DPReview Interview With Canon Execs, \

[BillB]

True you make a good point about the risk taking. An excellent point actually. But in my limited knowledge of business I do understand that the greatest gains are usually made at considerable risks and vice versa the fewest gains at the fewest risks... again generally speaking. It makes sense that a company the size of Canon would not want to risk too much.

... in the meantime, as consumers it's normal to see more excitement for brands that take risks, invest a ton in R&D, put out products that we can't even understand how they make a profit given just how loaded they are with features, etc. Of course there are arguments towards other brands too but I am just trying to make a point...


By the way, I don't know if anybody here has ever checked it but it's shocking how much more traffic sony alpha rumors . com gets vs canonrumors.com. Yup it's meaningless in terms of sales but it does make it seem as though Sony cameras generate much more enthusiasm.

It is a mistake to confuse internet buzz with actual sales, or even the potential for actual sales. The word incredible comes up a lot on the internet. The meaning of incredible is unbelievable, another which also comes up a lot. A lot of the internet buzz is unbelievable, so what does that say about the people who believe it? The people generating the buzz tries to convince us that magic toys will let us make incredible high DR pictures and unbelievable 4K videos, but not that many people care about making unbelievable high DR pictures or incredible 4K videos. Some people care about improving their photography and making better videos and realize that magic toys don't make that much difference, but that putting in time and work can help.

 

[dak723]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems like once again, the majority on this forum measure success and desirability with innovation. Not exactly sure why this is, but creating internet buzz, or comparing things with smartphones ( a relatively new technology, thus changing faster) is not the only way to look at products. What struck me as I read the interview was the Canon execs mentioning "reliability" as an important goal for their cameras - also, "speed, ease of use and IQ". For many photographers (but not the techie crowd, apparently) these are very important characteristics of what we want in a camera.

One recent example that all spec sheets and innovations aren't created equal. One thing that I find very useful, and one of the best innovations in recent years, is Canon M5's ability to move the AF point using the touch screen while using the EVF. It is quick, easy to use and works really well. I just got an Olympus E-M1 mark II to try out and one thing I was really looking forward to was their version (called the targeting pad) of moving the AF point using the touch screen. On the spec sheet it is the same, but on the Olympus, it doesn't work very well (at least I haven't been able to get it to work well). It doesn't seem to work well with your thumb, although that is the finger that is there on the touch screen. The AF point moves erratically, sometimes actually moving in the opposite direction, due apparently to the width of my thumb. It works better using my index finger, not ideal ergonomically. If I'm not in a hurry, I can get the point where I want, but compared to the much cheaper Canon M5, it is NOT quick, easy to use or reliable.

I think we have seen the same thing happening when comparing Canon to Sony cameras. When people actually use the cameras, they find that the Sony disappoints them in some areas, not really doing what the spec sheet makes one think it can. Canon cameras, on the other hand, almost always exceed the buyer's expectations. Even the "evil 6D II" gets good reviews from those that actually use it.

Not saying Canon is perfect, but given the choice, I will choose "easy to use and reliable" over "innovative but not that reliable" every time. Perhaps there are enough folks like me that keep Canon at #1 in market share.

OK, back to the Canon bashing! ;D

 

[Ozarker]

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.

If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are gaining marketshare.

Meanwhile it is generally accepted in the industry right now that Canon's success in the mirrorless segment is a bit of a surprise given they entered the market relatively late...

Generally accepted by who? Who's surprised? What industry? By bloggers and vloggers? That industry? Forum commenters? That industry?

If only stupid Canon had business giants like yourself to steer the ship of industry, they might be #1. :

Well I suppose given your nickname it's not hard to imagine why you don't really pay attention to anything that isn't praising Canon.

Can't answer the questions?

 

[syyeung1]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems like once again, the majority on this forum measure success and desirability with innovation. Not exactly sure why this is, but creating internet buzz, or comparing things with smartphones ( a relatively new technology, thus changing faster) is not the only way to look at products. What struck me as I read the interview was the Canon execs mentioning "reliability" as an important goal for their cameras - also, "speed, ease of use and IQ". For many photographers (but not the techie crowd, apparently) these are very important characteristics of what we want in a camera.

