I ended the previous part of the story with some very strong words. I basically accused Canon of ‘handicapping’ and ‘under-specifying’ their products on purpose. Not only that, I went as far as to call the 5D Mark II and 50D disappointments, and even found a way to discredit the 18-200mm IS. And all this without justification. Oh dear, I might be turning into Jeremy Clarkson.

Now since I’m already on the verge of getting on the nerves of all Canon photographers, I might as well go all out and do this. The following is my explanation:

5D Mark II

It has all the makings of an awesome camera. It even has lineage. In fact, for the record, it is an amazing piece of photographic equipment. However, how can Canon justify the AF system, a 3 year old hand-me-down from the original 5D. Even the 40D and 50D has arguably better AF. You want to know why they didn’t update it? Don’t believe the press release when they say it’s because it’s more reliable. Wrong. It’s usable. But the reason is so that WHEN they finally get to developing a NEW AF system, they can put it in the 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark IV and charge you a few more thousand bucks for it.

Also, if you compare this camera to the old 5D, nothing really photographic has changed. Oh yes, there’s ISO 25600 (good job and equals Nikon’s achievements), there’s 21 MP (really, is this absolutely necessary? – think 30MB RAW files), and the fantastic 1080p HD video. But is there really anything else? Not really. There are little bits here and there but it’s very much to match the market standards. So what you are paying for is the extra MP and the HD video in comparison to its competitors. And until recently HD video without manual control.

You know what my theory is on this delay in manual control? Canon was forced to play their hand because the D700 was released. You see, prior to the D700, Canon had the enthusiast full frame market all to itself. No competition. No fight. That’s why the old 5D stayed in the product line for 3 YEARS. That’s a lifetime in the world of technology. If not for the D700, Canon would have gladly waited till 2009 to get the 5D Mark II out. Instead, they released it before the end of 2008. So I believe we have to thank Nikon for this.

50D

Again Canon was being reactive rather than being proactive. Reactive to what, you say? Why, the D300 of course. You see, within a few days of Canon releasing the 40D, Nikon launched the D3 and D300. What shocked the world was that the D300 was essentially a D3 (on par with Canon’s 1D series = costing upwards of RM13,000) with an APS-C sensor. It had all the bells and whistles, a sharper screen, 51 point pro-level AF, the Nikon CLS built in and the list goes on. Basically the kitchen sink. And the asking price? About RM1500 more than the Canon 40D. Now you see, prior to the 40D, the xxD series was on a 1 and a half year cycle. Meaning you’d have to wait 18 months for the 50D. However, this changed in 2008. They cut it to 12 months. That should be a good thing right? Yes and no. Canon did such a rushed job with this camera that all they really wanted was a camera that looked good on PAPER. So what did they do? Okay, 15 MP (Yay, 15MP > 12MP), ISO 12800 (Yay, ISO 12800 > ISO 6400), 3” HD LCD (Yay, 3” HD = 3”LCD). And they made it cheaper than the D300. So hands down victory right? Wrong again. The camera’s ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 are just rubbish.

And seriously, seriously, what’s the big fuss about all the megapixels? It’s like the old days of how PCs were compared for their Megahertz. Now you look at PCs and the top end ones are maybe 2.4 GHz. Wait a minute, I thought they reached 3.0 GHz years ago? Yes they did, but then Intel had to undo all the marketing they did because they had educated the consumers that MHz and GHz was everything, when it actually wasn’t. The same applies for megapixels. It does not equate to a better camera. Ever wondered why the 2 year old 8 megapixel DSLR takes better images than a brand spanking new 12 megapixel point and shoot compact camera? Food for thought.

And the other thing. ISO is just a number unless its usable and NOT noisy. It’s a bit like telling you the Proton Saga can reach a top speed of 250 km/h. But what they don’t tell you is if you reach that speed, your car will rattle itself to bits and the car engine will blow up. Canon’s 50D is absolutely noisy at ISO 12800. But they put it in for marketing purposes. Everything else about the 50D is the 40D in near duplication (which for the record, are both excellent cameras in their own right). How’s that for advancing technology? Again, who do we thank for the 50D? The Nikon D300. Maybe even the D90.

