Where are the Rumors? EOS 5D Mark IV

[danski0224]

Or to put it differently...

If you bought $100,000 worth of Canon lenses today and $100,000 worth of Apple or Google stock, in 3 years, which would represent a net gain? The resale of the Canon lenses or the shares?

How does that line go?

Past performance does not indicate future results... or something like that.

If you bought and held, it is possible that there could be very little net change in stock value... or it could go down.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Using pixels as autofocus points is innovation.

So, you're willing to concede that Canon's dual-pixel AF is sensor innovation?

 

[gsealy]

...
Cameras are expendable. Lenses are an investment....

I disagree completely.

In real terms, a lens with a static price depreciates with inflation over time. For example, if you buy a lens for $1000 and inflation is running at 3%, unless you sell the lens 3 years later for $1100, you've lost money. If the lens (new) still costs $1000 in 3 years time, that represents static pricing that has a value that decreases with inflation. If a lens starts out at $1000 and in 3 years is still $1000 in a market that has a CPI of 3% then in real terms the price of the lens has dropped to $912.

Would anyone buy a 17-40/f4L now?
Did the value of the 17-40/f4L go up or down after the release of the 16-35/f4L IS?

Then there is 3rd party.
Tamron and Sigma are applying incredible pressure on the value of lenses.

Or to put it differently...

If you bought $100,000 worth of Canon lenses today and $100,000 worth of Apple or Google stock, in 3 years, which would represent a net gain? The resale of the Canon lenses or the shares?

But it's still an investment. Not a very good one money wise as with most lens depreciate in value after you buy them. However you have to add the value they give in terms of enjoyment and achievement and maybe then they are a worthwhile investment. Your Apple shares might be worth more but as never get to use them or even physically see them you don't get much enjoyment out of them.
I always think your should spend your money on experiences rather than objects. I find with Lens even though they are an object I enjoy the experience they give me. The initial spike of happiness on purchasing dips a bit but keeps going over time. I still love my 70-200mm II years later or my 24 TSE. I enjoy using them
Camera's are probably relatively more disposable and my glass seems to stay with me longer. Cameras burn out faster than I break lens.
I knew the day the 5DIII came out I wanted it.
I hope its the same with the 5DIV. So far I haven't seen something that would guarantee I'd switch. I haven't seen a wow feature so far. With the 5DIII it fixed alot of the 5D II concerns and was a great all-round package. Its hard to improve upon.
I've been tempted by the 5DS / 5DR but I shoot too generally and under all types of conditions and think they are move for tripod shoot on a perfect day.

You can't look at the purchase of a lens for say $1000 then expect to sell it for more money. We all know it doesn't happen that way unless it is some sort of a collector's item. However, it is still an investment. The reason is that the money spent on the lens allows the user to earn income from using it that they would not otherwise gain. This is the same in any business. If Verizon invests in 4G by buying $Billions of equipment, then they can compete better in the telecom marketplace and make a ton of money. In the end Verizon will depreciate that equipment to $0 and then sell it or scrap it. But they still made money from spending the money on that equipment, so it is very much an investment.

The thing about a lens is that it has a longer life cycle than a camera. Realistically, a lens is going to have about a 10 year depreciation life, but a camera is probably only about 3 years. So, this means that the user has a longer time to get a 'return' from a lens than from a camera.

 

[bdunbar79]

...
Reread my ENTIRE post and don't just cut bits and pieces out that help your argument.

Your entire post sounds like a whinge about people prioritizing DR.

You are talking about ONE little tiny area of innovation. All of that stuff Sony did was to get more DR at low ISO. Could have gotten higher ISO performance, but nonetheless that's all it did. In the real world it didn't do anything else.

How do you know it was to get more DR at low ISO?
Maybe they just tried to develop the best sensor they could and the end result is what they ship today? (Much more likely.) In the real world, they developed a sensor that degrades in accordance with science.

They are not as innovative right now in sensor tech as Sony. They trounce Sony pretty much everywhere else in innovation.

Like in their video products?
Or video capabilities of digital cameras (still)?
Did Canon have a mirrorless camera before or after Sony?
Does Canon have a fullframe mirrorless camera?
...

In terms of AF, with the A7RII it is clearly evident that Sony has done some major innovation there.

Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

 

[zigipha]

...
Cameras are expendable. Lenses are an investment....

Or to put it differently...

