# Nikon = hurting. (question mark changed to a period)



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2017)

https://petapixel.com/2017/02/13/nikon-cancels-dl-series-amidst-extraordinary-loss-restructuring/

Ouch.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2017)

*Re: Nikon = hurting?*

[quote author=pick your favorite dictionary]
*ex·traor·di·nar·y* ikˈstrôrd(ə)nˌerē,ˌekstrəˈôrdnˌerē/
_adjective_
1. very unusual or remarkable.
_noun_
1. an item in a company's accounts not arising from its normal activities.
[/quote]

In this case, their 'extraordinary loss' is the noun, not the adjective. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's quite normal for a company who's primary revenues come from a shrinking market.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 14, 2017)

*Re: Nikon = hurting?*



neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=pick your favorite dictionary]
> *ex·traor·di·nar·y* ikˈstrôrd(ə)nˌerē,ˌekstrəˈôrdnˌerē/
> _adjective_
> 1. very unusual or remarkable.
> ...



In this case, their 'extraordinary loss' is the noun, not the adjective. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's quite normal for a company who's primary revenues come from a shrinking market.
[/quote]

The market unfortunately did that thing it tends to do when wind of bad news gets around:

https://petapixel.com/2017/02/14/nikon-stock-plummets-15-extraordinary-loss-bombshell/

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2017)

But Nikon Stock for a almost guaranteed 15% return when the next quarter statement shows a big jump in profits. A one time write down of losing parts of a business mean that the profitible parts will not be diminished by losses. Canon does well with DSLR's, their mirrorless and P&S sales are hurting.

They need a FF mirrorless just to show the market they are alive.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 14, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> But Nikon Stock for a almost guaranteed 15% return when the next quarter statement shows a big jump in profits. A one time write down of losing parts of a business mean that the profitible parts will not be diminished by losses. Canon does well with DSLR's, their mirrorless and P&S sales are hurting.
> 
> They need a FF mirrorless just to show the market they are alive.



Agree in that a smart / planned / calculated writeoff might load the deck to beat future expectations.

But I think FF mirrorless is fairly well insulated from bossing stock prices -- it's not a mass-consumer product that they will sell like a D5600 and it's not a flagship pro rig they'll get steady units from either. It's a colony ship for the future that won't yield a huge return until mirrorless production savings can be maximized in a bread and butter camera segment, i.e. a future _D950_ pitches the mirror and is sold for the same price.

So I see CaNikon getting into FF mirrorless being more symbolic _historically_ in that it effectively pushes the boulder downhill that will eventually signal the end of the SLR. But seeing as that transition period might 10+ years, so again, I don't see it driving investors that dramatically in the near term.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Feb 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > ...They need a FF mirrorless just to show the market they are alive.
> ...



Well said. 

Predictions of Nikon's doom are vastly overstated, as are predictions of Canon's. Certainly Nikon is not in as strong of a position as Canon is, but both companies are well-managed and know their business far better than any of us.

The products that get forum participants all hot and bothered are seldom products that contribute significantly to either company's bottom line. 

I've been a vocal critic of all camera manufacturers because they were so slow on the uptake when it came to connectivity. It appears they have finally caught on. Unfortunately, it's probably too late to save their fixed-lens models. But, assuming any company is headed for demise because they aren't offering a specific product that a handful of people on a geek forum want is a bit delusional.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> The products that get forum participants all hot and bothered are seldom products that contribute significantly to either company's bottom line.



Typically the products geeks in forums drool over and debate are the very products with the highest margins that contribute most to company's bottom line - even when they are not volume sellers. Canon 1D, 5D series and L lenses are all "niche products" in the overall (stills) imaging market, but the contribute rather handsomely to Canon's bottom line. And tostock price, because hi-end products are the only ones mentioned in "Finance/Investing related media". Nobody on Bloomberg writes about a new Nikon D5600 or Canon Rebel/KISS-me-Kate. But when Nikon or Canon launch new flagship models, it is usually noticed there.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The products that get forum participants all hot and bothered are seldom products that contribute significantly to either company's bottom line.
> ...



