Canon Profits Drop 16% in Second Quarter

[msm]

Let's face it. When, and if, it makes economic sense for Canon (or Nikon) to produce a full-frame mirrorless camera they will do so. Companies are in the business of making money and that means they are interested in making products that their research shows will sell in sufficient quantities to offset development costs and make a profit.

Let's not assume companies always does the right thing, history is full of examples of the opposite. Also market research is not an exact science, ppl might not even know what they want before they see it.

For a different take on the mirrorless debate, I'd suggest reading the interview with a Fuji executive that was referenced in a recent Photo Rumors post. The shortened version is that Fuji looked at both APS-C and Full Frame and concluded that APS-C was the best format for mirrorless. I'm not saying they are right and Sony is wrong, but their reasoning seems sound to me – the size advantages of mirrorless essentially disappear once you start developing full frame bodies and lenses and the difference in quality between APS-C and Full Frame is not that great.

Let's not assume that ppl buy mirrorless for size either, many don't. Also wrong to assume that those who do buy it for size will want use the same f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms as many do on DSLRs.

Finally there is this: constantly posting the same complaint on a camera forum is not going to make your wishes come true, but it does make you appear obsessive and makes it all that much easier for people to dismiss your point of view.

Well there are 2 sides of thise debate on this forum and each side is as obsessive as the other.

 

[sanj]

To throw it out there, if Nikon introduced a variant of the D810 but in a mirrorless (A7RII) form factor, I'd dump Sony in a heartbeat for that (lossless raw files, good resolution, IQ, etc) if there was a metabones adapter for it.

Nikon is way too scared about the future of their established mirrorslapper-lens mount (F-mount) than Canon is about the future of EF. Both companies know perfectly well, that a really winning FF-sensored mirrorles camera absolutely REQUIRES a new native, short flange-back mount. They also should know, that a simple native adapter would easily bridge the gap to their old lens mount, to make the transition easier for their customers. But, they figure, that would cost them a lot more in sales of F / EF lenses. Therefore Nikon - and a good portion of their very conservative mirrorslapper user base (even more so than Canon users!) - can only imagine FF mirrorless cameras with a full-size legacy F-mount up front. Of course this will result in a yellow Nikon camera as attractive as the infamous Pentax K-01 -> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01 ;D

Not surprisingly, CaNikon's overall strategy driven by their old-fart ultra-conservative japanese beancounter managements companies is simply trying to delay the total system switch to mirrorless systems for as long as they possibly can, with not much of a plan, what to do once it becomes "inevitable".

Given this mindset I do not expect Canon or Nikon to bring FF mirrorless competitors to the Sony A7 II / A7R II and their native FE lens set in the foreseeable future. And even then it will likely have a lot of artificial "product differentiation" built in, to make it less capable a camera than their top-tier DSLRs. Good thing is, that might give Sony (and Samsung) just enough time to finish off Nikon (and make the Canon camera business a loss leader). That is pure speculation of course, but I'd love to see it happen, simply because it would be a corporate fate so well deserved. ;D

So much anger and frustration. Wonder if Canon is indeed so bad...

 

[AvTvM]

So much anger and frustration. Wonder if Canon is indeed so bad...

well, seeing how well Sony is doing again these days, I fully understand all the anger and frustration at Canon senior management. They could have easily killed Sony's camera business (not sensors) had they come out with a winning FF mirrorless system before Sony did.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7849068764/sensor-sales-help-sony-triple-net-profit-in-second-quarter

 

[neuroanatomist]

So much anger and frustration. Wonder if Canon is indeed so bad...

well, seeing how well Sony is doing again these days, I fully understand all the anger and frustration at Canon senior management. They could have easily killed Sony's camera business (not sensors) had they come out with a winning FF mirrorless system before Sony did.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7849068764/sensor-sales-help-sony-triple-net-profit-in-second-quarter

Yeah, the linked article really highlights the impact of FF MILCs on Sony's bottom line. Very astute of you to notice!

 

[AvTvM]

So much anger and frustration. Wonder if Canon is indeed so bad...

well, seeing how well Sony is doing again these days, I fully understand all the anger and frustration at Canon senior management. They could have easily killed Sony's camera business (not sensors) had they come out with a winning FF mirrorless system before Sony did.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7849068764/sensor-sales-help-sony-triple-net-profit-in-second-quarter

Yeah, the linked article really highlights the impact of FF MILCs on Sony's bottom line. Very astute of you to notice!

Well, it might show the other way round: Sony might not be able to report any net profit at all, much less so a marked improvement ... had Canon done, what should have been done.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So much anger and frustration. Wonder if Canon is indeed so bad...

well, seeing how well Sony is doing again these days, I fully understand all the anger and frustration at Canon senior management. They could have easily killed Sony's camera business (not sensors) had they come out with a winning FF mirrorless system before Sony did.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7849068764/sensor-sales-help-sony-triple-net-profit-in-second-quarter

Yeah, the linked article really highlights the impact of FF MILCs on Sony's bottom line. Very astute of you to notice!