One recent example that all spec sheets and innovations aren't created equal. One thing that I find very useful, and one of the best innovations in recent years, is Canon M5's ability to move the AF point using the touch screen while using the EVF. It is quick, easy to use and works really well. I just got an Olympus E-M1 mark II to try out and one thing I was really looking forward to was their version (called the targeting pad) of moving the AF point using the touch screen. On the spec sheet it is the same, but on the Olympus, it doesn't work very well (at least I haven't been able to get it to work well). It doesn't seem to work well with your thumb, although that is the finger that is there on the touch screen. The AF point moves erratically, sometimes actually moving in the opposite direction, due apparently to the width of my thumb. It works better using my index finger, not ideal ergonomically. If I'm not in a hurry, I can get the point where I want, but compared to the much cheaper Canon M5, it is NOT quick, easy to use or reliable.

I think we have seen the same thing happening when comparing Canon to Sony cameras. When people actually use the cameras, they find that the Sony disappoints them in some areas, not really doing what the spec sheet makes one think it can. Canon cameras, on the other hand, almost always exceed the buyer's expectations. Even the "evil 6D II" gets good reviews from those that actually use it.

Not saying Canon is perfect, but given the choice, I will choose "easy to use and reliable" over "innovative but not that reliable" every time. Perhaps there are enough folks like me that keep Canon at #1 in market share.

OK, back to the Canon bashing! ;D

Absolutely agree. There are 2 types of users, one cares more about the actual shooting experience, and one focuses more on the spec sheet.

My mirrorless collection includes a Sony (a6300), Olympus (em10ii) and Canon (eos-M). On paper and in internet forums, EOS-M is by far the worst of the three. However, in actual shooting, I enjoy shooting with the M the most and that's by a considerable margin. I somehow just cannot get comfortable with the a6300 both in actual use and in the final output. I prefer the OM much more than the Sony. To me, Canon and OM to me are photographic equipment, but Sony is a tech gadget. I would be very interested to try the A7III, but I suspect it will just give me the same experience as the a6300.

 

[Talys]

I think we have seen the same thing happening when comparing Canon to Sony cameras. When people actually use the cameras, they find that the Sony disappoints them in some areas, not really doing what the spec sheet makes one think it can. Canon cameras, on the other hand, almost always exceed the buyer's expectations. Even the "evil 6D II" gets good reviews from those that actually use it.

Not saying Canon is perfect, but given the choice, I will choose "easy to use and reliable" over "innovative but not that reliable" every time. Perhaps there are enough folks like me that keep Canon at #1 in market share.

This sums it up perfectly, for me

There are so many things on the Sony spec sheet that sound fascinating, but in practice are just either not useful, or implemented in a way that makes it too awkward to use, and some basics that glaringly fall short. I could go on and on about it, but what it boils down to is, I'd trade 10 features that are so cool but not really usable for just one that's very well implemented.

I would be very interested to try the A7III, but I suspect it will just give me the same experience as the a6300.

Its big brother, the A7RIII often felt like that. A lot of times, it's just little things that I don't think a camera maker would ever do -- like an MF focus ring that takes a 360 degree rotation to go from MFD to infinity. Or the ability to program any button you like to autofocus... but not be able to take an auto exposure reading at the same time. Or a touch screen, where there are practically no touch-enabled commands or menus, even when a big huge button screams "tap me".

I mean, nobody is going to win an award for that kind of stuff, but going back to a 6DII, I sure appreciate the simple stuff, like the back AF button -- even if I can't reprogram it to 12 different places.

 

[stevelee]

I downloaded the 610-page PDF manual for the 6D2 that is just an English version, not the short version duplicated in a variety of languages. I have it available on my iPad as well as my computer, I will occasionally browse through sections of it even when I'm not trying to look up something specific. I see all sorts of modes and features that I am quite unlikely ever to use, but it is interesting to see that they are there. And while I don't bother to learn about them in depth, if the situation ever comes up to use one of them, I can always go back and look them up, and I will have a vague idea that lets me know to try to use them.

