Prosumer Level Canon Mirrorless Camera to Have 4K [CR2]

[AvTvM]

given the split in market demand ...
a) people who definitely demand 4k and
b) people who don't care for 4k or video capture at all
the solution would be so simple:
A) one video-centric body, of course with 4k video
B) one stills-focused body, without 4k or possibly without any video capture

Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.

 

[gargamel]

Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.

Agree with both. I must say, I love that his 'evidence' for Canon's purported disappointment with 6D sales is a CR1 rumor that was reblogged by an Oregon boudoir photographer. Now that's reliable information!

First, I clearly separated authoritative and unauthoritative sources in my post, and never made the claim that any of the latter is "reliable information". So, please, stop suggesting something else to readers of this thread.

Second, "unreliable" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". The almost permanent sales support in the form of cashback, bundles ("value packs") and permanently lowered prices certainly don't indicate that the 6D is selling itself.

Third, up to now you are not really participating in the discussion. You think; my arguments are wrong? I can live with that. Just provide evidence.

There is much wrong with your post, but I'll focus on a few pieces.

You made strong, affirmative statements based largely on very poor sources. Recognizing poor sources generally should occur before you write so you can omit those sources entirely. While none of us have (demonstrable) access to truly authoritative information, most do make an effort to rely on something much more solid than the speculations of another poster.

While it's true that unreliable doesn't mean wrong, it does mean "waste of time."

You use weak sources to support your claims, then expect others to use reliable sources to refute them. Really??!!! That won't fly.

This is fair, for the most part. My first post was based on my own conclusions, based on reading print and online articles over the last few years. I do not have access to authoritative sources, other than those that I provided. So I used sources that I considered trustworthy and of which I thought that the authors may have better insight and information than I do. Maybe that's not the case, for some of them. But how would I know, without access to authoritative sources?

I think this forum would be very quiet if it was only about secured facts and evidence. In fact, this thread would not even exist, as it is purely about speculating what the next Canon prosumer camera will be. This thread started with a rumour and speculation.

If you have better information or know that something I said is wrong, share your knowledge, please, like some people here do. It's possible to do it in a polite way, like you demonstrate with your post. That's how a forum discussion works, IMHO.

My logic and my conclusions are wrong? Fine, explain. You don't have secured facts, either? Fine, too, just say so. We still can discuss opinions and thoughts, if secured facts are not availalbe for both of us. Discussing unsecured information is a waste of time? Well, you are participaing in a forum that has "rumors" in its name.... I think this is what a forum like this is all about: Discussing opinions in an open way, learning what others think, and why you think or don't think the same. As you demonstrate, this can be done in an educated and adult way, even if standpoints differ. What is not going to fly, is personal offenses without presenting arguments,

gargamel

 

[neuroanatomist]

Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.

Poor Sony – they're so innovative and smart, but so many more people buy cameras from slow, stupid Canon.

Then again, it takes smart, innovative Sony weeks or months to fix your camera, whereas slow, stupid Canon has figured out how to do that in just a few days.

At least some of us know stupid when they see it. :

 

[unfocused]

given the split in market demand ...
a) people who definitely demand 4k and
b) people who don't care for 4k or video capture at all
the solution would be so simple:
A) one video-centric body, of course with 4k video
B) one stills-focused body, without 4k or possibly without any video capture

Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.

Seriously?

When people call Canon (or Nikon or Sony or Apple or Microsoft or any other successful company) "stupid" it only confirms their own ignorance. Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

"given the split in market demand ..."

Honestly, what do you know about market demand? How much research have you conducted? How many camera buyers or potential buyers have you surveyed? Are they a randomly selected representative sample of customers?

a) people who definitely demand 4k and
b) people who don't care for 4k or video capture at all

How many customers fit into these categories and what is their intensity? Are there customers who are mildly interested in 4K but not sufficiently so that it will impact their buying decision when balanced against other features? Are there engineering factors that must be considered? What is the cost-benefit ratio? What is the adoption rate among customers for devices playing 4K? Are customers who produce video for commercial purposes seeking 4K?

