Canon Cuts Full-Year Forecast as Camera Users Switch to Phones

[sanj]

I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc.
She sees me buying top cameras all the time...

I am sure there are lots other like her.

That is exactly what is happening. More and more photos are being pushed online and on FB people are getting less and less concerned about the IQ. The photos have turned into record shots to be shared with everyone.

For any special occasion you will be invited with a caveat - "make sure to bring your camera along"

Disregard for quality will bite them back in the ass. In a few years (display upgrades), it will bite them back in the ass like knock off polaroid film made some family memories disapear.

Their loss. (as long as it doesn't bankrupt or misguide Canon).

"Quality" is so so subjective.

 

[J.R.]

I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc.
She sees me buying top cameras all the time...

I am sure there are lots other like her.

That is exactly what is happening. More and more photos are being pushed online and on FB people are getting less and less concerned about the IQ. The photos have turned into record shots to be shared with everyone.

For any special occasion you will be invited with a caveat - "make sure to bring your camera along"

Disregard for quality will bite them back in the ass. In a few years (display upgrades), it will bite them back in the ass like knock off polaroid film made some family memories disapear.

Their loss. (as long as it doesn't bankrupt or misguide Canon).

"Quality" is so so subjective.

Haha... exactly my point ... most users of FB are the - "couldn't care less" variety!

 

[sandymandy]

they should just present something new and not just relabeled sensors and smaller camera bodies. why still no affordable mirrorless?? could easily dominate the market but yeah...

 

[msm]

Nikon and Canon 500mm are so similar they could be regarding a real MTF test . The distance that DXO uses when they measuring up cameras and lenses plays an important role when these lenses are optimized at a certain distance.

I see. Can you point me to some data showing that Nikon and Canon 500mm f/4 lenses are optimized for different distances, or that DxO tested them at different distances? Or perhaps some other explanation for why the Nikon lens shows a disproportionally much greater IQ decrement compared to the Canon lens?

I stand by my earlier statement - the increased MP count of the D800 over the 5DIII does not offer a benefit commensurate with what the numbers would suggest. To realize something close to that full benefit, you must:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Pick the right lens. Note that the correct choices don't include such lenses as the 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 (popular pro/wedding lens), or the supertele lenses.
[*]Use a tripod and MLU (always fun with Nikon's poor implementation of Live View), or have enough light for at least ~1/(~4 x focal length) shutter speed without needing to raise the ISO too high (or kiss the DR benefit goodbye)
[*]Apparently (according to your post), know the subject distance for which your lens is optimized, and shoot only at that distance (if you know it - where is that specified, exactly?)
[/list]

Choosing wrong on #1 means you might just end up with lower resolution than with a 5DIII and comparable Canon lens. Failing to apply #2 will give you motion-blurred toss-away images (Canon users who upgraded from the 40D to the 7D learned that lesson the hard way, many thought their old 40D was sharper). I'm still not sure that #3 can even be met, it's hard to always shoot at the optimal distance for your lens without knowing that distance.

It's amusing when people take some aspects of DxOMark's information at face value, but come up with complex, often undocumented reasons to explain how the information that doesn't fit their expectations isn't applicable; or when people link to Scores that don't mean what the poster thinks they mean, and ignore being called on it.

Am I to assume that you feel DXO's tests are fair and accurate? Because if you think they are, that would amuse me.

real MTF curves from the 2 lenses

all lenses are optimized for a distans

So you are saying the nikon is only sharp at a certain distance? That's pretty crap for a $8k+ lens in my opinion. My 300 IS II is razor sharp from the 2m MFD to infinite.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

they should just present something new and not just relabeled sensors and smaller camera bodies. why still no affordable mirrorless?? could easily dominate the market but yeah...

If it could so easily dominate the market, then why aren't the other mirrorless offerings dominating?

I think that both canon and nikon are on the right track, they know that if the winds turn towards mirrorless they could easily bang a few models out there. But in the meantime, focus on the side of things they know they have a market for - like video and mirror based still camera's. then see what happens.

Unfortunately though, as most have pointed out here - with the emphasis for mirrorless being smaller and lighter unless you want to live in a world where your focal length maxes out at 135mm, then this new thing will be a niche market at best. The only other way this goes down is for a mirrorless system to be designed that DOES NOT require current dslr users to ditch all their lenses. Create a mirrorless body with the same size as a current slr, and keep the damn mount the same - EF lenses...no silly quality killing adaptors, then mirrorless may have a chance because it will be a lot more viable for pro work.

But ---what's the point then? why recreate the wheel? Other than draining batteries faster, not seeing much reason for mirrorless - it's not revolutionary, it's not even evolutionary ---it's kind of a backstep when you consider all the glass that goes into the garbage

I don't bank on that though.

 

[Lawliet]

So you are saying the nikon is only sharp at a certain distance?

It happens - the Nikkor 200-400 is a poster child for this misbehavior. Better get within 50-75m/200ft of your subject.

 

[pharp]

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a filmmaker and producer but I've also worked in advertising and tech. I follow tech developments quite closely, especially Apple and camera news.

In my opinion --

Canon cannot afford to be afraid to protect their higher end markets anymore. Sure, they produce amazing EOS still and EOS cinema bodies but they can't worry about cannibilization anymore. Canon makes GREAT products. Professionals will continue to buy 1D-Xs and C500s even if they sell the same autofocus points in a 7D or a Rebel, or enable RAW video in a 70D.

Canon has high-end lenses, both still and cinema/video, that professionals will continue to buy no matter what. Canon has tons of patents and will continue to innovate. It just has to have the confidence to not worry about those who will stop buying their high-end products.

Give people what they want- give them RAW video at an affordable price (yet with a healthy profit margin). Apple successfully cannibalizes itself over and over and over. Jobs said it best when he said (and I paraphrase) sell low and go for volume.

Oh, and in case you're listening, Canon, yes -- I do want you to OFFICIALLY enable RAW in the 5DIII and 1DC and sell them for less. Don't worry, we'll buy more of them.

+1 I think the 6D was a good idea, EXCEPT for the crippled AF - that was a mistake.

 

[CarlTN]

+1 I think the 6D was a good idea, EXCEPT for the crippled AF - that was a mistake.

It wasn't so much a mistake as a pricing strategy for a new product category, an entry level full frame DSLR. If they had used a 7D-based AF sensor, the price and overall performance would have been too close to the 5D3...other than a 1.5 fps "crippling". Enough people have bought the 6D to tell Canon it was actually a resounding success, it seems to me. Nobody is overjoyed with the AF, but it can be made to work if you recognize its faults and work around them. For most every type of shooting I do, I prefer it to the 5D3. The 5D3 costs 50% more and has far worse luminance noise. If all I did was hold the shutter button down all day in multi-shot mode, I would be less happy. But Canon knew most people who would buy something like the 6D, would be able to use it as is. It's not as if they weren't very happy with the 5D2 and it's very similar autofocus system for over 4 years...and they were happy to pay 35 to 40% more for it to boot! They would even come on forums and brag about how good their 5D2 was, and how it was the best camera they ever owned. Imagine what they would have thought if the 5D2 had cost only $1600 (rather than $2700) and had even better image quality! Well, that's the 6D for ya.

 

[J.R.]

Sony stock headed for the biggest drop in five years after it unexpectedly lowered its full-year profit forecast by 40 percent on stalling television and digital camera demand and box office flops.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-31/sony-cuts-annual-forecast-amid-stalling-demand-for-tvs-cameras.html

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Sony stock headed for the biggest drop in five years after it unexpectedly lowered its full-year profit forecast by 40 percent on stalling television and digital camera demand and box office flops.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-31/sony-cuts-annual-forecast-amid-stalling-demand-for-tvs-cameras.html

Companies that drop product lines, leaving its customers without product support (and still charge premium for their products) will end up like Sony ... putting a 20.7 megapixel camera in their Xperia Z1 handset or a full frame sensor in 2 mirrorless cameras and hoping that its gonna "propel" them into profits is not gonna help ... commitment to a given product line and good customer service is what's gonna help Sony ... the only product I see Sony being truly committed to is Play Station. Compound all this to the fact that Sony has lost the art of stealing/copying ideas from other manufacturers (Shamesung is doing a great job of it these days).

 

[ewg963]

People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.
so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.
The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.

Like the 70-200 F2.8 IS that lens wwas 1350 euro the new IS II is a whopping 50% more expencive at 2086 euro.
The same happend with all other new lenses so canon just like any other greedy company in this time of recession is doing this to itself.
A normal wise company would lower prices which upps sales and helps the economu but for some reason in this crisis all companys seem to upp prices which lower sales and then bitch about it.
The greed has gone to there heads.
We the consumers dont have the money for your insane prices anymore ajust to it or see your sales drop even more.

=1

 

[docsmith]

People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.
so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.
The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.

Like the 70-200 F2.8 IS that lens wwas 1350 euro the new IS II is a whopping 50% more expencive at 2086 euro.
The same happend with all other new lenses so canon just like any other greedy company in this time of recession is doing this to itself.
A normal wise company would lower prices which upps sales and helps the economu but for some reason in this crisis all companys seem to upp prices which lower sales and then bitch about it.
The greed has gone to there heads.
We the consumers dont have the money for your insane prices anymore ajust to it or see your sales drop even more.

=1

Two quick comments:
1. While 90% of the time I believe you are correct and that those using camera phones will never buy a dSLR, I have to think to some degree increasing the number of people snapping pictures, posting pictures and ultimately participating in photography will eventually increase the number of dSLR owners. The slice of the pie may shrink, but the size of the pie may be growing.

2. For people that can't afford a Luxury lens (L is for Luxury), have you noticed the new 55-250 STM, or the newer 18-55 lens. Honestly, they are getting pretty darn good optically. Canon also cut prices on the 17-55 and the 15-85, which are optically very good. So Canon does have an improving "value" product. Not surprisingly at all, their top of the line, Luxury, products, aren't aimed at their "value" customers. They are aimed at people that will pay a lot more for something that is a little better. Your complaint is analogous to someone that can afford a Honda but angry that a Mercedes isn't more affordable. Honda is a good car (I drive one). But it isn't Luxury.

 

[danski0224]

Two quick comments:
1. While 90% of the time I believe you are correct and that those using camera phones will never buy a dSLR, I have to think to some degree increasing the number of people snapping pictures, posting pictures and ultimately participating in photography will eventually increase the number of dSLR owners. The slice of the pie may shrink, but the size of the pie may be growing.

2. For people that can't afford a Luxury lens (L is for Luxury), have you noticed the new 55-250 STM, or the newer 18-55 lens. Honestly, they are getting pretty darn good optically. Canon also cut prices on the 17-55 and the 15-85, which are optically very good. So Canon does have an improving "value" product. Not surprisingly at all, their top of the line, Luxury, products, aren't aimed at their "value" customers. They are aimed at people that will pay a lot more for something that is a little better. Your complaint is analogous to someone that can afford a Honda but angry that a Mercedes isn't more affordable. Honda is a good car (I drive one). But it isn't Luxury.

+1.

I eventually migrated to a dSLR from a point and shoot and camera phone.

Tried a couple of different point and shoots, and they never gave me what I was looking for.

Current camera phones are equal or better than my P&S cameras, with similar limitations. However, the phone camera can do things like email and messaging, which are valuable functions not available on my P&S or dSLR cameras.

 

[J.R.]

Current camera phones are equal or better than my P&S cameras, with similar limitations. However, the phone camera can do things like email and messaging, which are valuable functions not available on my P&S or dSLR cameras.