Some of these things probably are or once were innovative. I see no reason to care. Perhaps a lot of these things could be bullet points in a feature list. Maybe there is somebody who would be influenced by some of these features to buy the camera. I'm not likely to be that guy.

 

[-pekr-]

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.

If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are gaining marketshare.

Do you really need to ask such questions? Look, you can sell million od devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousadns for the higher price. The turn-over is going to be identical. Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ....

 

[Isaacheus]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems like once again, the majority on this forum measure success and desirability with innovation. Not exactly sure why this is, but creating internet buzz, or comparing things with smartphones ( a relatively new technology, thus changing faster) is not the only way to look at products. What struck me as I read the interview was the Canon execs mentioning "reliability" as an important goal for their cameras - also, "speed, ease of use and IQ". For many photographers (but not the techie crowd, apparently) these are very important characteristics of what we want in a camera.

One recent example that all spec sheets and innovations aren't created equal. One thing that I find very useful, and one of the best innovations in recent years, is Canon M5's ability to move the AF point using the touch screen while using the EVF. It is quick, easy to use and works really well. I just got an Olympus E-M1 mark II to try out and one thing I was really looking forward to was their version (called the targeting pad) of moving the AF point using the touch screen. On the spec sheet it is the same, but on the Olympus, it doesn't work very well (at least I haven't been able to get it to work well). It doesn't seem to work well with your thumb, although that is the finger that is there on the touch screen. The AF point moves erratically, sometimes actually moving in the opposite direction, due apparently to the width of my thumb. It works better using my index finger, not ideal ergonomically. If I'm not in a hurry, I can get the point where I want, but compared to the much cheaper Canon M5, it is NOT quick, easy to use or reliable.

I think we have seen the same thing happening when comparing Canon to Sony cameras. When people actually use the cameras, they find that the Sony disappoints them in some areas, not really doing what the spec sheet makes one think it can. Canon cameras, on the other hand, almost always exceed the buyer's expectations. Even the "evil 6D II" gets good reviews from those that actually use it.

Not saying Canon is perfect, but given the choice, I will choose "easy to use and reliable" over "innovative but not that reliable" every time. Perhaps there are enough folks like me that keep Canon at #1 in market share.

OK, back to the Canon bashing! ;D

Absolutely agree. There are 2 types of users, one cares more about the actual shooting experience, and one focuses more on the spec sheet.

My mirrorless collection includes a Sony (a6300), Olympus (em10ii) and Canon (eos-M). On paper and in internet forums, EOS-M is by far the worst of the three. However, in actual shooting, I enjoy shooting with the M the most and that's by a considerable margin. I somehow just cannot get comfortable with the a6300 both in actual use and in the final output. I prefer the OM much more than the Sony. To me, Canon and OM to me are photographic equipment, but Sony is a tech gadget. I would be very interested to try the A7III, but I suspect it will just give me the same experience as the a6300.

I've never really understood the tech gadget argument - is it ergonomics/feel of the camera that you don't like, for the first part of your statement? Final output is generally pretty straightforward, and I definitely Feel there is a distinct difference in raw output yes

I completely understand a camera not being as enjoyable to use as another, I feel the same way about my 6d vs the a7r3, but more for finding the Canon has a few drawbacks to my shooting that I don't have with the sony. I'd put that down to personal expectation on how I'd like my camera to work /run.

 

[BillB]

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.

If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are gaining marketshare.

Do you really need to ask such questions? Look, you can sell million od devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousadns for the higher price. The turn-over is going to be identical. Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ....

But the turnover isn't identical, as Neuro points out. The real guestions are about margins and volume. If volume is lower, then your margins have to be higher to come out the same. We don't have much idea of how much money anybody is making selling cameras at this point, because pretty much all the players are relatively small parts of pretty big corporations and their survival depends on their corporate bosses belief that they are worth putting money into. So I don't think we have much more than guesses about who is losing and who isn't at this point.

To you "lost" apparently means unable to interest creative people, so Canon is lost because only "blogging moms" will buy Canons in the future. Well, we shall see. There must be a lot of blogging moms out there, or at least Canon seems to think so..

 

[neuroanatomist]

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.

