 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Maybe Canon is right? re: kit lens
From a marketing standpoint. They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply. Your alternative is to spend considerably more to get something better from them. However, Olympus made it's kit lens to perform better and the next lens up from it does not exceed it's performance by that much. But it costs (to move) over 2x as much which might not be as attractive to people as getting a better Canon lens to replace it's kit lens. -Rich Since Canon also sell their 2 most popular DSLR cameras both with and without the "kit" lens, isn't this in effect giving the customer the best of both worlds? > From a marketing standpoint. > They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people as getting a better Canon lens to replace it's kit lens. > -Rich > Since Canon also sell their 2 most popular DSLR cameras both with and > without the "kit" lens, isn't this in effect giving the customer the > best of both worlds? Obviously. The point of a DSLR is that each photographer can select the right lenses for the jobs at hand. Obsessing that one cheap lens doesn't offer state-of-the-art performance seems a bit obessive; if you don't like the performance of that lens, there are dozens of others on the market. Sheesh.  SignatureAlbert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting > Obsessing that one cheap lens doesn't offer state-of-the-art > performance seems a bit obessive; if you don't like the performance of > that lens, there are dozens of others on the market. Who's obsessing? If you don't like the kit lens then don't buy it, it's not compulsory. >From a marketing standpoint. >They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply. >Your alternative is to spend considerably more to get >something better from them. It is another stroke of genius from a company with an unparalleled marketing strategy. The lowest end of the camera line doesn't make much money. Those cameras are designed to bring customers into your fold so they can buy lenses. By selling a kit with a deliberately poor performing lens that will become the talk of magazines, user groups, and usenet you have killed two birds with one stone. You brought the customer in, and you have immediately started them on the upgrade path to new glass. This is why Canon is No. 1. >-Rich You really ought to get out more. --------------------- Remember Glencoe. Visit: http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html --------------------- >>-Rich > > You really ought to get out more. I really need to figure out how to make a message filter that kills not just his messages ,but all replies to him. This intelligence of this ng (dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone know how to do that in Thunderbird?) Dave > I really need to figure out how to make a message filter that >kills not just his messages ,but all replies to him. This intelligence >of this ng (dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone >know how to do that in Thunderbird?) Reminds me of the politician who changed sides from party A to party B (replace with appropriate names to suite your country and political taste). A commentator (clearly a supporter of party A) said this was a good thing all round, as it improved the average IQ of both sides. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> -Rich >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this ng (dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone know > how to do that in Thunderbird?) The letter k kills the extant thread forever. Works in my schema, ymmv. SignatureJohn McWilliams "Youth is full of sport, age's breath is short; youth is nimble, age is lame; Youth is hot and bold, age is weak and cold; Youth is wild, and age is tame." -- William Shakespeare >>>-Rich >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave And yet you respond. Funny, isn't it? -Rich Could you talk about something else? Sheesh... you're a broken record. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird Damn, you just can't let this topic go. Why the hell do you care so much about the quality of the kit lens? I'm sure there is medication that can help you live a normal life. Check it out and give the rest of us a break. > From a marketing standpoint. > They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people as getting a better Canon lens to replace it's kit lens. > -Rich > They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply. Have you ever considered just not buying one? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply. > >Have you ever considered just not buying one? I made that decision a long time ago. -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.