If you bought $100,000 worth of Canon lenses today and $100,000 worth of Apple or Google stock, in 3 years, which would represent a net gain? The resale of the Canon lenses or the shares?

The question was lens vs camera
If you bought a 3k camera and 3k worth of lenses, which would be worth more after 3 years?

The answer (usually) is the lenses.

Also, lenses don't "fall behind the latest" as quickly or as much vs cameras. Cameras are being driven by silicon technology, moores law and all that, and have had leaps and bounds of improvements over the past 10 years.

Glass..not so much. Yes better versions come out, but there is less drive to upgrade glass than to upgrade the camera

 

[CanonGuy]

Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

 

[bdunbar79]

Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

Not really a good example. I can tout off anecdotal evidence just like you. I've shot plenty of weddings, know plenty of wedding photographers, and most if not all use a 5D3 and Canon L glass. None I know are changing. Why? Two reasons: 1. AF system of the 5D3 and 2. The flash system (600EX-RT's).

Both examples don't really mean much. Some regions are heavier in Nikon users and others Canon.

Personally when shooting weddings I rely heavily on AF, which eliminates the A7R II right away. I'd consider the D810, sure. But I'd rather have the security of the AF system of the 1Dx. Since I don't push shadows in wedding photography the DR is plenty and the noise is much less than the D810 at higher ISO's.

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.

 

[scyrene]

...
Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market.
...

Squeezing more MP onto a sensor is not an indicator of innovation.

Using pixels as autofocus points is innovation.

Building sensors differently (BSI) is innovation.

Building sensors differently to support high frame rates is innovation.

Building sensors such that the relationship between ADCs and pixels is different is innovation.

Building sensors to function in a non-Bayer grid is innovation.

Being an innovator implies doing something different to before. Just doing more of something is not in itself enough to be an innovation.

How convenient that the things Sony has done are innovations in your eyes. You could spin it differently of course - they've released the largest BSI sensor, but it's just a bigger version of an existing technology. Etc.

 

[CanonGuy]

Not really a good example. I can tout off anecdotal evidence just like you. I've shot plenty of weddings, know plenty of wedding photographers, and most if not all use a 5D3 and Canon L glass. None I know are changing. Why? Two reasons: 1. AF system of the 5D3 and 2. The flash system (600EX-RT's).

Both examples don't really mean much. Some regions are heavier in Nikon users and others Canon.

Personally when shooting weddings I rely heavily on AF, which eliminates the A7R II right away. I'd consider the D810, sure. But I'd rather have the security of the AF system of the 1Dx. Since I don't push shadows in wedding photography the DR is plenty and the noise is much less than the D810 at higher ISO's.

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.

Absolutely agree that Canon AF is the best. That's why 5d 3 is my main body and will be for a while till i get my hands on 5d 4. I never had a 1dx cause it's AF and fps is overkill for me. But kudos to Canon for that amazing body.

I'm based in toronto and I have a few of my fellow mates who added another body to their lineup other than canon. not as the main body, yet. but certainly those bodies let them be more creative and push the limit. i'll follow the suite. but mentioning again, not replacing my main body with non-canon yet, but definitely getting a non-canon for my next addition. although i would have preferred to give my business to canon if i had the option. come on canon!

 

[Sportsgal501]

Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

Just checked a fellow photographer (weddings mainly but they do sports) what pops up on their instagram but a new Sony A7
What!! He owns 2 1Dx and a 5D MarkIII not anymore keeping the 1Dx for sports sold the 5DMARKIII. And this guy is Canon all the way but I knew when he picked up that Sony A6000 the temptation would be strong.

 

[jeffa4444]

Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

Not really a good example. I can tout off anecdotal evidence just like you. I've shot plenty of weddings, know plenty of wedding photographers, and most if not all use a 5D3 and Canon L glass. None I know are changing. Why? Two reasons: 1. AF system of the 5D3 and 2. The flash system (600EX-RT's).

Both examples don't really mean much. Some regions are heavier in Nikon users and others Canon.

Personally when shooting weddings I rely heavily on AF, which eliminates the A7R II right away. I'd consider the D810, sure. But I'd rather have the security of the AF system of the 1Dx. Since I don't push shadows in wedding photography the DR is plenty and the noise is much less than the D810 at higher ISO's.

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.

