- Status
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.
"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.
Upvote
0
S
scalesusa
Guest
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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)
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)
Upvote
0
kubelik said:
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
Kiss X4 - Monsters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYRC9Y_vfUI&feature=related
Kiss X4 - Different Eras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVtD43zahc&NR=1
I think it's pretty clear who they're targeting 8)
Upvote
0
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!
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!
Upvote
0
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, 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
Upvote
0
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
)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
kubelik said:
Upvote
0
kubelik said:
Indeed - there are T2i and EF-S 55-250mm lens ads in several parenting magazines.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
