"Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons

[canon816]

I think comments like this are why we can't have nice discussions.

This pretty much reduces to 'features I find important are improving, anyone who says otherwise does not matter because they are a pixel peeper'.

Yes, you are correct.  And I apologize for my reactive comment.

It just continues to amaze me how thread after thread after thread on this forum contains so much complaining about canon and how they are falling so short on every front.  It seems everyone is so worried about numbers and stats that they lose focus of what amazing tools the camera industry is putting out there. 

[paul13walnut5]

@marekjoz

Welcome to adult people discussion.... Everything's fine, Canon is great and they don't make mistakes knowing what they will do in ten years ahead.

A very grown up response there.  I'm fed up with the whole 5D3 thing.
If it's not for you then don't buy one.
If you want a D800 buy that instead.

Don't say you never had choices.

Or hey, you could be really adult and decide that actually your 5D2 is working fine for you so you could skip a generation for when something that's more of an upgrade for you comes along.

It's a broad church and there are lots of differing user demands and plenty of options.

If Nikon hadn't launched the D800 or it was at a different price point from the 5D3 (say a 36MP D5) then we wouldn't be having any of these frankly repetitive and increasingly boring discussions.  Do you NEED 36MP?

If so it begs the question what you were using up until now, and why you can't keep using it.

If you don't then chill a bit.  Spend a bit more time out in the fresh air taking pics.  It can be quite theraputic.

[marekjoz]

@marekjoz

Welcome to adult people discussion.... Everything's fine, Canon is great and they don't make mistakes knowing what they will do in ten years ahead.

A very grown up response there.  I'm fed up with the whole 5D3 thing.
If it's not for you then don't buy one.
If you want a D800 buy that instead.

Don't say you never had choices.

Or hey, you could be really adult and decide that actually your 5D2 is working fine for you so you could skip a generation for when something that's more of an upgrade for you comes along.

It's a broad church and there are lots of differing user demands and plenty of options.

If Nikon hadn't launched the D800 or it was at a different price point from the 5D3 (say a 36MP D5) then we wouldn't be having any of these frankly repetitive and increasingly boring discussions.  Do you NEED 36MP?

If so it begs the question what you were using up until now, and why you can't keep using it.

If you don't then chill a bit.  Spend a bit more time out in the fresh air taking pics.  It can be quite theraputic.

I don't remind complaining on 5d3 myself. What I wrote here as well was:  "for many people". There was not "for many people including me". The true is, that if I could afford one right now, I'd have it already, but I don't complain that I don't or that it's bad. We discuss here Canon's global approach, their possible changes as well as peoples' feelings on their products being an important influence factor on this approach. I quoted voice of many people important in this discussion and you are just fed up reading about 5d3.
That's ok if you feel I should go out

[paul13walnut5]

I think we all should!   To quote Chas Smash 'Fu@k Art!, Let's Dance!'

[awinphoto]

@awinphoto

So they are upset that the president of the company in 1996-2006, (when canon ruled the digital world and was on top of the game)

He helped canon get out of the struggling Film SLR market where they were seen as second violin to Nikon

Of course, 2007 to present is when most view canon's fall to nikon

Directly contradictory post there...

Ermmm... it's first thing in the morning here but what's contradictory... Film era... canon struggled behind nikon... no denying that... the nikon F5 is still seen as the best film camera out there... this guy becomes present end of the 90's and comes out with the D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 30D and maybe even the 40D during that stretch, not to mention the 5D, 1D, 1Ds, and a crap load of rebels, all blowing nikon out of the water, not to mention solidifying a lens lineup that nikon couldn't match... 2006, he steps down, nikon all of a sudden starts competing and came out with the D200 and D300 which started owning the xxd series and so on and so forth... when this guy was in charge, Canon was on top of the world... When he wasn't Canon wasn't.  It's not to say that history will repeat itself and Canon will start taking nikon behind the woodshed again, but perhaps his final acts before he eventually retires is to steer Canon back on track to greatness.  It's not as far fetched as you think. 

[paul13walnut5]

Would take issue with the comment re: film bodies.

f4's, f5's certainly had a perception of better build quality than the plastic but tough EOS 1N, but Canon ruled in the AF stakes if not purely by body then by in-lens ring type USM motors, and FTM.

