I guess it all comes down to whether you believe the manufacturers define the marketplace, or whether they design what they can sell. There's more than a little truth on both sides, of course.
I don't recall there ever being a shortage of products aimed at a lower price point than those from the leading manufacturers. (In fact one could argue that Pentax themselves filled such a role in the 60s and 70s). The products ranged all the way from the good-but-clunky typified by the Praktica my brother bought as a cheaper alternative to my Spotmatic, to the badge-engineered products (Hanimex, QuantaRay) available from many chains - some good, some truly terrible. Third-party lens manufacturers (Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, ...) also did quite well servicing this demand, and there were even a few attempts at creating bodies, too (Ricoh being probably best know to Pentax folks). I see Canon's move into low-end products as an attempt to expand into this section of the market, too - by that time they pretty much owned the high-end marketplace. They recognise that the market is largely price driven (people buy what they can afford). Is the $100 lens on a Rebel as good as the L-series equivalent? Of course not. But it's probably as good as almost any $100 lens ever sold in the last three decades, and that's without trying to convert into constant-value dollar equivalents. Peter J. Alling mused: > > I don't know how to say this any more politely, but someone who owns a > 80-200 f2.8 auto focus lens > 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 results > >from 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 > >