Splitting the customer base into just two general categories is incredibly simplistic.

"the solution would be so simple:"

"Simple" solutions almost never are. Rather it's usually the person claiming the solution is simple that is really the simple-minded one.

Not having access to the mountains of research that Canon has done on this subject may make it seem simple. But, if you or your team must risk millions of dollars on developing a product that may or may not sell it is never "simple."

 

[gargamel]

The diagrams were used to simply dispel the nonsensical statement you made below; there was no other intention.
[...]

You, on the other hand, wanted to use the figures from 2010 and 2014 alone to prove, once again, that Canon's market share is shrinking.
[...]

It accept that there was actually no intention, but they still gave a somewhat biased impression, and they were not well-suited to support the statement that Canon's market share was stable or growing (EDIT: recently). That's why I posted some other figures.. Obviously, depending on the time frame you look at, Canon's market share went up and downgoing up to above 47%, down to slightly above 43% from there and recovering to slightly above 44% recently. As you provided more complete figures in the meantime, I stand corrected. Thanks again for taking the effort.

My personal guess is, however, that the market share of Canikon may have decreased noticeably in 2015. This is, of course, purely based on personal observations and not backed by official statistics, as I couldn't find any. Some of my friends made the switch to mirrorless (Fuji and Sony) last year, and in the big consumer electronics shops I see what a hard time the sales staff has had in selling midrange DSLRs like the 700D, recently. Only the cheap entry-level kits are selling themselves, still, it seems. As I said, it's my personal guess. But still, I can see that the market has started to change. And it's not only the disappearing point-and-shoot segment that is affected.

gargamel

 

[AvTvM]

Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

Yes, I do. Seriously.
In Canon's case miore so than for most other corporations. I don't doubt Canon spends a whole shitload of money on market research. But they are obviously unable to draw the right conclusions from it and/or unable to build it. As evidenced in their (camera) product strategy and portfolio.

No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ...
A a general use camera - A7/II
B) a video-centric camera for all the "gimme 4k yellers" - A7S/II
C) a stills-focused hi-rez body A7R/II

Canon tried to mimick it with 5D / S / R ... but they did not introduce a 5D-C akin to the 1DC, with 4k, to get those 4k-wishers to buy it.

 

[Luds34]

To each their own but I'd argue too many consumers do get wrapped up with the spec sheet and keeping up with the Joneses.

Not so sure. I think too many forum dwellers get wrapped up with spec sheets. Consumers buy what works, and the Joneses are probably shooting Canon anyway.

Quite right, "spec sheet" was the wrong word/term, that is reserved for us "forum dwellers".

Thinking outloud here... how about "marketing highlights"? Like the words on the front of the box, "50x zoom!" or "600 hz Refresh!"

 

[Refurb7]

Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

Yes, I do. Seriously.
In Canon's case miore so than for most other corporations. I don't doubt Canon spends a whole S___load of money on market research. But they are obviously unable to draw the right conclusions from it and/or unable to build it. As evidenced in their (camera) product strategy and portfolio.

No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ...
A a general use camera - A7/II
B) a video-centric camera for all the "gimme 4k yellers" - A7S/II
C) a stills-focused hi-rez body A7R/II

Canon tried to mimick it with 5D / S / R ... but they did not introduce a 5D-C akin to the 1DC, with 4k, to get those 4k-wishers to buy it.

Thankfully Canon did not mimic Sony and turn the 5D series into EVF-mirrorless cameras. I would be shooting Nikon or Pentax if they did. I'm also thankful that Canon didn't mimic this amazing no-rocket-science Three Camera Strategy. Thankfully they make about a dozen DSLRs, so we have choices in a broad price range. I'm also thankful that Canon didn't mimic the sucky-slow startup time of the A7II general use camera, or the sucky-short battery life of the same. And I'm more than thankful that Canon didn't mimic the molasses-slow 3rd party service times on those high-res bodies. Canon's obvious failure to draw the "right" conclusions is making me very thankful today. Thank goodness for failed market research.

