Prosumer Level Canon Mirrorless Camera to Have 4K [CR2]

[rrcphoto]

What can we conclude from this?
Canon sales are dropping like a movie set boulder filled with helium. 5.7% last year.
Selling cameras is a small portion (36%) of their business, yet that branch in declining years has a 14.59% profit margin.

Anyone with any sense can see that if you work less and make more money that is the surest way to go bankrupt. I mean 14.59% profit margin is ridiculous. Since they are not charging up the credit card debt and buying expensive toys how can they consider themselves successful in today's world. Anyone with any sense knows that the debt ratio should be 50 to 100% not 0.

did i miss the sarcasm?

a debt ratio of 50-100%? so more debt then hard assets?

cameras is less than 36% btw, considering that also includes printers.

Maybe

and i certainly needed more coffee apparently.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A quick definition search might help.

Opinion :a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Fact :a thing that is indisputably the case.

So it would appear by these quick definitions that google pulled up, an opinion does not require a fact. It requires no knowledge either.

Fine, but if a person's opinion is that the Earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese, sharing that opinion still makes them look like an imbecile.

 

[bdunbar79]

A quick definition search might help.

Opinion :a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Fact :a thing that is indisputably the case.

So it would appear by these quick definitions that google pulled up, an opinion does not require a fact. It requires no knowledge either.

Fine, but if a person's opinion is that the Earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese, sharing that opinion still makes them look like an imbecile.

My favorite planet's the sun. It's like the king of all planets!

 

[brad-man]

A quick definition search might help.

Opinion :a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Fact :a thing that is indisputably the case.

So it would appear by these quick definitions that google pulled up, an opinion does not require a fact. It requires no knowledge either.

Fine, but if a person's opinion is that the Earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese, sharing that opinion still makes them look like an imbecile.

My favorite planet's the sun. It's like the king of all planets!

Shine on you crazy diamond 8)

 

[msm]

If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.

Of course it is a good business decision. Must we remind you, again, that you are the one questioning their business decisions and suggesting they are making poor ones?

Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.

And on what basis can you claim that Canon's decisions are the right ones? On unit sales? Do you really think that is the metric on which these companies ultimately measure their success? The fact that Sony don't even pursue it should give you a hint on how high priority that is. It is mostly a fact used by marketing, 1 billion flies can't be wrong....

Unit sales are dominated by the low end. All they mean is that Canon sells alot of low end rebels and eos m which is what? A rebel without a viewfinder? Arguably crappiest mirrorless on the market.

You got one thing right though. The customers which dominate the unit sales does not rely on DR or 4k video. Most rebel buyers probably don't even know what that is and neither is the competition hard in that segment when it comes to 4k.

Could Canon have been more proactive and used their technology taken the market segment Sony was allowed to take in mirrorless? What would it cost them and what could they have earned and how much could they earn in the future if they had done it? How can you know that they did the right thing or not? None of us can know. It is just baseless and worthless speculation on your part as usual.

The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right?

Indeed!

What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?

They are doing the right thing if they are reaching their full potentional. If they have the potentional to do significantly better then no they are not doing the right thing. Since none of the participants here have any clue if that is the case or not this whole discussion is meaningless speculation from *both* sides.

 

[gargamel]

I included this in a previous post, but the post was probably tl;dr for most people here:

Canon bleeding market share?
http://www.photocounter.com.au/2015/canon-bleeding-market-share/

Compare the reduction of roughly 14% of sales of Canon ILC products predicted by Canon in October, 2015, to the 1.7% growth in sales for mirrorless cameras in 2015. Still, DSLRs are a profitable business for Canon, and it may be the better cash cow for now. Still, these figures clearly indicate that the market is going to shift, mainly because DLSR sales are decreasing significantly.

