Competition

[unfocused]

This thread was started on a falty presumption.

The basic premise about open economic competition is NOT to "blow your competitors away."

The basic premise is to earn sufficient profit to attract investors by giving them a competitive return on their investment, while at the same time reinvesting sufficient profits in the company to allow you to maintain and improve your competitive position. Market share is important, but capturing market share just for the sake of capturing market share is a good way to go broke.

Technological superiority is a poor predictor of market success (Betamax anyone?)

From what I can tell, Canon seems to be more than holding its own in terms of profitability and market share. Sure, the numbers fluctuate a little and vary by country, but overall Canon seems to be in very good shape. And, while I've said technological superiority isn't everything, Canon is no slouch when it comes to innovation.

Yes, there are differences between the specific feature sets of individual Canon and Nikon cameras, but most of these differences are minor and they constantly change as new models are introduced.

If Canon is f**king it up, I only wish I could f**k it up with the same financial success they have had.

[Joe J]

Financial success doesn't necessarily mean a company is producing the best products possible with the technological resources they have at their disposal; only making products similar to their competitors, better marketed, etc.
  I don't believe anyone said Canon isn't successful; that would be a pretty foolish statement.  Canon is "f-cking it up" by not keeping the edge of technological advances they had above Nikon and all other DSLR producers five years ago.

[Joe J]

I think you really need to calm down and evaluate how wisely you're dealing with this. And particularly, as to what you're saying.

I'm quite calm, thank you.  Hope you are too. This is just a forum discussion of opinions of Canon products and the direction new ones on the horizon, not a Canon board meeting.

If you take the time to read my post, I'm obviously not comparing medium format cameras to the 5D MK II. But no DSLR can be compared to a medium format camera, as they're completely different. You actually raised the issue of the medium format camera being an option - I pointed out that they're in entirely different fields. Please read what I (and others) have written before launching into misdirected criticism.

I took the time to read your post, and yes you did compare:

"...A digital back costs a lot more - and if you do get one, a medium format camera itself will add further cost - without the availability of Canon's lens range. And of course, the total cost would be much more (thousands) than what a 5D MK II, and what it offers: an excellent full frame camera for a very affordable price."

I find it rather humourous that you mention 'excellence - in whose eyes?'; it's exactly the point that you yourself should be taking in.

Glad to bring a smile to your face. :-)
 I have taken that point in, and that is why I'm talking about the quality of tools Canon sells for professionals.

I have no qualms in anyone pointing out some disappointments in any brand. There are faults in Canon just like there are faults in every single brand and company on this planet. But they way you're portraying it is frankly unjust and my posts have clarified many points which you have left out or warped.

Sorry, but to me, you display time and time again that you have serious qualms with anyone pointing out any disappointments in Canon. Unjust? To what? I'm critiquing a CAMERA COMPANY'S current products and the direction of future ones. Think about it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see anything valid in your posts to un-"warp" my view:

I think you've lost the idea, here, regarding the flagship cameras. Just as Nikon has shifted their D3 into two different bodies now (the D3X, with 24+ MP, and the D3S, which is practically the same as the D3), so has Canon: the 1D and the 1Ds series, that are targeted to two different types of photographers - sports/wildlife photographers and studio photographers respectively. And the D700, comparable to the 5D MK II, is targeted as a backup camera, or also available to those who are looking for a good but relatively cheap full frame body.

Please read my post- I said I have a problem with Canon and Nikon shifting to two separate bodies in the DLSR realm, not that I didn't understand what each did or why they did it. What I don't understand is why you are wasting your time typing that...?
The majority of people aren't buying the D700 or 5D MKII prosumer cameras as "backup cameras"; they are buying them because that is what is in their budget.

These series have not merely gone up '1 or 2 MP' - they've improved resolution drastically, and I might add that sensor technology has been improved by Canon to 'defray' what would otherwise result in noise problems.

 (Sigh) Once again... please read my post before replying in haste.  I said more MP's here and there, not '1 or 2 MP'. Please don't put words in my mouth. At least scroll through my post.  Obviously  4-8-10-16 (1D series) 11-16-21 (1Ds series) and 12-21 (5D) is more than one or two.  I said  "1 or 2" FPS. And your rebuttal to a non existent point was a moot point anyway; every other company has been doing the same evolution with their sensors.

You absolutely can't compare the 1D MK IV as being terrible to the D3s. They've got a difference of some 4 million pixels in resolution, and the 1D MK IV is still faster in terms of burst rate. Admittedly, the D3s is slightly better in noise handling, but the 1D MK IV holds its ground extremely well considering the resolution.

