Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600

[Marsu42]

You're right, making money is priority #1 for companies, but to generalize that profit margins are more important than market share is silly. I'm no economist, but I'd venture to say that it's balancing act market share, sales volume, and profit margins.

Well' I was trying to make a point and contrasting the issue. Of course it isn't good to be a premium vendor with a large profit margin, but only one client. So market share is there for safety, because customers have different requirements and parts of them will always jump ship from or to you for one reason or another.

This is what happened to the premium car vendors you mentioned, they either failed due to mismanagement (wrong products resulting in too low profit and/or too high prices, resulting in customer loss - like the British premium vendors) or due to the economy and exchange rates (resulting in customer loss, too - Porsche knows about this).

And concerning Ferrari/GM you have to relate their profits to the amount of people getting them and the part they have too keep for investments, so personally I'd like to be a Porsche shareholder vs GM. It would be interesting to have an economist's input on this, but every businessman I ever spoke to sees large market share as either a lever to dictate terms or as a fix for low profit margins - but they'd rather have less customers paying much more.

That's why I think Canon isn't that much bothered by Rebel users jumping ship, while they re-build their entry line as mirrorless and gain a stable, profitable foothold in the premium dlsr market.

 

[Albi86]

All of you though are taking examples in which appearance and social value have a much more heavier weight than for cameras. I still like to hope that photography is mainly based on results and real IQ....

 

[V8Beast]

It would be interesting to have an economist's input on this, but every businessman I ever spoke to sees large market share as either a lever to dictate terms or as a fix for low profit margins - but they'd rather have less customers paying much more.

Of course they would. This even applies to your typical small-time photographer. I'd much rather have a small handful of clients willing to pay a premium for my images rather than having a larger client base that has a much smaller photography budget. From a creativity, self-fulfillment standpoint and time-invested standpoint, you'd always prefer the former over the latter. Unfortunately, the market has changed dramatically in recent years, and unless you're among the smallest percentile of elite photogs out there - whether it's due to talent, marketing skills, or past business relationships - many photogs have had to adapt to more of a higher-volume business model.

 

[psolberg]

Precisely. If Canon loses market share because of the D600 and D800, it will force Canon to up their game

well, if you consider how dominant canon was just 10 years ago, and how that dominance has waned over the last decade, then you can see that it has already happened. They went from being virtually unchallenged, to being just one more player, alas a major one, but certainly fallen from their prior mile high advantage.

Look at Microsoft. Once unchallenged and now it is being outmaneuvered by once smaller meaningless rivals. With size and a market to protect, companies often fall behind. They are too big and slow to react. Canon, and to a lesser extent Nikon suffer from their reliance on mirrors and outdated mounts that make it impossible to design small thin cameras consumers want. They have models to protect where as the rest have nothing to lose. The rest of the crowd, lead by sony has no such concerns are are busy with their mirrorless entries which will one day make DSRLS join film cameras in a musseum.

We've seen this transition before. Kodak failed to adapt and died off.

 

[Marsu42]

We've seen this transition before. Kodak failed to adapt and died off.

... and surely there is a lesson to be learned from Kodak - isn't it, Canon?

But maybe Canon figured that Kodak's problem was being stuck in the budget mass market, so they were gone in no time once these very flexible customers switched away. And Canon is trying to build a position in the premium & pro video market instead to be immune from disgruntled customers posting "Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600" threads.

 

[briansquibb]

We've seen this transition before. Kodak failed to adapt and died off.

... and surely there is a lesson to be learned from Kodak - isn't it, Canon?

But maybe Canon figured that Kodak's problem was being stuck in the budget mass market, so they were gone in no time once these very flexible customers switched away. And Canon is trying to build a position in the premium & pro video market instead to be immune from disgruntled customers posting "Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600" threads.

Interesting statement puporting to be Canon's mission statement

Have you evidence to support

"Canon is trying to build a position in the premium & pro video market instead to be immune from disgruntled customers posting "Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600" threads"

Or even evidence that they are reading the threads?

 

[Marsu42]

Have you evidence to support
Or even evidence that they are reading the threads?