However, as I also said before, I don't know, if the source is credible. Can anyone here judge? Or provide confirmed data?

gargamel

 

[LoneRider]

Something I have not seen a lot of discussion about is pent-up demand. It is possible a lot of people are waiting on the 5DX. Canon might have just slightly missed the mark by not adding a touch screen on the 7D-ii. It caused me to pause on the 7D-ii.

It is very possible the 80D, and 5DX will get many people like me to act. Canon is at the far end of a design cycle. Of course their numbers are going to be lower, and with their significant presence in the market, that could bring down the whole market.

The release of the 70D with DPAF, then 7D-ii with its standard AF like has created expectations in a lot more people than just me.

The 5DX must be an out of the park home run. The buzz around it will ring like almost no other camera in at least the last few cameras.

Yeah, the MILC have created buzz, but an out of this world 5D at under $3500 is going to sell like crazy.

I am still wondering how they can get IR out of a MILC for better subject tracking??

 

[gargamel]

[...]
The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right?

Indeed!

What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?

They are doing the right thing if they are reaching their full potentional. If they have the potentional to do significantly better then no they are not doing the right thing. Since none of the participants here have any clue if that is the case or not this whole discussion is meaningless speculation from *both* sides.

Are they doing the right thing?
Let me re-phrase this question in my own words. Will it pay off for Canon, that they have been developing and improving brilliant technology for traditional product architectures, instead of investing in something new? Why aren't they, with such a track record of innovation, not the front-runners in mirrorless technology?

Are they doing right, what they are doing?
As far as DSLRs are concerned: Yes, they are on the right track again, I guess, as they respond to customer feedback. E.g., the 80D has better AF, a better sensor and, finally, the OVF covers 100% of the image real estate. (can anyone provide the correct English term, please?).

Regarding the M line: No, up to now. The M products so far are half-hearted, and consequently are only #3 in sales rankings,. If Canon had been serious about mirrorless in the past, they could be #1 in that market, by now. But they were too afraid of bringing a MILC product that would erode their DSLR sales.

Driving users who express some disappointment into the arms of other brands, as someone here repeatedly did, is not the answer, of course, as a switch to another brand means sacrificing investments into EOS gear and investing in a new system. So, depending on investments done in the past, individual inertia to switch the camera system varies.

gargamel


EDIT: Corrected quotation clauses, removed parts from the quotes that are irrelevant for the reply post. Sorry for the mistake..

 

[unfocused]

I included this in a previous post, but the post was probably tl;dr for most people here:

Canon bleeding market share?
http://www.photocounter.com.au/2015/canon-bleeding-market-share/

Compare the reduction of roughly 14% of sales of Canon ILC products predicted by Canon in October, 2015, to the 1.7% growth in sales for mirrorless cameras in 2015. Still, DSLRs are a profitable business for Canon, and it may be the better cash cow for now. Still, these figures clearly indicate that the market is going to shift, mainly because DLSR sales are decreasing significantly.

However, as I also said before, I don't know, if the source is credible. Can anyone here judge? Or provide confirmed data?

gargamel

I notice that the article you cite combined data from two different sources (Canon and CIPA) and extrapolated conclusions by comparing those numbers. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not necessarily reliable either. Unless you know the details of how each statistic was calculated and can be certain they used identical criteria (highly doubtful) it's risky to merge two different sources like that.

Something I have not seen a lot of discussion about is pent-up demand.

Yes. Exactly. The story Gargamel cites uses relatively short time frames (quarters) to draw general conclusions. Camera release cycles occur over several years. It's normal for a company's sales to spike following a new release and then drop when they are nearing the end of the life cycle of a major product. That's why it's risky to select a single year or two out of the overall cycle and try to draw conclusions.

 

[bdunbar79]

[...]
The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right?

Indeed!

What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?

They are doing the right thing if they are reaching their full potentional. If they have the potentional to do significantly better then no they are not doing the right thing. Since none of the participants here have any clue if that is the case or not this whole discussion is meaningless speculation from *both* sides.