RE your idea that the 1.3x FOVCF is not useful for some photographers - perhaps make yourself more acquainted with Canon's professional lineup. They have a 1Ds MK III (which should have a successor in the next year or so) that caters for full frame. The 1D MK IV is targeted, as I've said above, to those capturing fast movement (ie; sports, wildlife, etc.).

 Obviously they are both flagship "sports cameras" from each manufacturer. Once again, read my replies- I never said the MKIV was "terrible". The MK IV would be an amazing camera, except the 1.3 crop, and useless higher ISO settings above 3200 due to junk file quality.  For those two reasons alone, I think the D3S is much better (and I can list other reasons too).  It's that simple. 4 MP more, 1 FPS more (though the D3s does shoot 11 FPS in DX mode, if you want to be particular)  and 1080 video doesn't make up for the other shortfalls. If it was FF at least, I might have a more favorable opinion of the MKIV (and probably own one).
    You're using the term "admittedly"? What are you admitting to? You really must work for Canon... ;-)
     And I'm very acquainted with Canon's professional lineup- that's WHY I have issues with it!! I also said 1.3 is useful for some, but not everyone. Most certainly not a reason to base one of the top of the line cameras off of.  According to your logic of Canon's cameras, if you shoot sports/wildlife, you shouldn't want FF, only 1.3 crop. Um, yeah, right. 1Ds MKIII would also be an amazing camera (the image quality is superb) if it shot more than 5 FPS (even if it was JPEGS at 9 FPS, which would not be hard to add in) and had higher ISO. Not too much to ask, especially considering it was $8000 when released.
    And once again... I take issue with Canon AND Nikon splitting their flagship camera from the film 1V/ F5 days to two separate camera "markets", when all it really means is pro photographers who want the best all-around DSLR in their camera bag, need to buy (and lug around) two different models instead of one.   Not a hard concept to understand. 

It's plain wrong. Cropping doesn't reduce any resolution when talking about crop sensors, as you factor in the pixel density as higher. You can compare a 15MP APS-C (ie, a crop factor body) and a 24MP full frame body, and that works. They come around to the same resolution if you crop the equivalent image from the full frame body. But we're talking about 16MP vs 21MP, between Canon's top two models. You also must consider the idea that a smaller focal plane gives a larger depth of field, whilst the idea that a great focal length provides less DOF has been proven false. So, for those wanting to get in really closely, there's extra DOF without sacrificing speed in relation to aperture.

Of course- for lenses designed for that specific sized chip. Unfortunately, you forgot to acknowledge there are no lenses specifically designed for APS-H chips, which was my whole point, if you understood my post.

And frankly, saying that a tele-extender won't affect the resolution, while correct, is ignorant in that ignores the detriment it brings to image quality. CA, sharpness, affects on aperture and other side effects are seen when using a tele-extender.

So do substandard chips, i.e. anything smaller than full-frame.

And Nikon's DX mode on their FF cameras leaves an enormous vignette around the image. At a reduced resolution. It's not the same.

I don't believe I said it was the best option, merely an example of an option. Once again (hopefully I don't have to keep repeating myself), I was taking issue with the fact that Canon doesn't make the perfect products for some people (when they very well have the technology to do so). And you tirelessly defend Canon, for what reason?  Are they paying you? Does your future depend on Canon's success? If you answered no to both of those questions, please lighten up, and maybe consider that Canon isn't perfect nor make the perfect products for everyone (nor does any company at the moment). If you answered yes, well, at least acknowledge you do so; it would probably clear a few things up with some people reading this.

[L-Fletcher]

I didn't compare, actually - I just pointed out that your initial idea of just getting a medium format camera for the resolution was impractical. Based on those very reasons.

RE the MP issue: very true, my apologies for that, though not every company is doing the same with their cameras. Olympus halted at 12MP, and only one of Nikon's flagship cameras are raising the resolution.

Yes, the D3s can have 11fps at DX mode, but then the resolution drops even further.

Regarding 'admittedly' - we're having a civil debate here, aren't we? Concession is always (normally) taken in well, not pointed out as someone working for a company.  Just for the record, I don't work for Canon; simply (and this ties in with your questioning what I stated to be unjust) that I feel what you're saying doesn't really give credit to Canon's lineup. Your reasoning/arguments were unjust, not a critique in general.

Some people who buy D700s/5D MK IIs actually do look for a second body. And yes, some do look for it as a cheap (relative) FF body. And I mentioned that, in the very bit you quoted me on.

