Barry_Green
Moderator
With all due respect, the thing that makes no sense to me is the whole "protecting" argument. Manufacturers screw over and obsolete their own lines ALL THE TIME. They have to. Is Sony "protecting" the F3? Of course not, they threw it to the wolves. Are they "protecting" the $300,000 F35? Of course not, they replaced and supplanted it with all sorts of products. Are they "protecting" the FS700? You can absolutely bet on that if they don't undercut it in the next few years, Panasonic or Canon or Red or BlackMagic or someone else will. Is Panasonic "protecting" the VariCam 3700? Nope, it's gone. Are they "protecting" the PX5000? No, they just put the exact same processing engines in a $5,000 PX270. It happens. It happens all the time.
So let's take this hypothetical example: will Canon come out with a $1799 DSLR that does everything their $6,000 video camera does? No, of course not... because one costs $1799, and the other costs $6,000. There's more budget and more room to build more into the bigger product.
But let's follow the example through, from the protectionist mindset:
Canon produces a $6,000 C100.
Canon *could*, but refuses to, build a comparable camera for $1,799 in the DSLR shape, thereby "protecting" the C100. If someone wants what the C100 does, by gum, they're gonna have to buy a C100, right? So Canon instead offers a purposely "crippled", substandard model for $1,799, for those who can only afford that much.
Panasonic comes along and produces a $1,799 camera that does everything the C100 does (hypothetically, of course). And it blows away Canon's $1,799 model.
Okay, so what does Canon do? Surely everyone who wanted to buy the C100, will now buy the Panasonic, because it's less than 1/3 the price. And everyone who would have considered buying Canon's creaky old $1,799 model is now going to jump ship too. So does Canon REFUSE to introduce a new $1,799 model to continue "protecting" the C100? If so, they will find their market disappearing twice as fast -- because nobody will be buying C100s, and simultaneously nobody will be buying their old $1,799 model, and further nobody will be $1,799 model that they didn't introduce because they refused to compete.
Meanwhile, simultaneously, Panasonic will be vacuuming up sales for their $1,799 camera, as well as all the sales that would otherwise have gone to Canon for the C100.
So what possible, rational, reasonable logic does it make, for a manufacturer to purposely cut themselves off from sales? How does this make sense? To anyone?
Which of you businessmen, seeing that nobody is buying your services anymore, would just complain but refuse to modify what you do? And if you have done that, how did it work out for you?
Seriously, this is like saying IBM refused to introduce a computer because they were trying to protect their typewriter business. Business just doesn't work that way. Folks who clung to their $60,000 Betacams aren't getting a ton of requests for them anymore.
So, let's take a totally different look at it: let's say that Canon is happy with their C100, C300, and C500 business. And let's say they're happy with their DSLR sales. They're making, selling, and renting all the equipment they can make. What possible reason would they have to want to change that? I mean, sure, their DSLR may not have all the whizbang features of the Sony or the Panasonic, but -- AS LONG AS PEOPLE STILL ARE BUYING IT -- why should they rock that boat? Sure, it may not do what YOU (mr. indie filmmaker) want it to do, but as long as it's selling, why should they change it? Because, someday, maybe you might buy something else? Sorry, your "maybe" doesn't trump their "cash in the bank" approach. If they've got (as DustyLense showed) 53% of the market right now, then there's really no reason for them to go upending anything, is there? And if indie filmmakers go storming off, will that even affect them? Maybe, maybe not; who truly knows just how big a piece of that 53% pie we are?
Canon has been very predictable. This "countdown" campaign didn't affect me in any way, because I knew, innately, that it would be nothing to do with us. Just like their "biggest announcement in the company's history", when lots and lots of people got all hyper-frothy about some super-new camera introduction and it instead turned out to be a photocopier that could make PDF's (or something equally irrelevant, I don't really remember.)
Canon will change their product line when their product line isn't selling anymore, or when it isn't selling in the quantities that they want it to sell in. Until then, there is no reasonable reason for them to change.
So let's go back to the central question here -- if Canon products don't do what you want, then DON'T BUY THEM. No manufacturer gives you points for loyalty. Once they have got your money, once they have cashed your check, they don't care about you. So why do you care about them so much? If they won't make what you want, then go buy from someone who will. If Canon doesn't make what you want, but BlackMagic does, then go buy the BlackMagic. Reward the companies that do what you want and give you what you want. If Panasonic quits making the products people want, like they've largely done, then the market in general will punish them and they either will learn their lesson, or they'll go out of business (meaning, they may discontinue this particular segment of their business). If Sony quits making the products people want, like they did through much of the HDV era, then people will quit buying their products and they'll see their profits fall and their margins shrink. If, on the other hand, they start making the products people want to buy (like they've recently been doing) then they'll see sales pick up and customers returning.
If Canon is truly not making the products you want, then don't buy them.
As far as "investing in a system", I do and don't see that point. I try to avoid getting invested in any particular manufacturer's "system" as much as possible. I bought Nikon lenses and PL lenses because I can use them on anything. I have a few M43 lenses for my AF100, but I mainly use my Nikons on it. Why did I go Nikon instead of Canon? Because Nikons can be used on a Canon, but Canons cannot be used on a Nikon. Because Canons require electrical adapters, and those have been few and far between for other cameras, but Nikons (being fully manual lenses) can be used on any camera, and mount adapters exist for them. If I had a ton of Canon "L" lenses, I might feel trapped in the Canon ecosystem, but I don't ever want to be trapped in any manufacturer's ecosystem. Over the years I've collected a number of batteries and a remote for Panasonics, but those are easily replaceable if the time comes to jump to another manufacturer's product. Besides, the manufacturer will screw you over on your "system" just as much as going to another manufacturer would -- I considered upgrading my Nikon to the latest model, but they've changed the batteries and the remote it uses, even though it's the latest model in the same series! So how is that really any different than just changing to another manufacturer in the first place? It isn't, really. So lenses is the only place where they can hold me hostage, and, as said, I've tried to go with the most universal lenses to mitigate that advantage. I stick with Panasonics more out of that I've learned how they work to the nth degree, and if I go to a new system I'll have to re-learn it all, and besides I only ever buy a new camera every four or five years anyway, when the older one no longer does what I need. But it's not out of being overwhelmingly invested in lenses and batteries and remotes and stuff like that.
I guess it comes down to this: if you're in business, you shouldn't have loyalty to a manufacturer, you should have loyalty to your customers. Your clients are the ones who pay your bills. If they will pay you to use a Canon, then use a Canon. Don't waste time or breath trying to convince them they're wrong, just do what they want, give them what they want, send the invoice and move on. If they won't pay you to use a Canon, then ditch the Canon and get whatever it is that they WILL pay for. But if they won't pay for you to use a Canon, then -- why get hung up on it? If they won't pay you to use a GH4, why take it personally? Sell the GH4 on ebay and get the 5D3, if that's what your client wants and will pay for.
And if you don't have clients -- then -- what does it matter? Get whatever does what you want. But don't buy into a brand or a manufacturer, because they can change, new ones can come along, and old ones may get stuffy and slow. Use what you've got for as long as it continues doing what you need, and when it no longer does what you need, then look at the offerings on the market and choose the one that best suits your existing needs, regardless of who it's from.
Last edited:
