Canon will release an APS-C RF mount camera(s) later in 2022 [CR3]

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,054
206
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
I wonder what that market is like now. A few years back, a Leica exec said that the entire medium format digital market (not just their share) comprised about 6000 units per year.
That might have been me claiming the 6K units/year. I was told this by a friend that worked for PhaseOne R&D at the time:
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,422
5,204
That might have been me claiming the 6K units/year. I was told this by a friend that worked for PhaseOne R&D at the time:
It was in an online article where the guy from Leica was quoted.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,422
5,204
I have updated my previous post. That is much higher than I expected given all the other areas that Sony have revenue from.
Does Sony they break down their sensor division separate to cameras?
Higher than I thought, too. It’s a bit challenging with Sony because they’ve moved their cameras from one division to another a few times in recent years. Feels a little like a shell game.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,053
883
www.flickr.com
Higher than I thought, too. It’s a bit challenging with Sony because they’ve moved their cameras from one division to another a few times in recent years. Feels a little like a shell game.
based on my limited business acumen, that strategy would seem like cameras don't fit well into their current business unit segments and would be relatively easy to sell off as an independent entity.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,634
5,986
That is because Sony restructured their divisions and cameras are just a part of that division that includes all scientific and medical imaging, surveillance solutions etc etc.

The rumor at the time (maybe DPReview or Thom) was the consumer camera division was losing so much money they needed to wrap it into a division that could cover the losses. It is impossible to know how much money, if any, the camera sector, as we understand it, makes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: entoman

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
137
185
I don't understand why, every time APS-C R is discussed, people insist it will mean Canon must discontinue the M series.

I don't follow Canon's financials and I have zero insight into any of their internal numbers, but given the amount of time since the last update of any kind, I imagine the M series development is paid for and the production tooling is paid for. Every unit they sell at this point must be nearly pure profit, minus the recurring costs of parts and labor.

Others here have said that the M series is Canon's top selling ILC by volume, or maybe that's just in Japan. Either way, if true, it would seem foolish to discontinue it while it's still profitable, just because something newer and shinier has come along. That's camera enthusiast thinking, not smart marketing.
 

EverydayPhotographer

EOS RP, M50, and M2
You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.

That being said, I did acknowledge that they have been rewarded at the sales registers. And I think we can both agree that that leaves little incentive for Canon in the short term to do anything different. But with a camera and lens lineup that fundamentally hasn't changed since 2018, I am still surprised that they continue to dominate a market that is driven by innovation and creativity. How long can that last? The bottom will drop out of this market. It's not if, it's when. And Canon has shown no interest in innovating within the lineup, nor making clear pathways into another architecture without simply starting from scratch.

So yes, I stand by my original post. The M series is dying of neglect. Canon has demonstrated that it believes that the M series is a technological dead-end, even if they continue to wring profits out of it. I don't expect that to change, but I can be hopeful.
You say it's dying of neglect. Canon sees that of the top 10 best-selling ILCs domestically last month, four of them are EOS M kits (at #3, 5, 7 and 10).

Your reality and actual reality are somewhat different, but at least you're in good company here.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,422
5,204
You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.

That being said, I did acknowledge that they have been rewarded at the sales registers. And I think we can both agree that that leaves little incentive for Canon in the short term to do anything different. But with a camera and lens lineup that fundamentally hasn't changed since 2018, I am still surprised that they continue to dominate a market that is driven by innovation and creativity. How long can that last? The bottom will drop out of this market. It's not if, it's when. And Canon has shown no interest in innovating within the lineup, nor making clear pathways into another architecture without simply starting from scratch.

So yes, I stand by my original post. The M series is dying of neglect. Canon has demonstrated that it believes that the M series is a technological dead-end, even if they continue to wring profits out of it. I don't expect that to change, but I can be hopeful.
Your conclusion does not fit the information you posted, which suggests that the M line is neglected but thriving.

