# Canon Looking to Acquire Imaging Companies for Growth? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2015)

```
We’re told that Canon is actively looking at acquiring imaging companies for growth. Canon did indeed attempt to acquire Sigma (something we didn’t believe until recently), but was rejected by Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki as he attempts to make Sigma the best lens manufacturer in the world. Most people suspected the acquisition was for foveon patents, as Canon is actively developing layered sensors, but that acquisition may have also been for Sigma’s expertise in adapting lenses for multiple mounts. There are a ton of EF lenses out there, and Canon wants to keep them relevant moving forward, even into the mirrorless space.</p>
<p>Canon had also looked at the books of Swedish camera company Hasselblad many years ago, but that was probably never a serious interest. There just isn’t enough potential volume in medium format for any significant growth. I was told that the global market for medium format digital back is about 5000 units per year.</p>
<p>While Canon is moving slowly into the security business, they believe growth for imaging will come from two places, the professional video market and acquisition of an imaging company. While they’re well on their way in developing Cinema EOS, and we can expect an “A” camera from Canon at NAB in April, the photography market remains stagnant.</p>
<p>We weren’t told what companies Canon may be targeting, only that things are actively moving in that direction.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## pedro (Nov 25, 2015)

Sorry for the asking, but as I am not a 100 percent sure: an "A" camera would mean an 1D body?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 25, 2015)

pedro said:


> Sorry for the asking, but as I am not a 100 percent sure: an "A" camera would mean an 1D body?



I super doubt that. I'd say it means an ultra high end Cxx I'd imagine. I think that remark, giving what the sentence fragment before it was talking about, refers to a Hollywood "A cam". I.E. the top of the line, no compromises, you use this camera type to shoot all the major scenes you can with and opposed to some 'B' camera for fill in scenes or where the camera might get blown up or smashed or you simply can't work some big, $$$$$$$$, "A cam" and whatnot, like for stunts and really crazy action.


----------



## Wizardly (Nov 25, 2015)

This makes me wonder if anyone is actively courting Samsung for their camera assets.


----------



## Wizardly (Nov 25, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "but that acquisition may have also been for Sigma’s expertise in adapting lenses for multiple mounts."
> 
> Would they really want to make Canon lenses for say Nikon though? They seem to treat their lenses as the main thing that holds some back from switching. Of course maybe they see lenses, more than bodies, as the only way to make money in the future.
> 
> But maybe it's more just buy Sigma, eat them, no longer lose any Canon lens sales to Sigma and make the other brands look even less enticing lens wise?



Yes!(!!!) You get a wholly owned subsidiary with name recognition and you then get to eat into your competition's market share directly. You get to offer a lower tier lens that does not compete with your proprietary mount. And you get all of the intellectual property that comes from reverse engineering the lens mounts of every major manufacturer without having to spend years doing it yourself.



> "the photography market remains stagnant."
> 
> how can they cry about a stagnant market, when all they do is conservatively hold back, hold back, milk the old stuff, don't move forward too fast, hold back, stagnate, stagnate and play it safe?



Who's crying? They're profitable. Massively profitable. They simply accept the reality of the market and don't go on fools errands. You'd say conservative, but in reality it's discipline. This is the sort of discipline that Sony is learning, Samsung is facing, and that is keeping Nikon in business. In fact Samsung is an object lesson in this regard - probably the best specified APS-C camera on the market but it just doesn't make them any money. As a photographer do you buy every single new body that comes out and every single new lens that comes out that is heralded as the new best, or do you actually try to make money off of the gear you already have? Wouldn't you run your S&P 500 company the same way?


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 25, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "but that acquisition may have also been for Sigma’s expertise in adapting lenses for multiple mounts."
> 
> Would they really want to make Canon lenses for say Nikon though? They seem to treat their lenses as the main thing that holds some back from switching. Of course maybe they see lenses, more than bodies, as the only way to make money in the future.



