Tugela said:
Stu_bert said:
apersson850 said:
Canon are also getting into other business than pure photography. They recently acquired Swedish networking and communication specialist Axis, as well as large scale electronic printing specialists Océ (which in turn is a merger of medium scale printer manufacturer Océ and large scale printer manufacturer Siemens-Nixdorf) some years ago.
Albeit the latter seemed like a somewhat desperate action, since Océ was kind of the only one left to buy, after Ricoh acquired IBM Infoprint and Fuji bought into Xerox and Delphax. In the large scale electronic printing business, now only former photography giant Kodak as well as IT giant Hewlett-Packard are still running on their own.
Yes, my point exactly earlier.
Buying Sigma just to reduce competition, would have to be at a really good price so I suspect it was no one single thing that attracted them....
Samsung isn't about to sell its IP in cameras, given its presence in smartphones, tablets and I am sure in time, security devices etc. They may retreat partially or completely from photography, I doubt that they would sell their IP and Canon's market research concludes like others, that the sensor gap is only of interest to some.
They will be offsetting the shrinking market in cameras by expanding into other markets through acquisition.
@Dilbert - does Lytro appeal that much to photographers or just enthusiasts? It is a differentiator, I'm just not sure how much of a feature-lure it would be for a photographer. I think they would be exploring such niche providers and start-ups with a view to cheaply bolster their camera business, but most cash will go to expansion into other imaging markets...
The silicon gap is of interest to more than "some". It is the reason why Sony has been able to expand to the degree they have. You can only last so long being perceived as behind the pack when it comes to underlying technology, eventually brand loyalty will evaporate.
Canon needs to guard against that. Making the assumption that because you have been successful in the past means you will be successful in the future is being foolish. Just ask IBM or Kodak or Nokia or RIM. Staying on top means constantly working to improve, if you stop doing that and rest on your laurels, someone else is going to pass you eventually.
I don't disagree that Canon has to guard against perception from internet sites like DPReview. And that is despite the fact that DPReview is indeed biased and indeed influenced by it's owner.
I also agree with your views about those companies who mis-read the market and rest on their laurels tend to fade away (although IBM is a poor example, but that wasn't your point)...
Sony's market expansion has indeed been due in part to their sensor tech. But if it were truly based on sensor tech, why has Samsung not done so well? And Canon would have completely died.
But to another point, none of the camera manufacturers are in a good place compared to the first part of the 21st century. Canon is not alone in that. The market is shrinking dramatically as those people for whom they just want to record a moment in quality that is good enough can do that with their phone. That is the biggest impact to every camera player out there.
I still don't think Samsung will dump their technology given how much it is valuable to them. Maybe I am wrong. I don't doubt it would not be complementary to Canon, I just dont think they would be able to buy it cost effectively.
And yes, sure Nikon has some great tech - hence why they have maintained their current position. Nikon's model has always been to distribute their AF / sensor more widely across their range, Canon is more conservative. To date, that does not appear to have many significant changes to their respective revenue / market share and therefore leads Canon to continue with their current strategy.
It is also true that they (Nikon) only stopped their own sliding sales when they replaced their weakness in their portfolio with Sony tech. I get that.
Sony has done some very good things in the sensor business, but a lot of that is not driven by the photography market, it is just that it benefits from that (including R&D avoidance and lower manufacturing costs). That in itself does not assure they will stay in the photography business medium or long term. At the moment, they leverage both the smartphone and the camera segments which again is shrewd, and something perhaps Canon should have considered but that doesnt appear to be their business model (OEM).
Canon, Nikon and others know the value of having "ambassadors" ie Pro photographers who show what their equipment can do. Look at Tom Hogan, shoots Nikon, regularly states that if you cant take a good photograph then it's more you than the equipment. But that of course addresses those who do their research thoroughly. Who also don't realise that what motivates some news providers is not unbiased reporting - that has always been a small percentage of the population.
I said "some" again, as I dont have any facts, just like I dont have any facts on how many people really are bothered significantly enough to move brands. Ultimately everyone has the same choice. Just like owning a car, when it comes to replacing it you dont have to stay where you are.
And I would guess that many people on this forum continually review their position. Be that trying new tech alongside the existing tech, be that hiring and trying. In that way, those people are a bit like a business, working out whether their current infra is sufficient for what they want to achieve, and whether the cost of changing is justified. To date, based on relative market share, the biggest impact continues to be erosion due to smartphones.
I personally dont think any of the camera manufacturers really know how to handle this contraction other than to diversify. And I think that is indeed what Canon is doing in the main with this war-chest. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but even if Canon were to acquire Samsung IP, it wouldn't come into most people's reach until maybe 2018/19 (given development lifecycles and the fact that Canon would only bring it to the high end kit first).
I also don't personally think the MK II / MK IV will have massive changes in any of the tech inside, again would be happy to be proved wrong, but my expectations are incremental improvements again.