What makes you think the market is ‘driven by innovation and creativity’? Cameras that are years old have chart-topping sales in Japan, ostensibly a country that fosters innovation. The 250D is at #2 and #8, it’s a DSLR from 2019. The original M50 from 2018 is at #7 and #10. Seems more like an industry driven by low-cost cameras.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,557
218
100
None your business Alaska
I have updated my previous post. That is much higher than I expected given all the other areas that Sony have revenue from.
Does Sony they break down their sensor division separate to cameras?
I am sure they do if you want to do the research. This came off last quarters financial which was very basic and just gave sectors. I had to do the math myself.
A google search of Sony's financials will tell you more than you ever want.
In their Corporate Strategy Meeting report the talk extensively about sensors and sensor R&D, and almost nothing about cameras.
My thought is that the camera division is just a supplement to selling sensors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David - Sydney

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
407
877
You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.

That being said, I did acknowledge that they have been rewarded at the sales registers. And I think we can both agree that that leaves little incentive for Canon in the short term to do anything different. But with a camera and lens lineup that fundamentally hasn't changed since 2018, I am still surprised that they continue to dominate a market that is driven by innovation and creativity. How long can that last? The bottom will drop out of this market. It's not if, it's when. And Canon has shown no interest in innovating within the lineup, nor making clear pathways into another architecture without simply starting from scratch.

So yes, I stand by my original post. The M series is dying of neglect. Canon has demonstrated that it believes that the M series is a technological dead-end, even if they continue to wring profits out of it. I don't expect that to change, but I can be hopeful.
I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.

I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.

Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"
 
Last edited:

John Wilde

EOS 90D
Jan 2, 2021
151
256
By their latest financial 11.7%.
Income 15%
Image and Sensing Solutions
Sony's Imaging and Sensing Solutions division doesn't make cameras. It only makes sensors. Their biggest business is probably smartphone sensors

Sony cameras are part of their Electronic Products and Solutions division. That division also includes TV, Audio and Video, Mobile Communications, and Other.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,422
5,204
Sony's Imaging and Sensing Solutions division doesn't make cameras. It only makes sensors. Their biggest business is probably smartphone sensors

Sony cameras are part of their Electronic Products and Solutions division. That division also includes TV, Audio and Video, Mobile Communications, and Other.
Like I said, a shell game. Makes me wonder if it’s even profitable, else why bury the results in different aggregates?

Fuji basically came out and admitted their digital cameras aren’t profitable, but they keep making them for ‘historical and societal reasons’.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,557
218
100
None your business Alaska
Sony's Imaging and Sensing Solutions division doesn't make cameras. It only makes sensors. Their biggest business is probably smartphone sensors

Sony cameras are part of their Electronic Products and Solutions division. That division also includes TV, Audio and Video, Mobile Communications, and Other.
Still and Video Camera Sales is 3.7% of Sony's total sales in 2020. FY21_2Q_Supplemental.
Cameras are only mentioned once.
In other reports cameras are mentioned very little.
So is there really a point other than speculating that Canon could have crushed and pushed Sony out of business if they had released a mirrorless full frame sooner.
I wonder how many sensors Sony sells from the Imaging and Sensing Solutions to the Electronic Products and Solutions Division?
I suppose they could scrap making cameras and loose those sells.
For the Imaging and Sensing Solutions it is split 70% for phone sensors and 30% for audio-visual and industrial applications which are primarily Cameras.
Doing some simple math that would mean that about 3.5% of the total sales of the company go to camera sensors.
It makes you wonder how they do the math, would they count sales of sensors to themselves as revenue for one sector and cost for another?

The real point is all the speculation in this forum are for the most part misinformed. A quick google search and some reading about Sony's financials will take you to their Investors Relation site which will tell you about everything if your willing to read and do a little math.

