Canon 350D – are you serious?

[KSV]

BillDrew wrote:

Good equipment ain't cheap.

Because it is not mass production! And it is not mass production because general public never appreciate such thing. If it would be mass production I am sure price will go down dramatically. But it never became because it is not "cool" not "fun" not "turbo" and not even "digital". Average consumer more happily trow $1000 for new super-duper mobile phone rather than get a piece of glass for this money (and, say, for $1000 it is possible to get very decent glass or even two very good one). And this average consumer will believe that mobile phone is better buy because it include everything even digital camera.

[lemondster]

honestly i dont understand the exact reasoning for your post

personally i like the LCD information screen on the back better than on the top considering that im already going to be looking at the back of the camera body because of the screen and my "poor" viewfinder. i could also care less about the resolution of my doggy LCD because it is the final picture quality that counts? if you dont need the extra resolution (8MP vs. 6MP), fine, dont get it but i like having the resolution as it permitts me to crop my pictures more without having to sacrifice as much print quality. i hope you dont think that you are the first person to discribe the camera as light; as canon describes it "lightest EOS Digital SLR to date."

the new Rebelis not made to be the replacement for the 10D or the 20D it is made to be the replacement for the old Digital Rebel. niether the new rebel or the old rebel were made to be the pinnicle of canons dSLR product line. it was produced to be between the G6 and the 20D and it does just that.

the ability of acamera to produce a 'photo' hasn't as much to do with the equipment, as it does with the talent of the photographer.

i think that if you are upset with canon, you should come up with a better attack than this because there are different levels of photographers that require/need/want different features. if you hand a 35 year old father (not a photographer)a camera to take pictures of his child playing basketball, which camera do you think he will fit his needs: a Rebel XT or a 1Ds MkII?? (even if price wasnt an issue) it is common sense for canon to release an ENTRY LEVEL camera for this guy.

it would be amazing if there were "experts" like yourself to have the insight of a 20 year old engineering student!

[KSV]

lemondster wrote:

honestly i dont understand the exact reasoning for your post

Happily can accept that I did not express myself properly. Just like to have general discussion and ask your feeling-there is no solution here :-). There is *NOTHING* wrong about 350D. What I am postingis about tendency (not Canon and even not photo-manufactures only; another excellent example is mobile phones) to produce cheaply executed equipment stuffed with lots of unnecessarily electronic gizmos. Understandable why - public will happily pay for those gizmos (90% of those publicwill neweruse or even understand half of these gizmos - totally agree here with PeterP), but not for high quality execution. So as result I personally have very limited choice - either pay megabucks (unfortunately can not afford) or accept public perception (and this is make me upset). I still have my father's Leica (mind you - entry level model!!!) witch been in service for more than 50 years stuffing thousands photos in family albums - never been repaired and still in perfectworking condition. Does anybody believe that current photo-equipment will be usable after been 50 years in service? Not me anyway. So how I can adore a piece of equipment witch I knowneed to be trown away after 3-5 years? This is what I am talking about.

[Kenny_Leong]

"And this is exactly where is my frustration came from. Rather then make equipment like 20D affordable for everyone"

KSV ... are you trying to say that canon should sell their 20D cameras for say $499? If so, then maybe Ferrari could start selling their 360 Modena for only say... ten thousand dollars.

Let's get realistic. Canon and other camera companies make a variety of cameras to meet the needs of various customers. Cameras such as the 350D will satisfy a whole bunch of customers, and people are going to buy it. It has enough features for photography lovers to get good results.

[KSV]

Kenny_Leong wrote:

KSV ... are you trying to say that canon should sell their 20D cameras for say $499?

Would be nice - I will jump first in line :lol:

My point somewhat different. Rather then 350D I would prefer short version of 20D - say 6mp, not so high continuous shooting, slower x-sync, no orientation sensor etc. Orsee improvement in 300D by putting alloy body, pentaprizm etc. My statement is simple - I prefer high quality execution versus electronic gizmos and asking your opinion on this statement :-)

[Kenny_Leong]

KSV ... so you'd like them to upgrade the materials of cameras such as the 300D, or just cut down the 20D. Either way, you'd end up paying a significantly higher price than the cost of the 350D.

I think what you're trying to say is ... you want a high quality product for free...right?

[KSV]

Kenny_Leong wrote:

I think what you're trying to say is ... you want a high quality product for free...right?

Wrong. My definition of quality somewhat differs from public perception - nothing more than that. So I am interested to fish out what is definition of quality by other people in this site.

Cheers

[Kenny_Leong]

KSV wrote:

Wrong. My definition of quality somewhat differs from public perception - nothing more than that. So I am interested to fish out what is definition of quality by other people in this site.

I see. So do you mean that you want a camera to be custom-made to suit your needs, and that camera performs almost the same as the 20D (except stripped down slightly), and also has good quality materials, and you also want the camera to be priced at say 500 dollars? Is that what you mean? I assume that your comment about 'differs from public perception' means you want something different than what the general public wants?

[PhotoEcosse]

KSV,

I think I can now see your point. You seem to be saying that you would prefer the 350D to have been a well executed "basic" camera, rather than an adequately executed "more advanced" camera.

Pentax did something similar back in the 80's. The ME Super was their standard AE priority camera which sold well.They brought out a real photographers camera (can't remember it's name) that was pretty much manual everything to give the user maximum control over their shooting. As I recall, it sold in tiny amounts because the target market was also very small. Most people wanted the convenienceof the AE shooting and other "labour saving" features.

The market the 350D is aimedat is quite broad but, I suspect, it includes a large proportion of people who take 'snaps' rather than compose pictures (I include my self in this bracket when I get lazy and stop thinking about the photo I am trying to take). I believe that a large proportion of this group would be intimidated by a camera that lacked the gizmos that they perceive help them take pictures. Canon would, no doubt, make sales to the keen and competent photographers but would lose "average" users to other brands if they went down the route you propose.

I can see where you are coming from but believe that in a commercial world it is the wrong decision. My preferred choice of car is a Caterham 7. It has no doors, no roof, no windscreen, only two very narrow seats, no power steering, no heater (let alone AC), no ABS and(almost) no luggage space. It also gives the purest form of driving experience imaginable but I realise that for most road users it is too "pure" for them to enjoy (it requires total and absolute concentration to drive, unlike most tin tops). It also has a very small market which means that it is no cheaper than other cars since it is a specialist vehicle to produce and sell.

The Canon may not be to your preferred spec but I suspect that it does meet the perceived needs of many of its target market. If you want a camera that gives you total control with a lack of gizmos, why not get a good manual film slr and a film scanner (probably end up a lot cheaper than the 350D as well!).:-)

[Norm in Fujino]

Canon may be doing something very smart, or very dumb; time will tell. According to the "smart" view, maybe Canon is betting that digital cameras will continue to evolve so fast that they are viewed essentially as disposable items. If so, they reason, then it doesn't make any (or much) sense to make a camera like a Rolls if it's going to be used and abused like a Kia.

In that sense, it may turn out that digital cameras will prove to be undesireable collector items, since their electronic parts will wear out and even become unreplaceable due to rapidly changing technologies--unlike an old Nikon F2 or Oly OM-1.
Then again, they may be wrong . . .