Well, it might show the other way round: Sony might not be able to report any net profit at all, much less so a marked improvement ... had Canon done, what should have been done.

Had Canon done...what? Made sensors for cell phone cameras? Made game consoles? Did you actually read the article you linked?

 

[bosshog7_2000]

Let me preface what I say by stating I've been a LONG time Canon supporter and spent more money on their gear than I like to think of: EllanII, EOS3, 20D, 5D, 1DSII, G10, S90, 7D, 5Dii....you get the point.

At some point I decided that less is more and so I've gotten rid of all my Canon equipment for a high end mirrorless selection. I have to say...I've never been happier. There's no doubt that Canon makes great gear but for me personally I've decided I don't need a lot of what Canon high end DSLR's brought me.

I have to think many others feel the same way and that Canon (although in denial) is slowing losing ground to the Sony/Fuji/Olympus's of the world. For people like myself who do not need state of the art AF or 12fps, it makes much more sense to buy a much smaller/lighter camera with equal (and in many cases better) image quality.

It's amazing where technology has taken us. Even if you're a long time Canon guy/gal heavily invested in glass you can buy an A7Rii with probably the best full frame sensor in the world and still be able to use all of your canon lenses AND have decent AF speed....

 

[RLPhoto]

You can add, more or less, 3000$ worth of losses was directly caused me deciding to buy a A7Rii.

 

[dak723]

...
I have to think many others feel the same way and that Canon (although in denial) is slowing losing ground to the Sony/Fuji/Olympus's of the world. For people like myself who do not need state of the art AF or 12fps, it makes much more sense to buy a much smaller/lighter camera with equal (and in many cases better) image quality.

It's amazing where technology has taken us. Even if you're a long time Canon guy/gal heavily invested in glass you can buy an A7Rii with probably the best full frame sensor in the world and still be able to use all of your canon lenses AND have decent AF speed....

Yup, I'm pretty much in the same boat.

I think I've already bought my last DSLR (although I didn't know it at the time!)

I have a fairly simple philosophy when it comes to cameras. Which camera gives me the images I think look best. I don't care what others think. I don't care what the internet test scores are. I have no particular loyalty to Canon. The only camera company I would have any sense of emotional attachment to would be Olympus (my first camera was an OM-1).

All that said, when I needed a replacement for my 300D, I tried out some alternatives. I tried the Olympus EM-5, the Canon 6D, and the Canon SL1. I returned the EM-5 and got the Olympus EM-1. I liked both Olympus offerings, especially the size. I thought the EVF was much better than expected. But ultimately, the IQ was not as good as the Canons (either one). Eventually I tried the Sony A7 and the A7 II. I really liked the size (compared to the 6D), but the IQ was not to my liking. I preferred the Canons. The Sony lenses were very poor and the EVF was nowhere as good as the the Olympus, either, but if the IQ was better (or even equal to) the 6D, I would have considered keeping the Sony and sold the Canon.

So my advice (which seems to be a no-brainer) (insert joke here if desired) is until you actually try these other brands and compare, don't assume the other camera makers are doing a better job.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...don't assume the other camera makers are doing a better job.

Oh, puhhhleeeez. All you need to do is look at DxOMark to see that everyone makes better cameras than Canon.

 

[AvTvM]

So much anger and frustration. Wonder if Canon is indeed so bad...

well, seeing how well Sony is doing again these days, I fully understand all the anger and frustration at Canon senior management. They could have easily killed Sony's camera business (not sensors) had they come out with a winning FF mirrorless system before Sony did.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7849068764/sensor-sales-help-sony-triple-net-profit-in-second-quarter

Yeah, the linked article really highlights the impact of FF MILCs on Sony's bottom line. Very astute of you to notice!

Well, it might show the other way round: Sony might not be able to report any net profit at all, much less so a marked improvement ... had Canon done, what should have been done.

Had Canon done...what? Made sensors for cell phone cameras? Made game consoles? Did you actually read the article you linked?

Had Canon brought a kick-ass APS-C and FF mirrorless system (bodies + native lenses) to market before or shortly after Sony did then Sony would have made such a liss in their stills imaginh business, that they could nit easily have covered it with any profits from phone sensors or game consoles. Their stills imaging department would have been closed within a year and a half.

 

[fragilesi]

Had Canon brought a kick-ass APS-C and FF mirrorless system (bodies + native lenses) to market before or shortly after Sony did then Sony would have made such a liss in their stills imaginh business, that they could nit easily have covered it with any profits from phone sensors or game consoles. Their stills imaging department would have been closed within a year and a half.

Jeez, it's really that easy to produce a whole system (bodies and native lenses) . . .

Why do people seem to think that Canon have an inexhaustible R&D capacity?

