ARE Canon heading down the same track as Kodak

[old-pr-pix]

How do you explain the Fujifilm Instax sales? Nor photo printers disappeared yet. It looks sometimes a physical artifact still has some value...

Fuji expected to sell 7.5 million Instax cameras in 2017... basically as a fashion accessory. In its early going Instax felt the same impact as other film cameras from the digital 'revolution.' The product was almost cancelled by Fuji. Here is Fuji's explanation: http://www.fujifilm.com/innovation/achievements/instax/ Although Amazon lists it as a Best Seller, only once have I noticed someone using one.

As to weddings, not long ago my son shot one where all the couple wanted was a thumb drive to show images on their 55" TV. No prints at all in initial contract. (Yes, he used dSLRs, not his smartphone!) Of course there is still value in physical print copies; just not as much as we always used to assume.

 

[yungfat]

Canon still make good camera that many people still buying. As a market leader in digital imaging, they are doing what they are suppose to grow the overall business such as introduce more products range and pushing the higher end equipment.

Sony as a new comer, if they are offering anything similar with what Canon offering, do you think they can overtake Nikon today?

Therefore, that is totally different position between Canon, Nikon & Sony. As many mentioned, Nikon without much choice now, so they have to include everything they could into D850 improve their market share. Which is very similar as what they did with D700.

The competition of the technology will never end, consumer is the one who benefit.

Agreed with Sony might have some issue if they next gen of camera do not have revolutions as their current a9 & a7r3.

I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera. How many reviewer really mentioned and complaint about the single card in a7r2? They all talking about dynamic range, dynamic range and dynamic range. Is mirrorless really lighter after puting on a pro lens?

So the argument will never end and many people is thinking Sony will going to be the market leader after launching a7r3 and a9.

Only time will tell.

Cheers~

 

[LDS]

Although Amazon lists it as a Best Seller, only once have I noticed someone using one.

It depends on where and who you look at. For the matter, I've never seem people birding with a smartphone...

to show images on their 55" TV.

Which confirms what I've said - when you have better and handier display devices you'll choose the one that suits your needs best - and it's useless to cram those features in devices which are not suited for the task. A camera is great to take images, but not to show them, and a 55" TV is better than a smartphone, in some situations.

 

[Talys]

So you're saying that Canon is so far behind in cutting-edge refrigerator tech, that they'd better release a killer product next year, or they're doomed!

At least that's what understood you to say...

​

Absolutely. Canon needs crisper and freezer tech. ;D :-X

I just walked over to my fridge, which is mirrorless and NOT made by canon, got a beer, and will sit back and enjoy the show. Canons lack of ability to come out with a mirrorless fridge means that Canon is DOOMED!!!!

LOL +1

 

[Antono Refa]

I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera. How many reviewer really mentioned and complaint about the single card in a7r2? They all talking about dynamic range, dynamic range and dynamic range. Is mirrorless really lighter after putting on a pro lens?

Before Canon released the 5DS, all they were talking about was resolution, dynamic range, and 4K.

It is the reviewers' nature to focus on differentiating features, as much as it is the infantile's and troll's nature to whine.

 

[Talys]

I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera. How many reviewer really mentioned and complaint about the single card in a7r2? They all talking about dynamic range, dynamic range and dynamic range. Is mirrorless really lighter after putting on a pro lens?

Before Canon released the 5DS, all they were talking about was resolution, dynamic range, and 4K.

It is the reviewers' nature to focus on differentiating features, as much as it is the infantile's and troll's nature to whine.

One problem is the need to pick a winner at all.

Actually, I would argue that the vast majority of non professionals buying a professional camera aren't going to be using the device to its potential, and for the vast majority of professionals it will come down to preference.


It is like when they rank Sony's 16-35 and say that it is the best ever. Well. For what? For anyone who is using a 16-35 on a body, they're getting amazing shots out of Sony, Nikon, Canon that are all knock your socks off, for the right shot. And they are all humongous boring for the wrong shot.

But having every review say, buy what you like because they are all pretty awesome is not a way to win readers.

 

[dak723]

I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera.

Why do people put so much stock into internet review sites? What is their goal - to give a fair and accurate review or to generate buzz and get as many clicks as possible to make money. You choose.

 

[kanehi]

I don't believe so. Kodak was mainly a film imaging company and didn't really produce cameras and when they did it wasn't the same caliber as Canon

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.

They were heavily invested in infrastructure that suddenly became worthless. When that happens, you can’t get rid of it because nobody will buy it from you.

Imagine you are Ford cars. You have a series of factories and suppliers. You have knowledge and experience. You also have pensioned workers, loans, financing, inventory, and a worldwide network of dealers and parts, as well as an obligation to service what you have sold.