You say there aren't any lenses designed for APS-C sensors - yes there are. Perhaps you mean 1.3x? And no, there aren't. But it provides, for the sake of wildlife and sports, the further reach whilst removing a lot of potential corner softness, vignetting, etc. Obviously those using a 1D MK IV probably wouldn't be interested in the 8-15mm.

And no, a smaller sensor doesn't affect image quality at all. Noise isn't brought into it until high ISO is used, and the idea is a straight-off reduction in image quality. Yep, a smaller sensor affects aperture (due to DOF), but that's different to the way a tele-extender affects aperture.

By the way, I'm not saying that 1.3x crop factor is the best or the worst. But it works, and the many people who use the 1D MK IV like it. You don't have to like it of course. I'm just stating my view on it, and when I can, pointing out potentially misleading comments.

You asked me to consider that Canon isn't perfect? I hate to say this, having read and said this so many times already - but read my posts.

[neuroanatomist]

Of course- for lenses designed for that specific sized chip. Unfortunately, you forgot to acknowledge there are no lenses specifically designed for APS-C chips, which was my whole point, if you understood my post.

I thought that Canon's line of EF-S lenses and Nikon's line of DX lenses lenses were specifically designed to project an image circle corresponding to an APS-C sensor.  But, maybe I'm replying in haste and I do not understand your post.

[L-Fletcher]

Yes, I think he means APS-H.

[kubelik]

I'm always more than a little amused when people bashing the 5D Mark II say something like:

"Excellent in who's eyes?  Yours? Your eyes aren't everyone else's."

which I suppose is meant to lead you to believe that if you bought the 5DII and liked it, you're in a minority, and that your opinion is largely outweighed by the sheer numbers of people who detest the 5DII.

in reality, the 5DII is probably one of the top selling FF DSLRs so far and the reason Canon hasn't upgraded it yet is because people are still buying it.  yeah, it's flawed, I get it.  I'd like for mine to have great AF.  but you know what, it's still a great camera and there are plenty of professional photographers making good use of their 5DII's.

I agree with unfocused's statement that the original thread premise is based on a faulty assumption: that competing companies exist to blow each other out of the water, and that doing so is a financially viable option.

I'll admit I'm a bit wary whenever people critique large organizations and boil it down to an oversimplified financial model.  we have no idea what canon's DSLR division's supply logistics, payroll, r+d, or by-camera sales figures look like.  nor do we know this for nikon, or sony.  so how can we assume that canon isn't blowing nikon out of the water due to intentional self-negligence?  nikon's huge improvements in its cameras over the last decade have achieved ... market share parity.  so clearly canon's doing something right in its business model that it's still got ~40% or so of the DSLR market.

is Canon at the peak of its game right now?  no, I think there are lots of places to improve, but again, let's not oversimplify things.  releasing a "cheap FF" will do no more for canon than the A850 did for sony.

[Joe J]

to neuroanatomist,
  yes, I meant APS-H, apologies for the typo.

[scalesusa]

The basic premise of a business is to make money!  Your goal is not to blow away the competition, but to make and sell products for a profit.

Canon learned long ago that buyers of cameras will go for a lower priced product that is almost as good as the competition.  The 35mm film Camera, the AE-1 was one of the first to follow that premise and was extremely successful even if it did not match its competition on a quality basis, lots of advertisinng and a lower price made big sales and profits for Canon.

Canon is still true to this premise, the low price comes first, they are willing to let Nikon make a better product at a higher price, while developing a product that is much less expensive to manufacturer and which has a bigger profit margin while selling for less. 

I'm sure they worry a lot about Sony, who could engage in the saame tactics, but so far has not.

[kubelik]

scales, good point regarding the other aspects of business development.  having a quality product is one thing, have quality product placement is yet another thing, and not one to be overlooked.

whether you like it or not, part of Canon's success (at least in the states) is in its marketing.  people have observed before that a large part of canon's market base in the states are soccer moms and the like, and it's true.  I know many people would prefer to overlook that fact or disassociate yourself from such supposed non-photocrati, but that is simply a fact of the business and why Canon's Rebel line continues to sell excellently.

watch the ads during any primetime programming in the US, especially football, and you'll never see a nikon ad.  you do see plenty of Canon ads, showing mothers photographing and filming their son the star high school player making a touchdown.

cheap?  cheesy?  it's advertising, folks, and it works.

again, I can't speak for markets outside the US but I'm curious to know if there's a similar disparity in the effort put into advertising for the general public rather than advertising in photographic publications (where canon and nikon are largely equal in how widely they advertise)

[unfocused]

watch the ads during any primetime programming in the US, especially football, and you'll never see a nikon ad.