I read that differently. Canon has many excellent designs on the EF mount. They would use Sigma's expertise in having the same design on many mounts to move their own EF designs to their own future mirrorless designs.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2015)

I fixed the Danish/Swedish thing, thanks for correcting me.



pedro said:


> Sorry for the asking, but as I am not a 100 percent sure: an "A" camera would mean an 1D body?



An "A" camera would be the main camera used in a film production, currently that space is dominated by ARRI.




LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "but that acquisition may have also been for Sigma’s expertise in adapting lenses for multiple mounts."
> 
> Would they really want to make Canon lenses for say Nikon though? They seem to treat their lenses as the main thing that holds some back from switching. Of course maybe they see lenses, more than bodies, as the only way to make money in the future.



It's more that Canon has some challenges in getting EF lenses to work as they're designed with mirrorless cameras. Adaptors and natively adapting to a mirrorless camera is the biggest challenge facing Canon when it comes to making a splash in mirrorless. They can't ignore 110 million lenses (I think that's what it's at) if the market really does move to mirrorless domination eventually. This was a hypothesis by the source...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 25, 2015)

Canon move into the professional cinematography market is also into a crowded place. Not only have Sony and Panasonic been in that market for many years they are up against new entrants like Black Magic & AJA and established companies like Arri, Red & Panavision. 
Sony, Canon, Black Magic et al. have come to the higher end thinking about broadcast video but thats light years away from how cinematographer & their crew shoot TV series, Commercials or Features and Red but more particularly Arri really understand the market which is why they dominate. Optically Panavision with both spherical & anamorphic lenses are the company to beat. Arri have launched a 6.5K 65mm camera and Panavision has the Primo 70 lenses as well as 70mm anamorphic lenses its a field much more complex that 35mm & APS-C stills cameras & lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 25, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > "but that acquisition may have also been for Sigma’s expertise in adapting lenses for multiple mounts."
> ...



Acquisition of Sigma would provide what Canon really needs, and that's production capacity and trained Japanese workers. Canon does not have enough production capacity, and hiring trained workers, or workers at all is a huge issue in Japan. Contract employees from other countries are being used in huge numbers, but its a big issue, many of the contract workers are treated poorly by the contract companies and are short term employees where the lens industry needs lots of experience to manufacturer high end lenses.

So, acquisition of Sigma would have been a big plumb for Canon, but regulators in Europe may have frowned on such a deal.

Canon is sitting on a decent amount of cash, so they are able to snatch bargains if they occur. Canon is willing to pay big $$ if the fit is right.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 25, 2015)

I'd like Canon to buy either 
* Sony's camera business if they want to spend big $$$$ 
so they finally learn how to make good mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF-sensors 
* or Samsung's failing camera unit if they want to buy on the cheap 
so Canon learns how to make a great APS-C mirrorless cam and even more importantly, can skip 10 years of sensor tech R&D, since that neato Samsung 28 MP sensor is about 3 generations ahead of the latest Canon APS-C sensor right now. 

Anything else makes no sense to me:
* m43 (Oly, Panasonic) ... not interesting, no money to be made there in the future 
* Ricoh/Pentax - no market share, no specific technology, and their MF system has no future
* Nikon - too much overlap and all sorts of antitrust measures being imposed. 
* Fujifilm - chemical film plus a nice, but APS-C only MILC lineup - not much future there either
* Tamron, Tokina - nothing there to learn for Canon and unlike Sigma not enough competition to take them out 
* Leica - way too expensive, hehe! ;D


----------



## AJ (Nov 25, 2015)

Maybe Canon is looking to get into the smartphone business.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 25, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


Are lens sales increasing at the moment? I assumed they were pretty flat or in decline as is the case with camera sales.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 25, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...they believe growth for imaging will come from two places, the professional video market and acquisition of an imaging company.



I'm not even sure what constitutes an imaging company today. Would a company like Ricoh be considered an imaging company? Are we talking about a sensor manufacturer? And, what would be the benefit to Canon to buy a sensor maker. Seems like only a benefit if you buy into the whole "Sony is wonderful" b.s. I doubt Canon buys into that.

