Lots of Talk, Very Little Solid Information About Canon's Next Cameras

[Loswr]

they are late to market with mirrorless and are paying a price for it. every Sony or Fuji mirrorless camera and lens (!) sold, could have been Canon cameras and lenses.

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality. Your speculation about sales they might have had is just that...speculation. Not fact. Not reality.

They haven't 'paid a price' for anything...they've gained.

 

[Mikehit]

they are late to market with mirrorless and are paying a price for it. every Sony or Fuji mirrorless camera and lens (!) sold, could have been Canon cameras and lenses.

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality. Your speculation about sales they might have had is just that...speculation. Not fact. Not reality.

They haven't 'paid a price' for anything...they've gained.

Of course, the opposite view is that every Canon sold could have been a Sony sale. So why are Canon taking MILC market share from Sony?

 

[kkamena]

in this forum "semantics nitpicking" is very important, unfortunately.

transition from film to digital cameras has not happened overnight either. yet it has killed Kodak and - in retrospect - can only be viewed as "truly disruptive". or the transition of music on physical media - decades of schellacks, decades of vinyl LPs, 15 years of CDs, to a few years of "downloads" and now a very few years of "streaming" - all those transitions were experienced as multi-year "slow" at the time, but "rapid and disruptive" in retrospect. and they have caused massive "disruptions" for many companies and rhe entire "entertainment/content" industry. as a little example just read up on Sony DADC and the fate of their plants ... fairly disruptive.

The transition from Film to digital was not disruptive to camera manufactures only film manufactures. Kodak did try to respond to the disruption only the market rejected its solutions. As stated before the only major disruption to the camera industry was when they started to put cameras on cell phones. Markets change and technology evolves, none of that means a disruption has taken place. The examples you gave where recognized as disruptions when they happened.

Before the 5DS the internet said Canon was doomed and could not compete with Nikon in resolution. Canon updated its lenses so when it put out a high resolution camera the whole system could be used effectively.

Companies go out of business for lots or reasons. Nikon will soon join the list and the reason it will is because of (1) lack of diversification, Something Canon is doing very well right. (2) Contracting out its core business operations to a competitor, and (3) bad market strategy. Sony has to put out higher spec'ed cameras at cheaper prices than Canon otherwise it would have no market share, Canon is in a position strength (this may not always be the case in the future, however all data shows this is the current market situation). Assuming that Sony does not have a huge strategic advantage over other brands in cost to manufacture, then it is intentionally making less money on camera sales now to hopefully make more profit on future purchases (eg future Camera sales, accessories like their over priced lenses). "Buying in" is a common business strategy for new market entries or lower performing companies attempting to take market share. Nikon took the bait but can not maintain a profit and does not have another major business unit to cover for its losses. if the 850 fails then Nikon has very real problems.

When Nikon goes out of Business it will not be because of "disruption" but because of poor business decisions. Canon is no where near going out of business or leaving the Camera market. So all the talk of Canon is doomed is from people who really have no idea what they are talking about.

One thing Canon is doing is trying to grow the entry level ILC Market. No other company is doing this as well as Canon. So you should be thanking them, as stated before Most Camera buyers want a nice Camera and do not take a lot of pictures. As anecdotal evidence most people I know think the Rebel line is a "Pro" Camera. Canon has done a great job putting Rebels in the hands of as many people as possible.

 

[fullstop]

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality.

50% of a smaller ILC market vs. 44%of a larger market, still a loss in absolute terms. Units and revenue.

And Canon could be at 75%+ market share today [their 50% plus all of Sony's and all of Fuji's [and maybe up to half of Nikon's too], had they stopped Sony and Fuji dead in their mirrorless tracks right away by bringing out decent mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors 5 years ago. Hypothetical, since Canon failed to do that, but nevertheless a well-founded scenario.

 

[BillB]

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality.

50% of a smaller ILC market vs. 44%of a larger market, still a loss in absolute terms. Units and revenue.

And Canon could be at 75%+ market share today [their 50% plus all of Sony's and all of Fuji's [and maybe up to half of Nikon's too], had they stopped Sony and Fuji dead in their mirrorless tracks right away by bringing out decent mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors 5 years ago. Hypothetical, since Canon failed to do that, but nevertheless a well-founded scenario.

Is there a point here that you are trying to make?

 

[ahsanford]

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality.

50% of a smaller ILC market vs. 44%of a larger market, still a loss in absolute terms. Units and revenue.

