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

[fullstop]

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?

because i can express my opinion wherever I want. Even more so as a paying Canon customer. And are you sure, this is the only forum I am actively contributing?

And don't worry, i do walk the talk. I buy Canon gear ONLY when it meets my functional requirements and my budget. Otherwise I pass. Have not purchased any EOS M between M 1st gen and M50, because none was worth upgrading for me. 5D3 was the last mirrorslapper I bought. Until Canon brings a winning FF MILC, I will not buy an FF camera from them. Same goes for all other brands.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Because, as usual, max value is max value for you, i.e. body specs. There's simply more to it than that, and that's why some of us are far happier customers than you are.

Some of us value reliability, service, lens selection, ergonomics and we're clearly prepared to pay more for that. That doesn't make us crazy, apologists, etc. -- it means we have different priorities than you and Canon is largely fulfilling them.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

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.

3 tiers is fine, and it may happen eventually. But when you use a term like “maximum bang” or “maximum value,” you’ve established a moving target as basis. “I won’t buy a car unless it provides maximum fuel economy,” is a nonsensical statement. It should be “I won’t buy a car unless it provides the fuel economy I desire/require for an amount I’m willing and able to pay.”


I couldn’t care less what canon’s profits are. That’s trivial except in the context of trying to understand why they make the decisions they do. Nor do I care if they make 1% or 100% on my purchase, or even if they lose money. I’m not a shareholder, and it had no bearing on whether the product and price they offer meets my desirements and pocketbook.

FWIW, that was not ridicule, it was exaggeration to illustrate a point.

 

[ahsanford]

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".

It's not a question of 'if Canon can pull this off', it's a question of 'would Canon benefit from this'. And I think the answer to is a resounding no for all the reasons we've enumerated: they can charge more money for less product than a FF mirrorless system for $999, and offering such a product would jeopardize that fact.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

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".

Define 'realistic'.
If one company has been making FF mirrorless long enough to get it down to a fine art, it would be Sony and yet Sony's lowest price FF MILC is 2,000 USD - and that is advertised price with no tax applied.

Now please explain why Canon should even try and sell one for half that. Please...explain why. What is in it for them as a market strategy (BTW I am sure that their market strategy does not include 'keep fullstop happy')
If any one has an interest in releasing FF MILC at that price point it is Sony if only to stymie the early days of the CaNikon FF-MILC. With your marvellous knowledge of the camera market you have castigated Canon for not releasing a FF MILC 10 years ago to stop Sony in their tracks: why have not Sony done that to stop CaNikon in their tracks?

What is the cost of a FF sensor in relation to the whole cost of the camera and compared to APS-C sensor?

You clearly have an understanding of the camera market that eludes me so it will be interesting to hear your thoughts instead of simply reading you say 'they can do it'.

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.

So why should the squash their very successful APS-C market? Probably for the same reason that Sony do....oh, hang on....they don't.

Why should Canon follow some weird market rules that you probably do not expect of a manufacturer of any other goods.

 

[tpatana]

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

Or, those might draw people away from buying Sony MILC bodies. Actual impact on Canon DSLR sales is impossible to guess. It's possible the Canon MILC sales would increase more than the DSLR would reduce, if it pulls enough people from other MILC brands.

 

[Don Haines]

With your marvellous knowledge of the camera market you have castigated Canon for not releasing a FF MILC 10 years ago to stop Sony in their tracks: why have not Sony done that to stop CaNikon in their tracks?

I KNOW THE ANSWER!!!!!!!


Canon did not release a mirrorless FF camera 10 years ago because at that time the technology SUCKED! and they probably figured that nobody was going to pay more money for an inferior product.


Sony did not release a mirrorless FF camera 10 years ago because at that time the technology SUCKED! and they probably figured that nobody was going to pay more money for an inferior product.

 

[ahsanford]

Or, those might draw people away from buying Sony MILC bodies. Actual impact on Canon DSLR sales is impossible to guess. It's possible the Canon MILC sales would increase more than the DSLR would reduce, if it pulls enough people from other MILC brands.

100% right. ...if Canon weren't much much bigger than Sony today. But Canon makes far more money from its own customers than from stealing business from others, so it makes a lot of sense to protect how they are making that money from their customers rather than to undermine margins they get from them today.

Again, if the market position is reversed, if Canon is #2 or #3 following a giant Sony that cannot be stopped, a dirt cheap FF body actually has some merit. You'd steal share, develop a customer base that likes your mousetrap more than the other guys and be able to get more money from them on your next offering. (Spoiler alert: this is exactly what Sony appears to be doing with the A7 III.) But Canon simply isn't in that position, and going for it with a massive departure from their current market practices makes no business sense at all.

- A

 

[fullstop]

not 10 years. i said 5 years ago. 2013 https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7

The A7 will be sold in a body-only kit for $1699 or with a new 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS lens for $1999.

Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?

 

[tpatana]

Or, those might draw people away from buying Sony MILC bodies. Actual impact on Canon DSLR sales is impossible to guess. It's possible the Canon MILC sales would increase more than the DSLR would reduce, if it pulls enough people from other MILC brands.

100% right. ...if Canon weren't much much bigger than Sony today. But Canon makes far more money from its own customers than from stealing business from others, so it makes a lot of sense to protect how they are making that money from their customers rather than to undermine margins they get from them today.

Your guess is as good as mine. I think still DSLR and MILC are mostly not competing from same money, so selling FF MILC would mostly take money from competition, not their DSLR line-up.