If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are gaining marketshare.

Do you really need to ask such questions? Look, you can sell million od devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousadns for the higher price. The turn-over is going to be identical. Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ....

You aspire to one day have the business acumen of a common garden snail. At this point, it looks like you'll never gain even that level of understanding, but there's always hope!

 

[neuroanatomist]

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.

If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are gaining marketshare.

Neuroanatomist no one is denying Canon is doing great sales wise. They are definitely doing some things right I mean... yeah that's pretty obvious and nobody here ever argued that. And I would even argue that historically Canon has proven they can pull through a whole lot in the long term. But is it really that hard for you to conceive their business decisions may not ultimately be the best at the present moment?!

I cannot see the future and you can tell me all you want about not caring about my opinion blah blah blah. I respect yours . Meanwhile it is generally accepted in the industry right now that Canon's success in the mirrorless segment is a bit of a surprise given they entered the market relatively late (new camera models and lenses are only accelerating in the last year or so) and play pretty much catch up on most feature sets (refresh rate, autofocus speed, dynamic range, etc, with one of the few exceptions being their absolutely brilliant video dual pixel autofocus). I bet Nikon will make a killing in the mirrorless segment as well when they pull their own act together. And I would even speculate that their success is easy to explain; these two companies (Canikon) have an amazing reputation. Now; you are 100 % allowed to disagree with that next statement but I feel, and I know of countless other people in the photography world that share my opinion, that this reputation and those 'free passes' Canon is getting are eventually going to run out if they keep the same business attitude. Again it's an opinion, shared by many, disagreed by many, including you. I cannot read the future anymore than you but I do wish to express I absolutely love my Canon gear and if I am pissed it's only because I don't understand why 'smaller' brands such as Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus and Pentax can have all the features I want and Canon can't. I don't doubt they will catch up but they are sooo slow (even Canon reps admitted that in an earlier interview). I have shot Canon for over 12 years. I had digital SLRs when Canon used to have lower noise and better dynamic range than Nikon. Now the roles are reversed and yup I was relieved when the 5DIV came out and then bammm here comes the 6DII with a sensor that is years behind technology wise (again, except for dual pixel AF). Now you're going to say again nobody cares and you are right! Nobody cares about my single opinion (although that is about the sole purpose of a forum on rumors i.e. the discussion of opinions !) but you see it is not a rare opinion, and that's the real issue. You may find many supporters of Canon here on a Canon forum of a Canon website but that is it. The excitement for Canon cameras is being threatened and I fear it may go the same way the iphone did; i.e. staying relevant but being completely overtaken by the competition https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6581377/meeker-2016-ios-android.jpg. Iphones are still amazing phones but in terms of innovation and ability to attract people solely on brand name... it's not what it used to be.

Believe me I hope as much as you that Canon will continue to lead the industry (which is why I am checking this site daily for the last 3 years, lately in particular for a mirrorless Canon camera) but I am a skeptical at the moment and yeah I will be happy to come back when they prove me wrong.

Anyways, no hard feelings man, this forum is about discussions and opinions, I respect yours.

Cheers.

Here's the thing – the areas where you say Canon is behind, dynamic range, 'innovation' (they're not, really, except on the Internet), etc., are areas where they've been behind for many years. The areas where they are ahead (reliability, lens selection, value), they've been ahead for many years. What does their market performance over the past several years tell you about the relative importance of those factors?

Obviously, nothing is certain.

As for, "...it is generally accepted in the industry right now that Canon's success in the mirrorless segment is a bit of a surprise," what is your basis for that? Given their brand reputation, I doubt many people with actual knowledge of the market found it surprising. Internet armchair experts may have, but that says more about their poor grasp of the market than anything else.

Cheers.

 

[Orangutan]

You won't win even one buyer of a 5D4 by crippling the M50, 6D2, 7D3, ... but loose buyers on those. Canon is lost with this snotty attitude.

If they are so 'lost', please explain how it is that they remain the market leader and are gaining marketshare.

Do you really need to ask such questions?

Certainly, why not? I mean that sincerely...what's wrong with the question?

