Just one company or a sign of a general downward spiral in the photographic industry?

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons:</p>

<p>Subject: Canon predatory sales practice, Rebel k2?</p>

<p>I am an old fashioned Canon film shooter with many upper and high line Canon EOS bodies, lenses and flashes. I just bought a cheapie 35mm film Rebel k2 with the 28-90mm lens to keep in the car where cameras are subject to theft. To my surprise, my EOS film camera flashes will not work properly with it. Canon customer service just informed me that it needs the digital compatible flash. Fortunately I do have one. However, I cannot help but believe programming the camera’s chip to use only the digital flash was a purposeful act to make unsuspecting film camera buyers have to buy yet another flash.</p>

<p>Sleazy new car dealers at least put the notation “ADP” (additional dealer profit) on the ad-on sticker as a hint that they are trying to get further into your pocket.</p>

<p>Canon… Could you consider bringing up your marketing and production strategies and policies to the level of the above mentioned car dealers? I guess you are a differently run company than the one I bought from for the last 30 years. You have lowered your corporate goodwill and trust with me (and who knows how many other formerly loyal Canon buyers.)</p>

<p>Reluctantly I had recently began to feel that the time had come to buy into the SLR digital world of 20+ MP full frame. I no longer have a clear choice as to which brand I will buy.</p>

<p>Many Photonet posts in many categories have indicated there is a general downward trend in photography-related company customer policies. I guess their feeling is: “We’re all doing it, so who else you gonna buy from?” The major airlines decided the same thing. My answer eventually became, “None of the above.” It just wasn’t worth it. That will probably be my response to what was formerly a desire to buy a high MP digital SLR body, grip, flash, etc.</p>

<p>The corporate giants don’t realize “none of the above” is a choice. Take digital photography, for instance. I once took a lot of pride in having super-sharp, well-exposed shots that could be blown up to the max with the least amount of detail loss. Digital camera use has taken a big bite out of the super-enlargement section of the business. I recently have seen postings from advanced, high-end cell phone cameras that look pretty good. I downloaded a couple to check their enlargeability and found them getting pretty close to medium-priced digital all-in-ones. Certainly an 8X10 can be done quite well. As photo enthusiasts accept the trend toward prints done at 8X10 and smaller, they will soon realize all they need is a cell phone. I don’t see any of the major camera manufacturers with a high percentage of the cell phone market. Meanwhile, they push away the business they have.</p>

<p>Last year in 2010, one of the larger stock trading information services published a list of major household-name companies that would not survive 2011. Borders was on the list. How long is it before the top four camera manufacturers will make that list? How much of the reason for making the list will be a natural change in market tastes? How much of their downward spiral will they cause themselves because they thought they could control their buyers (suckers)?</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

[evan_goulet]

<p>You could look at it the other way around. Perhaps their cheapie film body is aimed at people who don't already have upper end film bodies and flashes. Perhaps it is aimed at the photographic student who has to take that one film course and then probably shoot digital for the rest of their life. That way they don't have to shell out for a film flash, and then dip back into the wallet to purchase a digital flash.</p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Goulet....</p>

<p>You make a good point and I had thought of that. The answer I gave to my own thought was either they didn't care or they could have programmed the chip so either type of flash would have worked. They didn't. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>I hate to say it but for many years Canon has been wed to the philosophy of evolving technology trumps customer convenience. Canon has seemingly had a policy that goes back decades of using technology changes to drive sales and no other credible advance in the technology. They make a fine product, but you have to be willing to play their game to stay in the game.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Ellingson….</p>

<p>Good points. May I add using technology changes to<em><strong> artificially create otherwise unnecessary sales</strong></em>?</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Photography equipment manufacturers have strayed from total backwards compatability many times, and did so long before the newer generations of higher-tech gear. Older designs can be an anchor to an existing market of users, but it can also be a boat anchor, if you know what I mean. People who don't stick with older equipment, or who use very niche-oriented gear, are a tiny, tiny minority. They aren't going to be what shapes the thinking of a company from a country in a decades-long financial rough patch, where a recent natural disaster has them prioritizing on what will keep them afloat, and in a recessionary global market with currencies that don't favor buying from Japan.<br /><br />And don't forget that Canon's more busy worrying about printers, ink cartridges, office equipment, etc., than they are about that microscopic number of people looking to buy 35mm film cameras.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Laur...</p>

