Canon Launches New Cropping Guide for Select EOS Cameras for $120USD

el peso said:

Now we need to wait until they offer some really useful paid features by demand but not this crap. For example, I'd pay extra to enable mechanical or at least EFCS for focus bracketing mode on my R6m2.

Click to expand...

You’re in luck. The DYOC Program also includes firmware changes, though Canon may have left that out of the announcement.

Meanwhile, back in reality, all you need is to be part of an industry that buys thousands of cameras under negotiated contracts with Canon USA, and perhaps they’ll write firmware for you to buy, too.

This is basic enough that I am actually going to not address exactly what it is...but rather the business model.

There is no doubt Canon incurred some cost in putting this together. From the marketing, to users guides, to time in a board room with some executive pounding on the table saying "Malls are dying out...we have to have a feature that lets our users replace mall photographers and do it themselves", and whatever time the programmers spent on the code.

There is a cost....for a feature I would not use myself.

Personally, I am fine with a business model where the cost of a niche feature is an add-on versus spreading out the cost and making all cameras more expensive. But, I hope Canon keeps it limited to a few things here and there. In general, I have enjoyed growing into my cameras. I like the cameras having capabilities that I could learn down the road.

I am good with this business model here or there for a few special features that are very niche (say <5% of the users). As long as the cameras that are put out are diverse and highly capable.

neuroanatomist said:

Imagine having to ship a $13K lens to Canon just for a firmware update. Oh, wait...no need to imagine, it had to be done. I was a lucky that my 600/4 II shipped with the new firmware.

As for the rest of your rant, lol. See the Bluey graphic above.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II still has the 1.0.0 firmware (according to my R6ii's menu) so I might well drop my copy into Canon UK for a firmware update.

Well this sounds just terrible. But who cares. If it is as dumb as I think, people will ignore it and it will hopefully die out soon.

I wonder how the cameras with that special firmware handle future firmware updates though. Would suck even more if the few users, who paid for this atrocity have to send their cameras in to get new firmwares, every time a standard update gets released.

Honestly, I fear that this is a test to see how far users are willing to go. They start with something not very impressive, not very important to many users. But it is here, and I am 100% sure that it will grow. Already, people are defending it or thinking of other features they would be willing to pay for on top of the initial expense. Since everyone is trying to turn their product into some kind of subscription, we can expect more and more features behind a paywall.

A similar use case can be seen in the infamous "Golden Horse Armour" for the video game Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. It was the first ever payable cosmetic for a video game, which kickstarted a billion-dollar industry of video game DLC. Many old-school gamers see this as a cancer on the hobby. There is pretty much no AAA game anymore that gives you the full content for the full price. You have to pay on top for all kinds of stuff, and it is not cheap.

Now, a camera is not the same as a video game, but I would hate to see the camera industry taking the same approach.

Hahahahahahaha, no....

What happens to this factory installed feature when the next firmware gets released? I remember reading about several 5DIV users who overwrote their C-LOG upgrade. Maybe this has been addressed now?

I could see something security related like this being more useful.

Anon said:

Honestly, I fear that this is a test to see how far users are willing to go. They start with something not very impressive, not very important to many users. But it is here, and I am 100% sure that it will grow.

Click to expand...

Yes, the sky is clearly falling. They released a $100 firmware update for Stop Motion Animation in 2020, and now, just four short years later, they release cropping guide firmware for $120. Quite the slippery slope we're on, this trend is clearly growing at an out-of-conrtol pace and probably four years from now there will be some other feature for which they'll charge $140 and we can complain even more about the impending paid firmware armageddon.

neuroanatomist said:

Yes, the sky is clearly falling. They released a $100 firmware update for Stop Motion Animation in 2020, and now, just four short years later, they release cropping guide firmware for $120. Quite the slippery slope we're on, this trend is clearly growing at an out-of-conrtol pace and probably four years from now there will be some other feature for which they'll charge $140 and we can complain even more about the impending paid firmware armageddon.

Click to expand...

I am talking not only about Canon:

Anon said:

[...]but I would hate to see the camera industry taking the same approach.

Click to expand...

Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc. have all offered some kind of paid upgrades in the last few years. And seeing how even printers are being turned into subscriptions, I do not think it is far fetched to be anxious about long term monetization seeping into other industries as well.

On a side note: why the constant need for this condescending tone? Do you not tire of it yourself at some point.

Anon said:

I am talking not only about Canon:

Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc. have all offered some kind of paid upgrades in the last few years. And seeing how even printers are being turned into subscriptions, I do not think it is far fetched to be anxious about long term monetization seeping into other industries as well.

Click to expand...

Yes. I provided links to examples of those earlier in this thread.

Compare the number of paid firmware updates to the total number of firmware updates.

I really don’t think there’s cause for concern here.

Anon said:

On a side note: why the constant need for this condescending tone? Do you not tire of it yourself at some point.

Click to expand...

Sometimes attempts at sarcastic humor come across poorly through electrons and photons.

john1970 said:

I do not understand why everyone complains about this feature and associated cost. You are not being forced to buy it. Personally, I would not pay for it, but then again I don't own any camera compatible with this firmware.