I am sure the 1Dx2 contribute a good amount of money but I doubt that they are the biggest contributors to the bottom line as you seem to be saying. Profit margins on the xxxxD, xxxD are lower but they are massive sellers and it is the sheer volume that makes the profit. The 1Dx2 etc are the high-profile things that impress the public and get them realising Canon is an important camera maker and 'look at all those big Canon Cameras at the Olympics'. They are the bait for the mass market.
And the reason that the 1Dx2 and not the 1200D is mentioned in stock reports is that the 1Dx2 is the more impressive camera and impresses the people whose money you are trying to get. That is all. The same reason a car manufacturer's annual report focuses on their high-spec high-tech flagship cars and not the mum-goes-shopping runaround.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Typically *the products geeks in forums drool over and debate are the very products with the highest margins that contribute most to company's bottom line*
> ...



Yep. The 1DX2 is about marketing and brand visibility, not about profit. My guesstimate is that there are 100 to 1000 Rebels sold for every 1DX2, so even if every 1DX2 made $1000 in profit, and every Rebel body only $5, the latter would still dominate the bottom line. But without the 1DX2, Canon would not have the position and the brand image to attract the thousands and thousands of Rebel buyers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2017)

C'mon folks, AvTvM has a business degree (from a fully accredited school, I presume) and has repeatedly (incessantly!) demonstrated his business acumen and extensive understanding of economic principles on these boards. 

As usual, he presents absolutely no evidence to back up his claims…but seriously, how could you possibly even doubt him after all of his pithy posts?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2017)

Neuro, how about sticking to topic of thread? Or answer to postings? 

Rather than just INCESSANTLY launching "ad hominem" attacks on me? Is attempted CYBER BULLYING really all you can? :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2017)

Which generates more profits to contribute most to a company's bottom line?

1) Selling 3,000,000 basic widgets with a profit margin of 1 ¥

2) Selling 200,000 advanced widgets with a 10-fold higher profit margin than the basic widgets

If you answer #1, you might be right. If you answer #2, you might be AvTvM. 

As Mikehit and Sharlin state, the higher end products do contribute heavily to the bottom line, but not just becuase of high margins, rather mainly because they are a very effective form of advertising.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Profit margins on the xxxxD, xxxD are lower



It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're higher. I imagine there is significantly less development cost in the year over year model turnover line, and production runs will further drive down the costs.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Profit margins on the xxxxD, xxxD are lower
> ...



On _bodies_, sure. I don't think that's in question. 

The real profit unknown is how many Rebel folks are buying a second lens vs. the pros with 5D / 1D gear that almost certainly buy _bags full of lenses_ (and flashes, accessories, etc.). So, sure, Rebels keep the lights on at Canon, but the higher end gear is hardly just a technical show pony to sex up the brand -- they are making a nontrivial chunk of change there as well.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



It is above, anyway. The post I quoted states that profit margins on xxxxD and xxxD bodies are lower than 1Dx2, but that it is made up in volume. That may be the case, but I suspect they win both in volume and in unit margin. Yes, from a body perspective. I wouldn't necessarily conflate body sales with lens sales, though. That muddies the waters too much.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you answer #1, you might be right. If you answer #2, you might be AvTvM.



try again. to make a valid point. without personal attack on me.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 22, 2017)

CIPA reports something they call "fittment ratio," i.e. the number of interchangeable lenses shipped divided by the number of ILC bodies shipped. That number is consistently in the neighborhood of 1.6 to 1.7. That shows most folks buy one Rebel body with one kit lens and that's it. A smaller number buy the two lens Rebel kit. It's an even smaller number who have more than two lenses. Clearly the folks on this forum are not representative. 