<p>No, I have not forgotten and I'm also not referring to the very few 35mm buyers. Point is that a company can lose (and does lose) its customer base for both future technology and their other product lines.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>"May I add using technology changes to<em><strong> artificially create otherwise unnecessary sales</strong></em>?"</p>

<p>That has been a marketing standpoint and strategy since before you or I were born.</p>

<p>I have plenty of old lenses, flashes, and accessories which no longer work on more modern cameras without an adapter. It's not just Canon. Sony wants nearly as much for a current flash as it wants for a brand new Alpha camera body. Earlier stuff which fits does not fully work. But the information is readily available here on the internet and it's easier to make an informed compatibility decision than it was, say, 30 years ago.</p>

<p>The corporate giants do realize that "none of the above" is a choice. It's just a choice that too few seem to make for them to worry about.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Linn...</p>

<p>1. Yes, even before 1919. <br /><br />2. Sony did pay for backward compatibility with the "A" lens mount and continued the anti-shake inside the camera so all the old Minolta lenses would be anti-shake. <br /><br />3. "Its just a choice that too few seem to make for them to worry about." Yes, that is what Borders thought. Many consumers have already voted "none of the above" with the purchase of a cell phone. Name a big photo retailer who has any market share of the cell phone market. <br /><br /><br />A. T. Burke</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>It's a Rebel k2.... LOL. Worth maybe $5. It makes no diff.</p>

<p>I have an OLD (pre-1995) EOS 10S that works very well "still".</p>

<p>In my eyes, Canon cannot do any better. They lead. Then Nikon leads. Then Canon leads again. Then Sony... DSLRs are better and better every single year. 35mm SLRs are dinosaurs.</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>"Yes, even before 1919."</p>

<p>You have my congratulations. I didn't realize that we had posters here who were 92 years old.</p>

<p>Sony didn't "pay" for backward compatibility; they bought all of the rights to the line which they now own and decided on some backward compatibility and undecided on other parts as I mentioned.</p>

<p>Cell phone purchases have not been primarily driven by their built-in cameras. The market seems to be driven by advertising which rarely mentions the camera aspect. </p>

<p>"Name a big photo retailer who has any market share of the cell phone Market."</p>

<p>Best Buy</p>

<p> </p>

[DickArnold]

Canon makes the G12. I bought one for a Real Estate Agent friend recently for use in her work. Although I own a lot of Canon DSLR stuff I really like that camera. I have stooped shoulders from carrying around my Canon three pounders and big bodies for twenty years. The quality of the G12, of course does not yet reach that of my heavy stuff but when it does it would be a relief to carry something high quality and smaller. There are many G12 pictures that are hard to distinguish from those taken with higher end gear. When and if I can get digitially enhanced pictures from a small camera or cell phone that reach the quality of my three pound Canon Telephotos or my two pound mid range zooms I will gladly switch to something lighter. By that time long lasting video, a phone, movies, GPS etc. probably will be part of the package. Maybe I could even get rid of photoshop and Lightroom as smart AI processing witll also be part of the package. By then a new Steve Jobs or Bill Gates will have founded a new enterprise to grab the markets away from Canon and Nikon. The merger of these disciplines has already started and will be the future we are discussing in my flawed and humble opinion. As they said in WWII newsreels "Time marches on". I am typing this on my soon to be obsolete desktop. Maybe one could eventually carry all of these capabilities in their shirt pocket. As Bill Maher says maybe I just kid thee but I am not sure.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mr. Burke,<br>