What I do think would be interesting would be Kenko-Tokina or Manfrotto purchase. That would be more of a horizontal integration, and I know unlikely. But still interesting. They could sell Hoya filters under a Canon brand name. Slik was once the best known tripod and stand manufacturer in the U.S. at least. The name still has a decent value I suspect. Finally, I think the quality of Tokina lenses is more in line with Canon than either Sigma or Tamron. Tokina doesn't make a lot of lenses and they seem to be under-capitalized and slow to market, but what they do make is very good. 

Manfrotto would also offer some good opportunities for Canon as well -- support systems and lighting in particular. Especially if they focus on the video market. It would be interesting to see a marriage of Canon's lighting technology with a a company like Manfrotto to produce new products for the cinema and video market.

Just idle daydreaming on my part.


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if that makes someone like Lytro a potential buyout target?



Is Lytro too niche a product (just thinking out loud) ?

I certainly read that Canon are looking to bolster their capabilities, not buy a competitor per-se. Sigma's manufacturing and expertise gives them a step up in mirrorless as stated.

If Lytro-like capabilities are on their roadmap, then such an acquisition would make sense if they wanted to integrate it into future bodies.

I would certainly think they're looking at some of the startups which may have cutting edge tech which may help them leapfrog the current status-quo, I'm just not sure whether buying a major sensor or camera maker would make sense / would be received favourably (admittence of failure and the implications thereafter)

I also think they have broader horizons that just photography, and therefore more acquisition in other areas to gain some market share also makes sense to me. They need to maintain their position in photography as it shrinks, and mirrorless is part of that equation. But they also need to expand into other markets as the revenue in photography has not bottomed out / levelled out.

Maybe they will get into automotive sensors and the like through acquisition, or even smartphone sensors. Sure Sony may have half the market (not sure what the latest figures say), but that still leaves a sizeable chunk for Canon. Or partner up with someone on the Internet of Things - so we can all have tiny sensors in our homes as all our devices talk to each other and exchange photos  (ok, the first part was serious, the last not so much)

But all of these would I think, be a first for Canon as I was not aware they OEMd for other people (I wait to be corrected..).


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 26, 2015)

I think it's just fantastic that Canon actually thinks Sigma is worth buying out, that's great news for Sigma.
Now if only Sigma would actually put out a reasonably priced and well thought out consumer level body to use their own lenses with.

Otherwise I want Canon and Sigma to do a technology swap. Canon wants Foveon, and Sigma could see massive benefits if they got official AF support from Canon.
I doubt that Sigma has actually made any money off Foveon, and the longer that patent sits unused the less it's worth, so licensing it in exchange for making their lenses AF properly on Canon bodies would actually give them something in return.


----------



## horshack (Nov 26, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I think it's just fantastic that Canon actually thinks Sigma is worth buying out, that's great news for Sigma.
> Now if only Sigma would actually put out a reasonably priced and well thought out consumer level body to use their own lenses with.
> 
> Otherwise I want Canon and Sigma to do a technology swap. Canon wants Foveon, and Sigma could see massive benefits if they got official AF support from Canon.
> I doubt that Sigma has actually made any money off Foveon, and the longer that patent sits unused the less it's worth, so licensing it in exchange for making their lenses AF properly on Canon bodies would actually give them something in return.



I would venture to guess that Canon's interest in Sigma is more about taking out a competitor that is offering great lenses at low prices rather than to get Sigma's technology or manufacturing/labor resources.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 26, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I'd like Canon to buy either
> * Sony's camera business if they want to spend big $$$$
> so they finally learn how to make good mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF-sensors
> * or Samsung's failing camera unit if they want to buy on the cheap
> ...



I agree with you on most of these points, AvTvM….

In particular I feel it could be a win-win if Canon would buy Samsung’s Camera Division, specifically for their awesome 28MP APS-C sensor that are in the NX1 and NX500. Combine that with Canon’s DPAF technology – and that really could be a good thing! I really want to keep Canon ergonomics, image colours, menus and lenses!)

