And in practice, some take that unwillingness to accept or even acknowledge contrary responses to the point of trolling.
I think the main problem is that people have a hard time accepting reality. One need look no further than American politics to see that.
Someone complains about a decision Canon made, they believe their complaint is universal and Canon made an incorrect decision. While that’s certainly possible, it’s rarely the case. Even if the complaint is reasonable, and many are, people can’t accept the valid reasons for the decision. For example, they don’t want to hear that a manufacturer used a cheaper part to increase profits. That reason doesn’t matter to them, so it’s an ‘apology on behalf of the OEM’ instead of a reasonable explanation for a business decision.
More importantly, what does the complaint accomplish? In most cases, the only decision a consumer can make is whether or not to buy a product. If a product is selling well, what does that say about the validity of one person’s complaint? (Yes, I know…’but it could have sold so much better’…except that can’t ever be proved, and in any case it ignores the reality that profit is the main driver, lower unit sales don’t necessarily mean lower profit, and no doubt the manufacturer had done that calculation before making the decision).
I’ll weigh in with a complaint of my own. With the RF 100-300/2.8, Canon eliminated the drop-in filter slot, and while the lens does take a front filter they didn’t provide a ‘window’ in the lens hood to allow rotation of a CPL (as they did for lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500). Personally, I’d like to be able to use a CPL with my 100-300/2.8, and I’m frustrated that Canon limited that ability (sure, I can leave off the hood, but many of the use cases for a CPL are conditions where a lens hood is beneficial).
Having said that, I’m sure that Canon considered this issue and decided to not facilitate CPL use. I can think of several reasons:
- Lens design precluded a drop in slot
- Hood can mount in any orientation, so a CPL window would not have a consistent location
- Production cost savings
- Sales data showing buyers of the 300/2.8 rarely owned a drop-in CPL
- Market research showing few people would use a CPL with such a lens
While I don’t like the decision they made, I prefer to try to understand the rationale for the decision instead of just complaining. More importantly, I know my complaints don’t really matter. The issue didn’t keep me from buying the lens. Plus, posting it here means Canon won’t even know.
Evidently there are plenty of people here who don’t care about understanding, they’d rather just whine and have people agree with them. Or spit into the wind and have people alongside them doing the same. Well, that’s their choice. If they don’t like the blowback, whether that’s replies to their posts or saliva in their eyes, it’s their problem.
