Originally Posted by iND
Removing features from a camera (or not adding them in the first place)does not reduce the sale price unless the number of users that like that feature is so small that it cannot offset the fixed and variable costs of the feature. In the case of video, live view, and many AF points, the number of users who like and use the feature is so tremendous that it pays for the feature several times over. That is, new cameras without the feature will need a *higher* price to offset the greatly reduced number of consumers that will buy it.
Personally, I would love to have video, pop-up flash, live view, and a gazillion AF points. But there are other features that I find useless and would rather them do away with. However, I recognize that the useless (to me) features help reduce the cost of the camera by increasing marketability, so I am content to put up with them.
Ditto for these. Although I would be fine if Canon just stopped trying so hard to limit third-party firmwares. Let us develop these features by ourselves, at no cost to Canon. For example, Magic Lantern already has all three of these features you want. Imagine how much better it would be if Canon gave up their amateur attempts at encrypting the firmware (easily cracked) and instead actually helped the people who are trying to do their job for them.
Not holding my breath.
</div>
<div></div>
<div>I would be happy with *any* radio communication in the body. The range and reliability of the current manufacturer systems is annoying. I don't know why they haven't done it already. Maybe it's the cost of transmitter hardware that has to support a huge number of frequencies (due to each country/locale having different and varying availability)? Or the extra regulatory compliance for redio emission in a huge number of different countries? I dunno.</div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>No. But I would love to be proven wrong (again).</div>
Reply With Quote