Are they doing the right thing?
Let me re-phrase this question in my own words. Will it pay off for Canon, that they have been developing and improving brilliant technology for traditional product architectures, instead of investing in something new? Why aren't they, with such a track record of innovation, not the front-runners in mirrorless technology?

Are they doing right, what they are doing?
As far as DSLRs are concerned: Yes, they are on the right track again, I guess, as they respond to customer feedback. E.g., the 80D has better AF, a better sensor and, finally, the OVF covers 100% of the image real estate. (can anyone provide the correct English term, please?).

Regarding the M line: No, up to now. The M products so far are half-hearted, and consequently are only #3 in sales rankings,. If Canon had been serious about mirrorless in the past, they could be #1 in that market, by now. But they were too afraid of bringing a MILC product that would erode their DSLR sales.

Driving users who express some disappointment into the arms of other brands, as someone here repeatedly did, is not the answer, of course, as a switch to another brand means sacrificing investments into EOS gear and investing in a new system. So, depending on investments done in the past, individual inertia to switch the camera system varies.

gargamel


EDIT: Corrected quotation clauses, removed parts from the quotes that are irrelevant for the reply post. Sorry for the mistake..

Being the front runner in MILC is a very, very poor business decision. Demand, relative to other ILC's, is very low. It's very simple and I'm not real sure why this topic is still going. It's a well understood topic and explains very clearly why Canon dominates the market.

 

[gargamel]

[...]
I notice that the article you cite combined data from two different sources (Canon and CIPA) and extrapolated conclusions by comparing those numbers. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not necessarily reliable either. Unless you know the details of how each statistic was calculated and can be certain they used identical criteria (highly doubtful) it's risky to merge two different sources like that.

Something I have not seen a lot of discussion about is pent-up demand.

Yes. Exactly. The story Gargamel cites uses relatively short time frames (quarters) to draw general conclusions. Camera release cycles occur over several years. It's normal for a company's sales to spike following a new release and then drop when they are nearing the end of the life cycle of a major product. That's why it's risky to select a single year or two out of the overall cycle and try to draw conclusions.

As I said, I don't know how credible the source is. Assuming the figures presented in the article are true, the most relevant point for our discussion here is, where they cite Canon's prediction for 2015 to be down by 14% compared to the year before.

Regarding the long development cycles: You are right, but how would you want to correlate this with sales figures, as shown in the article? Of course, current sales and sales of the past are used as input into the decision making processes for future product roadmaps. But that's a rather indirect correlation, and many other factors go into that, too.

General conclusions for 2015: ILC sales for Canon (and probably Nikon,..., although I have no source for that) decreased. Mirrorless sales increased very slightly.

That's about all the figures we know by now tell us (if they are real).

gargamel

 

[gargamel]

[...]

Being the front runner in MILC is a very, very poor business decision. Demand, relative to other ILC's, is very low. It's very simple and I'm not real sure why this topic is still going. It's a well understood topic and explains very clearly why Canon dominates the market.

I look at it differently, but i do get the point that
- the early bird catches worm, but
- the second mouse takes the cheese.

gargamel

 

[LoneRider]

Regarding the M line: No, up to now. The M products so far are half-hearted, and consequently are only #3 in sales rankings,. If Canon had been serious about mirrorless in the past, they could be #1 in that market, by now. But they were too afraid of bringing a MILC product that would erode their DSLR sales.

I don't know if this supposition is correct. To be honest, it may just as possible the EOS M is a product line that Canon is very interested in. But top priority is mirrored cameras. If Canon were to delay the 1DX-ii, 5DX and 7D-iii in a significant manor, it would likely hurt them more than the delay in better M cameras.

The 1DX-ii can be looked at as Canon version of the Acura NSX, or even the Ford GT. They know they are not going to sell a lot, but it drives the brands image and stokes the R&D engine. Likely difference is, they probably won't lose money on the 1DX-ii, were Ford will likely lose money on the GT.