While it is likely the Rebels selling in the millions deliver the bulk of Canon's profit, the high-end 'halo' models help drive sales and deliver their own chunk of profit. Pentax sells their K-1 for under $2000, Nikon D810's go for $2200... independent of volume, logic says that Canon is banking a fair amount with the 5DIV priced at $3500!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2017)

old-pr-pix said:


> CIPA reports something they call "fittment ratio," i.e. the number of interchangeable lenses shipped divided by the number of ILC bodies shipped. That number is consistently in the neighborhood of 1.6 to 1.7. That shows most folks buy one Rebel body with one kit lens and that's it. A smaller number buy the two lens Rebel kit. It's an even smaller number who have more than two lenses. Clearly the folks on this forum are not representative...



Thanks for that. That is a statistic I've always wondered about. The amazing thing is that when you stop and think about it, the number of people who own more than one lens must be minuscule. Someone who is better at math than I am can figure this out, but if I own six lenses (1:6 ratio of bodies to lenses) and the average is 1 to 1.7, then there must be a heck of a lot of people out there with only one lens, plus as you say, you have to account for all those folks buying two lens Rebel kits.


----------



## kphoto99 (Feb 22, 2017)

unfocused said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > CIPA reports something they call "fittment ratio," i.e. the number of interchangeable lenses shipped divided by the number of ILC bodies shipped. That number is consistently in the neighborhood of 1.6 to 1.7. That shows most folks buy one Rebel body with one kit lens and that's it. A smaller number buy the two lens Rebel kit. It's an even smaller number who have more than two lenses. Clearly the folks on this forum are not representative...
> ...



Count how many bodies you have. 
I'm sure that nobody buys the same set of lenses for each body.
I have 5 bodies (not showing off). Once I divide my collection of lenses by 5, the ratio goes down substantially.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The products that get forum participants all hot and bothered are seldom products that contribute significantly to either company's bottom line.
> ...



That's why they are called "flagships." Has nothing at all to do with what they contribute to the bottom line. The flagship products are just sexier... like the Ford Raptor vs the F-150 XL. Which do you think contributes more profit to the bottom line?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That's why they are called "flagships." Has nothing at all to do with what they contribute to the bottom line. The flagship products are just sexier... like the Ford Raptor vs the F-150 XL. Which do you think contributes more profit to the bottom line?



Easy: *per unit* always the "premium" product.


----------



## hbr (Feb 23, 2017)

unfocused said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > CIPA reports something they call "fittment ratio," i.e. the number of interchangeable lenses shipped divided by the number of ILC bodies shipped. That number is consistently in the neighborhood of 1.6 to 1.7. That shows most folks buy one Rebel body with one kit lens and that's it. A smaller number buy the two lens Rebel kit. It's an even smaller number who have more than two lenses. Clearly the folks on this forum are not representative...
> ...



I currently own two cameras and eight lenses so I don't know if that makes me a giant or a microdot. HeHeHe. Maybe a "fropessional."

Seriously, I seldom sell the equipment that I no longer use. I usually find someone who is getting started in photography and give them the older equipment.


----------



## hbr (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > That's why they are called "flagships." Has nothing at all to do with what they contribute to the bottom line. The flagship products are just sexier... like the Ford Raptor vs the F-150 XL. Which do you think contributes more profit to the bottom line?
> ...



For what it is worth, here is Ken Rockwell's take on the 5D Mark IV:



> I'm so impressed that Canon chose to introduce this 5D Mk IV. Canon didn't need to; it already has this covered in the 5D Mk III that runs at 6 FPS, and the 5DSR has more resolution but less speed at about the same price. The 5D series sells very few cameras compared to Canon's APS-C DSLRs, so we ought to be glad that Canon actively develops new models that don't do much for Canon's profits (and eat into sales of other Canon cameras), but give us all more camera choices.
> 
> Bravo Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you answer #1, you might be right. If you answer #2, you might be AvTvM.
> ...



Let's try this: you make a correct statement, and I won't call you out for being wrong. 

Hey, it could happen!

Edit:


AvTvM said:


> Easy: *per unit* always the "premium" product.