Are you looking for other points of view? All your replies are just to contradict whatever somebody said who seems to disagree with you (and hence confirm yourself how right you are). If you just want to put up a statement, do not put a question mark at the end of your posting. Now, instead, it seemed an open question, but it isn't. Your mind is made up already. What, then, is the question?</p>

<p>Your pivotal bit of reasoning seems this: <em>As photo enthusiasts accept the trend toward prints done at 8X10 and smaller, they will soon realize all they need is a cell phone</em>.<br />Well, being a photo enthusiast, I simply cannot accept the incredibly lousy handling of a cellphone, the lack of lenses available nor the rather huge depth of field with its tiny sensor. And I guess I am not the only enthusiast that prefers a camera-designed-to-be-camera for such reasons.<br>

Sure the ongoing improvements in cell phones will change the market, especially the compact camera market. But to think it will stop a DSLR market for the real enthusiasts as well, I think that's stretching it a whole lot. Enthusiasts want the right tools for the job, and are willing to pay for it. The cameraphone is just not designed to be a camera enough. It contains too much phone to really replace a camera.</p>

<p>For your "issue", Michael already phrased it fine: "The corporate giants do realize that "none of the above" is a choice. It's just a choice that too few seem to make for them to worry about.". That's how it goes. Loosing one customer over flash compatibility on an old, cheap filmcamera is not going to disturb Canon all that much. So, you jump ship to Nikon only to find the same issues (the exact same, since Nikon just made a similar move for flashes). And some discontented Nikon owners jump to Canon. And they both continue to sell millions of DSLRs and lenses for some time to come.<br />Personally, I check things like compatibility before I buy something. That saves a lot of headaches.</p>

[Ken Katz]

With respect to Canon's "preditory sales practices", in the film era, TTL flash exposure relied on measuring light reflected off of the film during exposure. For digital cameras, Canon along with other SLR manufactures (like Nikon) had to switch TTL flash technology to measuring flash exposure via a preflash instead of during exposure, rendering the previous generation of flash units (Canon EZ) substantially obsolete. My 13+ year old 550EX flash works fine with all my EOS film and digital cameras, and is fully functional with my 5D's new ETTL-II flash exposure system. All of my EF glass is fully compatable with all new DSLRs. Beyond this, one has to accept that the photo equipment industry is looking more and more like the consumer electronics industry, with much more frequent model and feature upgrades and the high likelyhood that one's current equipment will feel outmoded in a much shorter time frame than ever before. One can always ignore that feeling and just take photos with whatever equipment you have that seems to work for you.

[john_h.1]

<p>Where exactly is the "predatory" aspect of Canon's sales practices?</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>Planned obsolescence has been around since the early 1930's and you can blame Manning Bowman. All technologies are constantly evolving and many camera systems have come and gone over the years. Why would you expect this to change? Once the change from film cameras to digital started, the lenses had to be retooled to work with the flat plane of the sensors. This improved the image sharpness and provided a new source of income for the company. Now you have IS technology. Plus the new software applications that allow you to adjust the depth of field in the digital images. The tools and the skills needed to use them have evolved. BUT, a good or great image will depend on the composition within the image.</p>

<p>While the cost of the digital cameras can seem great, the offset is you do not have the cost of film, processing, and printing in order to see the images. A huge number of people have opted for the digital display method rather than printing on paper, metal, or glass. I would not expect people with cell phone images to care at all about printing the images in any size. The quality potential might be there but do not expect many to see the light of day printed out.</p>

<p>Constantly upgrading anything is not part of my agenda. I prefer to use it till it breaks. So a Canon 300D and 10D (ir) are still part of my equipment. It was an extremely difficult choice this year but I decided to bypass 35mm equivilant digital, all Canon products, and went with the Pentax 645D in order to have the resolution quality needed to go large on my prints. They are all tools to achieve an end result by printing them. So now I have moved to a higher quality paper to reproduce the results on. Plus, looking at printing on Glass.</p>

<p>I am not content with digital as the end all of photography and am about to start doing film for the first time. Include are some Kodak boxes, Rolleiflex models, some Agfa rangefinders, a couple Bolsey's, and some Bilora models. This should include fixing up my Kodak #4 Panorama from 1899 so I can use it too.</p>