I think there is a place for Sony to remain separate, i.e. a totally independent competitor in the digital camera market
Somewhat similarly with Sigma (and to a lesser extent, Tamron & Tokina) it is good to have 3rd party lenses… with their own innovation and competition!

Regards

Paul 8)


----------



## davidmurray (Nov 26, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I'd like Canon to buy either
> * Sony's camera business if they want to spend big $$$$
> so they finally learn how to make good mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF-sensors
> * or Samsung's failing camera unit if they want to buy on the cheap
> ...



Not convinced that the way to build up a business is to buy a failing business. Samsung doesn't have expertise in knowing what in a camera photographers want in a camera. Canon does.
If Canon wants to increase market share they should buy Nicon. I think Canon already has expertize in optics and photography and in cameras.


----------



## apersson850 (Nov 26, 2015)

Canon are also getting into other business than pure photography. They recently acquired Swedish networking and communication specialist Axis, as well as large scale electronic printing specialists Océ (which in turn is a merger of medium scale printer manufacturer Océ and large scale printer manufacturer Siemens-Nixdorf) some years ago.

Albeit the latter seemed like a somewhat desperate action, since Océ was kind of the only one left to buy, after Ricoh acquired IBM Infoprint and Fuji bought into Xerox and Delphax. In the large scale electronic printing business, now only former photography giant Kodak as well as IT giant Hewlett-Packard are still running on their own.


----------



## Tugela (Nov 26, 2015)

davidmurray said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like Canon to buy either
> ...



Samsung have expertise in the silicon side of cameras however, far in advance of Canon. Buying out Samsung's camera division would provide them with access to advanced sensor technology and modern processors, both areas where Canon lag in.


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 26, 2015)

apersson850 said:


> Canon are also getting into other business than pure photography. They recently acquired Swedish networking and communication specialist Axis, as well as large scale electronic printing specialists Océ (which in turn is a merger of medium scale printer manufacturer Océ and large scale printer manufacturer Siemens-Nixdorf) some years ago.
> 
> Albeit the latter seemed like a somewhat desperate action, since Océ was kind of the only one left to buy, after Ricoh acquired IBM Infoprint and Fuji bought into Xerox and Delphax. In the large scale electronic printing business, now only former photography giant Kodak as well as IT giant Hewlett-Packard are still running on their own.



Yes, my point exactly earlier. 

Buying Sigma just to reduce competition, would have to be at a really good price so I suspect it was no one single thing that attracted them....

Samsung isn't about to sell its IP in cameras, given its presence in smartphones, tablets and I am sure in time, security devices etc. They may retreat partially or completely from photography, I doubt that they would sell their IP and Canon's market research concludes like others, that the sensor gap is only of interest to some.

They will be offsetting the shrinking market in cameras by expanding into other markets through acquisition.

@Dilbert - does Lytro appeal that much to photographers or just enthusiasts? It is a differentiator, I'm just not sure how much of a feature-lure it would be for a photographer. I think they would be exploring such niche providers and start-ups with a view to cheaply bolster their camera business, but most cash will go to expansion into other imaging markets...


----------



## Tugela (Nov 27, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> apersson850 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon are also getting into other business than pure photography. They recently acquired Swedish networking and communication specialist Axis, as well as large scale electronic printing specialists Océ (which in turn is a merger of medium scale printer manufacturer Océ and large scale printer manufacturer Siemens-Nixdorf) some years ago.
> ...



The silicon gap is of interest to more than "some". It is the reason why Sony has been able to expand to the degree they have. You can only last so long being perceived as behind the pack when it comes to underlying technology, eventually brand loyalty will evaporate.

Canon needs to guard against that. Making the assumption that because you have been successful in the past means you will be successful in the future is being foolish. Just ask IBM or Kodak or Nokia or RIM. Staying on top means constantly working to improve, if you stop doing that and rest on your laurels, someone else is going to pass you eventually.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 27, 2015)

Tugela said:


> davidmurray said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Yes… I made the same point earlier (see my post further up on this thread page) – that Samsung has some complementary technology (specifically with respect to sensors) – that could benefit (us), if Canon bought it in a reasonable manner.

