That's my money you are profiting from Canon!!!

[unfocused]

I think I've discovered a new internet corollary.

Those who begin threads by posting outrageous statements that have no factual basis will eventually claim to have been joking.

Or perhaps it is just true what they say about accountants not having any idea what humor is.

 

[J.R.]

I think I've discovered a new internet corollary.

Those who begin threads by posting outrageous statements that have no factual basis will eventually claim to have been joking.

Or perhaps it is just true what they say about accountants not having any idea what humor is.

Probably yes ... If you didn't read what was posted

 

[J.R.]

I think I've discovered a new internet corollary.

Those who begin threads by posting outrageous statements that have no factual basis will eventually claim to have been joking.

Or perhaps it is just true what they say about accountants not having any idea what humor is.

Stating that my purchases of Canon products didn't add to Canon's bottom line is an outrageous statement and has no factual basis???

If I don't have an idea of what humor is, neither do you

 

[ishdakuteb]

Neuro, I value your opinion very much! Could you please explain where I was wrong. By the way, I am qualified CPA (FCCA) and not photographer. Accounting and financial statement analysis are the areas where I have really deep understanding

1. "accounting and financial statement analysis are the areas where I have really deep understanding". yes, that is true but this is not required to have cpa license to perform unless generating an official document such as 10k (i am not an accountant but have worked for a cpa firm during college period.)

2. a company is launched to look for profit, not for public services (as an accountant, you should know this...)
3. tamron, sigma lens are cheaper than canon and nikon but SHALL not perform consistently as canon (as i have previously stated in other post. this is due to proprietary interface contnrol designs. this is the reason why zeiss refuse to make autofocus for both nikon and canon lens. source of this information, i do not have it since this is my personal conclusion.)

4. as an accountant, one thing that you have forgotten to account is the cost of manufacture and r&d overhead (this sometimes costs more than you have thought...)

 

[Axilrod]

They surely are making a profit with my money with each purchase I make ... no? I'm not complaining so why is everyone jumping at that conclusion?

Thanks for the heads up though. I'll take care in future - humor doesn't go well on CR it seems. Given the responses of unfocused, awinphoto and StepBack ... I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry

Everyone is "jumping to that conclusion" because you titled this post "That's my money you're profiting from Canon!!!" I think most people would get the impression that you were upset based on that. If you didn't mean to imply that you were upset then are you suggesting that Canon owes you something? If it's not a complaint then I'm not sure what your intentions were in posting this.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, I value your opinion very much! Could you please explain where I was wrong.

Myself and other readers are really upset as Canon is making profits, however, does not invest such profits into R&D and does not introduce n/.ew cameras or lenses with significant improvements.

You can speak for yourself, of course. Not sure how many people are actually upset that Canon is making a profit. How anyone feels is pretty much irrelevant, anyway - Canon is a public company, and as such is legally obligated (in most jurisdictions) to maximize profits.

Canon is making significant profits and disappointing customers who would like to buy cheaper Canon cameras or lenses. Such approach is very dangerous as many customers are dissatisfied and are buying third party lenses as well as changing Canon religion to others.

Again, Canon's goal is to profit from sales, not to make people happy by lowering prices. Given that Canon revised their profit forcast upwards, and they are have held the top position in terms of market share for dSLRs and lenses for 10 years now, I don't think they're 'in danger'.

Does Sigma/Tamron offer a 70-200 2.8 that performs as well as the Canon? Nope. How bout a 24-70? 2.8? Hardly.

Answer is yes! Take a look at Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 which is direct competitor of Canon EF 24-70 2.8L MKII. Tamron's quality is slighty less worse than Canon's, however, Tamron has stabilisation. Also, try Tamron SP 70-200 2.8 which quality is very good as well. Both Tamron lenses are much cheaper. That why I told that third party manufacturers are taking quite significant part of Canon's lens market.