<p>Rather than saying "none of the above", I choose a wider choice of the available technologies to work with. It is in the end about the images you get and the technologies you use.</p>

<p>So ask yourself: What are your personel end goals in being a photographer?</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[DickArnold]

Sometime ago I took a course at the American Managment Association on corporate hubris. It stuck with me because they profiled several corporate leaders who through hubris led their companies into either bankruptcy or financial disaster. I think there are a couple of things operating in the photography business that mitigate against the continued success of the major camera manufacturers. One, of course, is competition on the low end by cell phone manufacturers that have already captured a large share of that market. The other is that planned obsolescence does not work as well when technological gains become more difficult as manufacturers push against the state of the art and it is more difficult to find innovations that will produce the dissatisfaction that motivates buying advanced gear. I believe the digital photo business is bumping up against both of these issues. Top that off with a certain complacency that creeps into corporations after such entities have controlled and dominated the markets for long periods as has happened now with the digital revolution for now going on eleven years. I guess a lot depends upon whether Canon and Nikon can continue to produce technological gains that will influence buyers to upgrade equipment that today seems to be more than adequate for most individual needs Where is the next quantum gain in digital photo technology. I don't know. Is it in more megapixels, more automation, easier more sensor driven simpler post processing, improving the size and weight of gear to produce better results from a smaller package? I have no idea. History says there is an end run around the conventional thinking of these big producers as they mature and become more bureaucratic and perhaps that end run has already begun. I broadly agree with the OP that the business may be due for an externally driven change which according to ones perspective may have already begun. Maybe the elves have already devised these new market busters. Search me. I see nothing definitive about where this industry is headed not next week but in the next five years. Does anyone know? As one who worked on GPS technology when it was but a dream in civil aviation twenty years ago and see where it is now I know how important out year planning is. A lot of those early objectives have been met with GPS. There was a plan. Where and what is the plan for this industry?

[James G. Dainis]

Mr. Burke,

 

After seeing your age, I took a look at your gallery photos. It was a fantastic voyage back into history with Kodachrome. Simple cameras that produced images that last a lifetime and beyond are giving way to cameras that now produce images for instant gratification and short life spans unless one uses some effort to keep transferring them to the latest storage medium. Well done.

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Linn....</p>

<p>You said: "I didn't realize that we had posters here who were 92 years old." </p>

<p>I hope that you will consider that a good excuse for not saying what I meant to say. No longer able to type well I dictate. Part of the joy of aging is that I sometimes say a different word or phrase than I am thinking. The typist does not catch it because they did not know what I was trying to say (not mind readers) and/or are not familiar with the technical word or thought I was trying to convey. </p>

<p>Having said much about nothing above...</p>

<p>Where I had previously posted "Name a big photo retailer who has any market share of the cell phone Market.", I should have posted, "Name a big retail photo name that has any market share of the cell phone market.". I was referring to Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta, Pentax, etc. </p>

<p>Answering the question that I did not mean to ask, I would have named "Fry's" as the retailer exception. They carry not only the lower end digital cameras as I've seen in Best Buy, but also some of the high end. I've seen a Sony A900 (SLR) and a Canon G9 (compact) at Fry’s, neither of which I have seen at Best Buy. G9? It has been that long since I've been in a Fry's market area. I don’t believe B&H offers cell phone type devices either. </p>

<p>I had used Sony as an example because it took over the product line of Minolta and continued to use their lens mount for future products. This gave them a jump-start with not only a small dealer network but also thousands of Minolta lens owners to bring into the digital age by buying one of their bodies. </p>

<p>You also said "Cell phone purchases have not been primarily driven by their built-in cameras. The market seems to be driven by advertising which rarely mentions the camera aspect.", which is true. However as the cell phone market has been saturated they added features and somewhat unrelated features to continue brisk sales. </p>