The reality is that camera sales are a very small part of their business, why they choose to make cameras may be to sell sensors to themselves. Maybe they want to take over the world camera market. But the reality is Canon is not going to crush Sony or push them out of the market unless Sony chooses to quit making cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David - Sydney

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,053
883
www.flickr.com
Still and Video Camera Sales is 3.7% of Sony's total sales in 2020. FY21_2Q_Supplemental.
Cameras are only mentioned once.
In other reports cameras are mentioned very little.
So is there really a point other than speculating that Canon could have crushed and pushed Sony out of business if they had released a mirrorless full frame sooner.
I wonder how many sensors Sony sells from the Imaging and Sensing Solutions to the Electronic Products and Solutions Division?
I suppose they could scrap making cameras and loose those sells.
For the Imaging and Sensing Solutions it is split 70% for phone sensors and 30% for audio-visual and industrial applications which are primarily Cameras.
Doing some simple math that would mean that about 3.5% of the total sales of the company go to camera sensors.
It makes you wonder how they do the math, would they count sales of sensors to themselves as revenue for one sector and cost for another?

The real point is all the speculation in this forum are for the most part misinformed. A quick google search and some reading about Sony's financials will take you to their Investors Relation site which will tell you about everything if your willing to read and do a little math.

The reality is that camera sales are a very small part of their business, why they choose to make cameras may be to sell sensors to themselves. Maybe they want to take over the world camera market. But the reality is Canon is not going to crush Sony or push them out of the market unless Sony chooses to quit making cameras.
3.5% does seem more realistic. Intercompany eliminations are used to avoid double counting of revenue/cost
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/what-are-intercompany-eliminations.html

My original speculation was that if Canon/Nikon did enter the FF mirrorless market much earlier then perhaps Sony's camera division may have bled sufficient cash trying to get market share with new products and become untenable. Sony is big enough to wear losses if it wants to and if they see cameras as strategic to the business but each division will have their own P&L to justify their existence. Sony makes medium format sensors but don't make medium format cameras. I just noticed that Sony mobile phones are seeing a big sales increase with 2Q21 up 25% YoY. I had thought that they were dying as well even though Sony make the camera sensors.

All just speculation but at least we have learnt more about % revenue in Sony/Canon today :)
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,053
883
www.flickr.com
I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.

I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.

Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"
I agree but it is still important to have marketing halo products even if they don't sell many or aren't that profitable. Partly to show innovation that hopefully will trickle down to consumer models but more about aspiration (based on my limited business acumen).

Corolla and Camry have the Supra. Even Lexus IS models aspire to LC/LS and previously to ISF/RCF/LFA models. My understanding is that the most profitable part of selling cars is adding options within model ranges including those that make them look more like the halo cars eg "M sport" accents on BMW without it being a M2/M3/M4 etc
Whether a car reaches -100km/hr in 3.9 or 3.8s is definitely showing decreasing returns to scale especially given the state of roads and the speed limits.
 

drhuffman87

Eos R, RF24-105 F4L, RF85 F2, EF200 F2.8L II
Nov 5, 2020
36
48
www.drhuffmanphoto.com
I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.

I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.

Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"

You make a lot of valid points here sir. In my opinion, the ultra-high resolutions and burst rates on some of the top of the line cameras creates more problems than they solve, especially when it comes to file management and storage. That being said, I cannot agree with your statement regarding prime lenses. The value of prime lenses is simple and obvious in that they may offer superior optics, and a wider aperture at a greatly reduced price in comparison to a zoom lens. As an example, one of the lenses I shoot with is a ef 200mm f/2.8L USM II that I purchased for around $600. Sure, it's possible that I could have purchased a used ef 70-200 III for an extra thousand, or lost a ton of light with a ef 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS II for a similar price, but the prime provided the additional reach I needed, without compromising my results, while also being budget friendly.

Honestly, I feel that zoom lenses hamper my creativity, and the only reason I even own one is for weather sealing so I can shoot in adverse weather conditions in the snow, rain or at the beach without running into the need to change lenses.
 
Last edited: