Petition to Canon!

Thomas Frank · Jun 5, 2008

The sx100 is a great camera. I'm sure you'll all agree with that. My only problem with it is that there currently is no way to attach filters to the lens. Cokin holders don't work because the lens's diameter is too wide and the length is too long.

I suggest all willing members of this group shoot an email to canon requesting development of a way to attach filters. If we can get enough people to ask for it, then maybe it might happen. Then we can start shooting even better pictures.

here is the email you should use to contact Canon.
[email protected]

Please email them if you want to use filters with your camera! The more people that email them, the better! Post this around other sites if you like!

Garbz · Jun 5, 2008

Wow this will fill up their deleted items quite quickly.

Let me tell you something about Canon, and Nikon and every other company. These products are intentionally crippled. Just look at the firmware hack which came out for Canon Point and Shoot cameras a few months ago. It enabled all sorts of features, higher ISO, manual controls, features some cameras weren't supposed to have, like RAW output etc.

Canon won't add filters to this camera. Why? Because it would cause people who want to use filters not to buy more profitable SLR cameras where they can sell a whole world of accessories like lenses, filters, triggers, battery grips, flashes, etc, etc, etc.

No petition is going to make a company wilfully screw one of their flagship products (and for consumers the 450D really is a flagship).

Just look at the petition to keep Windows XP alive? Think Microsoft will cripple Vista sales like that? Btw that petition and the consumer backlash has gotten so large that Microsoft publicly said please don't call our hotlines asking for extension to XP support. It won't happen.

Syndac · Jun 6, 2008

The sx100 is a point and shoot camera, it's not meant to take filters. How would canon even produce a filter for it if it has no threading on the lens? Are you expecting canon to recall every one sold and widen the lens and/or add threading?

WDodd · Jun 6, 2008

Garbz hit the nail on the head on this issue.

Senor Hound · Jun 7, 2008

The day I realized companies intentionally don't release a "perfect product," was a sad day for me. They do this so when they release a new product it will have SOME of the stuff you want on it, therefore making you buy the new one. But they never give you everything you want, because then you'd be complacent. And a happy customer isn't a buying customer.

Another little story I heard about involves GM. In 1986 (I think) Buick released a supercharged Regal called the GNX. It beat the Corvette in 0-60 time and 1/4 mile, and I believe it was quite a bit cheaper, also. Needless to say it wasn't around the next year.

It hurts. And I agree with you that they should. But I don't see it happening. Now that you know about this, you can be upset like I was when I found out the companies that make the products I love, do not have me in mind when making them. But we're here for you, if it matters.

Miaow · Jun 7, 2008

Yep I think Garbz has hit it on the head also.

I really wanted a ND filter for my Kodak P&S for i could do long exposures (no manual control at all on that camera) - i tried a few things inc holding a ND filter to the lens - hmm didnt work real well at all - I even rigged up a little thing using a piece of black xray film over the lens - that worked actually better than holding a nd filter to it but still BAD results lol

So it became a point of having to get a SLR cause then I know i can do them (as i can change appeture for light control as well) and get filters that will actually fit lol

Rhubarb · Jun 7, 2008

Take a look at this:- Cokin Shoe Holder A300

And this:- Cokin Magnetic Filter Holder B400

Thomas Frank · Jun 11, 2008

yeah, the petition was because those cokin holders don't work for this camera. it's just too big.

Rhys · Jun 11, 2008

Garbz said:
Just look at the petition to keep Windows XP alive? Think Microsoft will cripple Vista sales like that? Btw that petition and the consumer backlash has gotten so large that Microsoft publicly said please don't call our hotlines asking for extension to XP support. It won't happen.