Given recent confirmations that Samsung is indeed taking its digital camera business out of several (reasonably large!) markets (see http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8930601010/samsung-nx1-discontinued-in-europe-rumors-say-yes) – there could be salvage value if Canon were to acquire Samsung’s sensor (and perhaps some processor) production facilities (and staff) – and incorporate these as part of their camera operations.

However, not all things are straight forward in the business world (I know some of the complexities of a big buying decision like that, I have worked in business for over 20 years, I’ve lived in various different countries and I hold a management degree). So when I wrote above “win-win” – I was mainly meaning ‘for a good match camera’ (i.e. Canon’s lenses, ergonomics, etc – and Samsungs sensor – particularly the 28MP APS-C). That would benefit us (i.e. a ‘win-win’ for the customers) too!  

Not that Canon’s current sensors are ‘terrible’ or ‘will definitely run them into the ground, cause the entire Canon business & name to crumble’ (like some people write/say). The average person buying a DSLR (entry level, with kit lens) – is not on CR (or other photography enthusiast websites). These ‘average DSLR customers’ often rarely leave ‘auto’ mode/s, and they are not nearly so worried about noise banding, DR ratings, etc – as many people here are.

So, purely out of selfish indulgence, I would love a great deal to happen between Canon & Samsung for a ‘marriage made in heaven’ outcome! (Even that hints at whether there is much to be changed in the communication processes between sensor and other electronics…. Maybe not… as other examples of different-company-produced-sensor does ‘work’)!

Samsung do well with their phone and tablet line, so far as I understand – and some other business lines. But… in the meantime, let’s see… Canon has been undertaking some interest business acquisitions lately… but I believe none of these are as large, and probably not nearly as significant as Canon taking over the Samsung digital camera sensor business.

Regards

Paul 8)


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2015)

pj1974 said:


> ...
> Not that Canon’s current sensors are ‘terrible’ or ‘will definitely run them into the ground, cause the entire Canon business & name to crumble’ (like some people write/say). The average person buying a DSLR (entry level, with kit lens) – is not on CR (or other photography enthusiast websites). These ‘average DSLR customers’ often rarely leave ‘auto’ mode/s, and they are not nearly so worried about noise banding, DR ratings, etc – as many people here are.



Agree with everything else in your post, but don't see things very rosy for Canon. True, many "normal consumers" will not read on forums like this one and will not have as high expectations as us "photo freaks/and enthusiasts" around here, but the general public will and does notice that Canon cameras/sensors are not "class-leading" for some time now and that Canon may not be the "best brand to buy" any longer ... brand value is definitely eroding.

Just look at the poor results for Canon in the current round of multi-camera comparisons on dpreview. This type of "buying advice" is widely read also by "normal people" before buying. 5D III gets scathing ratings like "class-trailing DR" (!) or "AF system cannot hold a candle to Nikon's current 3D AF tracking" ... etc. Also 5Ds R only gets a very lukewarm scorecard, wheras Sony A7R II is clearly rated #1. Followed by Nikon D750 - highly recommended for those who still want a DSLR. And the picture is very similar in all other price categories/classes of those dpreview seasonal purchase advice comparisons. Ouch!
e.g.: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4830978874/2015-roundup-high-end-interchangeable-lens-cameras-2000

To be sure, this is not weirdo Canon-hating DXO, but DPR. The tide is turning on Canon and their brand perception is sliding. No longer a seen as a technology leader on the forefront of imaging but rather as an ultra-conservative player, technologically falling behind. This perception is well earned looking at Canon's cameras and sensors. Good lenses hold them up for now, but who knows how much longer as adaptability to Sony mirrorless is getting better and better - including decent AF performance.