That is a correct statement. Disingenuous, though...you certainly know you're not answering the intended question. So call it a D+.


----------



## Woody (Feb 23, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon does well with DSLR's, their mirrorless and P&S sales are hurting.
> 
> They need a FF mirrorless just to show the market they are alive.



Canon has the largest market shares for both interchangeable lens cameras and P&S.

If their PS&S sales are hurting, then the remaining players are in far worse conditions.

As for ILCs, do you have any evidence their EOS-M cameras are not doing well worldwide? In Japan, they are #2 in position with 18.5% market shares for MILC. Olympus is ahead with 26.8%.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > That's why they are called "flagships." Has nothing at all to do with what they contribute to the bottom line. The flagship products are just sexier... like the Ford Raptor vs the F-150 XL. Which do you think contributes more profit to the bottom line?
> ...



*per unit* wasn't the question.

At McDonalds a Big Mac might be considered a Flagship product. It has a 3% profit margin. The lowly Coca Cola has a nickel's worth of syrup in it and a higher profit margin by a long shot. Saying a 1DX Mark II has a higher margin is pointless if only maybe 100,000 are sold. The Rebel line will beat it to shreds on the bottom line far and away.


----------



## pwp (Feb 23, 2017)

I haven't owned a Nikon since I gave them the sack late last century, but I seriously want them to thrive and do extraordinary things, including making a viable profit. Without quality competition snapping at their heels, Canon would get even lazier with innovation rollouts.

-pw


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



yes it was. And for "overall contribution" to bottom line for a product category one has to multiply *per unit contribution* with *number of units sold*. I think we are in agreement on that, aren't we? 

I initially wrote:
"Typically the products geeks in forums drool over and debate are the very products with the highest margins that contribute most to company's bottom line - even when they are not volume sellers."

Without *knowing* Canon's internal numbers I am pretty sure that EOS 1D-series cameras have highest margin in entire Canon (stills) camera lineup. This is not burgers or softdrinks, we are talking *premium priced* durable technical goods. 

Of course a lot depends on how "research & development" costs are accounted for - e.g. if a certain AF system is developed first for a new EOS 1D series but later on also used in lower-tier series ... etc.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > That's why they are called "flagships." Has nothing at all to do with what they contribute to the bottom line. The flagship products are just sexier... like the Ford Raptor vs the F-150 XL. Which do you think contributes more profit to the bottom line?
> ...



I'm sure that's the case with many products differentiated by trim. However that isn't necessarily the case in all product lines, particularly cameras. Multi-year engineering costs, bill of materials costs, etc, for the premium cameras potentially dwarf those of the major production run cameras with minor year to year changes.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



You admit not knowing Canon's margins on products and then assume that because the 1D line is the most expensive it therefore must have the highest margin. Your assumption is wrong. 

The more something is produced the less the per unit cost and the more the margin. Those are basic economic principles that are completely at odds with what you state.

The 1D line might not be profitable at all.  It certainly is not the titanic contributor to the bottom line you think it is. There just are not enough of them produced to be that.

So no. Your initial "insight" was and is still wrong. The cheeseburger / cola analogy is a good one and still stands. Now, would you like some fries to go with that economics Slurpee you've got sloshing around between your ears?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy ... you nick says it all ... 

Yes, i assume. So do you and you sound off here as well. You come across as a really pesty little nitpicker. Like those idiot small dogs barking up some tree ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



You're so smart…you know more about making and selling cameras than Canon, you even know more about your fellow forum members' questions than they do!

No, *per unit* wasn't the question. When you start talking about the 'bottom line', you are clearly discussing overall contributions…and while the per-unit cost factors into that, as you correctly state, it's only one part of the equation. 




AvTvM said:


> I initially wrote:
> "Typically the products geeks in forums drool over and debate are the very products with the highest margins that contribute most to company's bottom line - even when they are not volume sellers."