HarryFilm (he is a genius......) invents a transporter pod.... now instead of driving in to work and suffering through rush hour traffic, you can instantly teleport. Car sales plummet. Just like two hour printing vanished, so do the cars on the highways. Ford, despite knowing what is happening, is powerless to stop it and because of momentum, can not change quickly enough, and even if they could, Harry has captured the market.

The thing about disruptive technologies, is that they are disruptive. Mirrorless is not a disruptive technology, it is an incremental improvement.

Not the same, Kodak essentially invented Digital Cameras in 1975, and had a 25 year jump on everyone else. Management could have bet the company on them, but did not believe in them.

Polaroid invented DVD's, but failed to take advantage. Their first digital cameras were strange looking, and did not catch on, Some of the camera makers believed a new form factor would sell cameras, they were dead wrong.

 

[Don Haines]

Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.

They were heavily invested in infrastructure that suddenly became worthless. When that happens, you can’t get rid of it because nobody will buy it from you.

Imagine you are Ford cars. You have a series of factories and suppliers. You have knowledge and experience. You also have pensioned workers, loans, financing, inventory, and a worldwide network of dealers and parts, as well as an obligation to service what you have sold.

HarryFilm (he is a genius......) invents a transporter pod.... now instead of driving in to work and suffering through rush hour traffic, you can instantly teleport. Car sales plummet. Just like two hour printing vanished, so do the cars on the highways. Ford, despite knowing what is happening, is powerless to stop it and because of momentum, can not change quickly enough, and even if they could, Harry has captured the market.

The thing about disruptive technologies, is that they are disruptive. Mirrorless is not a disruptive technology, it is an incremental improvement.

Not the same, Kodak essentially invented Digital Cameras in 1975, and had a 25 year jump on everyone else. Management could have bet the company on them, but did not believe in them.

Polaroid invented DVD's, but failed to take advantage. Their first digital cameras were strange looking, and did not catch on, Some of the camera makers believed a new form factor would sell cameras, they were dead wrong.

While Canon and Nikon bet the farm on giving the user a familiar experience with tried and true ergonomics. Cameras had 100+ years to evolve into the shape they were... perhaps there was a good reason.....

 

[slclick]

I'd really like a Tri-X preset in the FF Canon MILC.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.

They were heavily invested in infrastructure that suddenly became worthless. When that happens, you can’t get rid of it because nobody will buy it from you.

Imagine you are Ford cars. You have a series of factories and suppliers. You have knowledge and experience. You also have pensioned workers, loans, financing, inventory, and a worldwide network of dealers and parts, as well as an obligation to service what you have sold.

HarryFilm (he is a genius......) invents a transporter pod.... now instead of driving in to work and suffering through rush hour traffic, you can instantly teleport. Car sales plummet. Just like two hour printing vanished, so do the cars on the highways. Ford, despite knowing what is happening, is powerless to stop it and because of momentum, can not change quickly enough, and even if they could, Harry has captured the market.

The thing about disruptive technologies, is that they are disruptive. Mirrorless is not a disruptive technology, it is an incremental improvement.

Not the same, Kodak essentially invented Digital Cameras in 1975, and had a 25 year jump on everyone else. Management could have bet the company on them, but did not believe in them.

Polaroid invented DVD's, but failed to take advantage. Their first digital cameras were strange looking, and did not catch on, Some of the camera makers believed a new form factor would sell cameras, they were dead wrong.

While Canon and Nikon bet the farm on giving the user a familiar experience with tried and true ergonomics. Cameras had 100+ years to evolve into the shape they were... perhaps there was a good reason.....

Nikon had some pretty strange looking cameras like my CP-990 but it was so good that I forgave its strange setup. Olympus started out strong but seemed to decide to copy polaroid with a strange looking camera. Sony had their horrible floppy disk cameras that sold well because they were Sony, memory stick and all. Finally people revolted and it took them many years to recover.

 

[scottkinfw]

Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak, on top and in control but only to fall by the wayside because of the lack of new ideas, I remember all that Kodak achieved and took a wrong turn, Canon seems to be following same path as of late with no interesting new ideas, even the Firmware upgrades are in most cases with just obvious error removals that should not have been their in the first instance, when will the oily spatters be eliminated from our top of the Canon range DSLR etc.

The sky if falling (again)

Scott

 

[Hector1970]

I think any company is vulnerable to going out of business.
Canon as possibly more equivalent to Nokia which was a really strong brand and made very reliable products.
The didn't recognise fast enough how good Apple would be at make a great interface to connect the phone to the internet. Early attempts by Nokia were to complicated. Once iPhone took hold and Samsung got good, Nokia started panicking and made some very poor phones. For many years they were still doing fine on volume but margins were dropping like a stone. First their own operating system and then tying up with Windows.