Look, you can sell million od devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousadns for the higher price. The turn-over is going to be identical. Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ....

First, I think Canon knows how to do arithmetic, and they probably can do those calculations better than anyone on this forum.

Second, think of Canon as the Honda or Toyota of the camera world, not the Mercedes or BMW, and certainly not Ferrari. Canon and Honda seem to be doing fine, financially.

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

 

[stevelee]

I’m reminded of the old joke about a car dealership’s TV ad that said, “We lose money on every deal, but we make up for it with volume.”

I tell that if someone asks about my singing, too.

 

[-pekr-]

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.

 

[Talys]

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.

Two things.

First, knowing your customer and being profit-driven are not mutually exclusive characteristics. To the contrary, to maximize your profits, you must understand the demand side of the equation. Also, customer goodwill is a part of being customer-driven. That doesn't mean just giving people cheap products -- reliable products are very important (would you buy another Kitchenaid fridge if the icemaker in the last one kept breaking?), as are professional services for your most demanding customers.

Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.

So you're saying that maybe a design/engineering team could build a feature into a product only to be told, "Take that out," by marketing? Shocking. Simply shocking.

 

[unfocused]

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.

To be fair, you are taking Orangutan's comment out of context. He was responding to the sexist and elitist statement... "you can sell million of devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousands for the higher price...Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ...."

The statement is not only offensive but it is factually incorrect. Factually incorrect because it is certainly not true that creative people belong exclusively to a group that either designs or sells products to high-end customers. Designing and selling quality products at an affordable price can require much more innovation and creativity than selling high-end products to people with lots of disposable income. Elitists don't have a monopoly on creativity. In fact, it is often just the opposite.

I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model.

I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.

 

[unfocused]

Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.

So you're saying that maybe a design/engineering team could build a feature into a product only to be told, "Take that out," by marketing? Shocking. Simply shocking.

I don't get your point. As someone who has spent much of his life marketing, I can't imagine any marketing team telling management to remove a feature desired by consumers. Most marketing departments are interested in adding as many features as possible at the lowest possible cost. After all, the marketing department is interested in boosting sales. Lower prices and more features will sell more product than higher costs and fewer features.

Much more likely that either the design/engineering team or the accounting department will resist adding a feature. Engineers don't like to add features that require them to change the way they've always done things and accounting departments don't like to see the profits cut.

I never understand why people complain about marketing departments, when they are the consumers' best friends.

 

[Talys]

Second, just because a company is profit driven doesn't mean that its product designers and engineers aren't passionate about what they do. For example, Microsoft and Google and Apple are surely profit-driven, yet product design teams in each of their teams want to produce the best products that they can, given the constraints of the market.

So you're saying that maybe a design/engineering team could build a feature into a product only to be told, "Take that out," by marketing? Shocking. Simply shocking.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but this isn't what if was trying to get at.

A lot of us work for businesses that need to stay profitable to stay in business, and I would hope that most in this circumstance would want their company to do well. We are driven by different things, usually not just the company's bottom line. I think a lot of people in engineering are passionate about their profession.

My point is that Canon (or other businesses) aren't employed by tens of thousands of people who are just trying to squeeze every last dime out of every prospective customer. There are product managers whose job it is to stratify products so that there is a blend of features and price that they think will be attractive. But they aren't evil either, or even trying to take stuff away from folks.

If a camera can be profitable at $900, is it better to just do that, or split it into a $800 and $1000 version? Well, on a personal level, you'd be happy if the $800 version did everything you wanted, less so if you had to spend $1000. But that's just the world we live in; there is nothing shocking or evil about it.

 

[scyrene]

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.

To be fair, you are taking Orangutan's comment out of context. He was responding to the sexist and elitist statement... "you can sell million of devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousands for the higher price...Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ...."

The statement is not only offensive but it is factually incorrect. Factually incorrect because it is certainly not true that creative people belong exclusively to a group that either designs or sells products to high-end customers. Designing and selling quality products at an affordable price can require much more innovation and creativity than selling high-end products to people with lots of disposable income. Elitists don't have a monopoly on creativity. In fact, it is often just the opposite.

I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model.

I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.

Well said!