is hardly a typical SLR user let alone a typical photographer, (in the broadest sense of the word). Sure
Canon's best equipment is world beating but most people can only aspire to such lofty heights. I think I
might have spent a few thousand USD on my current equipment, I could never have afforded the equivalent
if I'd gotten Canons top of the line products and my photographs probably wouldn't be much better. But that wasn't even why I even posted this and it makes no sense if you cut out the original post.
(Yes I know, whine, whine, whine).
John Francis wrote:
Peter J. Alling mused:
Canon's R&D is no better than anyone elses. Pentax quiet likely has just as many or more imaging patents. Canon can bring more products to market weather there is a need for them or not. Some are truely superior products, but I've felt they were inferior since the days of the AE1, they were the first "quality" camera manufacture to jump on the plastic junk bandwagon. It's been downhill ever since. More "features" less quality Yipee.
Odd, then, that they were the leaders to market USM & IS lenses, and seem to be leading the way with sensor technology, too.
From where I sit Canon definitely do seem to have more resultsfrom their R&D department. They, more than anybody else, are pushing forwards the cutting edge of DSLR development.
Do they fund this by selling cheap junk to the masses? Sure. And why not? If this means they can make top-of-the-line stuff like the L-series lenses and the 1Ds II, and sell them cheaper, then I'm all for it.
I liked the EOS-10D when I rented one, and I'm sure the -20D is even better. By the time you've got an 80-200/2.8 (or even just a 28-70) mounted on the front of it, and a flash on the top, the difference in size and weight between that and the *ist-D just isn't all that significant.
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
