Canon’s Imaging Unit Grew, Profits Shrunk on Costs, ‘Various Measures’ Coming

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
833
806
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
In news that will hearten Canon shooters, the firm indicated in its quarterly results that parts availability is improving. In news that probably won’t hearten Canon shooters, the company said it expected double-digit profit growth in future quarters “as negative impact of cost increase is absorbed through various measures.” Of course, one such measure could be charging $17,000 for a lens.
Increased costs were the largest factor in shrinking Canon’s Q1 profits. Despite increasing revenue by about 6 percent for the Imaging division, profits in that sector shrunk by 26 percent. Similar dynamics appeared in most other divisions.
From Canon
Demand, mainly coming from professionals and advanced amateurs, continues to be strong as full-frame mirrorless cameras released by each company stimulate the market. As a result, we expect the 2022 market to grow by 5% compared to last year to 5.65 million units, which also...

Continue reading...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bgoyette

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Feb 6, 2015
119
73
"Of course, one such measure could be charging $17,000 for a lens."

Such a random snarky comment from someone at this site. Perhaps the new writers at CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days. They might be enlightened.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-04-26 at 8.33.52 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-04-26 at 8.33.52 AM.png
    709.2 KB · Views: 17

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,285
1,026
"Of course, one such measure could be charging $17,000 for a lens."

Such a random snarky comment from someone at this site. Perhaps the new writers at CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days. They might be enlightened.
I think he is referring to the RF 800 f/5.6.
The discontinued EF version was $13K and had better optical quality.
Although the RF version is smaller, is lighter, has higher magnification, and has a shorter MFD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

davidhfe

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
310
462
I think he is referring to the RF 800 f/5.6.
The discontinued EF version was $13K and had better optical quality.
Although the RF version is smaller, is lighter, has higher magnification, and has a shorter MFD.

I was also a little surprised by the color commentary in the original post, but it's not off the mark. It feels like canon has been absolutely soaking the high end consumers to make up for supply chain issues. The big whites have always been expensive, but the consensus seems to be the 800 and 1200's regression in IQ is driven by basically being bolt on TC designs.

Folks aren't asking for Canon to make cheap lenses, we're asking for premium products if you're charging a premium price. I happily paid for the 100-500 and even went for the 70-200 despite having an mk II ef because the compactness is stellar while retaining great IQ. Nikon is giving Canon a real run with these two latest supers, both the integrated TC and the value of the "1/3 stop less light for 1/3 the price) 800.

There are moments where it feels like they dropped the R5 and some halo glass and started congratulating themselves. I hope we're wrong and when supply chains start to resume some semblance of normalcy we'll see great things again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,699
4,310
"Of course, one such measure could be charging $17,000 for a lens."

Such a random snarky comment from someone at this site. Perhaps the new writers at CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days. They might be enlightened.
If your post was not so ridiculous it would be just funny - what exactly are you comparing?! "EOS 4 Life" already explained what the original post "17.000" actually (I changed it from "referring") means: RF 800 f/5.6! And you are talking "...CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days."
Huh?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
299
204
Expect cost cutting measures and increased prices, this way consumers get less and pay more for it.
My guesses are we'll probably see more budget lenses with darker apertures, PMo (plastic moulded) lenses, underdesigned optics with greater reliance on extreme software correction of distortion, and cheap, plasticky APSC EF-S budget lens construction and image quality introduced to the full-frame RF platform (because there won't be an RF-S range of lenses).
 

bgoyette

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Feb 6, 2015
119
73
I think he is referring to the RF 800 f/5.6.
The discontinued EF version was $13K and had better optical quality.
Although the RF version is smaller, is lighter, has higher magnification, and has a shorter MFD.
Thanks for the clarification. Still a surprisingly snarky comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

bgoyette

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Feb 6, 2015
119
73
If your post was not so ridiculous it would be just funny - what exactly are you comparing?! "EOS 4 Life" already explained what the original post "17.000" actually (I changed it from "referring") means: RF 800 f/5.6! And you are talking "...CR should learn a little bit about the market for high end cinema zooms, Canon's history in that market, and what competitors charge for large format glass these days."
Huh?!
Thanks for the kind words @ISv :). By now hopefully you've realized that my comment came before the one you referenced, so...no there wasn't an "already"...and well...yes, I was mistaken as to the lens the CR writer was vaguely referring to (I thought the comment was more general), and was thankful to EOS 4 Life for the correction. I don't play in the world of ultra-zoom glass so I wasn't aware of the new "expensive" 800mm, but I was quite aware of the recently announced short cinema zooms and well jeez...I made an assumption. Now that I've been thankfully corrected though...I'm still having trouble to figuring out why y'all are so upset about the cost of a 800/5.6 zoom, as if it's a number that simply hasn't existed before. Perhaps Canon was comping their new lens to this one... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html