And Canon could be at 75%+ market share today [their 50% plus all of Sony's and all of Fuji's [and maybe up to half of Nikon's too], had they stopped Sony and Fuji dead in their mirrorless tracks right away by bringing out decent mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors 5 years ago. Hypothetical, since Canon failed to do that, but nevertheless a well-founded scenario.

Fullstop is dead on. If Canon offered everything to everyone, Canon would have more market share.

They'd also be broke.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality.

50% of a smaller ILC market vs. 44%of a larger market, still a loss in absolute terms. Units and revenue.

And Canon could be at 75%+ market share today [their 50% plus all of Sony's and all of Fuji's [and maybe up to half of Nikon's too], had they stopped Sony and Fuji dead in their mirrorless tracks right away by bringing out decent mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors 5 years ago. Hypothetical, since Canon failed to do that, but nevertheless a well-founded scenario.

Fullstop is dead on. If Canon offered everything to everyone, Canon would have more market share.

They'd also be broke.

- A

Hey, an almost perfect record of negative profit margin works for TSLA

 

[Talys]

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality.

50% of a smaller ILC market vs. 44%of a larger market, still a loss in absolute terms. Units and revenue.

And Canon could be at 75%+ market share today [their 50% plus all of Sony's and all of Fuji's [and maybe up to half of Nikon's too], had they stopped Sony and Fuji dead in their mirrorless tracks right away by bringing out decent mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors 5 years ago. Hypothetical, since Canon failed to do that, but nevertheless a well-founded scenario.

Is there a point here that you are trying to make?

If only Canon would hire Dr. Fullstop as Chief executive, their marketshare would exceed 100%

 

[Loswr]

Since the introduction of MILCs to the market, Canon has moved from ~44% ILC market share to ~50%. That is fact. That is reality.

50% of a smaller ILC market vs. 44%of a larger market, still a loss in absolute terms. Units and revenue.

And Canon could be at 75%+ market share today [their 50% plus all of Sony's and all of Fuji's [and maybe up to half of Nikon's too], had they stopped Sony and Fuji dead in their mirrorless tracks right away by bringing out decent mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors 5 years ago. Hypothetical, since Canon failed to do that, but nevertheless a well-founded scenario.

Yes, the market has declined. That's smartphone impact. Are you suggesting that Canon shifting to/adding MILCs would have stemmed the ILC market decline? Ridiculous.

A well-founded scenario, indeed… :

 

[ahsanford]

Yes, the market has declined. That's smartphone impact. Are you suggesting that Canon shifting to/adding MILCs would have stemmed the ILC market decline?

Canon could stop rising sea levels if they just build more cameras that AvTvM wanted.

- A

 

[BillB]

We have gone from prophecy that the mirrorless world is at hand to proclamation that Canon flubbed its chance to rule the mirrorless world five years ago. We find out fairly quickly whether the mirrorless world was in fact at hand. However, a true believer can continue forever to believe that Canon blew its big mirrorless chance. Not that I feel any need to convince anyone differently.

 

[BillB]

Actually, Canon did not miss a chance with mirrorless technology, it made a choice. The choice was to use dual pixel technology and take the time needed to develop it.

 

[ahsanford]

Actually, Canon did not miss a chance with mirrorless technology, it made a choice. The choice was to use dual pixel technology and take the time needed to develop it.

DPAF was enabling tech, sure, but they didn't exactly wait for it with EOS M. Also, DPAF may have happened without mirrorless happening: it is more of a bedrock 'everything benefits from this' core technology that may have already been in the works to give them a LiveView advantage on SLRs as well.

But I think they made a choice all right: the choice to let the market mature and define itself before making the massive investment and (possible) new mount decision. When mirrorless first broke, it was a zoo -- tiny Olympus PEN cameras, bigger A7 I and A7R I dropping out of the blue, fixed lens (larger sensored) mirrorless rigs, etc. (Remember Nikon leaping to action with the CX sensor?)

Remember -- Canon did the same thing before: they came in late with EOS M. There, they thought things through, and then they executed. They will do the same for FF.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

Yes, the market has declined. That's smartphone impact. Are you suggesting that Canon shifting to/adding MILCs would have stemmed the ILC market decline?

Canon could stop rising sea levels if they just build more cameras that AvTvM wanted.

- A

Not so much stop rising sea levels, but if they had done what DialMode says, then they could have built coastal dykes with the unsold Sony cameras and saved the entire world population in low lying islands.

 

[BillB]

Actually, Canon did not miss a chance with mirrorless technology, it made a choice. The choice was to use dual pixel technology and take the time needed to develop it.