This is the main error. The answer is clearly not "yes". Even in your post, you acknowledge that the Tamron 24-70 is not quite as good as the Canon 24-70 II in terms of IQ. Is it a good lens at a decent price? Sure. But not a better lens. As for the 70-200 comparison, although they seem similar at 70mm, at 200mm I have a hard time calling the Tamron's quality 'very good' as it seems closer to a 'soft mess' to me (TDP comparison at 200mm).

Here you are also wrong. Everybody is looking what competitors are doing. If competitors can offer similar quality products for much lower price that means that Canon is doing something wrong: 1) Maybe they have issues in supply chain 2) Maybe they invest very heavily into R&D (which is not the case) 3) Using Yen's devaluation for their own profit (when competitors using this factor for lowering prices and increasing market share).

Yes, companies look at their competition. But to suggest that their competitors can offer similar quality (arguable) for much lower price means that Canon is 'doing something wrong' is ludicrous and shows a lack of the understanding you claim to have. Issues in supply chain? Not relevant (and even so, low supply for an in-demand product keep prices high). How do you know that their R&D investment is not heavy? Have you seen their complete budget breakdown? Are their competitors increasing market share? What's your evidence for that? If they are, is it enough to even matter? The reality is that Canon sets their prices to maximize profit - they charge what the market will bear, and the cost of goods has almost nothing to do with those prices.

 

[J.R.]

They surely are making a profit with my money with each purchase I make ... no? I'm not complaining so why is everyone jumping at that conclusion?

Thanks for the heads up though. I'll take care in future - humor doesn't go well on CR it seems. Given the responses of unfocused, awinphoto and StepBack ... I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry

Everyone is "jumping to that conclusion" because you titled this post "That's my money you're profiting from Canon!!!" I think most people would get the impression that you were upset based on that. If you didn't mean to imply that you were upset then are you suggesting that Canon owes you something? If it's not a complaint then I'm not sure what your intentions were in posting this.

Ok ... I think I understand when you put it this way - the title of the post could have been better. Thanks!

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[RMC33]

Does Sigma/Tamron offer a 70-200 2.8 that performs as well as the Canon? Nope. How bout a 24-70? 2.8? Hardly. The cost (R&D, tooling, marketing, advertising etc.) of the 7D was most likely recovered about 12-18 months into the run. The new 7D2 needs all these things so yes, Canon will continue to produce this amazing camera to fund better products.

Answer is yes! Take a look at Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 which is direct competitor of Canon EF 24-70 2.8L MKII. Tamron's quality is slighty less worse than Canon's, however, Tamron has stabilisation. Also, try Tamron SP 70-200 2.8 which quality is very good as well. Both Tamron lenses are much cheaper. That why I told that third party manufacturers are taking quite significant part of Canon's lens market.

Sorry, but as neuro said, and I have observed comparing them for my photography business, Canon won every time. Shooting test charts, working, etc. The softness of the tamron 70-200 @ 200 is laughable at best and ruined a Kayaking session I used it for.

Also, most people don't follow what the currency markets do so the de-valuation is not why they want lower prices. They want lower prices because that is human nature.

Here you are also wrong. Everybody is looking what competitors are doing. If competitors can offer similar quality products for much lower price that means that Canon is doing something wrong: 1) Maybe they have issues in supply chain 2) Maybe they invest very heavily into R&D (which is not the case) 3) Using Yen's devaluation for their own profit (when competitors using this factor for lowering prices and increasing market share). Also, if you are not well educated and do not understand how changes in currencies rates affect different economies, please do not comment on matters which you do not understand (by the way, are you American? )

People look at what their competition does because of, wait for it, Human nature. Competitors are not offering similar quality, they are offering lower quality cheaper equipment. Supply chain? Nope, other then the 600 f/4 II and 400 f/2.8 II but they are specialty lenses. R&D? Canon does not invest in this? Are you daft? Did you read what I posted about the 400 f/2.8? Optically better, lighter weight, faster focus, power assist focus for people doing movie related things, the list goes on. Canon 24-70 II, MUCH better sealing, Lighter, better IQ (better then some primes), a Lock switch so the lens barrel stays in place (my personal fav), much better overall design compared to the Mk1.