Click to expand...

They are worried cameras could end up like video games. Instead of firmware releases, new features will be a la cart for a fee.

Remember how BMW charged people to activate the heated seats? There is thing to do any industry from acting like that.

Seeker said:

They are worried cameras could end up like video games. Instead of firmware releases, new features will be a la cart for a fee.

Remember how BMW charged people to activate the heated seats? There is thing to do any industry from acting like that.

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s an example. Is BMW still doing that? What other features does BMW charge a subscription to activate? Have most car makers followed suit?

As above, compare the number of paid firmware updates for cameras to the total number of firmware updates. As far as I can tell, it’s two paid optional firmware updates from Canon, one from Sony and one from Panasonic, and none from Nikon. Total. Canon’s two were separated by four years. And dozens of free firmware updates from each of the manufacturers.

Are you honestly worried that paid firmware updates will become the norm? I think anyone who believes that is likely should take off their tinfoil hat.

Some who post here act as though it is their job to defend Canon at virtually all costs (including the cost of civility).

I was in the mood tonight to read just how ridiculous some of the posts would be...so I got to this point.

Usually, the toxicity and lack of civility drives me away for a few days.

=====

Individuals and corporations have the right to decide x...or y...or z.

Canon does in fact make mistakes (the first-gen M fiasco, the Pro 100 printer debacle...and...Irista, to name three! [all of which I support[ed] with dollars. (I still run into, in public, an occasional photographer shooting an M6II...who loves it!)

As I've posted previously in a different CR thread, Canon wrote some very fine freeware that enables some of their cameras to be used as webcams.

My wife utilizes a 40D/EFS10-18 combination, five hours each week, along with the webcam software, to teach some classes from home via Zoom.

It is almost unbelievable how well everything works. The free webcam software is bare-bones but highly functional, even with the 40D...which is not on Canon's supported camera list for the webcam software.

Canon also sells a subscription version of the webcam software--the Pro version. Those social media/influencer-types needing:

"...multiple camera connections, wireless connectivity, greater camera and content control, high-res upscaling in full HD mode, a maximum frame rate up to 60fps, the ability to output to multiple channels simultaneously, text overlays, templates and more."

...well, the Pro subscription version works for them.

But I would LOVE to know what subscription revenue Canon generates here. For Canon's sake, I hope a lot! But I suspect very little. By definition, webcam stuff ends up on the 'net...where it is meant to be seen. I don't see many of the Pro features on videos I see. A few. But not many.

But as Adobe has shown...properly done, subscription models are gold.

For the reasons that many have outlined in this thread, I suspect that Canon won't generate much revenue with what has been described here.

But it is fun to discuss (this is a rumor site), as long as the 'debate' doesn't get unreasonably personal and toxic.

Then it is no fun...and transforms CR into just another website, a website where individuals appoint themselves as sheriff.

I can be my own sheriff. I don't need someone to act as the CR Canon Sheriff. I could go on and on.

=====

There are probably types and errors in this post. Earlier today the cataract in my right eye was blasted with ultrasound and the lens in that eye replaced...the left eye was 'fixed' last week. On my way home, the few birds I've seen outside do indeed look a bit more colorful! But the endless eyedrops! My oh my.

Seeker said:

They are worried cameras could end up like video games. Instead of firmware releases, new features will be a la cart for a fee.

Remember how BMW charged people to activate the heated seats? There is thing to do any industry from acting like that.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I have no issues paying for features on a a la cart basis as long as it is not a subscription based approach. No different than buying that latest software for processing files because it has new features that you personally feel are worth the cost to you.

john1970 said:

Frankly, I have no issues paying for features on a a la cart basis as long as it is not a subscription based approach. No different than buying that latest software for processing files because it has new features that you personally feel are worth the cost to you.

Click to expand...

If it were only as simple as that. In my experience, companies have rather clever ways of maximising their profit, which I have to say, is primarily their main focus. Take DXO as an example. They (finally) came up with a luminosity mask to help with editing, but that is only available as a feature if you purchase their filmpack solfware at US$79 (non-upgrade option). Given that the actual Photolab Elite cost US$229, it is a hefty chunk to pay for one additional feature. I am not saying that Canon is doing this or is employing such similar tactics, or that they will definitely do so in the future. Rather, the potential to go down that path will be a continua temptation for a company pursuing profits. In contrast to DXO, there is Affinity Photo, which has a bundle deal that costs about US$165, that offer everything on a lifetime basis for the version one buys. The good news is that they don’t have a history of changing versions frequently, something like 5-6 years in contrast with DXO which introduces a new version practically every year.

In pursuing their profit goals, a company would need to balance between absolute profit at all cost and the backlash they will face if what they do is perceived by a big enough portion of their customers to be ‘unfair’. I surmise that the concern expressed by some members of this forum is that by starting, if indeed this is a starting point, down a pathway of paid additional features, no matter how gentle or largely irrelevant for most consumers at this stage, it has the potential to be disadvantageous to customer in the long run. Not that we can actually do anything useful about it, but perhaps a loud enough early response has a higher chance of being listened to at the start than when it is fiat accompli some years later.