There was nothing between the f6 and 1V, and the f5 was only really better if you liked the option WLF's on your 35mm SLR.

Canon have been very busy lately.  I am the first to bemoan some of the silly prices for some of the new lenses (25-70 f2.8 II, 24 7 28 IS) but these all hint at serving cameras with much higher resolution.

I have nothing against Nikon, I would like an aperture ring every now and then.  I would have liked in body wireless flash 5 years before the 7D came out.  But I wouldn't write Canon off.  Not yet.  Until the D3x only Sony made a comparable camera (well up to ISO400 at least) up until the D3200 Canon ruled the mid and entry level on specs.

Nikon have got nowhere close to Canons compacts for years, especially at the serious end.

Not that it's about that.

If what is in your hands works for you then brilliant.  If not change it for something that does, if Canon don't make it just now, come back in a few months.

[awinphoto]

Would take issue with the comment re: film bodies.

f4's, f5's certainly had a perception of better build quality than the plastic but tough EOS 1N, but Canon ruled in the AF stakes if not purely by body then by in-lens ring type USM motors, and FTM.

There was nothing between the f6 and 1V, and the f5 was only really better if you liked the option WLF's on your 35mm SLR.

Canon have been very busy lately.  I am the first to bemoan some of the silly prices for some of the new lenses (25-70 f2.8 II, 24 7 28 IS) but these all hint at serving cameras with much higher resolution.

I have nothing against Nikon, I would like an aperture ring every now and then.  I would have liked in body wireless flash 5 years before the 7D came out.  But I wouldn't write Canon off.  Not yet.  Until the D3x only Sony made a comparable camera (well up to ISO400 at least) up until the D3200 Canon ruled the mid and entry level on specs.

Nikon have got nowhere close to Canons compacts for years, especially at the serious end.

Not that it's about that.

If what is in your hands works for you then brilliant.  If not change it for something that does, if Canon don't make it just now, come back in a few months.

Fair enough... to be honest, up until the D60 and 10D came out, I shot about 80%-90% medium format and large format...  I rarely shot 35mm because AF was terrible and manually focusing on a small VF (compared to MF and LF) to me was cumbersome...  and frankly, 35mm was size limited in print to a 11x14 maximum, and even then you were expecting your ISO 100 film to start to fall apart a bit at that size.  Not that I was printing a ton of wall portraits at that time, but the idea of being limited wasn't appealing to me...  when Canon went digital, and AF was good (at the time to my expectations compared to prior versions) I starting shooting more 35mm, well aps-c...  anywho...  I always had a 35mm canon film, but didn't shoot it much and it was always the kinda unspoken truth at the time that nikon had better bodies, canon better lenses...  Whether one was really better at the time, it's hard to tell, but I worked at my colleges photo studio rental dept and more nikon bodies (for my school and sample size) was rented than canon film bodies by nearly 4:1 give or take but oddly enough, more canon digitals were rented than nikon bodies by about the same margin...  so take it for what it's worth... now everything is changing, new cameras are sprouting out of nowhere every few months it seems and it will be interesting when all the dust settles to see where everything falls into place. 

[paul13walnut5]

new cameras are sprouting out of nowhere every few months it seems and it will be interesting when all the dust settles to see where everything falls into place. 

I concur, but doubt the dust will settle long enough to allow a clear view.  Canon will trump Nikon for a spell, Nikon will trump Canon for a spell.  Some folk will change systems overnight on a whim, other folk will keep shooting with whatever was working for them.

[Gothmoth]

If they put 1dx sensor in a 5d3 body, reduce iso and fps, they may collecti enough to survive and get ready for next year.

survive?

well.. thats some sort of word i would expect at fox news headline.

canon is making less PROFIT.... that´s not the same as making billions of loss like sony.