No, I don't have evidence, this is my personal opinion of a possible lesson a company might get out of Kodak getting stomped: having a large share of the mass market doesn't help if the chips are down, so better build a strong foothold elsewhere.

And of course Canon isn't reading these threads - it was just an example that a budget to midrange customer base is more likely to grumble and jump ship than premium or pro customers owning and gotten used to lots of Canon equipment.

 

[AvTvM]

Interesting statement puporting to be Canon's mission statement
Have you evidence to support
"Canon is trying to build a position in the premium & pro video market instead to be immune from disgruntled customers posting "Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600" threads"
Or even evidence that they are reading the threads?

No need whatsoever to constantly defend Canon and sound as if you were a Canon-paid PR agent or Canon marketing employee.

* It is evident that Canon has been falling behind Nikon in stills photography during the past 4 years
* It is evident that Canon is pumping massive resources into all sorts of overpriced video crap .. from "HD DSLRs" (anything from Rebel to 7D to 5D 2+3, 1D X) to "Cine DSLRs" (1D C) to "real camcorders (C300,C500 -serien).
* It is evident that the 5D 3 is overpriced compared to better competitive offerings by at leats 500 USD/€
* It is evident that Canon is trying to milk, nickle and dime its DSLR-customer base for as long as possible
* It is evident that incremental improvements instead of true innovation is a dead end business strategy
* It is not YET evident but nevertheles very likely that Canon will follow Kodak into the corporate grave sooner rather than later if they continue to ignore a large percentage of their key customers ... and yes that is us, the guys buing expensive cameras and a bunch of expensive lenses and flashes along with it.

We hold these Truths to be self evident!

 

[Marsu42]

* It is evident that incremental improvements instead of true innovation is a dead end business strategy

I agree with everything you wrote more or less - though I don't think incremental improvements and true innovation are mutual exclusive. It's perfectly ok to update the 5d2 to the 5d3 as it is, even if the price is debatable. And no few will jumping ship because a manufacturer's tech is behind say for two years until catching up.

The problem is: Canon is innovative on the low end, they release silent lenses and phase detection on sensors while masking their sensor problems (hdr and multi-shot noise reduction modes). And they are innovative on the high end, they release top lenses, class-leading af systems and fps rates. But the midrange customers that tend to write in internet forums like this are starved by feature-cut firmwares, though it would be so easy to port many features of magic lantern into the core Canon firmware.

 

[briansquibb]

Interesting statement puporting to be Canon's mission statement
Have you evidence to support
"Canon is trying to build a position in the premium & pro video market instead to be immune from disgruntled customers posting "Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600" threads"
Or even evidence that they are reading the threads?

No need whatsoever to constantly defend Canon and sound as if you were a Canon-paid PR agent or Canon marketing employee.

* It is evident that Canon has been falling behind Nikon in stills photography during the past 4 years
* It is evident that Canon is pumping massive resources into all sorts of overpriced video crap .. from "HD DSLRs" (anything from Rebel to 7D to 5D 2+3, 1D X) to "Cine DSLRs" (1D C) to "real camcorders (C300,C500 -serien).
* It is evident that the 5D 3 is overpriced compared to better competitive offerings by at leats 500 USD/€
* It is evident that Canon is trying to milk, nickle and dime its DSLR-customer base for as long as possible
* It is evident that incremental improvements instead of true innovation is a dead end business strategy
* It is not YET evident but nevertheles very likely that Canon will follow Kodak into the corporate grave sooner rather than later if they continue to ignore a large percentage of their key customers ... and yes that is us, the guys buing expensive cameras and a bunch of expensive lenses and flashes along with it.

We hold these Truths to be self evident!

So it is just your opinion then with no evidence whatsoever

Just your daily anti Canon diatribe

 

[Richard8971]

I'm sure this has been said but even if Nikon's were half the price they are now, I still wouldn't shoot with them.

Canon makes one hell of a camera and the market sales prove it. I see 2 to 1 of Canon's over other bodies. (usually more!) Nikon has to sell cheap cameras to get people to buy them.

D

 

[Orangutan]

* It is evident that Canon...