 

[Random Orbits]

Had Canon brought a kick-ass APS-C and FF mirrorless system (bodies + native lenses) to market before or shortly after Sony did then Sony would have made such a liss in their stills imaginh business, that they could nit easily have covered it with any profits from phone sensors or game consoles. Their stills imaging department would have been closed within a year and a half.

Jeez, it's really that easy to produce a whole system (bodies and native lenses) . . .

Why do people seem to think that Canon have an inexhaustible R&D capacity?

People whine about what they want and expect others to create custom solutions for them....

 

[unfocused]

Had Canon brought a kick-ass APS-C and FF mirrorless system (bodies + native lenses) to market before or shortly after Sony did then Sony would have made such a liss in their stills imaginh business, that they could nit easily have covered it with any profits from phone sensors or game consoles. Their stills imaging department would have been closed within a year and a half.

Jeez, it's really that easy to produce a whole system (bodies and native lenses) . . .

Why do people seem to think that Canon have an inexhaustible R&D capacity?

People whine about what they want and expect others to create custom solutions for them....

They also haven't the faintest idea how businesses actually work.

 

[MarkII]

Now that Sony have a workable alternative (A7RII series plus metabones), many people are going to look at their collection and realize that they don't need to sell everything in order to change brand. Thus the mental barrier for changing brand of camera is substantially lowered.

Well, I am definitely in this camp. Previously, I would have upgraded to the 5Ds(r) without hesitation, but Canon's pricing and the arrival of alternatives has put this on hold until I can try said alternatives.

Currently, I use a mix of Canon, Olympus (mainly for travel) and Leica (film). The new Sony is potentially a way to unify all of these systems in to one, allowing both the best IQ, small size/weight for travel, and the option to use the best Canon lenses. Here, the A7rII is cheaper than the newer Canon FF bodies, and so if the reviews look good and the camera handles well, I will be adding a Sony rather than upgrading the 5DII to a 5Dsr. I can keep the 5DIII for those occasions when the Sony handling is not sufficient.

Canon should be very worried about this. Their marketing tends to assume that the only competition is from themselves. But when you can effectively use Canon lenses on another vendors body, that assumption starts to look very dodgy.

The camera market is very difficult at the moment, but it is telling that Canon is posting a negative outlook, while other companies are seemingly gaining ground (Olympus, despite its numerous problems, is increasing sales and revenue, for example). It is hard not to see this as a result of Canon's recent lack of innovation and fear of cannibalising their own sales.

 

[unfocused]

... it is telling that Canon is posting a negative outlook, while other companies are seemingly gaining ground...

Why do people make sh*t up?

There is a huge difference between exceeding analysts projections with $552 million profit and "posting a negative outlook."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[unfocused]

...the outlook for Canon profits is negative.

Clearly, you don't know what negative means either.

 

[MarkII]

... it is telling that Canon is posting a negative outlook, while other companies are seemingly gaining ground...

Why do people make sh*t up?

There is a huge difference between exceeding analysts projections with $552 million profit and "posting a negative outlook."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

And some people are completely incapable of reading the original news item, linked in the front page article.

The headline at Reuters (if you would care to spend 2 seconds to click on the news link in the leading article) is "Canon cuts outlook as weak camera sales hit second-quarter profit". This is because, as is explained in Canon's press release, while Canon beat (their previously reduced) expectations, they also cut their projected (and still to be determined) profit for the full year.

The person making sh*t up here is not me, as anyone who can read and understand the word "negative" can see.

 

[unfocused]

Okay, I plan on this being my last post on this "negative outlook" bull.

Here is what the Reuters article actually said: "The firm said it now expects full-year profit of 245 billion yen rather than the 255 billion it forecast three months ago."

So, Canon cut its own forecast on what they projected their profits to be. They did not issue a "negative outlook."

In fact, only a rating agency – not a company – issues a negative outlook. A negative outlook means that at least one of the three rating agencies (Standard & Poor's, Fitch Ratings, or Moody's Investor Services) expects to downgrade the rating they issue on a company's or government's long term borrowing.

A negative outlook is a signal from the investor community that they believe a company or a government needs to adjust its course in order to assure long-term financial viability.

Even if you want to use the term in some sort of colloquial sense, I am certain Canon would strongly disagree with the statement that they have issued a negative outlook.

The company is making a healthy profit. They actually did slightly better than outside analysts projected. And, in addition, while the overall market dropped, Canon stock actually beat the market.

I recognize that people who are buying Sony cameras want to feel good about their purchases. Confirmation bias is everywhere. But, it is self-delusional to twist a $552 million quarterly profit into a negative.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here is what the Reuters article actually said: "The firm said it now expects full-year profit of 245 billion yen rather than the 255 billion it forecast three months ago."

I recognize that people who are buying Sony cameras want to feel good about their purchases. Confirmation bias is everywhere. But, it is self-delusional to twist a $552 million quarterly profit into a negative.

Perhaps not self-delusion as much as a certain level of sharpness in terms of business acumen.