmware and released their version.

Many of us are still using the hacked firmware years later.

-js

[Mark_Cohran]

I don't know what the fuss is all about. Canon is in the business to make a profit. They look at the price margins, sales figures, and competition and price their cameras and features accordingly. That's capitalism. If you don't like what Canon offers, you've always had the option of Nikon, and now you even have Sony and Pentax. It's not like anyone holds a gun to your head and forces you to buy a digital camera.

Mark

[defordphoto]

Worse, even. Canon has a history of intentionally crippling lower-end cameras so they won't draw sales away from higher-end models.

The prime example is the 300D and the 10D - both have the same processor, but the 300D's stock firmware intentionally did not implement a number of useful features.

Then a couple of Russian hackers dug into the firmware and released their version.

Many of us are still using the hacked firmware years later.

-js

This Canon-Bashing has become ridiculous on this forum. Not singling you out #6. There are many, many others.

Every manufacturer of anything on Planet Earth does this. Unless they manufacture only one single item.

Everything from cars to computers to appliances to TV's, stereos, paper, printers, pizzas, watches, clocks, furniture, lawn mowers, telephones, homes, apartments, flashlights....I could go on for miles.

Nikon does it. So does Olympus, Kodak, Sony, Panasonic, Hasselblad and every other manufacturer of cameras.

[number six]

This Canon-Bashing has become ridiculous on this forum. Not singling you out #6. There are many, many others.

Bashing? Hardly. I understand why they crippled the 300D - that doesn't mean I have to live with it. I don't like crippleware in software and I don't like it in cameras either.

Probably I should delete the first two words of my previous post to correct the impression that I'm bashing Canon...

(edit: done.)

-js

[ed rader]

I don't know what the fuss is all about. Canon is in the business to make a profit. They look at the price margins, sales figures, and competition and price their cameras and features accordingly. That's capitalism. If you don't like what Canon offers, you've always had the option of Nikon, and now you even have Sony and Pentax. It's not like anyone holds a gun to your head and forces you to buy a digital camera.

Mark


and if canon gave you everything you wanted you'd still want more. that's consumerism :D!

ed rader

[defordphoto]

Bashing? Hardly. I understand why they crippled the 300D - that doesn't mean I have to live with it. I don't like crippleware in software and I don't like it in cameras either.

Probably I should delete the first two words of my previous post to correct the impression that I'm bashing Canon...

(edit: done.)

-js

The Drebel was a fluke. It's highly unlikely that will ever happen again. And that's cool. I thought the software hack was pretty slick.

Nevertheless, EVERY camera manufacturer does the exact same thing. Canon cannot be singled out on this issue.

[lungdoc]

Canon can in a sense be singled out as they've (at least in recent years) had the most advanced technology so it's more natural that they'd hold something back - if the competitors were holding stuff back during the time when Canon was eating their lunch then they'd be idiots; Canon may in fact be smart to do so. I was not asking for or passing judgment about it; just wondering to what extent it exists - i.e. could they make a better Camera at a given price point but choose not to in order to save themselves upgrade room for the future, or do they mainly depend on ongoing advances for those upgrades?

[Mark_Cohran]

and if canon gave you everything you wanted you'd still want more. that's consumerism :D!

ed rader

That's as accurate as my statement. :)

Mark

[defordphoto]

No one but Canon knows to what extent it exists within their own company. As would be the same within any other company, no matter what they manufacture.

It's all market and money driven. With the 40D I was really surprised how much forward technology from the 1-series Mark III's that they put into the camera. Actually I am pretty happy about it as I will be buying one early next year for my wife and my MKIII and her 40D will be on a near even keel photo-quality wise.

Thanks Canon! :)

[Stephen Scharf]

All companies do do it, and it's just part of business. All companies have to juggle cash flow from revenue with R&D and commercialization expenditures. As new technology is developed and implemented, appropriate revenue is required to pay for the development and mfg costs. An example might be bringing full-frame sensors to a much broader range of customers at a lower price in the form of a 5D. The high prices of the and 1D and 1Ds-series help to provide that, and as Canon had amortized the development and mfg costs of full-frame sensors, they could then afford to bring it down-market a bit. This additional revenue then, could fund the development, for example, of ultrasonic dust cleaning on the sensors. The introduction of new features must always be meaningfully phased with R&D costs and cash flow.

