Canon Profits down - Does anyone have anymore info on this news report?

gjl711 wrote in post #17764565
Sometimes it works, but remember, many were urging Blackberry to do the same and by the time they figured it out, it was too late. Same with Kodak. There were those urging Kodak to get into digital and by the time they did, it was too late.

Huh? Kodak was actually the very first company to make a digital camera. You need to read the story of Kodak and find out what lead to their demise. Kodak didn't have the in-house talent to produce digital cameras in mass numbers, their expertise was in film. It was mostly other poor decisions and internal conflicts that lead to their downfall.

dexter75 wrote in post #17764579
Huh? Kodak was actually the very first company to make a digital camera. You need to read the story of Kodak and find out what lead to their demise. Kodak didn't have the in-house talent to produce digital cameras in mass numbers, their expertise was in film. It was mostly other poor decisions and internal conflicts that lead to their downfall.

But that's exactly my point. In the beginning, no one had the expertise. They may have been first but without the foresight to rapidly move into the new market space, others took over and Kodak was left in the dust. By the time they choose to compete, it was too late. There is a fine line between waiting for other to build a market and being too late to the party. Clearly there is a strong market shift in photography happening right now. If Canon waits for things to shake out too long, they too can be left behind.

Hrm,

Well, this kind of stuff is what pushes a market. We will either see relevant mirrorless cameras from Canon very soon (not just the wee APS-C crippled red head step child EOS-M series, which I adore and use often). Or we will see them making really awesome lenses for other camera systems.

Either way is good for me, since I buy 8 year old stuff typically. Soon I can get a 1DX for cheap!

Very best,

Here are some graphs of camera production in history. This shows that with the rise of digital photography, camera sales took off far surpassing total demand when film was king. Note the contribution of mirrorless...it does not seem to be growing in size yet. Probably too many issues prevent mirrorless wide adoption, so the alternate technology of mirrorless does not come out with a roar.

Wilt wrote in post #17765644
...
Yes, dSLR sales volume (units) has been dropping, but it is not due to mirrorless, it is due to smartphones!...

I don't know if you can really make that comparison. Clearly Mirrorless is not the one killing DSLRs but phone sales alone is not enough to show cause and effect. It could be that people are buying phones for other features besides their cameras. Also, phones really compete more with P/S type cameras and not SLRs. It could be something else such as those who were going to buy an SLR has done so and the new SLRs do not have enough advantages over the older ones to upgrade. I fall into that category. I am stuck with a 7D and a 5DII because all of the newer models just don't offer anything so impressive to cause me to upgrade.

I don't disagree much with what you stated, JJ. We don't have breakout of SLR vs. P&S in analog cameras, but one might say the total demand for SLRs has never really been much greater than the total demand for dSLRs. The total demand for dSLRs is somewhat artificially driven, compared to SLRs, by the 'obsolecence' of dSLRs simply due to sensor changes and perhaps somewhat by higher ISO capabilities of newer bodies, whereas SLRs were not so artificially driven...a new emulsion could be used in ANY body, even a 20 year old one. But Sony itself directly attributes unit volume hits to smartphones.

Like you, I use older dSLRs simply because nothing in the newer ones has driven me to wanting/needing one of the newer bodies. In fact, newer is not better, in that I am quite content with 10-12 MPixel, because 20-30MPixel simply consumes digital storage capacity so much more rapidly that without making lots of hugemongous prints there is no real reason for pixel count increase!

gjl711 wrote in post #17765439
But that's exactly my point. In the beginning, no one had the expertise. They may have been first but without the foresight to rapidly move into the new market space, others took over and Kodak was left in the dust. By the time they choose to compete, it was too late. There is a fine line between waiting for other to build a market and being too late to the party. Clearly there is a strong market shift in photography happening right now. If Canon waits for things to shake out too long, they too can be left behind.

No, Canon will not be left behind. Are you aware how many major companies, brands and events are involved with Canon? Hundreds. Everything from being the official camera for top soccer tournaments/leagues and the Olympics to being the official camera of the Yankees and the entire NFL. I don't seem to remember Kodak ever being the official camera of the two biggest sports in the world or seeing Kodak cameras all over every sporting event or Olympics. It would take hours to make a list of all the major companies involved with Canon. Not to mention they are still the most profitable and best selling camera manufacturer in the world. This idea that if they don't put a few more stops of DR in their next camera or if they don't start making serious mirrorless cameras that they are going to crumble is completely absurd.

Additionally, like Sony, Canon is far from being just a camera manufacturer. Cameras and lenses are just one part of their corporation, as they are a major manufacturer of other electronics such as office equipment and so forth. Unlike Kodak, Canon does not depend solely on photographic products for their continued existence.

I remember when nike was everywhere in sports. Now it's under armour. Things change. But more on point as long as there is a camera manufacturer making a camera that I want to buy I can care less who that manufacturer is.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17766165
Additionally, like Sony, Canon is far from being just a camera manufacturer. Cameras and lenses are just one part of their corporation, as they are a major manufacturer of other electronics such as office equipment and so forth. Unlike Kodak, Canon does not depend solely on photographic products for their continued existence.

Yeah Canon will be fine even if they get into the mirrorless game late. Nikon is the one who is in trouble, and I have doubts that they survive on their own in the long-run. That company has been in financial trouble for a while now.