As an aside, privatisation of public utilities was largely cheered on by the population at the start, as it was assumed that in private hands, the cost will be driven down because the private sector is supposedly more efficient, and that this efficiency gain will translate into benefits for consumers. The actual customer experience in the longer term, as they say, is history.

Years ago I proposed to Canon the option to overlay PNGs
(user generated and stored on SD card) with alpha mask
transpareny over EVF or LCD.

Register for recurring work, reconstruct historical images in
todays situation, adhere to specific layouts, and many more.

Similar to the way one can store images to pick WB from
on SD card, just that this time it picks overlay.

Nothing happened. Then Sony introduced theirs which still
falls back against my proposal, and I reminded my Canon
contact that I had proposed something even better.

What happened? They copied the sub par Sony solution
*and* the pay to play rip-off scheme.

An overlay is a pretty simple thing to code, and asking that
much money for only 3 fixed and very simply pre-defined
helpline overlays seems almost criminal.

An alpha channel overlay is a solved problem, and Canon UI already does it. The coding time to restrict it, and allow it to survive firmware upgrades is the lions share of the work here. Adding a UI element, and the overlay is implementing a +1 to existing code (a minor lift) whereas the payment verification may have been a medium lift to code unless that's also solved from other uses (C-log etc).

I'm not concerned with this example itself, but whether there is a change in direction towards the software exploitation model. Canon has done one-of things like this without going down the evil path so I'm not yet concerned but I'm watching. I haven't jumped into the R system yet (this is expensive, fun hobby for me) and this transition is an obvious time to change if I'm going to. I'm in IT and see a constant push to 'fully monetize the customer' aka make every single interaction that won't lose the customer on the spot be a toll bridge, and boil the frog for the rest. I don't want any part of being the frog.

This is the software way, if you haven't watched it evolve:
When the exploitation route is chosen, the 1st product gets paid updates. The next product has launch features withheld, sometimes with industry collusion (all industry players switch to this model at once to remove market choice). Once there is market acceptance (camels nose is in the tent), a model that's cheaper but basic features are pay walled, then once that's normalized then those models are returned to full price gradually AND basic features are pay walled. Then a club/professional services/cloud service is setup with features also available as a group rental through the service. It's a much better deal at first. Later, new features are added to a 'higher tier' of subscription. Non-rental Pay walled features are tied to 'super special personal accounts' to disguise the fact that all the features disappear if the device is re-sold. Later, the whole device may be bricked.
Today there is hardware (router) required for other services to coerce purchase where the product costs more than competitors, and you must pay a rental to use it at all, and each addition feature is a rental fee, and the device is permanently tied not just to a user but also to the vendor so your business is shut down if you switch vendors. (Cisco Miraki routers...) VARs sell it to CEOs and... fail to mention the unexpected special features...
Retail software has also gone down this path. Look for 'game/season pass; loot boxes; micro transactions; online account required for local use' etc etc. Software now will have 'misfeatures/anti-features' that harm functionality and you have to pay to remove them.

neuroanatomist said:

Yes, that’s an example. Is BMW still doing that? What other features does BMW charge a subscription to activate? Have most car makers followed suit?

Click to expand...

There was enough public backlash that they backed off from that.

But that’s the thing, the change in course was in response to overwhelmingly negative feedback. So as far as I’m concerned people should speak up rather than just assuming our corporate overlords know best.

SvO2 said:

There was enough public backlash that they backed off from that.

But that’s the thing, the change in course was in response to overwhelmingly negative feedback. So as far as I’m concerned people should speak up rather than just assuming our corporate overlords know best.

Click to expand...

Of course, anyone in a cold climate benefits from having their butt warmed. Our cars have (non-subscription) heated seats and they certainly come in handy.

How many Canon users benefit from a shooting guide that lets them take a portrait with identical framing over and over and over?

Echoes of the prior ‘backlash’.

What do these updates have in common? They are targeted at a very niche use case. I just don’t get why people are up in arms about this, running around like Chicken Little yelling ‘the sky is falling’ because they think that next time Canon will demand $140 and sending in the camera to make it compatible with the RF 24-105/4L IS II or some such nonsense.

SvO2 said:

There was enough public backlash that they backed off from that.

But that’s the thing, the change in course was in response to overwhelmingly negative feedback. So as far as I’m concerned people should speak up rather than just assuming our corporate overlords know best.

Click to expand...

My wife owns a 18500 Euro Renault Clio equipped with heated seats (standard equipment). What BMW tried to introduce was just stupid. Heated seat cost a few $ more to produce...
If I'm not mistaken, subscription fees for BMW existed only for the US market.
By the way, as far as I know, no serious French or German dealership has ever charged a sales price higher than the official list price. Price gouging seems to be sometimes country-related (Canon UK, Porsche USA...)
And yes, heated seats are by no means an exotic, specialized feature, unlike the cropping offered by Canon. Winters exist almost everywhere, but cropping frames? Only a fraction of users will benefit from them.