[KarlMarsh]

I've got the Elan 7NE, supposedly the most advanced and the last ECF implementation by Canon. When it does work though, it is nice, but tires out my eye real fast - you have to put in some work to move the AF points, it's not as natural as someone simply looking around.

You might want to recalibrate your ECF. Mine works very easily just by looking at the focus point I want to select.

I've always wondered why Canon does not use this on their DSLR's.

[Sparky98]

When you go to buy a car you look for a vehicle that has as many of the options that you want that is within your price range. What if the car manufacturers only made 1 model and it had everything you could want in a vehicle but cost $250,000? How many of us would be driving cars?

Canon could decide to sell 1 camera, say a 1 Ds Mark III, and they could decide to sell only L lenses. The camera would have every feature imaginable but how many of us could afford it? Canon is out to make a profit and that is good because when they quit making a profit they will cease to exist and we will all be using Nikons. They make different models with different features at different price ranges to attract customers. Their marketing people determine what they think the public wants in a particular model for a certain price range and they sell that camera to a particular group of buyers. Of course they hold some things back until they are sure the buyers will be happy with it. They also offer features in some higher priced models that are not available in the lower priced models knowing that we the buyer are never satisfied and that we will almost always want something "better" than what we have. That is the way business works. They keep teasing us with better features, we keep buying cameras, they make more money, and gradually we get better equipment.

[lungdoc]

It is rare however in the car business for a feature that was available on a mid-upper model in 1998 (like 3D with 45 point AF) to not be available on an equivalent model today.

[Sgt_Hovanec]

There is a lot of extra circuitry in a digital camera as well so they may not be able to fit the ECF type circuits if the current size body with everything else that needs to be there. As for the 45 point AF system(without ECF) it's put in the upper models and that is what helps them sell. Honestly if they were to put a 45 point AF and weather sealing into the XXD bodies I wouldn't even consider the 1D MK1-2-3 if I had the money. The 1Ds is a different story because it has even more to offer. It's done to keep the balance of sales. I'm almost positive that they have some technology that isn't going into the cameras and it's possible that they are waiting to make money off the current technology before adding it. Think about computers, lets say video cards..They put out a 256mb video card and sell it for a year, then they sell the 512mb card for a year. The jumps in technology are much faster than that and they were probably working on the 1gb card when they released the 256mb. Why sell the 256mb and move to the 1gb card when you can move in slower increments and make a lot more money. Same with anything in most markets. Just my two cents.

[SunTsu]

All companies do do it, and it's just part of business. All companies have to juggle cash flow from revenue with R&D and commercialization expenditures. As new technology is developed and implemented, appropriate revenue is required to pay for the development and mfg costs. An example might be bringing full-frame sensors to a much broader range of customers at a lower price in the form of a 5D. The high prices of the and 1D and 1Ds-series help to provide that, and as Canon had amortized the development and mfg costs of full-frame sensors, they could then afford to bring it down-market a bit. This additional revenue then, could fund the development, for example, of ultrasonic dust cleaning on the sensors. The introduction of new features must always be meaningfully phased with R&D costs and cash flow.

From the way I read the OP's question, I don't think he was bashing Canon, but opening a platform to discuss Canon's product strategy as fact. The OP can correct if I'm wrong.

I'm certainly not a Canon basher as I've decided to invest a ton of money into their EOS system. Less than a year ago, I had ZERO DSLR equipment and could have gone Nikon, Sony, etc, but went with Canon. Now, I'm not a fanboy of any company or retailer, so I'm objective, but for the time, I like the Canon system more and I'm kind of stuck with it because I hate the hassle of selling used stuff.