In my opinion Canon is *in need* to acquire current/future-oriented sensor tech (and possibly also fabs) as well as more advanced mirrorless know-how. Samsung camera division - if it became avalaible - would be a great choice. NX-1/NX-500 sensor tech and electronics and Tizen OS would be a great addition if Canon could snatch them for Black Friday discount pricing.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 27, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > ...they believe growth for imaging will come from two places, the professional video market and acquisition of an imaging company.
> ...


Manfrotto are owned by Vitec who also own Lastolite, Gitzo & a host of other companies in both still and broadcast equipment sales. They also own Bexel Broadcast in the US. Its a pretty big British owned business that started from Vinten but well within the means of Canon cash pile.


----------



## Berowne (Nov 28, 2015)

Perhaps they want to buy a company wich knows how to make realy sharp photos? 

https://www.asml.com/asml/show.do?lang=EN&ctx=46772&dfp_product_id=842 

;D


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 28, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > apersson850 said:
> ...


I don't disagree that Canon has to guard against perception from internet sites like DPReview. And that is despite the fact that DPReview is indeed biased and indeed influenced by it's owner.

I also agree with your views about those companies who mis-read the market and rest on their laurels tend to fade away (although IBM is a poor example, but that wasn't your point)...

Sony's market expansion has indeed been due in part to their sensor tech. But if it were truly based on sensor tech, why has Samsung not done so well? And Canon would have completely died.

But to another point, none of the camera manufacturers are in a good place compared to the first part of the 21st century. Canon is not alone in that. The market is shrinking dramatically as those people for whom they just want to record a moment in quality that is good enough can do that with their phone. That is the biggest impact to every camera player out there.

I still don't think Samsung will dump their technology given how much it is valuable to them. Maybe I am wrong. I don't doubt it would not be complementary to Canon, I just dont think they would be able to buy it cost effectively.

And yes, sure Nikon has some great tech - hence why they have maintained their current position. Nikon's model has always been to distribute their AF / sensor more widely across their range, Canon is more conservative. To date, that does not appear to have many significant changes to their respective revenue / market share and therefore leads Canon to continue with their current strategy.

It is also true that they (Nikon) only stopped their own sliding sales when they replaced their weakness in their portfolio with Sony tech. I get that.

Sony has done some very good things in the sensor business, but a lot of that is not driven by the photography market, it is just that it benefits from that (including R&D avoidance and lower manufacturing costs). That in itself does not assure they will stay in the photography business medium or long term. At the moment, they leverage both the smartphone and the camera segments which again is shrewd, and something perhaps Canon should have considered but that doesnt appear to be their business model (OEM).

Canon, Nikon and others know the value of having "ambassadors" ie Pro photographers who show what their equipment can do. Look at Tom Hogan, shoots Nikon, regularly states that if you cant take a good photograph then it's more you than the equipment. But that of course addresses those who do their research thoroughly. Who also don't realise that what motivates some news providers is not unbiased reporting - that has always been a small percentage of the population.

I said "some" again, as I dont have any facts, just like I dont have any facts on how many people really are bothered significantly enough to move brands. Ultimately everyone has the same choice. Just like owning a car, when it comes to replacing it you dont have to stay where you are.

And I would guess that many people on this forum continually review their position. Be that trying new tech alongside the existing tech, be that hiring and trying. In that way, those people are a bit like a business, working out whether their current infra is sufficient for what they want to achieve, and whether the cost of changing is justified. To date, based on relative market share, the biggest impact continues to be erosion due to smartphones.

I personally dont think any of the camera manufacturers really know how to handle this contraction other than to diversify. And I think that is indeed what Canon is doing in the main with this war-chest. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but even if Canon were to acquire Samsung IP, it wouldn't come into most people's reach until maybe 2018/19 (given development lifecycles and the fact that Canon would only bring it to the high end kit first).

I also don't personally think the MK II / MK IV will have massive changes in any of the tech inside, again would be happy to be proved wrong, but my expectations are incremental improvements again.