Most important, though, it is evident that Canon still makes a healthy profit from its camera sales. There is no evidents....er um, evidence, that Canon is incapable of matching Nikon's sensor tech, only that they have not chosen to do so already because the market hasn't demanded it. Likewise, Nikon seems to be behind on AF right now. I'm no fanboi; if I were starting over I'd be as likely to buy Nikon as Canon, but I continue to be amazed at how many people pass judgement on for-profit corporations as though they were impolite relatives (can you believe cousin Josephine said that?!!!)

In case you weren't aware, for-profit corporations have done deeds far more more heinous than charging a bit too much for their product, or compromising performance in one area in favor of performance in another.

To all you complainers, whether you complain of Canon or Nikon or anything else, if you're going to blame anyone you should blame the purchasers who buy the over-priced, under-performing products. If you want Canon to put better sensors in their products, and if you want Nikon to implement better speed and ergonomics, then you need to get a bunch of people to refrain from purchasing the current models, or to buy Pentax.

Unless we believe there is collusion going on, it's 100% in the hands of the consumers. Y'all need to stop getting out of joint over it. Buy it or don't buy it -- it's your call. It's also OK to post calm, rational evaluations of the positives and negatives from your photographic perspective. (Sorry, I should say, from your photographic tilt or shift, but I digress...) However, to be upset with a camera company when there are evil energy companies out there? The mind wobbles!

 

[birdman]

Precisely. If Canon loses market share because of the D600 and D800, it will force Canon to up their game

well, if you consider how dominant canon was just 10 years ago, and how that dominance has waned over the last decade, then you can see that it has already happened. They went from being virtually unchallenged, to being just one more player, alas a major one, but certainly fallen from their prior mile high advantage.

Look at Microsoft. Once unchallenged and now it is being outmaneuvered by once smaller meaningless rivals. With size and a market to protect, companies often fall behind. They are too big and slow to react. Canon, and to a lesser extent Nikon suffer from their reliance on mirrors and outdated mounts that make it impossible to design small thin cameras consumers want. They have models to protect where as the rest have nothing to lose. The rest of the crowd, lead by sony has no such concerns are are busy with their mirrorless entries which will one day make DSRLS join film cameras in a musseum.

We've seen this transition before. Kodak failed to adapt and died off.

Whats with all this mirrorless garbage, people? I hope you "people" don't want a camera body without a viewfinder, like the mirrorless 4/3 garbage cameras out now have, right? You want to take a picture by looking at the back of your small monitor? Thats going to dominate? Really? And we thought the Unabomber was a nut with all of his anti=tech mumbo jumbo!! SLRs are not going anywhere for a while, buddy. What are sports shooters going to use.? A small box with a bright screen and a huge telephoto lens that makes it look like a whale eating a tadpole. People these days.....

 

[birdman]

Here is the future, guys. All teenagers, soccer moms, and adventurous grandparents are gonna take over the industry of photography with their mirrorless cameras. And the old professionals and prosumers, well they will be left behind with their 22MP and 36MP full-frame antiquated DSLRs. How 2012 is that? Or as Bruno would say, "Borat was so 2006."

 

[briansquibb]

Here is the future, guys. All teenagers, soccer moms, and adventurous grandparents are gonna take over the industry of photography with their mirrorless cameras. And the old professionals and prosumers, well they will be left behind with their 22MP and 36MP full-frame antiquated DSLRs. How 2012 is that? Or as Bruno would say, "Borat was so 2006."

Great sense of humour there ;D ;D ;D

 

[Albi86]

Here is the future, guys. All teenagers, soccer moms, and adventurous grandparents are gonna take over the industry of photography with their mirrorless cameras. And the old professionals and prosumers, well they will be left behind with their 22MP and 36MP full-frame antiquated DSLRs. How 2012 is that? Or as Bruno would say, "Borat was so 2006."

This is exactly how it will go.
Teenagers, soccer moms and adventurous grandparents are the most important segment in the market, the one providing the biggest slice of incomes. The ugly truth is that big companies would sooner lose all their respectable pros than all their despicable consumers. Just face it. Who else would seriously benefit from a small sensor mirrorless camera if not they?
Consumers, in my experience, hate the bulk of a reflex camera. These people usually take pictures with a P&S or even with their cell phones, they buy a reflex only when they're compelled. And this is exactly the kind of people Canon, Nikon, Samsung, Panasonic, Sony and everyone else is striving to please.