 

[fugu82]

Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.

Poor Sony – they're so innovative and smart, but so many more people buy cameras from slow, stupid Canon.

Then again, it takes smart, innovative Sony weeks or months to fix your camera, whereas slow, stupid Canon has figured out how to do that in just a few days.


At least some of us know stupid when they see it. :

Yeah, just talked myself out of a a7r II after reading about all the repair nightmares. Doesn't matter how innovative a camera is if it's piled up on a lab bench for a month waiting on a sensor clean....

 

[unfocused]

Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

Yes, I do. Seriously.
In Canon's case more so than for most other corporations. I don't doubt Canon spends a whole S___load of money on market research. But they are obviously unable to draw the right conclusions from it and/or unable to build it. As evidenced in their (camera) product strategy and portfolio...

Yikes! Just Yikes.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

Yes, I do. Seriously.
In Canon's case miore so than for most other corporations. I don't doubt Canon spends a whole S___load of money on market research. But they are obviously unable to draw the right conclusions from it and/or unable to build it. As evidenced in their (camera) product strategy and portfolio.

What you mean is, Canon looked at actual data and derived conclusions that differ from your uninformed opinion. But you think you're right and they're wrong. Yes, we know it when we see it.

No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ...

Canon tried to mimick it with 5D / S / R ... but they did not introduce a 5D-C akin to the 1DC, with 4k, to get those 4k-wishers to buy it.

Because...what? There are tens of thousands of people for whom 4K is a critical buy/don't buy feature? Canon likely asked thousands of people (or tens of thousands)...how many thousands of people did you ask?

Even though you've obviously never taken advanced marketing classes and I sure as hell wouldn't trust you to build even a Lego rocket, but you're right that it would certainly be possible for Canon to come up with three body variations – the question is, would it be profitable. You've seen Canon's answer based on their releases...but of course, you still know better. :

 

[gargamel]

Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.

Agree with both. I must say, I love that his 'evidence' for Canon's purported disappointment with 6D sales is a CR1 rumor that was reblogged by an Oregon boudoir photographer. Now that's reliable information!

First, I clearly separated authoritative and unauthoritative sources in my post, and never made the claim that any of the latter is "reliable information". So, please, stop suggesting something else to readers of this thread.

Second, "unreliable" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". The almost permanent sales support in the form of cashback, bundles ("value packs") and permanently lowered prices certainly don't indicate that the 6D is selling itself.

Third, up to now you are not really participating in the discussion. You think; my arguments are wrong? I can live with that. Just provide evidence. instead you prefer enjoying your arrogance, and blaming and bashing others. I kindly ask you to

1. Read carefully before you write.
2. Think twice, what message you want to get over.
3. Stop intentionally misinterpreting what others say.
4. Support your statements with references and reveal your sources.

If you need help, contact your counsellor.

gargamel

Ok, let's see what I read:

Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?

That's a blend of some correct information, some totally wrong information, and some pure speculation. But you are making conclusions based on that, and you believe them to be correct.

When you next visit your therapist, be sure to have your metacognition assessed.

Same pattern, again, and no arguments, no evidence, no substance, as usual.
Instead of responding to my last post, you repeat your opinion (and that's all it is, as you provide no facts whatsoever) about my first one, completely ignoring the progress of the discussion.

Reading is obviously something you are struggling with. For instance, you ignore that I already accepted that my conclusion regarding Canon's market share is not backed by the most recent figures, but were based on somewhat outdated (not wrong, not speculative) figures. But again, it was somebody else, not you, to take the effort.

My conclusions are wrong? Maybe. But who are you to know? Again: If you have better information, share it. If all you want to say is that I am wrong "IN YOUR OPINION", please have the decency to explain why you think so. And BTW: Which of the information I was referring to is totally wrong? You continue to make claims, but don't support them with anything. So it's poorly backed information (me) vs. un-backed claims (you).

