Canon Will Announce Their First Full Frame Mirrorless in 2018 [CR3]

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,208
1,524
fullstop said:
It really is one of the most extreme forms of "Can-apologism" [sorry, but it is the only appropriate word for it] to always think like you were Canon Chief Financial officer or their main shareholder. Heck, no! We are all Canon customers. We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.
But not everyone wants it NOW.

I am still using Canon gear I bought 20 years ago (including 50/1.4). I would like to still be able to use my current gear for 20 more years to come. If Canon having slightly higher profit margins lets me pay less for my gear in the long run, that's fine for me.

(and yes, my experience with Sony was different)
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
amorse said:
Part of me wonders if they may be creating a full frame equivalent of an M6 rather than an M50.

Entirely plausible. Not sure we'll see a pop-up flash or that tiny of a form factor, but a mid-spec'd crop setup on FF (24 MP + 7 fps + DPAF + tilty-flippy touch + we presume the addition of 4K) seems a reasonable FF mirrorless offering to be sold alongside the 6D2. I still think those specs are a shade light for a 5-series level offering, though.

- A
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
fullstop said:
We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.

no we don't.

if we don't like what Canon is delivering, then buy a Sony, Fuji,etc.

you as a customer has zero rights really to demand what a company produces, canon isn't a monopoly. you vote with your feet, not with your keyboard.

but if you want to complain and whine, then this isn't the place for it. you're better off sending emails to canon, complaining in canon's own feedback forums,etc. Continually bitching and moaning in here, does nothing outside of get real tiring to hear all the time.

That's what you and a couple of others don't get. We all get you're not happy. So what? Why do i have to hear about it every time you open your mouth?
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,418
4,073
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
fullstop said:
ahsanford said:
tpatana said:
fullstop said:
yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.

They could make 2 versions, or even 3.

1: $999 Rebel-M. Basic small-ish, plastic body
2: $2000 5D-M. Like 5D-series, high mpix, great IQ, etc.
3: $3000 1D-M. Rugged pro/sports body. Medium mpix count, crazy-ass fps. Tank-like body.

Someone please find me an animated gif of Heath Ledger presiding over that burning pyre of cash in Dark Knight. Because that's what this is.

Canon didn't build up their portfolio...only to flush all of that down the toilet...

Madness.

No, the proposal is perfectly sound and fine. Try to take a PAYING CUSTOMER's PERSPECTIVE for once, will ya? instead of trying to just defend Canon's mega profitability...We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.

You can demand anything you want. But, that doesn't mean you will get it.

No one is defending Canon or its profitability (although I certainly want any company that I have invested thousands of dollars in their products to stay sufficiently profitable so that they can remain in business and continue to improve those products -- enlightened self-interest).

This is madness because the pricing suggested is never going to happen and anyone with an ounce of sense would know that. I'd like to buy a new mirrorless 1D for $3,000 but given that is less than the market price of a used original 1Dx, it ain't gonna happen.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,208
1,524
ahsanford said:
Kit. said:
However, when they go to the shop and actually compare the systems, they may as well buy the M50, because it's still cheaper, lighter, smaller, and good enough.
Sorry, I firmly see two markets here (keep it small vs. keep it seamless).
I see more than two potential markets here. I personally belong to the 3rd one: make it even lighter and smaller and better integrated with the lens I want on it - by getting rid of the mount.

The question is whether those markets are big enough to justify the investments into them.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,946
Canada
Perhaps this puts some perspective on things.....

I get a phone call from the boss.... "I need you take some pictures at …… right now". I had the bag with the Oly and lenses on my desk, so I grabbed it and went over to see what was happening.... My boss sees the Oly, and tells me that "this is important, go get your good camera"... so it's off to storage, grab the Canon and L glass, and back to take the shots.....

The moral of the story is that the Oly, despite being a nice little camera and would have done the job well, failed the visual test. It was not the size of camera that the client expected. As a pro, you must meet client expectations.... and sometimes that means a DSLR form factor.

Canon will have done considerable market survey by now. They will have a far better idea of what works and what does not than any of us on the form have. My case above might be a typical reaction, or it may be an aberration. The works of us here on this forum are dealing with a sample size of 1... it has no significance. We can get bent out of shape and argue until the cows come home, but in the end we just do not know.

The only clue we have to go by is a statement that it will be an elegant solution. As to what that elegant solution is, we shall have to wait.... in the meantime, we speculate.
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
rrcphoto said:
...
but if you want to complain and whine, then this isn't the place for it. you're better off sending emails to canon, complaining in canon's own feedback forums,etc. Continually bitching and moaning in here, does nothing outside of get real tiring to hear all the time.

That's what you and a couple of others don't get. We all get you're not happy. So what? Why do i have to hear about it every time you open your mouth?