To address the OP's question, we're really talking about Canon's EOS product strategy. Only a handful of people know if Canon is holding back certain technologies. Like all other consumer electronic companies, they are going to have product managers and product line managers. Depending on their seniority, they may or may not have P/L responsibilities. For the more junior product guys, their job is just to make the products as good as possible as they compare to other products on the market. As you move up the management ladder, they become more and more concerned with P/L. Because Canon is in the business of making money (not bad, because in my job, I'm the guy that makes the final call based on the business case), they are going to design their products to make the most profit. This is like MBA 101. They have long-term and short-term corporate goals. There are going to be certain years where the edict is to grow and some years where they protect. Certainly, in the last few years, it was protection and that is why, IMO, they got caught off guard with Nikon's new offerings.

"As new technology is developed and implemented, appropriate revenue is required to pay for the development and mfg costs."
- WRONG. This is basic cost accounting. Costs are matched to profits. Do a quick search in any cost accounting material and you'll understand that businesses don't necessarily match current costs to current revenues. The correct way is to match by project or product.

R&D in consumer electronics is also not amortized as simply as you put. It's amortized based on predictions and also based on how the accountants want to make the company look on the books. Strictly speaking, the R&D should be amortized exactly to the life span of the technology, but it's almost impossible to predict and there are certain rules that govern it according to the respective countries' GAPP.

Since this is not an accounting or business forum, the short answer, based on my understanding and experience is that leaders in an industry will hold back and milk margins. If, however, you're an industry follower, then you're going to push as much as possible for features and likely, command lower margins.

[SunTsu]

There is a lot of extra circuitry in a digital camera as well so they may not be able to fit the ECF type circuits if the current size body with everything else that needs to be there. As for the 45 point AF system(without ECF) it's put in the upper models and that is what helps them sell. Honestly if they were to put a 45 point AF and weather sealing into the XXD bodies I wouldn't even consider the 1D MK1-2-3 if I had the money. The 1Ds is a different story because it has even more to offer. It's done to keep the balance of sales. I'm almost positive that they have some technology that isn't going into the cameras and it's possible that they are waiting to make money off the current technology before adding it. Think about computers, lets say video cards..They put out a 256mb video card and sell it for a year, then they sell the 512mb card for a year. The jumps in technology are much faster than that and they were probably working on the 1gb card when they released the 256mb. Why sell the 256mb and move to the 1gb card when you can move in slower increments and make a lot more money. Same with anything in most markets. Just my two cents.

Just saw this post after I posted, but I mostly agree with this post. Sometimes there are real constraints that might stop them from "improving" features or performance. One example, is the Digic processor. Silcon development is the slowest...meaning the silicon you see in products today, has probably been in the works for AT LEAST 2 years. There's a running joke in the tech industry because silicon vendors are always over promising on delivery dates and features.

[scokar]

There is a lot of extra circuitry in a digital camera as well so they may not be able to fit the ECF type circuits if the current size body with everything else that needs to be there.

interesting ... I would remove the 35mm film mechanism and free up some space.

[Tom W]

Since this is not an accounting or business forum, the short answer, based on my understanding and experience is that leaders in an industry will hold back and milk margins. If, however, you're an industry follower, then you're going to push as much as possible for features and likely, command lower margins.

I think that the perfect example of this is when Canon introduced the 30D. The essentially "milked the margin" with a modest improvement of the 20D. In the same time frame, Nikon, an industry follower, pushed the envelope with the D200. I am almost certain that the margins on the D200 were tight.

Of course, many other factors enter the equation. Canon might well have been spending a great deal of capital in getting a reasonably-priced full frame body (the 5D) to market. As a multi-product conglomerate, they might well have shifted R&D priorities to printers or other products as well.

[Collin85]

I'd say they would. Such a concept is often part of business strategy. If Canon has some awesome technology which could trample all opponents, then it makes sense for them to prolong such an implementation until really needed.

[Rokkorfan]

It is rare however in the car business for a feature that was available on a mid-upper model in 1998 (like 3D with 45 point AF) to not be available on an equivalent model today.

The point is that there is no equivalent model today. The same 45 point focus system is on the 1 series, but there is no 3 series model. The 5D, despite its price, is built off the XXD basic design, just redesigned to include a larger sensor.

Canon deliberately (like all companies) pitches features at certain price points. If it added 45 point focus and waterproffing to a 5D, how many people would select it instead of the $8,000 1Ds3 or $4500 1D3? Also, over the last year or two it hasn't needed to provide its best camera at each price point due to the lack of competition. This is changing, and we may see changes to the cameras released in future as a result.