yes, survive. If shareholders are unhappy, many stupid things can occur. Of course I didn't mean they are about to close the business. What I mean't for survive was: "running business as usually and evolve without any revolution as it might be too risky."
What I should mention before is, that I don't think that revolutionary changing the way they work and manage would be safe. I'd rather see putting some fresh air but without sending old guys out. Revolution in their case might happen bad. The whole organisation is rather very conservative and it of course causes a problem with innovation.
 Some of you require more revolutionary and groundbreaking solutions and I don't see them achieving it the way, I guess you might expect. Let them do their job and follow the market innovations first (but without being closed with patents).
For the company it is important to invest in R&D, because this is the way they can be technologically competive on the market and this is their asset. It requires time and efforts and doesn't give results right now. The other way to be innovative is an incident, like accidently following some fresh idea and getting good results (ie - there is a guy, who got his 100k for development his idea and he succedeed, but they gave him like 5% chance for success).
You might run R&D evolutionary step by step providing feedback from the market with laboratory and scientific work or get 20 young yuppies, give them 100k each and wait for the results - maybe someone gets something interesting. I simply don't see it in their case the other way, so the very important thing for them in a long horizon time is collecting money for long term R&D, without making shareholders angry with these - from their point of view - unneccessery spendings. It's safe to collect money for R&D with such a cashcow. Let fhem flow the market with cheaper and good FF with much less profit margin than currently.
Do they miss innovations because they have not enough money for it? Most probably.I wouldn't like to get know that they follow the path: "If there is no solution so there is no problem". The other look on this sounds: "If the problem can be solved with money, then this is not a problem, this is a cost". In their case in fact this is an investment, which they need as a water and air, because without R&D they will not survive as company we know them today. This company maybe doesn't react what you would like, but still most of us like their products. Without money, they will not invest in R&D. With shareholders demanding higher stock prices and larger sales number so the more profit for them, they can cut money for R&D which would bring money back is some time.
     
           Cashcow -> money -> R&D -> Survive

Making such a cashcow is currently the best way to collect money for R&D and survive in a longer term. That's what I wanted to say and this is the only revolution, they could afford.

sorry but that is so way off when we discuss about canon, it´s not really worth an answer.

as was said before.. worry about sony or olmypus.

look who claims the most patents.. so much about R&D at canon.

Canon top five US patent holder for 26th year 
 
 
London, April 18, 2012 – Canon Europe, world-leader in imaging solutions, today announced its parent company, Canon Inc., registered 2,813 new patents during 2011, surpassing the company record of 2,543 new patents in 2010. Based on weekly patent counts issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for 2011, Canon placed third overall marking a new milestone in the company’s history as one of the top five patent holders worldwide for more than a quarter of a century.
 
 
Patents granted in 2011 continue to drive innovation for Canon well into the future. To date, Canon has created core product technologies in fields such as image capture, electrophotography, inkjet printing, lithography, and display as well as common platform technologies including digital processing, production engineering, quality management and environmental technologies.

In addition to strengthening and expanding existing businesses, Canon is committed to the future with a focus on promoting research and development in areas such as medical imaging, intelligent manufacturing and mixed reality. Achieving new advancements throughout a variety of technologies helps to bring forward innovation, delivering new value and solutions to customers.
 

[bigbadhenry]

I'm not a chairman of the board of a major Japanese corporation, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last  night. That qualifies me as much as anyone else here to comment on this stuff.

+1e6

Unless you are a significant stock-holder (like a pension / superannuation fund), or a senior executive of Canon, it would be hard to provide a qualified opinion of what the qualities of individuals in leadership roles of Canon should be.

I have posted before, that if you are unhappy with Canon's offerings, you should not whinge about them, rather, do not buy them.

Vote with you wallet! It's by far the most effective management and strategy tool in the market.

Just what I'm doing, Canon don't have an up to date semi-pro 1.6 crop camera so I'll stick with what I have. 
 
Canon needs a 7d MK II, not every one wants a full frame jobbie.

Cheers Mike

[Neeneko]

It just continues to amaze me how thread after thread after thread on this forum contains so much complaining about canon and how they are falling so short on every front.  It seems everyone is so worried about numbers and stats that they lose focus of what amazing tools the camera industry is putting out there.

This I can easily agree with ^_^ even if each new generation is not focused on some specific segment, they generally out preform earlier designs across the board.

Though personally I will continue to bitch and moan about the lack of range in monochrome camera offerings available today, and of course the dearth of affordable view cameras (film ones were expensive but accessible, digital ones are priced out of most people's range, so I feel we are really loosing a valuable tool there, at least on the hobbyist level).  But I know both of those are rather niche ^_^

[bdunbar79]

I'm not a chairman of the board of a major Japanese corporation, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last  night. That qualifies me as much as anyone else here to comment on this stuff.

