Why cameras do not include the capabilities of cheap programmable remote shutters ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joan

Another version of my original question: why Canon cameras do not include all the bells and whistles of magic lantern ?

---

While camera manufacturers may seem to be stupid at times, clearly they are not.

They do a lot of work with professional photographers and other clients (via focus groups) when they spec out their camera requirements. If they feel that there is a real advantage to do something it will be included in the feature list. Features, even ones implemented in software do cost money to implement, so unless there is a demand or marketing advantage to a feature, it is not going to make it into the feature set of the camera.

The other (and related) issue is that products like cameras are required to meet price point and profit margin targets for the companies. Anything that increases costs (and that includes ongoing costs like source code maintenance) are going to have to meet a high threshold before the product manager will okay something being introduced into a product.

The other issue to realize is that manufacturers will often not include certain features so as not to cross-compete with existing products. Time lapse, for instance, is a video function. Why would Canon introduce something that competes with one of their higher end video cameras functionality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Why would Canon introduce something that competes with one of their higher end video cameras functionality?

---

Steve Jobs never worried about cannibalization. When his managers complained about the likelihood that it would happen, he simply explained that Apple was going to lose sales of a particular product to its competitors' new product or to a new Apple product. He preferred the latter. He felt so strongly about that that his company had no profit centers; the only profitability he measured was the profitability of the entire company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

While camera manufacturers may seem to be stupid at times, clearly they are not.

---

It would be difficult to convince me that Kodak wasn't stupid for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Steve Jobs never worried about cannibalization. When his managers complained about the likelihood that it would happen, he simply explained that Apple was going to lose sales of a particular product to its competitors' new product or to a new Apple product. He preferred the latter. He felt so strongly about that that his company had no profit centers; the only profitability he measured was the profitability of the entire company.

---

Amen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joan

Perhaps because tripod has a manufacturing cost (raw materials, assembly, packing...), while adding a few bytes of code should not increase the production cost of the camera ? ;)

---

Says someone who's never had to budget for firmware development, testing, and rollout to an entire product line.... :D Oh, it costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joan

Another version of my original question: why Canon cameras do not include all the bells and whistles of magic lantern ?

---

Because having cameras freeze because DryOS just crashed, or their batteries mysterious run down even while the camera is turned off is not a good idea on production models you sell to regular customers. ML can do this because it's perfectly acceptable for an open source firmware development community that's tech savvy, familiar with CLIs, and properly equipped to flash firmware on a bricked camera to unbrick it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

It would be difficult to convince me that Kodak wasn't stupid for a very long time.

---

Kodak is a classical example how the film, photographic paper and chemical side of the business (nicely said the cash cow) was instrumental in preventing the digital photography side (which had leading edge technology) from succeeding. In hindsight, this was a huge error, but hindsight is great.

Very few companies compete successfully with themselves; the one example I can think of is Procter & Gamble. They do this reasonably well, a lot of the time.

The Apple example is valid, but when you look at the company, it has successfully re-invented itself a couple of time, coming back from "near-death" experiences at least once, if not twice. Steve Jobs departure and then his return to Apple marked those events. Apple morphed from a tech company into a consumer goods company in the latest reincarnation.

Japanese corporate culture is quite conservative, and I think you see that in what all of the major camera manufacturers are doing. Digital cameras are a mature product now, so the winners and losers are going to be the ones control costs and maximize profits; innovation is likely going to be taking a back seat to these goals..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Very few companies compete successfully with themselves

---

True. That's explained by Clay Christensen in his book, The Innovator's Dilemma.

From my professional experience as an engineer on a manufacturing company: not competing with yourself and allow competitors to do it is a huge error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joan

From my professional experience as an engineer on a manufacturing company: not competing with yourself and allow competitors to do it is a huge error.

---

As a recently retired engineering manager with many years in manufacturing and other production environments; I can't say I disagree with you. On the other hand, it's not the engineers running the companies; most of the ones I worked at were run by MBAs, lawyers, accountants and marketing people.

A better question would be why do modern cameras still have exposure systems based upon 1960s technology?

Metering systems better designed for film than digital imaging?? Come on, wake up and smell the coffee...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inkista

Says someone who's never had to budget for firmware development, testing, and rollout to an entire product line.... :D Oh, it costs.

---

In fact, I have had to budget for firmware development recently, for a product with a sales level negligible compared to cameras, and from my experience I have to insist that to add time lapse, delayed shooting, extra long exposure times, etc... should not have a significant cost for camera manufacturers.

Any electronics hobbyist can do at home much more complicated things than what we are discussing here: controlling things remotely, communicating via bluetooth and even internet with end users or other gadgets,...

Programming time sequencing tasks is a piece of cake compared to this and to implement them on mass distribution products as cameras should not imply any extra cost.

Out of interest which features from the remote you bought have you used and do you have any examples of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joan

Perhaps because tripod has a manufacturing cost (raw materials, assembly, packing...), while adding a few bytes of code should not increase the production cost of the camera ? ;)

---

As being said, a remote control is something outside the camera, wired or wireless. I can't think of a use of that without a tripod.
Maybe others can think of other use, but I use a remote control when I'm not direct near the camera or want to avoid a shake. All the other function mentioned could be in-camera functions.
But even then I would be glad if I could use those function on an out-camera tool to avoid working on a camera-screen, finding out where it was located. The remote-control you bought you can turn away from the sun and let your camera positioned. And probably there are more camera's you can use this one.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Pearl

Out of interest which features from the remote you bought have you used and do you have any examples of them?

---

Long exposition to use a ND1000 filter. My 6D allows only max. 30 seconds. To expose longer I must time manually. With the simple external shutter I bought I can time for hours. In fact this is the reason why I bought it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joan

Long exposition to use a ND1000 filter. My 6D allows only max. 30 seconds. To expose longer I must time manually. With the simple external shutter I bought I can time for hours. In fact this is the reason why I bought it.

---

So your problem was only the 30s limit?
George

+ time lapse as an add-on