So what is that thing that Ashton Kutcher seems to be selling then? 

Actually, I don't really disagree with your basic premise, but just couldn't resist a poke.

[ronderick]

again, I can't speak for markets outside the US but I'm curious to know if there's a similar disparity in the effort put into advertising for the general public rather than advertising in photographic publications (where canon and nikon are largely equal in how widely they advertise)

All I could say is the Canon EOS Kiss (xxxD) commercials are pretty impressive (and fun) to watch.

Here's some I found on youtube:

Kiss X4 - Historical Figures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5wA-GDD1Hw&NR=1
	Small | Large

Kiss X4 - Monsters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYRC9Y_vfUI&feature=related
	Small | Large

Kiss X4 - Different Eras

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVtD43zahc&NR=1
	Small | Large

I think it's pretty clear who they're targeting 

[Hillsilly]

Competition forces everybody to continually do things better.  However, I don't think there is enough competition in the camera market.  In fact, there seems to be a lot of collusion and co-operation amongst the big players.  That being said, I don't think Canon is doing things badly in comparison with the other players.  Here is Australia the pricing of the various cameras largely reflects their comparative features.  For example, the shop down the road from me has the 60D at $AUD1,268, the 7D at $AUD1,658, D3000s at $AUD1,765 and the D7000 at $AUD1,999 (although I suspect this will drop as more stock becomes available) .  Cameras with better build and more features sell for more.  Ultimately, you get what you pay for.  In addition, I think it is hard to argue that Canon doesn't have a good / competitive camera in all price brackets from point and shoots to DSLRs.  Certainly their sales figures show people are happy with Canon's price vs features product placement.     

I just think Canon (and Nikon) are taking advantage of a duopoly situation.  Camera buyers are accustomed to paying $2,500+ for a full frame body.  Why would they want to sell them for less?  If there was real competition, somebody would take advantage of new manufacturing processes and build a low-cost full frame body.  But then again, if that somebody was Samsung, would people buy it?  Luckily for Canon and Nikon, they tend to have the top end of the market sewn up with loyal customers.

In my opinion, the camera companies are comfortable with their market share and profit levels.  Why would they want to compete?  There are only so many buyers out there.  Cutting prices would just cut profits.

BTW, for those who are are curious, Canon does a lot more TV advertising in Australia and I think has always done so.  Their ads tend to focus on the cheaper cameras.  Nikon tends to do as much photographic magazine advertising though.  Nikon and Canon magazine ads generally feature more advanced cameras.  5D ads are very common.  Its interesting that someone mentioned the AE-1.    My first camera was an AE-1 program, which I bought after Canon ads portrayed it as being the camera used by all the pros at the 84 Olympics.  Their advertising works!

[kubelik]

unfocused, you're right about nikon and the ashton ads, but it sounds like I don't have to tell you that they're not nearly as widespread as the canon ads (at least on the channels I watch).  it seems like the only company that advertises as much as canon does is probably Sony, but their DSLR lineup rarely features in the ads.  which is strange, that they appear to spend some considerable effort developing their DSLR lineup but spend almost no effort promoting that same lineup.  probably a vastly different story in japan/asia or europe?

ronderick, those adverts are great - my vote is on the historical figures one.  canon really does know how to convince parents that an EOS Rebel is one of the best investments they'll ever make

[ronderick]

I think it's quite similar here in Taiwan. Canon commercials, at least from the channels I watch, is probably the most common out of camera manufacturers. Sony, on the otherhand, has a lot of commercials - but very few of them are alpha (though there's a ton of Bravia spotlights )

However, it seems that their strategy for NEX is a bit different - especially this 5-minute long clip (though I'm not sure whether it's a music video or ad, or whether this was aired on TV... anyways, it's just a bit too long). I would dare say this is probably one of the darn best camera advertisement I've seen this year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cdoBasEnI
	Small | Large

unfocused, you're right about nikon and the ashton ads, but it sounds like I don't have to tell you that they're not nearly as widespread as the canon ads (at least on the channels I watch).  it seems like the only company that advertises as much as canon does is probably Sony, but their DSLR lineup rarely features in the ads.  which is strange, that they appear to spend some considerable effort developing their DSLR lineup but spend almost no effort promoting that same lineup.  probably a vastly different story in japan/asia or europe?

ronderick, those adverts are great - my vote is on the historical figures one.  canon really does know how to convince parents that an EOS Rebel is one of the best investments they'll ever make