Not that it matters, but I have a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering, minors in photography and Material sciences, I read the economist every week and follow the currency markets closely as my job is tied very close to these markets. So yes, it is not because of the markets it is human nature that people want things at lower prices.

Mirror-less will not replace DLSR any time soon. Try shooting a moving object with a mirror-less.

Here you might be wrong as well. Take a look how quckly digital cameras overtook film cameras. The same could happen with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. You are stating your very subjective opinion based on emotions and not facts.

I hope that I clearly explained everything to you.

Focus is the issue here, not film vs digital. I have an EOS M (honestly, love it for travel) and have tried to toss my 500 f/4 II on it for birding, its terrible, even if the bird is sitting still. Toss the 1Dx on and I nail focus 99% of the time. Mirror-less and SLR use two entirely different methods of focus at current. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus Read this and it should explain what your looking for.

 

[awinphoto]

Couldn't agree more... JR if your upset that canon is turning a high profit, stop buying their stuff... simple... i'm sure canon is shaking in their boots... Hell i shoot professionally and I have half your gear... People get hot and bothered with any one company or individual earns a lot of money or capital... Why? They worked their butt off to earn that... Sue Bryce said we need to check our attitudes about money and being rich. If we get offended about those who are rich and big profitable company, we ourselves will carry that same mentality towards money and push it away psychologically. In the mean time I hope to use my gear to make my studio have a profitable year this year...

What gives you the idea that I'm upset? Did I say anywhere in my post that I had a problem that Canon was making a profit? Do you think I expect that Canon would sell their products to me at cost / loss?

It was simply news + humor on my part which probably doesn't go down well with CR posters who come out to defend Canon when it's not even being attacked : : :

hope you dont get offended by me.

No problem. However, I'm sure I offended you by posting the ... well ... news. Sorry if it causes so much angst.

Naw... not offended by you... just tired of hearing all the whining and complaining on CR over the last 12 months... Used to check out CR often but not any more... too many downers here.

 

[thepancakeman]

Naw... not offended by you... just tired of hearing all the whining and complaining on CR over the last 12 months... Used to check out CR often but not any more... too many downers here.

Yes, this is off topic, but I agree with you. It's been debated before, but I still see a strong correlation between the increasingly hostile and combative environment and the loss of the karma system. It wasn't a perfect system, but I think it did manage to keep it more civilized around here.

 

[Loswr]

Naw... not offended by you... just tired of hearing all the whining and complaining on CR over the last 12 months... Used to check out CR often but not any more... too many downers here.

Yes, this is off topic, but I agree with you. It's been debated before, but I still see a strong correlation between the increasingly hostile and combative environment and the loss of the karma system. It wasn't a perfect system, but I think it did manage to keep it more civilized around here.

Smite.

 

[unfocused]

Yes, this is off topic, but I agree with you. It's been debated before, but I still see a strong correlation between the increasingly hostile and combative environment and the loss of the karma system. It wasn't a perfect system, but I think it did manage to keep it more civilized around here.

Absolutely agree. As flawed as the Karma system was, it served as a powerful feedback to participants as to how their overall behavior was being perceived by other forum participants. Karma has now been too often replaced by personal attacks and drive-by comments.

 

[distant.star]

.
I could not disagree more.

Hostile and combative rarely characterize discussions I read here these days. I do have a bias toward thinking most people are simply too sensitive. They are easily offended, and somehow they acquired the wrongheaded idea that they should go through life without anyone offending them.

In the "karma" days, people seemed inclined to respond to the silly "smite" with more of their own smites. That escalated, people assumed they knew who bad marked them and then they tended to respond with some nasty remark -- sort of a passive aggressive response to real or imagined disrespects.