You may continue posting replies to my first post in this discussion, it's up to you. Every dog has its favourite bone. However, the rest of us will carry on and discuss other, more interesting aspects of the actual topic of this thread. This whole debate regarding market shares down to the second digit is pointless and off-topic, anyway.

gargamel

 

[gargamel]

Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

Yes, I do. Seriously.
In Canon's case miore so than for most other corporations. I don't doubt Canon spends a whole S___load of money on market research. But they are obviously unable to draw the right conclusions from it and/or unable to build it. As evidenced in their (camera) product strategy and portfolio.

What you mean is, Canon looked at actual data and derived conclusions that differ from your uninformed opinion. But you think you're right and they're wrong. Yes, we know it when we see it.

[/quote]

Do you think that Nokia didn't do any market research? And do you think, those who warned them that the iPhone could be a real thread for them, were wrong, in the end? So Canon knows it all, no criticism allowed from a customer perspective? Or should I say: You know better, and the rest us doesn't have a point?

No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ...

Canon tried to mimick it with 5D / S / R ... but they did not introduce a 5D-C akin to the 1DC, with 4k, to get those 4k-wishers to buy it.

Because...what? There are tens of thousands of people for whom 4K is a critical buy/don't buy feature? Canon likely asked thousands of people (or tens of thousands)...how many thousands of people did you ask?

Based on what reliable source do you make that claim? Or is it based just on what you BELIEVE to know? Fact? References? Or are just stating what you *think* big companies *should* do, if they were owned by you?

Even though you've obviously never taken advanced marketing classes and I sure as hell wouldn't trust you to build even a Lego rocket, but you're right that it would certainly be possible for Canon to come up with three body variations – the question is, would it be profitable. You've seen Canon's answer based on their releases...but of course, you still know better. :

Again, personal offenses instead of arguments. And BTW, marketing is something totally different from product strategy, and market research is some discipline on its own. But I guess, my lifetime is too short to find a way to explain the difference to someone who has obviously had a hard childhood.

The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.

gargamel

 

[bdunbar79]

I think you are grossly missing the point.

Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares.

That's really all you need to know. Nokia is a very, very poor example to use because they did not have the proven track record Canon does, over many many years (and many more to come). Any decision Canon makes you can bet your a$$ is a very, very good business one.

Anything else?

 

[Don Haines]

I think you are grossly missing the point.

Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares.

That's really all you need to know. Nokia is a very, very poor example to use because they did not have the proven track record Canon does, over many many years (and many more to come). Any decision Canon makes you can bet your a$$ is a very, very good business one.

Anything else?

I agree!

BTW..... "Anything else?"

Yes!

In order to build and market cameras, you also have to deal with long development times. Before a camera is released, they are already working on it's successor. Some things, like a "pro quality" mirrorless camera are undoubtedly the result of many projects to deal with the requirements of such a camera.... things like DPAF, A/D on the sensor, parallel processing to reduce lag times, optical displays, touch screen interfaces, etc, etc, etc.... In other words, you need to know the labs to make the plans....

In order to plan, you need to know what is happening in the market for trends, but you also need internal sales numbers (not available to us), what is being worked on in the labs (not available to us), what the competition is working on (not available to us), and the state of both manufacturing capacity and available resources, both financial and manpower..... and once again, it is not available to us. And then you have to know this for your competition!

In fact, we forum readers have so little of the necessary decision making information available to us that all we can do is make noise and taunt each other.... neither is productive or mature..... let's take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard.... go outside and take a few pictures.....

 

[gargamel]

I think you are grossly missing the point.

Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares.

That's really all you need to know. Nokia is a very, very poor example to use because they did not have the proven track record Canon does, over many many years (and many more to come). Any decision Canon makes you can bet your a$$ is a very, very good business one.

Anything else?

Nokia had no proven track record? I heartily disagree with you. They had. Apple did not, and still blew them out of the water. But wait: Was it Apple or was it their own ignorance?