Because those folks are trolls. As you say, if they really wanted to give their opinion to Canon, there are other methods and forums that would better serve their purpose. They whine and complain here simply to stir the pot and enrage Canon users. There is no other reason.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,208
1,524
dak723 said:
They whine and complain here simply to stir the pot and enrage Canon users. There is no other reason.
They can just be off their meds.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,127
4,728
unfocused said:
You can demand anything you want. But, that doesn't mean you will get it.

+1

I am picturing a little kid stamping his foot and yelling I WANT I WANT I WANT and I’m gonna hold my breath until I GET.

blueboy.jpg
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
dak723 said:
Because those folks are trolls. As you say, if they really wanted to give their opinion to Canon, there are other methods and forums that would better serve their purpose. They whine and complain here simply to stir the pot and enrage Canon users. There is no other reason.

That's too broad a read of what a troll is. If they constantly refer to nerfing, YAPODFC, anecdotes of an A7 III based economy where if you have one you are king, etc. then yes.

But AvTvM is no troll. There's just a very particular take on how Canon could succeed -- it's an alternate vision for Canon's future, that's all. I've always respected the passion and unique take AvTvM has on things, but the head in the sand on the state of the market, the perception that his/her sensibilities are obviously the worlds' sensibilities can get a little grating.

A troll acts out of malice. AvTvM acts out of passion for what they want. Huge difference, IMHO.

- A
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
415
356
Yorkshire
Unfocused: "..... No one is defending Canon or its profitability (although I certainly want any company that I have invested thousands of dollars in their products to stay sufficiently profitable so that they can remain in business and continue to improve those products -- enlightened self-interest)...".

Spot on- great point Unfocused.

History is littered with examples of companies whose profits became too slim, and ultimately ended up collapsing into insolvency. I suspect a large portion of Canon purchasers make their choice either due to the reputation/brand of Canon, and/or (for professionals and keener amateurs) their reputation for reliable products and excellent support. These things come from companies that make sustainable profits. Only those with short-term interest should want their suppliers to make thin margins.
 

tpatana

EOS 5D Mark IV
Nov 1, 2012
1,546
269
ahsanford said:
tpatana said:
You have some reason why similar line-up would work as they use for DSLRs?

Opinions are great until you need to give some reason behind them...

Forgive me, I thought that was implied. TL/DR reason: because profits.

Canon has demonstrated that they can ask for $500-$1699 for crop cameras and $1999-$5999 for FF cameras at time of launch. Canon leads the market in units (and has for a very long time), and they have crafted a portfolio that allows them to carve every dollar out of the market. Nowhere is this carefully tuned portfolio more painstakingly set up than in the crop market, which has far higher units than FF.

In short, Canon has figured out how to deliver a ton of products to market that justify their distinct price points. So now, to change that so dramatically with what you and AvTvM are suggesting, would...

[list type=decimal]
[*]Reduce Canon's profitability. Whatever mad rush on units we expect a cut-rate FF platform to drive, there are only so many people with $1500 in their pocket for a camera + lens. An FF camera would cost a great deal more to build than a crop camera, so less of that $1500 would go into Canon's pocket.


[*]Signal that Canon is moving toward consumers/enthusiasts and away from professionals with their FF offerings. This is more symbolic than anything else, but if Canon is limiting how nice they make their higher end offering (not just specs, but build quality, sealing, etc.) to keep costs down, pros may get wanderlust.


[*]Show that Canon wants to radically change how it is doing its business despite leading the market. That makes no sense. There is far more to lose than to gain with this approach.
[/list]

Again, I just don't see this happening.

- A

Did someone say they must stop selling DSLRs if they release good mirrorless bodies? Why not take piece of both cakes? You seem to view the world in quite high contrast black and white. There's 50 shades of grey in between, there's white, there's black, and then there's slightly darker black.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.

If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
fullstop said:
iIt is really beyond me why so many folks here [not] demanding max. value for their bucks.

Because many of us are generally realists. I’d love a medium format digital camera with a 100FPS global shutter, modulo-based photon counting for essentially limitless DR, and 1200mm f/4 lenses for the price of a cup of coffee, but I know I can’t get it.

Therefore, I evaluate the value proposition offered by the various companies, and either buy or do not buy if it meets my needs/wants/budget. The companies’ net profits are trivia which don’t play into my decisions at all. YMMV.
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
415
356
Yorkshire
fullstop said:
i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.

If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.

