Yes, and they charge $149 for it.
Incidentally, Canon has previously charged for firmware features, e.g. stop-motion animation for the some R-series bodies. So has Panasonic, with V-Log for the GH4.
Upvote
0
Canon Launches New Cropping Guide for Select EOS Cameras for $120USD
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Incidentally, Canon has previously charged for firmware features, e.g. stop-motion animation for the some R-series bodies. So has Panasonic, with V-Log for the GH4.
$120 on an R50 that goes for $580 new right now is a lot for one feature… I still think it would have made more sense to put it in a mark 2 version with several more enhancements. Though, with supply chain and production issues still prevalent that might not be the quickest option for canon these days…
But yeah, more than 20% of the camera’s price for a feature is a lot. But if it helps you… 
But yeah, more than 20% of the camera’s price for a feature is a lot. But if it helps you…
Upvote
0
I think it depends on what is considered an acceptable list of features that the camera should have at the point of release. As consumers, we often have no say. Take the example of my mobile service provider, which charges fees for a myriad of services, including caller id display, caller id non-display etc. Some of these services used to be free, until they start charging, some are still free but they may start charging in the near future. Then, there are ‘bundle deals’ such that most of these add-ons come ‘free’ but one then ends up paying more. On the whole, it becomes rather confusing, all in the marketing name of providing ‘more choices and flexibility for the consumer’, i.e. it ‘enhances your freedom to choose only what you need’, ‘it gives you full control over how you want to manage your life’ etc. Regardless of the slogans, these amount to achieving even greater profit for the service providers. Does the company have a ‘right’ to making profits? Sure, they do, but these should stay within ‘reasonable’ limits. As to what constitutes ‘reasonable’, it is another can of worms. Nevertheless, an example serves to illustrate the extremes that companies go towards profit-making if they can get away with it. Remember EpiPen? Mylan, which then has a monopoly over the product, had increased the price of EpiPen from US$100 in 2007 to over US$600 in 2016, despite the cost of an EpiPen dose of epinephrine remaining at around US$1.
With Canon going down the road of paid features updates, I am afraid that list of startup features will dwindle to what they can get away with, and that the price of the camera would still rise, probably slowly at first before getting back up to pre-paid features days (taking inflation into account, that is).
The flipped side of paid features updates is that some people do not need the complete start up feature list. Should these people then ask Canon to remove the unwanted features and sell the camera at the cheaper price? I somehow do not think that will happen. It will likely go the way of how the mobile service providers have evolved. There are now bespoke plans, just like building a PC from scratch where you buy ‘only’ what you need. Unfortunately for most (or perhaps only some) people, these still end up being a lot more expensive. I used to pay about $30 a month for my previous 2-year contract plan. The essentially same plan, with lots of marketing materials saying how wonderful it is, now costs close to $60 a month. I am not saying this happens to all people, but it certainly happened to me.
The outlook is not great for the consumer (over-generalising here, but when has it really been good on the whole?), so I’d better enjoy what I get now.
With Canon going down the road of paid features updates, I am afraid that list of startup features will dwindle to what they can get away with, and that the price of the camera would still rise, probably slowly at first before getting back up to pre-paid features days (taking inflation into account, that is).
The flipped side of paid features updates is that some people do not need the complete start up feature list. Should these people then ask Canon to remove the unwanted features and sell the camera at the cheaper price? I somehow do not think that will happen. It will likely go the way of how the mobile service providers have evolved. There are now bespoke plans, just like building a PC from scratch where you buy ‘only’ what you need. Unfortunately for most (or perhaps only some) people, these still end up being a lot more expensive. I used to pay about $30 a month for my previous 2-year contract plan. The essentially same plan, with lots of marketing materials saying how wonderful it is, now costs close to $60 a month. I am not saying this happens to all people, but it certainly happened to me.
The outlook is not great for the consumer (over-generalising here, but when has it really been good on the whole?), so I’d better enjoy what I get now.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sometimes, it really does seem like people on this forum have the business acumen of a bowling ball.
For those who don't get it, I'll try to simplify:
For those who don't get it, I'll try to simplify:
- This isn't targeted at your average person taking pictures with the camera, or even at your average portrait photographer taking pictures with the camera.
- This is targeted at businesses doing high-volume portrait photography – mall studio chains, school yearbook companies (LifeTouch, Jostens, etc.), cruise lines.
- These are businesses that pay their photographers low wages, turnover is high and training new people costs time and money.
- With this feature, you put a camera in the hands of a new hire and say, "Point the camera at the subject, put their face in this box, say 'smile' and press this button."
- That's a huge time (and thus money) saver and yields better consistency (yearbooks in particular will have everyone lined up like a contact sheet).