DPAF was enabling tech, sure, but they didn't exactly wait for it with EOS M. Also, DPAF may have happened without mirrorless happening: it is more of a bedrock 'everything benefits from this' core technology that may have already been in the works to give them a LiveView advantage on SLRs as well.

But I think they made a choice all right: the choice to let the market mature and define itself before making the massive investment and (possible) new mount decision. When mirrorless first broke, it was a zoo -- tiny Olympus PEN cameras, bigger A7 I and A7R I dropping out of the blue, fixed lens (larger sensored) mirrorless rigs, etc. (Remember Nikon leaping to action with the CX sensor?)

Remember -- Canon did the same thing before: they came in late with EOS M. There, they thought things through, and then they executed. They will do the same for FF.

- A

Dual pixel was well into development when Canon rolled out the EOS M, which wasn't exactly received with overwhelming enthusiasm and joy. The M was a step on the way. Actually, a deliberate read and react mirrorless strategy fit very well with the development arc for dual pixel. There has also been a complementary Canon relationship between Liveview and mirrorless. For Sony, junking the mirror and going with an EVF was pretty much the first step. For Canon, getting rid of the mirror will be just about the last step to FF mirrorless.

 

[dak723]

in this forum "semantics nitpicking" is very important, unfortunately.

i think, "disruptive" is interpreted by some/many here as "immediate, short-term, massive change", such as "mirrorless cameras bring DSLR sales to a screeching halt". or "Canon bankrupt as market demand for Mirrorslappers has dropped to zero within 6 months".

evidently, this has not happened, so there is "no disruption visible anywhere to Canon/mirrorslapper "defenders".

No, some folks here just know what disruptive means. If folks buy a Mirrorless rather than buy a DSLR it is not only NOT a disruption, it is nothing at all. Cameras are being purchased Camera companies are still making money from the sales.

In other words, mirrorless will never be a disruption in the camera market. Both mirrorless ILCs and DSLR ILCs are the same market. They can't disrupt each other. People are buying cameras and lenses (and other accessories) from the same companies whether the cameras are mirrorless or have mirrors. My guess is that many - if not most - of the folks buying ILC cameras don't care whether the camera has a mirror or not.

 

[fullstop]

In other words, mirrorless will never be a disruption in the camera market. Both mirrorless ILCs and DSLR ILCs are the same market. They can't disrupt each other.

sure. Horse-carts and auto-mobiles are the same market. Horse cart market will never be disrupted by cars.

quite funny to read all those arguments down that line.

Mirrorslappers will be gone soon, much like the horse carts. At least in the more developed parts of the world. ;D

 

[3kramd5]

My guess is that many - if not most - of the folks buying ILC cameras don't care whether the camera has a mirror or not.

Probably. The people who care whether there is a mirror is likely a minority subset of the people who know how cameras work, which is a small subset of camera buyers. Granted, dedicated camera buyers are more likely to have some understanding - it's a self-selecting group - however as a general rule, people want to know *that* things work, not *how* things work.

 

[fullstop]

hehe, very funny.

in reality almost all potential buyers do and will care, if they can get "full (frame sensor) image quality and all of the photographic goodness" in a smaller, lighter and potentially less expensive package than in today's DSLRs. they will care even more, when mirrorless cameras bring additional benefits and possibilities to the table.

the very same reasons many buyers are chosing mirrorless cameras instead of DSLRs already today.

i think (speculation) there are many more people with cludgy, heavy, "conspicuous" mirrorslappers [try to go anywhere near a playground with a 5D and L glass and take pictures of your children/grandchildren lol] who would love to downsize their gear to a smaller, lighter form factor while keeping an FF sensor at its core get than those "with big hands" or "shooting with gloves" etc. who prefer "chunky" cameras.

these people have stopped or will stop buying more "marginally iterated" mirrorslappers. but they may become "current Canon customers" again if they are offered decent mirrorless systems - both with APS-C (smaller size, smaller wallet) and FF sensors (bigger wallet). plus a chance to win younger first-time buyers entering the Canon eco-system. more likely if they dont have to lug around the same big, dorky mirrorslappers their parents were using "in the old days".

 

[stevelee]

Smaller, lighter, cheaper are not likely to apply to FF any time soon from a general consumer point of view. If those are the main criteria, I don’t see much point in interchangeable lenses anyway. Don’t most Rebel owners just use the kit lens, or at least a preponderance of them?

I don’t imagine that being able to brag that your camera doesn’t have a mirror is high on most folks’ priorities.