Canon Inc. releases their Q1 2021 financials

Nigel95

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 2, 2020
66
87
It used to be lucrative. Unlike some of their customers, Canon cannot afford to live in the past.
My fault for not becoming a dentist or a professional photographer/videographer.

It´s just a pity that I am satisfied with all the lenses that I own (EF-S) and just want a body with certain specs like the R6. Buying the R6 body for the current price is the limit for me as a hobbyist. Not having to swap 3 lenses also with FF equivalent glass @ EF prices.. let's not talk about the price of new RF glass. I understand for Canon it would be very good $$$ if they can sell me also some extra lenses. But they won't, as I there is a limit, what I am going to pay even as a dedicated hobbyist. At a certain point it's just completely nuts to spend this much for a hobby. I love Canon menus etc... but wish we could have something like GH5 or Fuji XT4 in Canon APS-C land. A R7 would be perfect whatever it is a R6, R5 or something in between.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,510
3,907
Irving, Texas
The low-end Canon M50 isn't "getting clobbered". In both the USA and Japan, it's Canon's best selling mirrorless camera.
That doesn't mean it is PROFITABLE. Lucrative = PROFITABLE. Sales mean nothing without a decent profit. Companies don't kill off cash cows. Ever run a business?
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2020
612
439
Lucrative = PROFITABLE
Lucrative is a bit more than profitable.
If it was not profitable Canon would have cancelled the line.
Of course, profit margins are not as high, but they sell a lot more of them.
I doubt very many people are deciding between getting an R5 or an M50, so it does not hurt to sell them both,
 

jayphotoworks

EOS RP
Aug 11, 2016
256
105
Canon rearranged their divisions to make more sense. As one example, (IJP) ink jet printers used to be in Canon's Imaging division.

What I was referring to was 2016, 2017, 2018, where cinema camera were always a part of imaging. In 2019 and 2020 specifically, it was reclassified as industry. Recently, it has again been reclassified back to imaging. It always made sense that cinema cameras were imaging products..
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2020
612
439
What I was referring to was 2016, 2017, 2018, where cinema camera were always a part of imaging. In 2019 and 2020 specifically, it was reclassified as industry. Recently, it has again been reclassified back to imaging. It always made sense that cinema cameras were imaging products..
I am seeing C70 at camera shops that never carried the C200 even though they cost the same.
The C200B is much cheaper and seems to be forgotten about.
 

jayphotoworks

EOS RP
Aug 11, 2016
256
105
Then Canon will double the prices of new lenses.

So, no. Having competition is healthy.

Competition is absolutely healthy. For all of the crap that Sony got in the past and probably well deserved going through iterative "beta" releases, they've gotten to a point where their gear can be used in a professional context, gets out of the way of the shooter and gimmicks of yore have become usable features today. Along the way, they've learned from Canon that color science is actually a thing and refining existing features like the UI instead of throwing gimmicks into each release is less of a thing. Canon too has changed and realized there is a premium market worth chasing and the younger crowd handling smartphones in elementary school then actually want to shoot at arms length and not through a dark prism anymore today. They've also been way more receptive adding in features in recent releases that would have been out of character for Canon just a few years ago.

The consumer gets the best options at the end of the day..
 

Nigel95

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 2, 2020
66
87
That doesn't mean it is PROFITABLE. Lucrative = PROFITABLE. Sales mean nothing without a decent profit. Companies don't kill off cash cows. Ever run a business?
Sales even without decent profit can be rational with a long term strategy. To get more market share, making people comfortable with Canon ecosystem. Use it as an upgrade path to FF. This might not be true fully as they maybe don't want to make APS-C RF glass. Anyways without a Canon APS-C RF alternative and having to sell all my EF-S glass. This means I am not stuck anymore in Canon ecosystem. If they make a high end APS-C now I will buy it. When time passes I might have budget and want something like RF 100mm macro etc... And maybe this will once transfer me to a FF body. But for now buying a R6 + dedicated FF glass is out of my league.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,510
3,907
Irving, Texas
Sales even without decent profit can be rational with a long term strategy. To get more market share, making people comfortable with Canon ecosystem. Use it as an upgrade path to FF. This might not be true fully as they maybe don't want to make APS-C RF glass. Anyways without a Canon APS-C RF alternative and having to sell all my EF-S glass. This means I am not stuck anymore in Canon ecosystem. If they make a high end APS-C now I will buy it. When time passes I might have budget and want something like RF 100mm macro etc... And maybe this will once transfer me to a FF body. But for now buying a R6 + dedicated FF glass is out of my league.
1. M offers very little in the way of an upgrade path to FF.
2. The R6 automatically detects EFs glass and crops accordingly. So does the R5. There's your upgrade path. ;)
3. Long term losses are not a rational strategy for gaining arket share... Especially when that market has collapsed and is quickly evaporating.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,510
3,907
Irving, Texas
Lucrative is a bit more than profitable.
If it was not profitable Canon would have cancelled the line.
Of course, profit margins are not as high, but they sell a lot more of them.
I doubt very many people are deciding between getting an R5 or an M50, so it does not hurt to sell them both,
We'll, Canon has, for the most part, cancelled the line. Doesn't hurt to sell both? That depends on profits. You're right, not many are deciding between R5 and M. True. Just as few are upgrading from M to FF. There goes the idea of running losses long term in an attempt to gain market share. Market share is useless if not profitable. You nor I have the slightest idea what the profits and margins are, however, I think it is safe to say that if M was raking in the $, that Canon would be pouring in development $ and we'd see a much more robust lens line up for M. That ain't happening. More likely, people at the low end are more than happy to ditch ILC and buy a $1k smart phone for their photo and video needs. Isn't that why Canon expressed that the future is more dependent on high end?
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,510
3,907
Irving, Texas
Weight wasn’t a criteria mentioned in the first place. The 90D was given as an excellent example that isn’t “heavier than a brick”, but I’d also point out bricks come in a very wide variety of sizes and densities...
True. My wife was built like a brick @#&* house (Southern redneck expression) back in the day. No way a camera comes close to her 95lb brick self. :ROFLMAO:
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,248
2,119
2. The R6 automatically detects EFs glass and crops accordingly. So does the R5. There's your upgrade path. ;)

With a minor caveat: Some third-party EFs lenses don't trigger this. Of course you can still crop the image afterwards or explicitly put the camera in crop mode...or leave it as-is as an amusing artistic effect.


True. My wife was built like a brick @#&* house (Southern redneck expression) back in the day. No way a camera comes close to her 95lb brick self. :ROFLMAO:

Pro tip: She is STILL built like a brick @#&* house. Certainly never let her have impression you think otherwise. :D
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
795
629
Frankfurt, Germany
Written with an impressive lack of comprehension about how markets work. Selling product is only indirectly and weakly linked to a company’s value. I own shares of multiple biotech companies with no products to sell, ‘earnings’ calls that report only losses, and billions in market cap.

Overall a nice recovery from the pandemic for Canon.
View attachment 197249
It is good news for all who have invested in an extended Canon gear and want a future for their investment.
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
275
210
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Nikon is a possibility but I think it would take more than one camera.
Sony users tend to like smaller full-frame cameras.
I did hear a lot of noise from Sony users about switching to the R5 before overheating issues and the release of the A7S III.
While I am confident that Canon and Nikon can compete with Sony in making smaller cameras, I am just as confident that they can't drive Sony out of the market.
Smaller is not better for pros and our big whites
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,013
4,805
Nikon is a possibility but I think it would take more than one camera.
Sony users tend to like smaller full-frame cameras.
I did hear a lot of noise from Sony users about switching to the R5 before overheating issues and the release of the A7S III.
While I am confident that Canon and Nikon can compete with Sony in making smaller cameras, I am just as confident that they can't drive Sony out of the market.
I don’t see how anybody with a brain who owns a Sony A7S III could possibly be seriously looking to sell them for an R5. The A7S III is a niche model without peer in the Canon lineup, indeed it is very difficult to find anybody that makes a comparable body.
 

Nigel95

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 2, 2020
66
87
1. M offers very little in the way of an upgrade path to FF.
2. The R6 automatically detects EFs glass and crops accordingly. So does the R5. There's your upgrade path. ;)
3. Long term losses are not a rational strategy for gaining arket share... Especially when that market has collapsed and is quickly evaporating.
1. I wasnt talking about M series but an APS-C RF body I mentioned R7.
2. R6 in crop mode doesn’t give as high quality UHD footage as FF mode. A waste to use with only EF-S glass IMO.
3. Why based on what in this context, assumption? Why is the APS-C line not break even or slighly profitable?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,510
3,907
Irving, Texas
1. I wasnt talking about M series but an APS-C RF body I mentioned R7.
2. R6 in crop mode doesn’t give as high quality UHD footage as FF mode. A waste to use with only EF-S glass IMO.
3. Why based on what in this context, assumption? Why is the APS-C line not break even or slighly profitable?
This conversation started out with M. You then entered the conversation.

Why is ASP-c not break even or slightly profitable? Because that market has collapsed! Where have you been?

I understand wanting RF ASP-c. Will Canon do it? If Canon research indicates there is money to be made, yes. However, “break even” or “slightly profitable “ ain’t gonna cut it. Canon doesn’t exist for altruistic reasons. Canon exists for the purpose of making a profit. Period. ASP-c in EF is dying because the low end is dying. Changing mounts does not change the reasons for that segment dying.
 
<-- start Taboola -->