+1e6

Unless you are a significant stock-holder (like a pension / superannuation fund), or a senior executive of Canon, it would be hard to provide a qualified opinion of what the qualities of individuals in leadership roles of Canon should be.

I have posted before, that if you are unhappy with Canon's offerings, you should not whinge about them, rather, do not buy them.

Vote with you wallet! It's by far the most effective management and strategy tool in the market.

Just what I'm doing, Canon don't have an up to date semi-pro 1.6 crop camera so I'll stick with what I have. 
 
Canon needs a 7d MK II, not every one wants a full frame jobbie.

Cheers Mike

I agree.  I'd rather see a 7D Mark II.  Hey you know what, I might even buy one!

[unfocused]

For those interested in what is actually happening, instead of just making drive-by comments, here a couple of stories that are much better than the Barron's report.

http://news.yahoo.com/canon-cuts-full-operating-profit-forecast-euro-woes-061208701--finance.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-26/canon-falls-most-in-13-years-after-cutting-forecast-tokyo-mover.html

DSLR sales are strong but point and shoots are losing to cell phones (no surprise there). Canon is being hurt by the general contraction in office equipment sales that are also affecting their competitors in that segment. HP is a big customer and HP's sales are hurting as well. The Yen is strong, the dollar is weak and the Euro is a disaster. In short, in the midst of a worldwide business crisis, a company that relies heavily on selling equipment to businesses is suffering. Duh!

As a result of these market forces, Canon is expecting its profits to improve over last year by less than they originally predicted. As others have pointed out, this isn't a case of the company losing money. In fact it isn't even a case of the company earning less profit. It's a case of increasing profits by less than they had anticipated.

Clearly the Barron's columnist had an ax to grind. To suggest that a management change is needed at a company that is growing its profits in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis seems a bit over-the-top.

[distant.star]

Then there was their mirrorless entry.  A lackluster clone in a new market which already has some serious contenders in it.  For the moment there is no good reason to buy the Canon mirrorless over others outside the brand, and brand can only take you so far when your primary target is new customers.

.
I find this a nearly startling characterization of the new Canon M. A lackluster clone? I'll bet a 1DX to your little Powershot that Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Fuju and even Nikon are not singing that song. If you want to say it's lackluster, you'd better bring some facts. Also, what's your basis for saying the primary target market is "new customers"?

I'd define new customers as people who have no experience with Canon cameras. That, I think, is a pretty hard sell and making that a primary market would seem suicidal. If there is any primary market, I think it's mostly people who have some experience with point & shoot cameras, many of them Canon Powershots. The M can tempt them to step up to genuine SLR performance in a package they're familiar with. A vast secondary market consists of all of us who have Canon lenses and already know great images can be produced by that 18MP sensor. Suddenly, there's a simple little camera that is compatible with every EOS lens we already have. That's called a major competitive advantage. How do you get that with Sony? Olympus? And Canon lenses are the world's best general market lenses. If I were in the market for something like the Powershot S100 today, I'd be hard pressed not to go with the M instead. The slight size increase, with say the new 40mm lens, would be hard to ignore given the image quality and versatility advantages.

While somehow you see this as "lackluster," competitors see this as Canon leveraging their market dominance, and you better believe they don't see it as lackluster. I also see it as Canon's first step down the road to totally eliminating the mirror-based DSLR. If I were working the camera floor at Best Buy, I'd be overjoyed with the Canon M. What a great alternative to offer buyers!

Let's wait and see what other "lackluster" offerings this current Canon leadership brings us.

[neuroanatomist]

In fact it isn't even a case of the company earning less profit. It's a case of increasing profits by less than they had anticipated.

In the world of finance, growing by less than anticipated is still very bad.  Look at Apple - despite selling 28% more iPhones and 84% more iPads (year-over-year) and a 23% increase in revenue which beat Apple's own predictions, those gains still fell short of analysts' expectations of the most recent quarterly report, and their stock has dropped 6.4% over the past week.  That translates to a market cap loss of more than $35 billion dollars (which is nearly equal in size to the entire Canon, Inc. valuation!).