Silly question maybe but have you actually used the Sony A7rII? Its not actually on sale yet in the UK (due) and Im sure still rare in the US. I never write something off until Ive tested it or used it and your assumptions about its AF dont jazz with people who have tested it.

 

[unfocused]

...
Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites.
...

Sony's sales are growing, Canon's sales are shrinking.

Sources please. Please provide 1-year, 3-year and 5-year sales data for both companies, preferably from a third-party source. Of course, one-year trends are unreliable, since different companies have different release schedules for their cameras. So, thus the need for multi-year data.

And, is that for DSLR/ILCs or for fixed-lens or for a combination of the two? Since this thread concerns the 5D IV, please provide information on the relative sales of the 5D vs. Sony. Ideally, it would be best to also correct for the year of release, perhaps provide the sales numbers for the 5DIII in its first year after introduction as opposed to any Sony ILC in its first year after introduction, so we can compare the relative market share of comparable models.

And, of course, please provide not only percentage growth/loss year over year, but actual numbers as well. It will give us a better pictures as to the relative market share of each company.

 

[bdunbar79]

Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

Not really a good example. I can tout off anecdotal evidence just like you. I've shot plenty of weddings, know plenty of wedding photographers, and most if not all use a 5D3 and Canon L glass. None I know are changing. Why? Two reasons: 1. AF system of the 5D3 and 2. The flash system (600EX-RT's).

Both examples don't really mean much. Some regions are heavier in Nikon users and others Canon.

Personally when shooting weddings I rely heavily on AF, which eliminates the A7R II right away. I'd consider the D810, sure. But I'd rather have the security of the AF system of the 1Dx. Since I don't push shadows in wedding photography the DR is plenty and the noise is much less than the D810 at higher ISO's.

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.

Silly question maybe but have you actually used the Sony A7rII? Its not actually on sale yet in the UK (due) and Im sure still rare in the US. I never write something off until Ive tested it or used it and your assumptions about its AF dont jazz with people who have tested it.

Silly question? I had other adjectives, but yes I have.

So, not surprisingly, you're completely wrong.

 

[bdunbar79]

...
Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites.
...

Sony's sales are growing, Canon's sales are shrinking.

Sources please. Please provide 1-year, 3-year and 5-year sales data for both companies, preferably from a third-party source. Of course, one-year trends are unreliable, since different companies have different release schedules for their cameras. So, thus the need for multi-year data.

And, is that for DSLR/ILCs or for fixed-lens or for a combination of the two? Since this thread concerns the 5D IV, please provide information on the relative sales of the 5D vs. Sony. Ideally, it would be best to also correct for the year of release, perhaps provide the sales numbers for the 5DIII in its first year after introduction as opposed to any Sony ILC in its first year after introduction, so we can compare the relative market share of comparable models.

And, of course, please provide not only percentage growth/loss year over year, but actual numbers as well. It will give us a better pictures as to the relative market share of each company.

You don't need sources in dilbertland. You can say that Walmart's sales are higher than Canon's sales so Walmart must be more innovative than Canon. That's typical logic of dilbertland. Sometimes in dilbertland you may also infer that Walmart must be more innovative in sensor technology for DSLR's and MILC's if sales are higher than Canon. A stretch yes, but sometimes occurs.

 

[CanonGuy]

...
Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites.
...

Sony's sales are growing, Canon's sales are shrinking.

Sources please. Please provide 1-year, 3-year and 5-year sales data for both companies, preferably from a third-party source. Of course, one-year trends are unreliable, since different companies have different release schedules for their cameras. So, thus the need for multi-year data.

And, is that for DSLR/ILCs or for fixed-lens or for a combination of the two? Since this thread concerns the 5D IV, please provide information on the relative sales of the 5D vs. Sony. Ideally, it would be best to also correct for the year of release, perhaps provide the sales numbers for the 5DIII in its first year after introduction as opposed to any Sony ILC in its first year after introduction, so we can compare the relative market share of comparable models.

And, of course, please provide not only percentage growth/loss year over year, but actual numbers as well. It will give us a better pictures as to the relative market share of each company.

You keep analyzing 5, 10 or 100 year data. While me and a number of photographers buy something that suits (at least for the backup body).

I just hope Canon is not analyzing last 100 year data to keep them assured that everything's fine.

Denial is fine in personal level. When a company goes into denial phase, the consumers deny that company too.

 

[unfocused]

You keep analyzing 5, 10 or 100 year data. While me and a number of photographers buy something that suits (at least for the backup body).

