Canon's low end products

[R.P.D. added]

Michael Benveniste wrote:
John McWilliams wrote in message news:w71Zc.212816$8_6.51472@attbi_s04...

Michael Benveniste wrote:

To my eye, the error Canon has made is providing new capabilities
and options for there lower-end products (300D) than for higher-
end products introduced in very recent memory (Mark II, 10D).

Could you please illustrate what you mean by direct example(s)?


Certainly. If in 2003, you purchased the $895 300D (Digital
Rebel), you'll be able to use the newly announced EF-S lenses,
including the new 10-22mm. If instead, you decided to purchase
the $1495 10D, you cannot.

Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

Even if you seriously dented a
credit card for a 1D Mark II instead, despite the smaller crop
factor you can't match the angle of view of the 10-22mm on the
300D with Canon gear.

Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.

Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.

--
John McWilliams

fu set to di

[R.P.D. added]

Michael Benveniste wrote:
John McWilliams wrote in message news:w71Zc.212816$8_6.51472@attbi_s04...

Michael Benveniste wrote:

To my eye, the error Canon has made is providing new capabilities
and options for there lower-end products (300D) than for higher-
end products introduced in very recent memory (Mark II, 10D).

Could you please illustrate what you mean by direct example(s)?


Certainly. If in 2003, you purchased the $895 300D (Digital
Rebel), you'll be able to use the newly announced EF-S lenses,
including the new 10-22mm. If instead, you decided to purchase
the $1495 10D, you cannot.

Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

Even if you seriously dented a
credit card for a 1D Mark II instead, despite the smaller crop
factor you can't match the angle of view of the 10-22mm on the
300D with Canon gear.

Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.

Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.

--
John McWilliams

fu set to di

John McWilliams wrote in message :
Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

By what logic did you come to this conclusion? In order to call
something a marketing error, do you really feel Canon needs to
offend all of its customers?

Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.
Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.

And how are you and the "thousands of others" Mark II owners
planning to match the angle of view granted by the 10-22mm?
Get out that credit card and plunk down money for a new body,
I guess.

Please, don't let your brand loyalty get in the way of your
logic and reading skills.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

John McWilliams wrote in message :
Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

By what logic did you come to this conclusion? In order to call
something a marketing error, do you really feel Canon needs to
offend all of its customers?

Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.
Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.

And how are you and the "thousands of others" Mark II owners
planning to match the angle of view granted by the 10-22mm?
Get out that credit card and plunk down money for a new body,
I guess.

Please, don't let your brand loyalty get in the way of your
logic and reading skills.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

John McWilliams wrote in message :
Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?

By what logic did you come to this conclusion? In order to call
something a marketing error, do you really feel Canon needs to
offend all of its customers?

Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.
Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.

And how are you and the "thousands of others" Mark II owners
planning to match the angle of view granted by the 10-22mm?
Get out that credit card and plunk down money for a new body,
I guess.

Please, don't let your brand loyalty get in the way of your
logic and reading skills.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Michael Benveniste wrote:

John McWilliams wrote in message :

Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


By what logic did you come to this conclusion? In order to call
something a marketing error, do you really feel Canon needs to
offend all of its customers?


Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.

Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.


And how are you and the "thousands of others" Mark II owners
planning to match the angle of view granted by the 10-22mm?
Get out that credit card and plunk down money for a new body,
I guess.

Please, don't let your brand loyalty get in the way of your
logic and reading skills.

Um, Michael, those would be called rhetorical questions. You were
alleging Canon was way off base.

Clearly you are affronted by their skulduggery or lack of foresight,
which others may see as a compromise to market and manufacturing realities.

I maintain most Canon owners are way less ****ed off than you are.

--
John McWilliams

Michael Benveniste wrote:

John McWilliams wrote in message :

Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


By what logic did you come to this conclusion? In order to call
something a marketing error, do you really feel Canon needs to
offend all of its customers?


Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.

Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.


And how are you and the "thousands of others" Mark II owners
planning to match the angle of view granted by the 10-22mm?
Get out that credit card and plunk down money for a new body,
I guess.