<p>One can hardly call some of the new devices with cell phone capability cell phones anymore as they do so much more. Also, the cell phone function becomes a lesser percentage of device use. At first they took pretty crude and small MP digital pictures. Then they started the MP war and took pretty crude but larger MP digital pictures. Now the output quality is getting better and the devices are growing in size. If a few aren't already, the picture output will soon be challenging the low to medium priced compact digital cameras. </p>

<p>People are already leaving their consumer pocketable digital cameras at home, especially while traveling. Why fill two pockets when you can do with one and just accept that a lesser picture as a trade off for not carrying two digital devices. I believe that as the "cell phone cameras" get better and better more and more people will (and already are) leave the digital compact home and not replace it with a newer model. </p>

<p> A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Arnold….</p>

<p>You not only took the course, but your post would lead one to believe that you have put it to good use. </p>

<p>I like your sentence “Top that off with a certain complacency that creeps into corporations after such entities have controlled and dominated the markets for long periods as has happened now with the digital revolution for now going on eleven years.” If you expand that concept to include most of the companies we “bailed out” here in America you would define part of the reason those companies had to seek the bailout. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Dainis....</p>

<p>Thank you Sir. I fear that many of the college age Americans today may not have the opportunity to look back as I have. Many of the images they take today for instant gratification and short life spans will not be there.</p>

<p>Our culture is changing. Representation of the past may well have no social value or even have a negative social value before these college-age kids reach anywhere near my age. It may even be illegal.</p>

<p>Don’t be too quick to scoff. Look at the book burnings (history, culture and knowledge) that were so enthusiastically carried out by the general population in Hitler era Germany. They were by no means ignorant barbarians. They were just general citizens carrying out the then current social trends and values of the time, place and space. They were not the first either. The history and knowledge bank of Greece was wantonly destroyed long before. Could this type of thing also have happened in the time of the Pharaohs? Why do we not know how the pyramids were built?</p>

<p>Did you read the first critique under many of the pictures in my folder <em>Days gone by on Kodachrome gone by (70 of the 75 years)</em>?<em> </em>As a Kodachrome enthusiast, I started out to merely document 70 of the 75 Kodachrome years. Of course, on Photonet, members can only post their own pictures, which limited me to those that you saw in the folder. As the folder built, I realized that it documented a change in culture and the American way of life. I thought I would add text indicating some of the good, and even some of the not so good, moments during the life of Kodachrome. I hope to be able to complete the task of putting an appropriate comment together with each photo, my remaining time and energies considering.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Henneberger...</p>

<p>In my prior writings, within this thread, I tried to explain what I thought was a Canon predatory sales practice as well as I could. If you feel that I have failed, just consider it due to my youth, lack of life experiences and low IQ. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot help but believe programming the camera’s chip to use only the digital flash was a purposeful act to make unsuspecting film camera buyers have to buy yet another flash.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you took the time to understand the difference between film and sensor surfaces, you would understand that it has nothing to do with programming the camera's chip. I suggest you spend a little less time telling people like John H off and use that time to read up on why flash technology had to change.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr Spirer....</p>

<p>I guess I don't fully understand your comment. The Canon Rebel K2 I bought is a film camera. There obviously is a way to program a film camera to use only a flash that was formerly dedicated to be used by digital cameras and keep it from being used with its own brand flashes dedicated to be used with all their other EOS film cameras. Ergo, somehow they were able to modify the information that went to the flash shoe to reevaluate and convert the light reflection off the sensor surface into equal light reflection values that would come off film, if in fact it was working off the area where either film or sensor would sit within the camera. </p>

<p>Furthermore I understood that most (especially lower end SLRs) took the flash information that was bounced off the mirror while the film was covered. I also know that some high end SLRs get exposure information in the first microseconds after the film is first exposed. </p>

<p>I am replying to your post without consideration to the nasty tone of your comment. I just don't understand your point. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I suggested reading, you haven't done that. If you take the time to understand how they work, you will understand. If you don't want to take the time to understand how the flash differs, then you will continue to labor under the false impression that Canon is doing something to users.</p>