I just hope Canon is not analyzing last 100 year data to keep them assured that everything's fine.

Denial is fine in personal level. When a company goes into denial phase, the consumers deny that company too.

You do understand that your reasoning is a non-sequitur.

Dilbert: Canon sales are shrinking.

Me: Please back that up with some data.

You: I don't need any data. I buy something that suits me. Canon does not suit me. Therefore Canon is in trouble.

Me: What? Huh?

 

[privatebydesign]

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.

What seems more likely: Nikon/Sony improving their AF or Canon improving its IQ?

Given recent results I'd say Canon improving it's IQ is more likely. Actual users of the 5DS/R are actually very complimentary of the IQ boost over the 5D MkIII.

Meanwhile videos like this are demonstrating how compromised even the 'new improved and all conquering AF via adapter' of the Sony actually is, if that was an EOS-M4 everybody would be saying how crap it is, go figure.................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuJ4XWc1Jv8

For that vocal few here the Canon cup will always be half empty, meanwhile the Sony/Nikon cup will always be overflowing with amazing innovative goodness, it really is kinda boring, the literal contortions and rewriting history are beyond farcical now.

Absolute idiocy like this,

.........7DII comes in at 12.9 vs the 7D at 8.3. Which would make the 7DII 50% noisier than the 7D! Canon went a bit backwards there.

Just ask anybody who shoots a 7D MkII if it is 50% noisier.


And the complete misrepresentation and singular narrow definition of word like investment

in·vest·ment
inˈves(t)mənt/
noun
noun: investment; plural noun: investments

1.
the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
"a debate over private investment in road-building"
synonyms: investing, speculation; More
funding, backing, financing, underwriting;
buying shares
"some tips for responsible investment"
stake, share, money/capital invested
"an investment of $305,000"
a thing that is worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future.
"a used car is rarely a good investment"
synonyms: venture, speculation, risk, gamble; More
asset, acquisition, holding, possession;
informalgrubstake
"it's a good investment"
an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.
"the time spent in attending a one-day seminar is an investment in our professional futures"
synonyms: contribution, surrender, loss, forfeiture, sacrifice
"a substantial investment of time"
2.
archaic
the surrounding of a place by a hostile force in order to besiege or blockade it.

It doesn't just mean to make money and that isn't how I used it!

I meant that to use our cameras we need to buy lenses, generally those lenses last longer than the digital tech in the bodies, plus many of the lenses, and certainly when you add them up, account for a far higher percentage of a photographers (pro or CR reading amateur) expenditure on camera gear, unlike a $700 phone where we might buy a cover for $25, there is no reason to stick with that brand when the contract ends and you get an upgrade. Who cares about the $25 case, who doesn't care about the $5,000-$15,000 tied up in lenses?

And before you go back to the 'but the Sony can focus EF lenses better than EOS cameras can' nonsense, watch that YouTube video again. If you find that totally compromised joke as a solution to getting the sensor you 'need' then have at it, just go cry on the Sony forums after the 1000th missed shot.

 

[unfocused]

...
Sources please.

There are quarterly financial results for Canon and Sony available online. You're just as capable of using Google and reading them as I am but I will repeat the pertinent point: year on year, Canon's profit is dropping whilst Sony's is growing.

Except that's not really a pertinent point because it is just one isolated bit of information and does nothing to provide an accurate picture of either company's long or short term prospects.

I expect you are relying on these stories:

[quote author=Reuters, June 30, 2015]
“Sony is only just emerging from decline, booking a net loss of 126 billion yen in its latest fiscal year, though it expects a profit of 140 billion yen in the current year.

The move (Issuing $2.62 billion in stock) caught investors by surprise on Tuesday, with fears the new stock will dilute per-share earnings sending the stock 8.3 percent lower at the close.” [/quote]

So, we know that Sony lost 126 billion yen last year, but hopes to make 140 billion yen this year. And, we know they are going to issue stock and borrow for a total of $4 billion. If you feel comfortable investing your money in Sony based on that, go right ahead.

[quote author=Reuters, July 27, 2015]
Japan's Canon Inc cut its earnings outlook for the full year and reported a 16 percent fall in quarterly profit as consumers, increasingly in the habit of taking photos with their smartphones, bought fewer compact digital cameras.