- As such, $120 is a nothing burger in terms of real cost, because the result is actually a significant savings to the business in time and money.
Upvote
0
Myeah, wow, nice argument.
> I had to do it for my lens so this is ok
That is not an argument, it's an anecdote. Like ok?
Imagine wanting new features from a company that's dominating the market and making bank, for "free".
We shouldn't expect any new quality of life improvements nowadays anymore? I mean, not like Canon is doing much anyway software wise, it's a shame for the hardware... Software can be much better and improve everyone's experience and workflows.
Consumers these days are just pathetic, bending over for companies and being apologists, and not demanding anything to be improved.
Upvote
0
Forum participants are just pathetic these days, whining incessantly about things they have no control over and don't even understand.
Upvote
0
You being an apologist for a company is just as pathetic, because as you yourself said, you have no control over it. You won't change anyone's opinion.
Also how do you know how much I understand? Are you a magician? You believe you are superior just got bringing some points that seem plausible?
Will Canon get rich by selling this firmware to a few thousand people? It's already developed, why put it behind a paywall, it won't event net them a profit to justify a few developers' salaries.
It's simply just greed
Upvote
0
Thats stone age technology though, having to ship the camera or lens to a manufacturer for a simple firmware upgrade in soon to be 2025. That's what I call being behind technology wise. Canon can do much better than that.
If it's service/maintenance or a component that has to be switched, that's a whole other story.
At least I've been able to update my RF glass and camera firmware so far without sending them to Canon...
Upvote
0
Yeah I feel like if they are going to charge money for it, at least take the time to make it easier.
Sony's version just has you pay the $150, enter your camera's serial number, and then you can just download a license file and install it on camera. Saves money and the environment not having to ship the cameras back and forth.
Having to ship the camera to Canon for this makes it seem a bit half-assed and just increases costs on everyone's side (Canon and the consumer).
Upvote
0
Well, 2012 was sort of the stone age, wasn't it? My RF 100-300/2.8 needs a firmware update, and I will just download and apply it.
Sending it in for this update is required from a business standpoint, not a technical standpoint. Still, it doesn't have to be (e.g. Sony seems to have a way to enable you to pay for a firmware update offering a similar feature, but you download and install it – probably linked to a camera serial number). I don't see why Canon could do the same and still charge for it.
Upvote
0
That too. Old people don't usually give a crap about the environment, just money.
It's not that 120$ is a lot of money, I spent $10-15k on Canon gear so again, not that much money.
I'm a software developer, such a feature would be developed in a month or two tops. 1q if I'm very generous. That's a total cost of probably $250k for Canon to make.
How many people will buy this? Let's be generous and say 100.000 people. From those $120 I'll be generous and say it's $50 in profit after labor shipping and excluding the development cost which is fixed.
You're looking at 5 million in profit, at best? For a company as big as Canon it is chump change. Canon had a 30 billion profit last year. With a B
The vast majority of people don't need this anyway, why not spend resources making something useful for everyone?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's ok you think you get it.
Consumers like you are the reason we're seeing more and more companies charge for these kind of upgrades (see BMW heated seat subscription). And keep up the superiority complex belief you have about your opinions, while also being an apologist for companies that don't care about you as an individual.
Upvote
0
If I recall correctly, 2012 is the year Canon introduced user upgradable firmware for lenses, all Canon lenses released after 2012 should have that feature.
Upvote
0
I also don't agree with your logic on this. I don't feel like restating everything I've already wrote, so feel free to read my previous points. I don't think you will though, because you didn't seem to read neuroanatomist's points about this which he clearly laid out the reasons for canon doing it like this.
Fact - you got what you paid for.
Fact - Canon is under no obligation to provide you with free features and they are not evil/greedy for not doing so
If you don't like it, spend your money elsewhere.
Upvote
0
Oh but I did, but they're just his opinions. Why are his opinions automatically valid just because he just speaks from the point of view of the business?
Why do you assume wanting new software features is greedy? Many successful companies are fine with doing it, since it grows customer confidence. Phones, graphics cards, anything that has a big software component offer free features from time to time.
When's the last time Canon (or Sony etc) offered something like that for most owners?
See the problem with camera manufacturers is, they don't really invest into software. And that, over the long run, will mean lost customers.
It interesting some see as making advancements as some sort of burden or net loss for the company that's doing it?
This is what happens from an industry who's stagnant and also when you're the dominant player. No reason to invest
Upvote
0
Neuro, I think you will have to copy and paste this reply to everyone who just doesn't get it - unfortunately that means a lot of people on the internet and social media. I bet not a single one of the complainers would need, or be interested in, this particular feature. Just your typical ignorant Canon bashing.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