For this I find the 6D to be quite fun. Pair it with the iPhone and push it on to the net while on the move

 

[danski0224]

For this I find the 6D to be quite fun. Pair it with the iPhone and push it on to the net while on the move

Unfortunately, Canon chose not to provide such features on the 5DIII. I haven't really given serious thought to selling the 5DIII to get a 6D.

Can the 6D link to Android devices directly, or will they link through an existing WiFi network only?

 

[J.R.]

Can the 6D link to Android devices directly, or will they link through an existing WiFi network only?

Yes the 6D links to the devices directly. For this purpose you have to set up, lets say, a private Wi-Fi network between the phone and the camera.

 

[danski0224]

Yes the 6D links to the devices directly. For this purpose you have to set up, lets say, a private Wi-Fi network between the phone and the camera.

I have tried this in the past with a demo thermal imager and an Android phone.

It didn't work unless the imager and phone were paired on an established WiFi network. The two devices could not communicate directly even though each device was visible to the other. I didn't have a tethering/hot spot feature on my phone (well, really on the monthly bill), so I couldn't test that.

On the other hand, the imager could link directly to an iPad without going through an established WiFi network.

 

[J.R.]

Yes the 6D links to the devices directly. For this purpose you have to set up, lets say, a private Wi-Fi network between the phone and the camera.

I have tried this in the past with a demo thermal imager and an Android phone.

It didn't work unless the imager and phone were paired on an established WiFi network. The two devices could not communicate directly even though each device was visible to the other. I didn't have a tethering/hot spot feature on my phone (well, really on the monthly bill), so I couldn't test that.

On the other hand, the imager could link directly to an iPad without going through an established WiFi network.

Works perfectly with my Android phone without an existing WiFi connection

 

[danski0224]

Cool. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.
so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.
The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.

Like the 70-200 F2.8 IS that lens wwas 1350 euro the new IS II is a whopping 50% more expencive at 2086 euro.
The same happend with all other new lenses so canon just like any other greedy company in this time of recession is doing this to itself.
A normal wise company would lower prices which upps sales and helps the economu but for some reason in this crisis all companys seem to upp prices which lower sales and then bitch about it.
The greed has gone to there heads.
We the consumers dont have the money for your insane prices anymore ajust to it or see your sales drop even more.

=1

I know from the casual users perspective L stands for luxury, and yeah theres the honda mercedes analogy - but --- in this field its a bit more complex than that as in the car world luxury is really just that - a luxury - a honda or a mercedes perform the exact same function, it gets you to and from work. L lenses on the other hand are designed for pro work, and are priced according.

Canon doesn't update it's L's as often as other glass or other systems too - the v1 was releases in 2001, v2 in 2010. So that's a 9 year cycle. oh, and at launch, the v1 was at $1999 USD. Not that much cheapers than the v2 at all.

Now lets think of the other end --- canon won't be upgrading this lens to the v3 for what, another 8-9 years. So Canon had to make this new 70-200 not only great in the here and now, but they had to design the optics to last for a decade - AND - knowing the road map to bigger mp's, it had to be a lens that had future proofing - a lens that works great in the 18-22 mp area, but, could also resolve for more MP's as that is the trend.

Also, buy this lens today and you won't have a need to replace it until the next version comes out, and you won't be replacing it because of issues, (the lens will be fine unless you smashed it or something), it will be because the v3 is better!

To add more perspective - I am using the older version - the non IS 2.8 - release date of 1995, and this one won't get refreshed. Owned it for 2+ years. I bought it used, so I have no clue how old the thing actually is. It continues to be my workhorse. I will be updating it to the v2 because it is such a workhorse and I think adding IS could help me out in certain circumstances - plus it is better optically than the older one. Only reason I have waited to upgrade is because I do love my non IS version, and I needed to fill out other areas of my kit. Oh, andt he release price of the non IS version was $1450

the point is (or rather points are) - would you rather canon just push out new lenses that aren't new at all every year and make them cheap, but also disposable? Or, would you rather them put the time and effort necessary fort he product to withstand a decade of being on the market?

Lastly -- if cost is the issue for you but you want L ---save $$$ and buy used!!!!