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2015)

Samsung over-promised and mismanaged their imaging division. They wanted to take over the market in two years, which was overly optimistic to say the least. A five year plan to achieve that would have been ambitious. Second, they haven't been sticking with their timeline nor have they been releasing new lenses quickly enough. I was (AM, to be honest) very interested in the NX1. Technologically, it is an amazing camera, and sadly, it seems Samsung has squandered the edge that technology could have given them. 

At the moment, it seems Samsung's camera division is imploding, however that is all rumor based so we don't know for sure. Perhaps they have something up their sleeve. IF Samsung does have some new stuff around the corner, then they need to stick with it, and keep pumping out products, keep beefing up the product line, and go after every vulnerability in their competitors that they can as early as they can. If they do not do that, then Samsung is not a force to be concerned with. 

Sony has been doing that, Sony has stuck with their plan and stuck with their products, and has been continually expanding the product line, which is why they are still around and why they are making headway. Sony's benefits aren't just sensor technology, it's the products (which are well built and compelling) and the fact that they aren't giving up on it all. That is building customer trust (something Samsung seems to have lost lately), and it's customer trust that will keep Sony a meaningful player in the market. It will be customer trust that could make Sony one of the top two competitors in the industry as well, if they can maintain and grow it. Sony still has a pretty long journey on that front, but so far they are doing better than a lot of upstart camera companies.

It's customer trust that keeps Canon the top dog. For many Canon customers, technology is not the most important factor, and so long as Canon continues to provide their legendary customer service, CPS, and the general level of quality they have delivered for so long, Canon will likely remain the brand preference for those customers. For the customers to whom continually improving technology on all fronts does matter, which may be the minority, but it still seems to account for many millions of customers, a lack of continued sensor tech innovation is a reason those customers could lose trust (certainly the case with me), and open up opportunities for companies more innovative in the camera technology space.

I'm a multi-brand guy myself. I decided some time ago it wasn't in my best interests to stick to one single brand for my camera needs. I'm happy using a variety of brands now, for both camera bodies and lenses. I've got a rather eclectic collection of equipment these days, but it works for me. It's not surprising Canon is looking to acquire other companies and gain new technologies for growth. They really need to. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if I could properly and fully adapt my Canon lenses to other brands of cameras. That would totally make my day, and certainly make life easier than it is now, where sometimes adaptations just don't work.


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 28, 2015)

jrista said:


> It's customer trust that keeps Canon the top dog. For many Canon customers, technology is not the most important factor, and so long as Canon continues to provide their legendary customer service, CPS, and the general level of quality they have delivered for so long, Canon will likely remain the brand preference for those customers. For the customers to whom continually improving technology on all fronts does matter, which may be the minority, but it still seems to account for many millions of customers, a lack of continued sensor tech innovation is a reason those customers could lose trust (certainly the case with me), and open up opportunities for companies more innovative in the camera technology space.



I agree with most of what you've said Jon, and your sentiments in the above paragraph. But I dont think we can make in binary, which you appear to be saying. I think it is more complex. And more complex on why people switch brands (no denying that trust is not a significant factor, but personally it's not that which keeps me with Canon). Similarly, I think there are several reasons why some people stick with Canon lenses, some buy 3rd party lenses and some use a mixture.

Or maybe it's just me that makes it complex, lol. ;D

On a slightly divergent point, I do not understand why some manufacturers do not follow what happens in the video world, and just release EF lens mount on the camera. Sure it might not offer the same speed etc, but it would have made it easier to get traction on their bodies. They could follow the same route as 3rd party lens manufacturers and develop their own lenses with an EF mount and even sell them to Canon users. The only downside is what the 3rd party lens manufacturers face, compatibility and the possibility of better lenses from the camera maker themselves (the gap on the latter seems to have reduced significantly in the past 3+ years). 

Multi-brand is definitely an option, and I've not discounted it yet, and know of others who are happy with that solution (and as many who are happy with their smartphones and ditched their camera)...


----------



## martti (Dec 8, 2015)

Canon could buy Affinity and make a version for Windows as well.
Athentec Perfectly Clear would suit them even better as they have versions for iOS and Android.
I could see them selling more printers if the pictures coming from portable phones would be of post card quality...


----------