Please, don't let your brand loyalty get in the way of your
logic and reading skills.

Um, Michael, those would be called rhetorical questions. You were
alleging Canon was way off base.

Clearly you are affronted by their skulduggery or lack of foresight,
which others may see as a compromise to market and manufacturing realities.

I maintain most Canon owners are way less ****ed off than you are.

--
John McWilliams

Michael Benveniste wrote:

John McWilliams wrote in message :

Therefor every single owner of the 10-D is cheesed off at Canon and
can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


Therefor every single owner of the 1D Mark II is cheesed off at Canon
and can't possibly understand that compromises happen?


By what logic did you come to this conclusion? In order to call
something a marketing error, do you really feel Canon needs to
offend all of its customers?


Instead, you have to gamble on a Sigma,
which may or may not work with your next Canon camera.

Perhaps *you* have to, but I and thousands others do not.


And how are you and the "thousands of others" Mark II owners
planning to match the angle of view granted by the 10-22mm?
Get out that credit card and plunk down money for a new body,
I guess.

Please, don't let your brand loyalty get in the way of your
logic and reading skills.

Um, Michael, those would be called rhetorical questions. You were
alleging Canon was way off base.

Clearly you are affronted by their skulduggery or lack of foresight,
which others may see as a compromise to market and manufacturing realities.

I maintain most Canon owners are way less ****ed off than you are.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote in message news:PL%Zc.21612$3l3.7316@attbi_s03...

Um, Michael, those would be called rhetorical questions.

Cool. Feel free to treat my questions in reply the same way.

You were alleging Canon was way off base.

I think you're reading something into my comments that I did not
intend. I've stated that Canon has made a marketing error with
the EF-S lenses. No more, no less.

Clearly you are affronted by their skulduggery or lack of foresight,
which others may see as a compromise to market and manufacturing realities.
I maintain most Canon owners are way less ****ed off than you are.

Oddly enough, I'm not affronted or ****ed at Canon. I don't even
have a direct interest. I don't own any DSLR, and will wait at
least one more generation before buying one. I think Canon makes
many excellent products and have no qualms about recommending
Canon to new buyers. I use Nikon 35mm gear myself, (historical
accident, don't ask) and I'm _much_ harder on Nikon's business
decisions.

There is no technology-based reason or "manufacturing reality"
why Canon couldn't make the new EF-S lenses work with a D60 or
10D. Ditto for introducing a 12-Xmm lens for the Mark II. Others
with vastly fewer resources managed to do both.

So that makes the decision a "compromise to market realities."
Agreed. But there's always more than one compromise possible,
and Canon chose a poor one here.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

John McWilliams wrote in message news:PL%Zc.21612$3l3.7316@attbi_s03...

Um, Michael, those would be called rhetorical questions.

Cool. Feel free to treat my questions in reply the same way.

You were alleging Canon was way off base.

I think you're reading something into my comments that I did not
intend. I've stated that Canon has made a marketing error with
the EF-S lenses. No more, no less.

Clearly you are affronted by their skulduggery or lack of foresight,
which others may see as a compromise to market and manufacturing realities.
I maintain most Canon owners are way less ****ed off than you are.

Oddly enough, I'm not affronted or ****ed at Canon. I don't even
have a direct interest. I don't own any DSLR, and will wait at
least one more generation before buying one. I think Canon makes
many excellent products and have no qualms about recommending
Canon to new buyers. I use Nikon 35mm gear myself, (historical
accident, don't ask) and I'm _much_ harder on Nikon's business
decisions.

There is no technology-based reason or "manufacturing reality"
why Canon couldn't make the new EF-S lenses work with a D60 or
10D. Ditto for introducing a 12-Xmm lens for the Mark II. Others
with vastly fewer resources managed to do both.

So that makes the decision a "compromise to market realities."
Agreed. But there's always more than one compromise possible,
and Canon chose a poor one here.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.