Fair enough - we are all entitled to our own opinion (and I won't go to why customers would buy "mediocre" products in sufficient quantity to create a market leader..). Nearly all major products nowadays are made by an oligopoly (technical definition -in the UK, at least - = 5 producers holding over 50% market share between them), but not sure I would agree that their profits are so unreasonably high. For Financial year 2017, Canon made a net profit margin of 5.9%, and I'm not convinced the photographic division is their most profitable. Anyway, may be guilty of going off topic on this thread.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,556
217
100
None your business Alaska
unfocused said:
You can demand anything you want. But, that doesn't mean you will get it.

No one is defending Canon or its profitability (although I certainly want any company that I have invested thousands of dollars in their products to stay sufficiently profitable so that they can remain in business and continue to improve those products -- enlightened self-interest).


What the hey, I will. 2017 Canon reported 175,913 million Yen in Operating Profits a margin of 15.9%.
Compare this to 74,924 million Yen in Operating Profit a margin of 11.4%. This is for the imaging sectors.

Sony's Operating Profit is only 42.5% of Canon's
https://global.canon/en/ir/annual/2017/canon-annual-report-2017.pdf

It is obvious Canon is *******.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,350
552
fullstop said:
i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.

If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.

So why are you not whining on a Sony forum about how they do not make a Sony MILC with Canon ergonomics compatible with Canon EF lenses, with Canon levels of reliability all for the price of a Rebel?
You constantly, and wilfully ignore the fact that we are not defending Canon merely pointing out the realities of the market - and one of those realities until you join the supposed hordes of other defectors and actually, physically go out and buy a Sony, Canon will think that overall they are doing the right thing for you.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,556
217
100
None your business Alaska
StoicalEtcher said:
fullstop said:
i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.

If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.

Fair enough - we are all entitled to our own opinion (and I won't go to why customers would buy "mediocre" products in sufficient quantity to create a market leader..). Nearly all major products nowadays are made by an oligopoly (technical definition -in the UK, at least - = 5 producers holding over 50% market share between them), but not sure I would agree that their profits are so unreasonably high. For Financial year 2017, Canon made a net profit margin of 5.9%, and I'm not convinced the photographic division is their most profitable. Anyway, may be guilty of going off topic on this thread.

Office Buisness Unit had an Operating Profit of $180,648 million Yen vs $175,913 for Imaging. You are correct.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
3kramd5 said:
fullstop said:
iIt is really beyond me why so many folks here [not] demanding max. value for their bucks.

Because many of us are generally realists. I’d love a medium format digital camera with a 100FPS global shutter, modulo-based photon counting for essentially limitless DR, and 1200mm f/4 lenses for the price of a cup of coffee, but I know I can’t get it.

no need to try and obfuscate matters with ridicule. The suggested 3 tiers of Canon FF mirrorless cameras at 3 price points, the lowest being 1000 [= double EOS M50] is not "ludicrously unrealistic".

We may not get it from Canon, not now and not ever never, if a significant proportion of their customers is primarily concerned with Canon's profitability rather than getting MAX BANG for their OWN BUCK.

Recently I got an M50 for my daughter, because it is a reasonably decent (* capable and compact APS-C ILC at a (very) reasonable price point, fully competitive [eg with Fuji X-T100] and totally competitive in combo with very decent IQ, compact and affordable EF-M lenses. I see no reason why we should not demand the same from Canon for an ENTRY level FF MILC. Entry level not meaning "nerfed and crippled", but "decent, capable and affordable". It does NOT have to be the only Canon FF MILC of course, they can make any number of more expensive ones for other market segments (birders, sports folks, pros of any sort, filthy rich / posers, whatever] if they see fit.

But 1 decent, compact and affordable AMATEUR model should be part of the lineup. Plus some matching lenses to go with it.


(* only "reasonably decent" by 2018 standards instead of "excellent" due to nerfed LP-E12 battery :p
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
tpatana said:
Did someone say they must stop selling DSLRs if they release good mirrorless bodies? Why not take piece of both cakes? You seem to view the world in quite high contrast black and white. There's 50 shades of grey in between, there's white, there's black, and then there's slightly darker black.

Because the price one cake is being sold for will affect the market's interest in another cake.

As much as the offerings can be bucketed into segments APS-C vs. FF, Mirrorless vs. SLR, etc. in the end we're all photographers and the bucket we're in at the moment isn't so rigid for a good number of us. As an example, my beloved 6D1 may be coming to an end and I need a new camera, and if I had a choice of a $1599 6D2 or a $999 FF ILC with a newer sensor at the same resolution that I can still use my lenses with, I might give that new camera a go.

In other words, a $999/1999/2999 spread you offered will get a lot of people buying those mirrorless rigs instead of more profitable-for-Canon SLR options. So offering those cameras at those prices is tantamount to throwing $600/$1000/$2500 away for each body sale. The logical move would be to offer that camera at something more/less the same as the 6D2 / 5D4 / 1DX2 these mirrorless rigs are spec'd like.

- A