 

[Marsu42]

To all you complainers, whether you complain of Canon or Nikon or anything else, if you're going to blame anyone you should blame the purchasers who buy the over-priced, under-performing products. If you want Canon to put better sensors in their products, and if you want Nikon to implement better speed and ergonomics, then you need to get a bunch of people to refrain from purchasing the current models, or to buy Pentax.

This is the problem in a market with limited competition due to brand loyalty and people being stuck to their equipment proprietary lens & flash systems. Many will bite the bullet and say "In comparison to my lenses and other equipment $1000 more for the 5d3 isn't that much, I'll pay it and forget the price as fast as I can". If the 5d2 wasn't around anymore maybe I'd do the same.

About "complaining": Maybe people with 1 post saying "I'll get a d800 instead of the 5d3, hahaha" are complaining or trolling. But there is a difference between this and pointing out perceived problems and wanting to discuss with people about this to see if one's opinion makes sense - and I certainly build my opinion about the 5d3's strengths and weaknesses reading threads like this because reviews don't tell the whole story.

Whats with all this mirrorless garbage, people?

It's *currently* garbage. In 10 years from now (or more?), you'll have an electronic viewfinder you can hardly tell from an optical one, the shutter sound and speed limitations will be gone, and the af system except for the very pro top will be ok. And you'll have features only an efv can deliver: "I want to track the red bird, please", focus peaking right and so on in the viewfinder, night-time shooting through the viewfinder, ... there are many possibilities many people would throw away their 1dx this second - if they'd have gotten it yet :->

 

[Orangutan]

you should blame the purchasers who buy the over-priced, under-performing products. If you want Canon to put better sensors in their products, and if you want Nikon to implement better speed and ergonomics, then you need to get a bunch of people to refrain from purchasing the current models, or to buy Pentax.

This is the problem in a market with limited competition due to brand loyalty and people being stuck to their equipment proprietary lens & flash systems. Many will bite the bullet and say "In comparison to my lenses and other equipment $1000 more for the 5d3 isn't that much, I'll pay it and forget the price as fast as I can". If the 5d2 wasn't around anymore maybe I'd do the same.

I think we need an equivalent of the Four Thirds standard for APS-C, FF, MF, etc to create compatibility among components of different manufacturers. If there is an international organization of pro photographers, maybe they should lobby the larger "camera countries" (e.g. Japan, U.S., EU) to put that into law. Yes, it would obsolete older or now-current models, but we need to think medium/long term. Of course, they could do a booming business retro-fitting older glass to the new standard. ("Legs off, fins on, stick a little pipe through the back of its neck so it can breathe, bit of gold paint...")

Then we'd get some real competition among the big players, and it would lower the "barrier to entry" for smaller players.

 

[Marsu42]

Then we'd get some real competition among the big players, and it would lower the "barrier to entry" for smaller players.

The EU nearly couldn't agree on a standard power supply for mobile phones, and even that took ages. Considering that the lens-camera combination (physical and protocols) are a major competition factor, I don't think there's any chance for forced standardization - but it would be nice all the same.

 

[wickidwombat]

Then we'd get some real competition among the big players, and it would lower the "barrier to entry" for smaller players.

The EU nearly couldn't agree on a standard power supply for mobile phones, and even that took ages. Considering that the lens-camera combination (physical and protocols) are a major competition factor, I don't think there's any chance for forced standardization - but it would be nice all the same.

Ha the EU cant even pay their own credit card bill...

I think anyone that WANTS any government to interfere in MORE stuff than they already do
needs therapy

cop pulls you over, "I'm sorry sir but i noticed your canon sensor doesnt have enough dynamic range
I'm afraid I'm going to have to fine you, that'll be $100 thankyou"

Ahhh living in fascist dictatorships dressed up as democracy

discalaimer: this is a heavily sarcastic post for anyone that cant recognise that from the on the end