It is impossible to keep XP going for two reasons:
1. As all Microsoft O/Ss are full of holes that hackers love to exploit, just about everything that can be patched has been and the holes are being discovered in the patches and as such it's like a stack of sticking plasters stuck over a leaky hose. It's got pretty unmanageable and hard for even Microsoft to tell where the leak is coming from.
2. As XP has become more and more patched, they system has got bigger, bulkier and slower. Originally working reasonably with 128mb it has now got cripplingly slow on 256mb and 512b is getting pretty slow now too. Further maintainance will mean it'll end up needing 1GB to run it fairly soon. XP by the way will not recognise more than 3GB.

Essentially it has run its course. Vista is a stopgap while Microsoft produces a real operating system. Longhorn was going to be released but was so widely pirated that they went with Vista which was a backup plan. Vista just has too many versions to be worthwhile.

Garbz · Jun 11, 2008

I know that's the exact reason I run 2003 Server, the stupid memory limit.

I'm not sure XP has reached it's limit quiet yet, at least not as far as support. Yeah we all know it's buggy and a mess of patchwork but that fateful Tuesday of every month shows that MS has no problem still releasing patches for it. Even NT4 made it to Service Pack 6a before support was dropped and given that Server 2003 is essentially the same system as XP with just more services and a much more streamlined kernel they aren't dropping support for that either.

I see it like this. MS has invested heavily in Vista a system that few people seem to like so how to sell it? Release all new games on DirectX 10, claim that DirectX 10 can't run on windows XP (it can the first version was hacked to run on XP just fine). Remove the right for OEMs to bundle XP meaning that all new computers sold have Vista, and slowly back out of the room.

My reasoning is corporate and business customers can still buy laptops bundled with XP, so why can't consumers? Oh and if you've tried running Vista you'll see no matter how slow you'll still prefer XP with service pack 27 and 4gb of patches to download every time you reinstall. :lmao: I wish Vista ran on 1gb of ram. Heck I wish it walked.

Rhys · Jun 11, 2008

I disliked XP when it came in. I still dislike XP. In fact I dislike it even more since it now makes a formerly capable computer suck. I have seen how horrendous Vista is and would compare it to the brain-damaged Windows 95.

I went for a Mac in the end.

reg · Jun 12, 2008

I'd call the SX100 a decent camera at best, simply because it's a point y shoot. (yay spanish!)

But uh... yeah. They're not going to give you all the features of a DSLR in a point and shoot because they want you to have to buy the DSLR to be able to use them. Filters is just one of these features.

Garbz · Jun 12, 2008

:cheers: For macs. I can't afford them though. I was a hanger on. I hated XP as well. I used windows 2000 basically until it didn't work any more. Btw windows 95 was excellent. It was a complete shift in computing. Vista is more like Windows ME, the OS that would get worse with every reboot. :lmao:

reg · Jun 12, 2008

Windoze ME.... eww.

I really did like 95 though!

Rhys · Jun 12, 2008

There's not much choice of operating systems out there.

There's Linux in all its variations which works but completely lacks commercial software support. You can run the operating system and while you can do word processing email and browse the internet, you're out of luck if you want to play games, use CAD software or photo editing. It is however a very good server OS.

There's Mac OSX. This is pretty good. It has a more limited selection of available software. It doesn't have the ghastly software that Windows has as more attention seems to be paid to software quality control. It's also pretty darned stable.

Finally, we have Windows. I don't know a single version of Windows that hasn't been an unmitigated disaster.
NT was pretty stable but needed the patches to be reinstalled every time software was installed.
Windows 95 crashed about 4 times an hour.
Windows 98 crashed a bit less but wasn't very good.
Windows 98 SE crashed a lot less but still a couple of crashes a day.
Windows ME was pretty awful - it crashed less but the crashes were more devastating.
Windows XP - started as a bad idea with its having to dial home in order to work then developed from a system that would run on 128mb to a system that now needs 512mb in order to crawl what with all its patches.
Vista - this has been a disaster from the beginning.

What Microsoft should have done is to follow Apple's lead and just dump Windows and build on a stable Unix base.

All I can say is don't get trapped by Windows. Free your mind and use an Apple.