18-200mm IS

Okay, this lens is frankly a little late. But Canon delivered it. Better late than never, right? Yes, but Canon asked for more money for this lens than Nikon, and don’t even give you a lens hood or a lens pouch. Oh, and did I mention the optics are near identical in performance? They didn’t even give you manual focus override, which comes standard with the Nikon. Why? To protect the Canon L lens range. You see, if you’re a Canon user, the only time your lenses will have hoods or pouches is when it’s an L lens. Yes, that awesome 10-22mm UWA and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens does not come with any nice extras even though they both cost about RM2500 and RM3800 respectively (which by the way, is pricier than some L lenses).

What does this scream? Purposeful market segmentation. Giving you less than the norm so that you will WANT the premium L range. Yes, some may argue that those accessories don’t affect the image. Correct. But is it really so hard to give us these small extras? Heck, Nikon’s giving it without charging extra. Isn’t there a saying which goes, ‘it’s the little things that matter’?

And actually here’s one more theory of mine. Canon didn’t really want to give you this lens. You see, they have this 28-300mm L lens which costs an arm, a leg and then some. Also, they’ve already created the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS consumer lenses. So why did they cave in? I think by now you can see where I’m headed with this. The answer: Because the 18-200mm VR alone was moving Nikon sales by the bucket loads. And when that happens, it eats into Canon’s market share. What better way to address this than to fight fire with fire, no?

*deep breath*

Yet in spite of all that I’ve said above, we will still continue to buy Canon cameras and lenses. Why? Because they have one of the best marketing in the world of digital imaging. We immediately think of Canon as one of THE brands for cameras. And they’ve earned it. They make excellent end to end imaging solutions, from the time the image is captured, right till the actual print. They also pick better ambassadors to target the consumers (think Canon’s Maria Sharapova over Nikon’s Ashton Kutcher). They are, by far, aside from Sony, geniuses at marketing. I’ll put them as high up as I rate Apple as well (the latter is one case study every marketing student should analyze).

Actually I akin Canon and Nikon to Toyota and Honda respectively. The latest Vios used the same engine as the previous version, and only changed the external looks. The new Honda City went through an entire revamp, from the inside to the outside. This is very much like the 40D -> 50D (Vios) and the D200 -> D300 (City). One other main similarity in the rivalry, albeit in a completely different industry, is that Toyota, like Canon, are the market leaders. So they CAN rest on their laurels. The motto: “If it aint’ broken, don’t fix it” rings like a mantra to market leaders. And frankly, there’s nothing really wrong with that. They earned their right to do so. And trust me, their products have to work and succeed first, before they can earn this right. So kudos to you Toyota and Canon.

But to me, being able to see through all of this product after product, is like knowing your best friend lied to you, and isn’t apologizing for it. Instead he/she keeps covering it up with more and more stories and excuses, in hope you’ll accept that he/she didn’t intend it. And then in the end try and coax you into believing that there wasn’t a lie to begin with. I will even go as far as to say Canon makes you believe that what you have is GOOD ENOUGH, rather than giving you the BEST that you DESERVE.

I believe on that bombshell, I have gotten myself into a fair bit of trouble (please do not throw red paint at me…). But anyway, if you can see past all of what I’ve wrote, and keep your emotions in check (yes, I mean you, all you Canon users and fans), you can tell that I have already got an deeply imbued bias within me. Canon, like an ex-girlfriend, is now a memory I get very emotional about, ie. something I no longer wish to relive even if there were many great times shared. It is PERSONAL. And as such, it is hard to forgive and forget.

So to all the fence-sitters, before you go run out and buy Nikon gear just because I have thrown dirt at Canon, HOLD YOUR HORSES. I want to make this very clear. The grass is always going to be greener on the other side. And in my next part, with the recent few months of experience with Nikon on my side, I will reveal to you how my dark heart feels that Canon, like all great companies, has its strengths. Frankly, there are quite a few that can whip Nikon’s ass.

Now that I’m on the other side, I can tell you what you’ll miss if you join me on the DARK SIDE of the FORCE. Tell you these secrets, I will… hmm…

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

PS: For the record I own a Vios, and I was very sore 6 months later when the new City came out. You see, I liked the Honda Civic, but it wasn’t within my budget. And to make matters worse the old City (no offence) is ugly. So I settled for the lesser of the two evils, ie. the dugong a.k.a. flowerhorn a.k.a. mouse. We live, we learn. The Vios is a great car though, just so happens the new City came out 6 months too late. That’s my confession. Smite me.