With regards to Canon though, when mirrorless technology matures and the market transitions away from DSLR's, I'm curious to see who the big players in the camera realm will be. Canon will have a seat at the table for sure, but Sony has a significant first movers advantage, and has asserted an early dominance in this space. They have a significant head-start in the experience, development of technology (OSPDAF, IBIS, etc), and the development of the FE lens portfolio. "Going mirrorless" is not something that even Canon can do with a flip of a switch.

Just because a product is not on the market, it doesn't mean there aren't products that have not been released to production.

Apple did a similar thing with the iPod. What was the first popular MP3 player? I can't even remember who they put out of business. Whoever it was had a huge head start yet apple was able to crush them and dominate the market for years because when the iPod came out it was a finished product. This was at a time when apple was supposedly on the brink of bancruptcy.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17766273
Just because a product is not on the market, it doesn't mean there aren't products that have not been released to production.

Apple did a similar thing with the iPod. What was the first popular MP3 player? I can't even remember who they put out of business. Whoever it was had a huge head start yet apple was able to crush them and dominate the market for years because when the iPod came out it was a finished product. This was at a time when apple was supposedly on the brink of bancruptcy.

arent ipods pretty much dead?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17766273
Apple did a similar thing with the iPod. What was the first popular MP3 player? I can't even remember who they put out of business. Whoever it was had a huge head start yet apple was able to crush them and dominate the market for years because when the iPod came out it was a finished product. This was at a time when apple was supposedly on the brink of bancruptcy.

That is a very good case in point.

I believe that when Canon goes full bore into the mirrorless game, it will do so offering a similarly "finished product"....or, better yet, a full product lineup.

By that I mean that I think that practice of using adaptors is somewhat ridiculous, and that Sony mirrorless users are pretty much stuck using third party lenses for any specialty work, which requires the use of adaptors between the camera and the lens. I fully believe that at some point within the next 5 or 6 years, Canon will offer a very comparable full frame mirrorless camera that either uses the EF mount, or else has it's own line of lenses - and that that lens lineup will be complete with super telephotos, many fast primes, wide-ranging zooms, tilt/shift, and true 1:1 macro lenses.

It would really surprise me if Sony ever had their own lens lineup that was as fully complete and of such excellent quality as Canon. They have never shown themselves to be optical specialists, and their camera systems have always run short when it comes to offering a wide array of native lenses for their cameras. Higher-end photography / professional photography is really driven by optics more than anything else, and Sony has never shown that they are fully committed to offering across-the-brand, long-term compatibility and specialized optics the way Canon has for decades now.

I think Canon's only mistake was that they even bothered with the EOS-M system. I think they learned form that, and are going to wait until they have a complete mirrorless system that will far surpass any system any other manufacturer offers.

if you think about it, canon has been in the mirrorless game for a long time now, many many cameras can operate like a mirrorless camera. It's called live view. The EOS-M's are essentially live view cameras.

none of their live view implementation really get on the level of the sony with it's native system. I think it's obvious that they are holding back features. A bunch of guys put together magic lantern FFS, it's not rocket science. A tougher thing to do is to put their efforts into a new lens mount.

either way, canon doesnt believe in IBIS, so I cant imagine the switch without IBIS. Too useful and practical.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17766284
By that I mean that I think that practice of using adaptors is somewhat ridiculous, and that Sony mirrorless users are pretty much stuck using third party lenses for any specialty work, which requires the use of adaptors between the camera and the lens. I fully believe that at some point within the next 5 or 6 years, Canon will offer a very comparable full frame mirrorless camera that either uses the EF mount, or else has it's own line of lenses - and that that lens lineup will be complete with super telephotos, many fast primes, wide-ranging zooms, tilt/shift, and true 1:1 macro lenses.

It would really surprise me if Sony ever had their own lens lineup that was as fully complete and of such excellent quality as Canon. They have never shown themselves to be optical specialists, and their camera systems have always run short when it comes to offering a wide array of native lenses for their cameras. Higher-end photography / professional photography is really driven by optics more than anything else, and Sony has never shown that they are fully committed to offering across-the-brand, long-term compatibility and specialized optics the way Canon has for decades now.

Actually the Sony A-mount is pretty well fleshed out and they have some very high optical quality lenses...including super-telephoto lenses. The G lenses and Zeiss lenses are as good or better than Canon L lenses. The FE portfolio has some glaring holes...but the mount is still just under 2 years old and the focus initially was on smaller standard lenses. They've been releasing lenses at a much faster rate than Canon has been with the EF mount. Its highly unlikely that Canon will enter to FF mirrorless space with a fully fleshed out portfolio of native lenses (it would be foolish to stay out of the market until they can develop and manufacture all of those lenses), so they'll face the same dilemma and criticisms regarding lenses that Sony is right now.

And I wouldn't consider the use of adapters to be ridiculous...contraril​y the ability to adapt lenses is tremendously valuable, as it means that you aren't limited to a single mount. There are limitations to the AF system as of right now (predictive AF tracking), but mirrorless AF, including performance with adapted lenses, is improving at a very rapid rate. Less than three years ago mirrorless phase detect AF was a pipe-dream. And look where we are now.

At some point mirrorless AF will meet or beat DSLR performance, and lens mounts will for all intents and purposes be universal. At that point Canon's ability to leverage their catalog of lenses will be null. For anyone who isn't shooting sports and wildlife, the a7rII's mount is basically universal already.