[cyrn]

The point is that there is no equivalent model today. The same 45 point focus system is on the 1 series, but there is no 3 series model. The 5D, despite its price, is built off the XXD basic design, just redesigned to include a larger sensor.

Canon deliberately (like all companies) pitches features at certain price points. If it added 45 point focus and waterproffing to a 5D, how many people would select it instead of the $8,000 1Ds3 or $4500 1D3? Also, over the last year or two it hasn't needed to provide its best camera at each price point due to the lack of competition. This is changing, and we may see changes to the cameras released in future as a result.

There is a choice now... the D3 or for the cropped sensor, there's a D300 which have nearly all the features of the D3, weather sealing and AF inclusive. :lol:

[Collin85]

Also, over the last year or two it hasn't needed to provide its best camera at each price point due to the lack of competition. This is changing, and we may see changes to the cameras released in future as a result.

Exactly. Hence when I hear about people switching over to Nikon, I get pretty happy. The more people who switch, the more features it's going to win for us Canon consumers for upcoming releases, as far as I see it.

Now I hardly ever buy expensive bodies.. because I prefer to pour most of my money into lenses. That's why I REALLY WANT those Nikon entry-level bodies to sell well. If it helps to deliver a better 450D, I'm all for it.

[cyrn]

Exactly. Hence when I hear about people switching over to Nikon, I get pretty happy. The more people who switch, the more features it's going to win for us Canon consumers for upcoming releases, as far as I see it.

Now I hardly ever buy expensive bodies.. because I prefer to pour most of my money into lenses. That's why I REALLY WANT those Nikon entry-level bodies to sell well. If it helps to deliver a better 450D, I'm all for it.

quite true, just look at all the features canon puts in 400D :D

then again the xxxD series would soon be another P&S class with not much profit margin, even when compared to the xxD series.

[vic6string]

I'd say they would. Such a concept is often part of business strategy. If Canon has some awesome technology which could trample all opponents, then it makes sense for them to prolong such an implementation until really needed.

And let's not ignore the idea that they may have stuff in the works that would not only trample all opponents, but trample themselves.

What if some Canon design engineer came up with a system that blows away anything out there today... better colors, twice the dynamic range, no CA, super fast, super cheap to produce lenses. The catch? It requires a new mount... no EF.

So does Canon make this system right away? It will kill the sales of EF lenses instantly. It will alienate their current client base to the point where they may just sell off their gear and go to the competitors stuff. They will have to re-tool their assembly lines, re-train their sales staff, etc.. etc.. and after all that, Sigma and Tamron will reverse engineer the stuff in 6 months and sell equivalent models at half the price.

This sound extreme? Ask Intel how ludicrous this sounds. About 20 years ago they had this exact scenario almost yearly. 286, 386, 486, pentium... all with AMD and a couple of other reverse-engineer pirates right behind them. Such is life in the high tech world.

[cyrn]

And let's not ignore the idea that they may have stuff in the works that would not only trample all opponents, but trample themselves.

What if some Canon design engineer came up with a system that blows away anything out there today... better colors, twice the dynamic range, no CA, super fast, super cheap to produce lenses. The catch? It requires a new mount... no EF.

So does Canon make this system right away? It will kill the sales of EF lenses instantly. It will alienate their current client base to the point where they may just sell off their gear and go to the competitors stuff. They will have to re-tool their assembly lines, re-train their sales staff, etc.. etc.. and after all that, Sigma and Tamron will reverse engineer the stuff in 6 months and sell equivalent models at half the price.

This sound extreme? Ask Intel how ludicrous this sounds. About 20 years ago they had this exact scenario almost yearly. 286, 386, 486, pentium... all with AMD and a couple of other reverse-engineer pirates right behind them. Such is life in the high tech world.

then wouldn't it be better to show us their road map as what intel and amd have been doing so. There are already quite a few competing mounts today. They could evolve it just like the nikon ala dx/fx where D3 is able to use both. Why even go for the incompatible route even now with ef-s.