We do pretty well around here for being in a world where we have no verbal cues, no body language and almost no social history with the other posters.

I think this perspective is a little more balanced, so I disagree soundly.

Yes, this is off topic, but I agree with you. It's been debated before, but I still see a strong correlation between the increasingly hostile and combative environment and the loss of the karma system. It wasn't a perfect system, but I think it did manage to keep it more civilized around here.

Absolutely agree. As flawed as the Karma system was, it served as a powerful feedback to participants as to how their overall behavior was being perceived by other forum participants. Karma has now been too often replaced by personal attacks and drive-by comments.

 

[scottkinfw]

I have too many Canon toys. Nobody put a gun to my head to buy them. In fact, this week I purchased a 24-70 2.8L II. I anticipate a long relationship with it. No buyers remorse here. So, what is your point?

No. It's not.

Unless you own stock in Canon, you traded them your money for that long list of toys you so proudly display at the bottom of your post. You own that stuff now and can do whatever you want with it. It's yours. It's also now Canon's money and they are free to do what they want with it. So, No. It's not your money.

Secondly, why do people post stories without bothering to read them? Or in this case, even reading the headline.

Canon is adjusting their earnings estimates because the Japanese government's monetary policies have resulted in some inflation at home and some loss in value of the Yen against other currencies in international trade. It's an accounting adjustment.

Finally, I never understand why people get upset when Canon makes money. Do you think they would have more money to invest in research and development if they were losing money? Do you think they would be able to cut their prices if they were losing money?

Couldn't agree more... JR if your upset that canon is turning a high profit, stop buying their stuff... simple... i'm sure canon is shaking in their boots... Hell i shoot professionally and I have half your gear... People get hot and bothered with any one company or individual earns a lot of money or capital... Why? They worked their butt off to earn that... Sue Bryce said we need to check our attitudes about money and being rich. If we get offended about those who are rich and big profitable company, we ourselves will carry that same mentality towards money and push it away psychologically. In the mean time I hope to use my gear to make my studio have a profitable year this year... hope you dont get offended by me.

 

[bycostello]

300 mil for a company that size ain't much....

 

[expatinasia]

.
Hostile and combative rarely characterize discussions I read here these days. I do have a bias toward thinking most people are simply too sensitive. They are easily offended, and somehow they acquired the wrongheaded idea that they should go through life without anyone offending them.

We do pretty well around here for being in a world where we have no verbal cues, no body language and almost no social history with the other posters.

I agree.

 

[dizeaz]

Aren't we tired of these whining posts? If it is your money Canon didn't force you to spend it.
It's your choice. You probably don't live in a weird autocratic country where they force you to buy from one brand.

 

[J.R.]

Aren't we tired of these whining posts? If it is your money Canon didn't force you to spend it.
It's your choice. You probably don't live in a weird autocratic country where they force you to buy from one brand.

I guess I'm more tired of posts like yours who read only one line and start whining about an alleged whine (in the original post) when there was none.

Did you really care to read the posts at all? If not, go back, read and stop trolling.

 

[Hillsilly]

Anyways, after waiting for a while to see how the Eos-M system developed (or more accurately...didn't), I've been looking around for another smaller / high image quality camera system to supplement my Canon gear and am jumping on the Fuji bandwagon. I'm giving all my cash to Fuji for a while to see what they can do with it. I hear they've got some very sharp currency traders and it will be interesting to see if they can make good profits with my money. I'm hoping that if I give them enough cash, they might be keen to enter some sort of profit-share arrangement.

 

[RGF]

So much for people who were anticipating a fall in prices of Canon products due to JPY devaluation.

Weaker Yen may yet lead to reduction in the average price of Canon products. Most likely this will not be everyday shelf price (MAP price) but average price reflecting discounts and promotional $ available to retailers.