CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18334837
I don't know, it seems to set a precedent that is a bit scary to me.
I have no problem that the people that want this upgrade will pay for it, but I do have a problem with the precedent of paying for firmware (assuming that is all this is. We have absolutely no factual basis to claim there is a hardware change, just supposition. Of course the same can be said of it being firmware only
) Additionally, there soon will be two 5D4s out there, some better than others, all based on a firmware we have to buy to update.
I just find it cloudy,. muddy waters.
Again, I don't recall reading about people dieing for this change, so it's impact, free or charged, in my little world view is minimal. More, I am a still shooter, so personally, what-evs.
I did read a LOT of complaints about the lack of FF 4k, and the file types the 5D4 records for 4k. I believe these are valid complaints, that the lack of these two features makes the 5D4 less competitive in the video SLR market, a market created by Canon and the 5D2,. a market Canon once owned with the 5D2s innovation. If 30x more people wanted that upgrade than this one, and Canon writes up a firmware that will let the 5D4 do it,. what if they charge then? Now we have three kinds of 5D4 with vastly different (Video) capabilities.
The still shooters don't care. What if Canon starts charging for firmware that makes still shooting better?
Like I said, I don't like the precedent.
I don't know, it seems to set a precedent that is a bit scary to me.
I have no problem that the people that want this upgrade will pay for it, but I do have a problem with the precedent of paying for firmware (assuming that is all this is. We have absolutely no factual basis to claim there is a hardware change, just supposition. Of course the same can be said of it being firmware only
) Additionally, there soon will be two 5D4s out there, some better than others, all based on a firmware we have to buy to update. I just find it cloudy,. muddy waters.
Again, I don't recall reading about people dieing for this change, so it's impact, free or charged, in my little world view is minimal. More, I am a still shooter, so personally, what-evs.
I did read a LOT of complaints about the lack of FF 4k, and the file types the 5D4 records for 4k. I believe these are valid complaints, that the lack of these two features makes the 5D4 less competitive in the video SLR market, a market created by Canon and the 5D2,. a market Canon once owned with the 5D2s innovation. If 30x more people wanted that upgrade than this one, and Canon writes up a firmware that will let the 5D4 do it,. what if they charge then? Now we have three kinds of 5D4 with vastly different (Video) capabilities.
The still shooters don't care. What if Canon starts charging for firmware that makes still shooting better?
Like I said, I don't like the precedent.
It makes me uneasy too. I think that it is Canon's lack of openness that is at the root of it. By being quite secretive and not explaining just what changes they will be making and why it is necessary to do this by way of a (paid for) return, they are engendering distrust.
Say what you are doing, explain why ... say what it means for cameras that are not returned ... just be open ... then this is perhaps not such a big deal. As it stands, it is just a straightforward Canon Customer Service own goal.
, 70-200