Nokia transformed itself several times, including changes of business models and industries. And they excelled. But at one point in time they started to think like Neuroanatomists. They used sales figures, asked people they knew, and thought they just would need to continue what was so successful over many years. Their market share reached over 70%, and they sold more phones than Intel sold CPUs. Talking to some business man from the IT industry at that time, they were not even aware that the ARM platform was already much more popular than Wintel, at least in the count of devices shipped.

They did research the market and found that phones should be fancier and more appealing. So they launched Vertu, and added some bling to some of their phones. They did not get the clue what the feedback they received actually would mean. Regarding the iPhone their response was arrogant: They just ignored it, and the "smartphones" they came up with were not competitive.

All big companies with a long track record of success are in jeopardy of becoming arrogant and ignorant. However, I agree with you that Canon is in a better position, now, than Nokia. While their first "M" products were as half-assed and uninspired like Nokia's smartphones in the end, the Canon management seems to have gotten the message, that they must invest in MILC products and sensors. Let's see what they come with.

gargamel

 

[gargamel]

[...]

BTW..... "Anything else?"

Yes!

In order to build and market cameras, you also have to deal with long development times. Before a camera is released, they are already working on it's successor. Some things, like a "pro quality" mirrorless camera are undoubtedly the result of many projects to deal with the requirements of such a camera.... things like DPAF, A/D on the sensor, parallel processing to reduce lag times, optical displays, touch screen interfaces, etc, etc, etc.... In other words, you need to know the labs to make the plans....

In order to plan, you need to know what is happening in the market for trends, but you also need internal sales numbers (not available to us), what is being worked on in the labs (not available to us), what the competition is working on (not available to us), and the state of both manufacturing capacity and available resources, both financial and manpower..... and once again, it is not available to us. And then you have to know this for your competition!

In fact, we forum readers have so little of the necessary decision making information available to us that all we can do is make noise and taunt each other.... neither is productive or mature..... let's take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard.... go outside and take a few pictures.....

Let me add one very specifi detail for Canon, which is the high flexibility in their industrialiation and go-to-market processes.
I was told by one software vendor (sorry, I cannot disclose the name) whose products are used by virtually all camera manufacturers, that Canon is different from the others as they have the capability to change a product design even very late in the process, and they did that in the past. Canon sometimes waits for Nikon's announcements, and then is capable of adapting the design of their own product, including adding or removing features, and then make their own announcement only a few days after Nikon. They do this by developing several designs in parallel, and decide later which one will be implemented. They even can combine features of the different designs unitl a very late stage in the process.

According to the sales rep of the above mentioned software company, Canon is pretty unique in this, which puts a heavy challenge on him and his company, as Canon expects them to support thsi flexibiltiy in the software.

In the light of the long development cycles including planning that you described correctly, Canon's approach is admirable, I think. It also raises a question, however: Why aren't they confident enough to announce and launch their products first? Why do they wait for Nikon to announce the D610, before they announce the 6D? (I have no clue, if they changed anything in the 6D announcement, or not)

gargamel

 

[Woody]

Perhaps it's worth looking at the history of smartphones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.

Thanks, but I have ample experience with the inner workings of large corporations, in particular research-based organizations. Do you?

As for the rest, I do owe an apology. You're rather a noob here, I've given plenty of fact- and data-based arguments – probably hundreds of such posts. With a certain subset of people here – particularly those who don't read or understand the data (and especially those who seem to have trouble understanding the data they, themselves, cite) – those posts go right over their head. Perhaps I should have given the benefit of the doubt.

OTOH, I notice you ignored the refutation of your previous statement about the growth of the mirrorless market. Did the graph confuse you? I know, you'll just claim that you meant relative or fractional growth within the ILC market as a whole, even though you didn't bother to state that previously. That's ok, you go on about your life firmly believing in your correctness, even when you're wrong. Don't give a thought to metacognition deficits, you seem quite happy – ignorance is bliss, after all.

 

[takesome1]

One thing is for sure. If Canon releases a new FF mirrorless this year it will pass the sales of past year FF mirrorless Canon bodies by a huge margin. Canon's market share of the FF mirrorless market will increase dramatically.