Canon have their heads screwed on and watch the market carefully. They always make good solid products in terms of cameras and stellar quality lens as they know people come back for the lens after they've bought the cameras. Incremental improvements is a nice way to operate (its nice and calm way to do business) but it can leave you vulnerable to a leap ahead by a competitor. They are lucky so far that neither Nikon or Sony have opened up a significant enough gap in image quality / fps / ISO performance / Dynamic range.
I think Canon haven't left them do that.
But someday it could happen and then the calm environment of incremental improvement in Canon might be replaced by panic changes and dud cameras (I don't think they will ever make dud lens).
I think Sony have given Canon enough time to produce a decent full frame MILC in a calm measured fashion.
If Sony had produced a MILC that shoots 30 FPS, best in class by a stop or two ISO performance, best in class focussing and 400 and 600 F4 by now then you might find high end Canon users moving ship - especially on the sides of pitches.
By the time Sony do Canon will be close by to that level.

The whole DSLR / MILC iceberg is melting. For most people the new mobile phones have good enough quality to take the photographs they need . It's far more convenient for travelling with.
Canon see that too so are migrating into higher end businesses

 

[dak723]

If Canon were to dramatically lose market share, it won't be because of all the reasons stated on this forum. It will be because all of the bad publicity generated by internet forums and review sites. People searching for a new camera will be using the internet - and as we have seen in other cases - internet information can have a huge negative impact.

The problem for Canon is not that their products aren't competitive, but that they are being judged on the internet by folks who are all "technology" biased. When comparing spec sheets and technological add-ons (focus peaking, zebras, etc.) Canon has definitely been behind Sony. The negative "talk" is quite overwhelming - and in almost all cases - biased and prejudiced beyond reality. In an effort to create a more honest perspective, a few folks spend way too much time on this and other forums just trying to combat the negative propaganda. Quite frankly, I am ready to quit. I'm sure many of you will be quite glad to see me go.

If folks mainly interested in photography - not technology were running the forums and review sites, I am sure Canon would be seen in a much different light. Many would say they are still ahead in color science. Many would say that they are the leaders in reliability. Many would say - for almost all photographers and not pixel peepers - the IQ of all similar level cameras is essentially equal. Many would say that their lens quality and selection is second to none. But to the technologically biased, it is all about pixel peeping, testing underexposure of 5 stops, and how many "cool" things you can add to the camera to make it "innovative."

I have owned Canon, Olympus and Sony cameras. I am in the process of trying out an Olympus E-M1 mark II. It's a pro level camera costing twice the Canon M5. And I really like the Olympus system, but guess what, their new Touch AF while looking through the EVF doesn't work very well while Canon's works great. For regular HD video that the average consumer will use for home videos and the like, Canon's DPAF still makes video AF better. Overall, the best pics, in my opinion, still come from Canon when you factor in color and contrast and their tonal curves.

So, the danger for Canon isn't in the quality of their products. It is in the bias and prejudice of the internet review sites and forums, in my opinion. If you know anyone looking to buy a new camera, tell them to try them out themselves and form their own opinion - and stay away from the internet! 8)

 

[peterzuehlke]

I think actually Sony is heading more in Kodak's path. Kodak was a very innovative company. I remember in the 1990s they were the first with digital pre-press for the commercial printing industry as well as leading in digital image sensors. Canon seems to watch the market and produce cameras that work where people need them to work. Not just to be on the bleeding edge of specs and test well under a specific set of parameters.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

What people are missing is that Canon could stop making Cameras next week, and still be a strong company.

They have a wide range of products, and while 17.2% of their sales would be lost if cameras went away would hurt, its not their major product.

 

[Quirkz]

Actually, Canon was early to turn out serious DSLR's, they managed the change of paradigm quite well. Right now, they are diversifying into medical imaging, surveillance imaging, and are actively looking for additional business in the imaging area where there are big bucks.

I believe that Canon sees the shrinking photography market as a real threat, and is moving to make sure that in the event conventional cameras go away that the company will be in good shape.

Of the 4,080 billion Yen income, only 1133 came from imaging systems in 2017 (Preliminary) thats about 28 percent.

Canon is making lots of money, and most of it does not come from cameras and lenses.

I think you nailed it. Canon execs are more aware of the market than us in our tiny myopic camera pond, and are 5 years ahead of sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc. In their eyes, it’s like competing to make the best petrol driven internal combustion car. Sure, it’s still a big market now, but...

 

[Ozarker]

I've told my wife to bury me with my Canon. Hoping I'll be able to push 100 stops by then and not have red and orange hues on everything.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think you nailed it. Canon execs are more aware of the market than us in our tiny myopic camera pond, and are 5 years ahead of sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc. In their eyes, it’s like competing to make the best petrol driven internal combustion car. Sure, it’s still a big market now, but...

And only 17.2% of their income comes from Cameras and lenses. The rest of the imaging sales are for items like photo printers.