Canon announces the 500D

Fajitas!

eden_my_ass wrote: »

Shouldn't you just buy a HD camcorder so, they're cheaper and most have a "still shot" button

We'll just have to agree to disagree I think, horses for courses (and still image technology for still image devices!)

No, not if primarily, I want stills, with the option of video footage.

gloobag wrote: »

It wouldn't be so bad if the video function was fully featured, but on the 5DmkII it's just shoe horned in there and is quite cumbersome to use, you have very little control over any of the settings and you'd need to invest in an external mirphone if you wanted to get any "proper" use out of it. I assume that it will be the same with the 500D.

It is true that it feels a bit shoehorned in, but at the end of the day, it's an introduction of new technology into a format that's been around quite a while. It's going to be quite difficult to introduce it - And it's been that way for years - Whether it's been built in meters, autofocus, or hell, even the introduction of digital into the world of photography. I mean, every time they were introduced, people said "it'll never work" or "we don't need that", but hey, the majority of folk with cameras now rely on meters in the camera and autofocus, nevermind the whole digital aspect.

I don't see why they can't just give the customer the option of having such a big feature or not. Surely they could sell the camera without it and then just offer the video feature as a paid for downloadable firmware update or something.

Because it'll be hacked. It always happened. They tried this on with the 300D firmware and 10D firmware - The internals of both cameras systems were the exact same. It was hacked, and Canon potentially lost money. It's also happening with the 40D and video. People just don't want to pay.

If I could trade in the video feature on my 5D for a half decent lens, I wouldn't hesitate. I may think differently if the feature was implemented well, but it's not, and I'm still a bit pissed about being semi forced to pay for a feature that I didn't want in the first place and that's crap to boot.

I don't think you were exactly forced to pay extra for a feature you don't want - Considering how cheap the 5D II actually is!!! The original was twice the price when it came out and had half the features.

Sleepy

I'd agree that it might be nice to have the video functionality but my call on whether I'd pay for it really would depend on what portion of the price of the dSLR is being paid for the video functionality. If it's less than forty or fifty euro I'd probably opt to have it but much more and I'd really rather just have the camera for less.

Duchovny

All this companies around are not here to make you happy but they are doing for the money, so if one does the other as to do it.

In the perfect world they would do everything everybody wants but on this one they just do what makes more €€ and calls more people.

You even would see 500D a new model testing vs a D90 and I'm sure all the tests would say ahh and don't have video, so the reviews would point that as a negative point, I do understand the point of not having and improve other things, but you can't make everybody happy

TelePaul

I've never understood Canon's business model in this regard - only a very small percentage of the market continuously upgrade within a particluar series (Animal Rights, I'm looking in your direction!) because the innovation curves overlap; take a look at the 400D, the 450D, and the 1000D...they're really not so different. Where does the launch of the 500D leave the 50D - or perhaps, more interestingly, the 40D? I imagine 40D sales will fall as customers go for the HD video capabilities of it's 'big' or 'little' brothers.

I think Canon are kidding themselves; they're not exactly gaining new customers through any ground-breaking innovation, they've just managed to shift demand from their prosumer range of products to their entry-level range; they're essentially competing with themselves on this one, not to mention confusing the uninitiated prospective buyers that comprise their target maket. I don't see the point unless the margins on a 500D are considerably more than on, say, a 5D MkII. What I would like to see is consolidation within their entry-level portfolio (stop sales of the 450D and 1000D with the launch of the 500D) and a focus on complimentary goods; I'd gladly sacrifice HD video for a good quality kit-lens capable of Macro and Telephoto zoom, giving newcomers everything they need right out of the box.

Fajitas!

But they're getting people in to their entry level, and the more people that start into that range, the more people that will buy more of their glass, and eventually move up. That move dosn't have to be up to the **D series, but up to the 5D and equiv.

YeahOK

What? Video on a dslr? What a complete waste of time.:rolleyes: Just give me a better camera please!

TelePaul

Fajitas! wrote: »

But they're getting people in to their entry level, and the more people that start into that range, the more people that will buy more of their glass, and eventually move up. That move dosn't have to be up to the **D series, but up to the 5D and equiv.

The following is purely conjecture and is based on my own theories:

While it's true that the industry does focus on complements (Razor/Razor Blade) I don't think the number of newcomers to the industry is actually growing relative to Canon's deployment of newer models; now of course, I've nothing to back this up with. But I don't imagine the number of 500Ds sold will differ drastically with the number of 400Ds sold when they were launched in 2006. I would guess that Canon's revenue form it's entry level will remain similar to previous years, or an increase in sales of the high-spec 500D will take business from the mid-range portfolio.

The market is super-saturated right now. What it really needs is someone to employ a 'Blue Ocean Strategy'; this is a business strategy which redefines success criteria within an industry. For example, Nintendo's Wii has outsold the X Box 360 and PS3 by using a Blue Ocean Strategy. It hasn't won the lion's share of the market by competing on the basis of graphics or processing power, but by redefining what people want from a games system: fun. I think to shake things up, Canon need to cut the 1000D bs and bring out a camera that's actually pitched at entry level, something that'll hammer the point and click market. If you could cut down on the superfluous spec that amateurs have no use for, produced an 'all-in-one' kit lens permanently mounted on the body, introduced internal storage...basically stripped down a Canon DSLR to the bare necessities, could you sell it for the price of a point and shoot? For the price of a bridge? For something less than the 1000Ds RRP of $600? That's where things would get exciting.

Fionn

hmmm as i was reading down through the thread i had a responce formed in my mind but i've actually forgotten it now!! :rolleyes:
I hadn't realised how dead set either for/against it some people are!
I've got a movie facility on my Powershot camera - haven't used it much tho, but the few times i did it wasn't bad at all.

I think it's like the situation with modern Office Software applications,
the majority of users only avail of about 25% of the features and ignore the ones they don't, cant use.
I'd think it would be the same with the modern digital camera - use the features if you want, dont use em if you dont want!!!
I'd like to have a camera that you could have everything on it.

oh! wait we already have that

mines a Nokia :cool: :pac::)

Sleepy

I think the business strategy is quite clear - introduce all those features available on point and shoots into an entry-level dSLR in order to get people into the system.

For the casual user, who might like the idea of being able to take videos with their camera / face detection etc, to date they've been restricted to compacts. If they can get an SLR (which virtually all would recognise is capable of better quality photos purely down to seeing most pros use them) for a couple of hundred quid more they might go for it. Once they've bought into the system they may either get more into photography take the camera out of auto mode and buy extra lens, batteries, etc. or they may simply just decide that in a few years when the 600D brings out some other new feature they'd like that since they already have a lens that came with their 500D, all they need is the new body.

Granted this really only applies to the casual user with a hefty amount of cash in their pocket or someone who's tempted to get into photography a bit more (like I was myself on the arrival of my daughter in order to document her life as best I could). It still leaves room in the market for the 1000d as well - less gimicky features and a decent dSLR for photographers on a tight budget (students etc) who would almost certainly be going for a D40 otherwise...

Rb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO8TawtwRkk

Preview from WhatDigitalCamera from back in March. Interestingly the Canon rep says that the continuous shooting time in HD is 29:59 as opposed to 12 minutes.

DotOrg

Rb wrote: »

the Canon rep says that the continuous shooting time in HD is 29:59 as opposed to 12 minutes.

Nobody wants to watch a sinngle shot that is 12 minutes long, 29 minutes would be rediculous.

Any film, TV show, music video etc etc has cuts that rarely come more than 1 minute apart. the 12 minute thing that people complain on forums about makes no difference to the kind of things you can film