I certainly think it is possible the same ~28MP sensor in the 5DX will show up in MILC for a few pesos less than the 5DX. But, unless they have some trickery to get IR sensing in the package its subject tracking won't be as good as the 5DX. The MILC will also likely have less battery life as that FF sensor will always be one when setting up for the shot. Granted, sticking in a bigger battery can fix that.

Trade offs, and simply put. And IMNSHO the 80D, 1DX-ii, 5DX were job 1. And the 7D-iii with new sensor is up there. Possibly with the same pixel count as the 5DX for the same 4K video processing.

 

[scyrene]

[...]
I notice that the article you cite combined data from two different sources (Canon and CIPA) and extrapolated conclusions by comparing those numbers. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not necessarily reliable either. Unless you know the details of how each statistic was calculated and can be certain they used identical criteria (highly doubtful) it's risky to merge two different sources like that.

Something I have not seen a lot of discussion about is pent-up demand.

Yes. Exactly. The story Gargamel cites uses relatively short time frames (quarters) to draw general conclusions. Camera release cycles occur over several years. It's normal for a company's sales to spike following a new release and then drop when they are nearing the end of the life cycle of a major product. That's why it's risky to select a single year or two out of the overall cycle and try to draw conclusions.

As I said, I don't know how credible the source is. Assuming the figures presented in the article are true, the most relevant point for our discussion here is, where they cite Canon's prediction for 2015 to be down by 14% compared to the year before.

See, here's a problem. Citing a source that you can't even tell is trustworthy yourself, then trying to draw conclusions from it, is just too much of a stretch to maintain a discussion of this kind.

 

[Ozarker]

Except that the Eos M has been competitive (if you look at sales figures).

Lol, yes but AvTvM defines 'competitive' as 'something I personally like'. Please don't bother him with facts and data, those things make his little noggin hurt worse than a mirrorslap to the back of the head.

After all, Canon is 3rd in MILC market share (a smaller segment in which they haven't strongly invested), and the clear leader in the overall ILC market. But, of course, AvTvM knows more about market strategy than they do... :

Conclusion: he's a card-carrying member of the anti-reality league.

I'd just like to know when he's going to get rid of that "Mirror Slapper" he hates so much and go all mirror-less. Why keep crying so much? Just switch! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out either. Good luck with your new gear.

 

[Ozarker]

I never understood the bizarre need to continue to visit a place which brings you so much unhappiness. It's truly unhealthy.

+1
He's afraid to make the switch and wants the herd to do it first. He cannot possibly believe what he says.

 

[AvTvM]

can't cede this forum to Canon Fan Boy(z) only. ;D

And I am in no hurry to get rid of my 5D IIi mirrorslapper an d L glass, as long as I cannot get an FF mirrorless system that *is perfect* for each and every of my [photographic!] needs, wants, desires and wishes. 8)

 

[Orangutan]

I never understood the bizarre need to continue to visit a place which brings you so much unhappiness. It's truly unhealthy.

+1
He's afraid to make the switch and wants the herd to do it first. He cannot possibly believe what he says.

Several on the forums persist in confusing two, distinct questions: what camera they want to buy, and what cameras Canon wants to make. They want to buy a camera that meets their particular needs; Canon wants to make cameras that will be profitable. Since Canon has consistently been profitable making cameras that don't match their specific needs, the logical assumption is that their specific needs are not the most profitable. Unfortunately, many start with the presumption that their needs are representative, therefore profitable, and then go off into the desert predicting doom for Canon.

 

[midluk]

Can't you just continue to post squirrel pictures instead of continuing with this pointless discussion?

 

[neuroanatomist]

And I am in no hurry to get rid of my 5D IIi mirrorslapper an d L glass, as long as I cannot get an FF mirrorless system that *is perfect* for each and every of my [photographic!] needs, wants, desires and wishes.

So, you will just be keeping that 5DIII until you die, then. Good to know.