The world's largest camera maker said on Monday its second-quarter net profit fell to 68 billion yen ($552 million) compared with 81 billion yen a year earlier. Analysts on average expected 65 billion yen, according to Thomson Reuters data.

The firm said it now expects full-year profit of 245 billion yen rather than the 255 billion it forecast three months ago. [/quote]

So Canon is projecting 245 billion net profit this year. Which is 105 billion more than Sony is projecting. And, while this article does not state what Canon's profits were last year, we know they made a profit, since they project to make a slightly smaller profit this year, while Sony suffered a loss last year.

So, again, if you want to divest yourself of Canon stock because they aren't going to make as large of a profit this year as they did last year, go right ahead.

As for me, I'd rather look at the whole picture: The companies' track records; their relative market positions; their commitment to the market; etc. etc.

 

[unfocused]

And the complete misrepresentation and singular narrow definition of word like investment...
It doesn't just mean to make money and that isn't how I used it!

Well there is this (a bit dated): http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/

 

[barracuda]

...
Sources please.

...
You do understand that your reasoning is a non-sequitur.

Dilbert: Canon sales are shrinking.

Me: Please back that up with some data.

Go read the latest quarterly results. Or doesn't that qualify as data?

And more to the point, Canon said that their sales were shrinking in their quarterly statement.

I suppose Canon need to provide data to back up their statements?

There are quarterly financial results for Canon and Sony available online. You're just as capable of using Google and reading them as I am but I will repeat the pertinent point: year on year, Canon's profit is dropping whilst Sony's is growing.

Dilbert, you may have to dig a little deeper into Canon's financials so as not to mislead.

Canon's second quarter results ending June 30, 2015 can be found here: http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2015/rslt2015q2e.pdf

In it, while they do say "demand continued to decline for interchangeable-lens digital cameras and digital compact cameras", they go on to say that "Within the Imaging Systems Business Unit, although total sales volume of interchangeable-lens digital cameras declined due to market shrinkage, unit sales of interchangeable-lens digital cameras increased from the same period of the previous year in Japan thanks to healthy demand for such new models as the EOS 5DS, EOS 5DS R, and EOS M3."

They further state that "As for digital compact cameras, although sales volume declined amid the ongoing contraction of the market due to the effects of the growing popularity of smartphones, profitability improved thanks to the growing ratio of high-added-value models featuring high image quality and high-magnification zoom capabilities, along with a smooth transition from old products to new products."

In the supplemental section of the report, where Canon breaks down sales by geographic area and business unit, they report the following for their Imaging System unit, which includes digital cameras:

2Q2015=2nd quarter 2015
1H2015=1st half 2015

Change year over year:

Japan: 2Q2015 = +21.7%, 1H2015 = -7%
Americas: 2Q2015 = +7.8%, 1H2015 = +3.3%
Europe: 2Q2015 = -9.1%, 1H2015 = -10.8%
Asia and Oceania: 2Q2015 = -6.7%, 1H2015 = -4.9%
Total: 2Q2015 = 0.0%, 1H2015 = -4.8%

So in the second quarter, digital camera sales actually increased in Japan and the Americas; they decreased in Europe and Asia/Oceania (presumably ex-Japan); and overall, the Imaging System unit was flat (0.0%) in the second quarter.

Your comment, "Sony's sales are growing, Canon's sales are shrinking" is misleading on at least a couple of points:

Your inference in this context is that Canon (and Sony, for that matter) only sell digital cameras, which of course isn't the case. Further, you're implying that Canon cameras are losing market share to Sony, which is not stated anywhere in Canon's financials that I could find. They do, however explain that "sales volume declined amid the ongoing contraction of the market due to the effects of the growing popularity of smartphones", which we all are well aware of.

Further, they state that "unit sales of interchangeable-lens digital cameras increased from the same period of the previous year in Japan thanks to healthy demand for such new models as the EOS 5DS, EOS 5DS R, and EOS M3.". One can infer that this is the case for the Americas as well, since second quarter and first half sales from their Imaging Systems increased 7.8% and 3.3%, respectively.

While it's true that digital camera sales declined in Europe and Asia/Oceania, there is no indication from the financials that the declines in those regions were due to market share losses to Sony or any other competitor. It may just be because Europe has been in an economic slowdown for some time, and China's growth is beginning to slow as well. One has to look no further than China's recent stock market meltdown to gauge their level of discretionary spending.

Hope this helps.