Furthermore, if it's EF mount it would increase lens sales too on top of all that.

So I cannot guess if it'd reduce or increase the actual revenue/profit for the whole camera section. And neither can you, or even Canon. All we can do is guess, although Canon probably has done some market study and will make the decisions based on those.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?

"Should have been able to do" something vs. 'It would have been Canon's best possible business venture' are two very different things.

Canon chose to keep printing money elsewhere while Sony (bravely and aggressively, full marks) developed the FF mirrorless market. Now Canon will swoop in, offer something underwhelming for a higher price than you want... and still probably be sitting at 20% market share in that segment in a couple years. Because -- as always -- body specs are only a portion of the true value proposition of a product, and the market year over year continues to prove that true.

- A

 

[Kit.]

But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products.

What do you mean by that?

That you don't understand why Canon makes healthy money where you think it shouldn't?

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.

Canon profits are not "a position of Canon's CEO/CFO", but the actual fact. While your opinion about "mostly mediocre products" is just an opinion.

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.

That's simple. Everyone is voting with their money. And my money now is not on "tiny FF MILC".

 

[BillB]

not 10 years. i said 5 years ago. 2013 https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7

The A7 will be sold in a body-only kit for $1699 or with a new 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS lens for $1999.

Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?

Coulda shoulda woulda. We can never know how much it would have cost Canon to implement a preemptive strategy for mirrorless cameras, or how well it would have succeeded. The grandiose term for that kind of speculation is counterfactual history, but it is not really history but fantasy. Canon made a choice to go with dual pixel technology and a deliberate and flexible development strategy for mirrorless cameras. It has worked out pretty well with EOS M, and the next round is starting in fullframe mirrorless.

 

[3kramd5]

Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?

"Should have been able to do" something vs. 'It would have been Canon's best possible business venture' are two very different things.

Canon chose to keep printing money elsewhere while Sony (bravely and aggressively, full marks) developed the FF mirrorless market. Now Canon will swoop in, offer something underwhelming for a higher price than you want... and still probably be sitting at 20% market share in that segment in a couple years. Because -- as always -- body specs are only a portion of the true value proposition of a product, and the market year over year continues to prove that true.

- A

Also, companies are not infallible. Maybe with hindsight canon should have made FF MILCs in 2010, and if they had there would be no Nikon or Sony. But they didn’t, because their market analysis and risk profiles didn’t support it.

 

[ahsanford]

Coulda shoulda woulda. We can never know how much it would have cost Canon to implement a preemptive strategy for mirrorless cameras, or how well it would have succeeded. The grandiose term for that kind of speculation is counterfactual history, but it is not really history but fantasy. Canon made a choice to go with dual pixel technology and a deliberate and flexible development strategy for mirrorless cameras. It has worked out pretty well with EOS M, and the next round is starting in fullframe mirrorless.

This. All day. We are not entitled to what is possible -- instead we are offered what is profitable. If we don't like it, manufacturers lower the price or try again with a new product.

Canon chose to let Sony run riot and develop their own market. As much as that decision was a risk that could burn them, it was also an opportunity. Now Sony has developed something of value -- not just a product line, but buzz, interest in what mirrorless tech can do, etc. Sony's investment has now matured to the point that Canon will gladly show up and between (very modestly) stealing Sony business and (aggressively) selling mirrorless to their own customers, they will make a lot of money.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

not 10 years. i said 5 years ago. 2013 https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7

The A7 will be sold in a body-only kit for $1699 or with a new 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS lens for $1999.

Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?

I am sure they could have done it if they had wanted to. But my guess is they thought about it and decided to carry on doing what they were doing.
These numbers show that in the time they did not do what you propose, their market share went from 33% to 42%, a near 30% growth of market share

https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20180408_57359.html

So it looks to me like Canon assessed the market was not quite ready so they did other things instead. Whereas your predictions (even with hindsight) are ....misplaced.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.

Not understanding for Canon's profits, understanding of Canon's profits...and other basic facts.

In spite of all the opinions you voice on the Internet, and all of your promises to not buy products that don't even exist yet, Canon has heard only one thing from you:

Recently I got an M50

Message received! ;D

 

[fullstop]

no no, I see lots of understanding FOR Canon's profits. And even some CONCERN about those profits not being high enough. That's what really puzzles me. Why some (many?) Canon CUSTOMERS here in this forum don't fervently request better products and/or lower prices from Canon, but defend Canon's decisions all the time. At least implicitly, by saying "Canon could/should/will not sell their stuff for less money". Well, heck no, if even their customers in internet fora don't ask for it.

To me this behaviour displayed by some fellow forum members seems as strange as if an assembly of union representatives would say "we should not request any wage increases, company profits are very low at only 15% EBIT ratio, they might go out of business otherwise." And guess what their constituency would say ...


Re. EOS M50: as I said, product and price are competitive right now. And as also previously stated I would have paid even MORE had Canon put the better and readily available LP-E17 power pack into it.

 

[3kramd5]

. And even some CONCERN about those profits not being high enough. That's what really puzzles me.

That would puzzle me too. Can you link to one of those posts? The only rationale I can imagine are:
*the poster is a shareholder, or
*the poster is afraid canon will go belly up

I don’t share either of those, but with the various recurring predictions of doom for canon I guess I see why people might feel the latter ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

Person A expresses an opinion about a company's products or performance that is contradicted by established, verifiable facts. Person B states those facts. Person A believes that Person B is 'defending' the company.

Yeah, that makes sense. :