So you believe that the high end gear contributes more overall (per unit X unit sales) to the bottom line than the xxD/xxxD/xxxxD lines and non-L lenses. But as usual, you can't back up your claim. 




AvTvM said:


> Without *knowing* Canon's internal numbers I am pretty sure that EOS 1D-series cameras have highest margin in entire Canon (stills) camera lineup. This is not burgers or softdrinks, we are talking *premium priced* durable technical goods.
> 
> Of course a lot depends on how "research & development" costs are accounted for - e.g. if a certain AF system is developed first for a new EOS 1D series but later on also used in lower-tier series ... etc.



At least you admit that you don't know…but why are you 'pretty sure' the 1-series bodies have the highest margin? Surely, one so well-versed in business and economics as yourself understands that a 'profit margin' is a _ratio_ of price to cost, usually expressed as a percentage. I mean...surely. Well, except for the fact that you think being *premium priced* is relevant for profit margin, which indicates your typical lack of understanding. The lowly fountain drink almost certainly has a far higher margin (price/cost) than any Canon camera. Just goes to show, you can lead a donkey mule ass horse to business school, but you can't make him learn. 

As for your statement regarding the amortization of R&D costs into the margin, certainly that's on point. But considering that the higher end gear tends to get new tech, whereas the lower end gets mainly recycled tech (how many cameras reused the 18 MP APS-C sensor? and now the 24 MP one?; when was a new mirror/shutter or card slot included?) and hand-me-down tech (e.g. AF sensors, metering systems), it's a point that argues even more strongly for higher margins on lower end gear.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

@NEURO: you seem to be leaking  ... always more bully shit coming out of your mouth, asshole. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> try again. to make a valid point. without personal attack on me.





AvTvM said:


> @NEURO: you seem to be leaking  ... always more bully S___ coming out of your mouth, asshole. ;D



Well, I guess if you lack the wit to make a valid point, you can always fall back on vulgarity. :


----------



## dvunkannon (Feb 23, 2017)

It is certainly possible for a premium product to be low-margin, or even loss making. As an example, when Jaguar was a separate company its automobiles were all hand-crafted premium products - and the company lost money on every one sold.
It is also possible to choose to price a premium product anywhere on the profit-loss spectrum for purposes of capturing a market segment, enticing users to upgrade, brand identity, and many more reasons.
So there is no _necessary_ reason to think that the high end Canon bodies are outsized contributors to the bottom line of their business segment. Profitability is a choice, and many variables lead into the calculation.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 23, 2017)

The problem with talking about contributions to the bottom line is how the company decides to structure their prices between model ranges. If they price it so all cameras have the same $ profit, the % profit on the lower end models will be extremely high and probably will not sell. So they reduce the price on the lower end models which reduces the amount of gross profit coming in from that line so they have to increase the price of the higher end models - but if you go too far down that line the price of the higher end means they don't sell and people watching TV don't see their flagship models being used at the Olympics. It is a very careful balancing act.

You can then add lenses into the mix - do you cut the cost of bodies and hope people buy your lenses at a higher profit margin? 

You also need to consider that many technologies are amortised across their whole product range - a sensor technology in the 5DIV may well appear in later xxxD models. If the sensor development has been paid for with the 5DIV, that means development costs for the later xxxD are slashed. But maybe the price of the 5DIV _relies on _ the sensor being introduced to later models? You also need to consider that many technologies are amortised across their whole product range - a sensor technology in the 5DIV may well appear in later xxxD models. If the sensor development has been paid for with the 5DIV, that means development costs for the later xxxD are slashed. But maybe the price of the 5DIV _relies on _ the sensor being introduced to later models and without that the price of the 5DIV would be even higher? 

In crude terms: it all depends on which column the accountants put the numbers and when.

Am I supporting AvTvM's assumptions? Nope. All I ma saying is that it is extremely difficult to make any definitive conclusions on how much a given camera contributes to overall gfgross profit. But any company who relies on a majority of their profits to come from a (relatively) low-selling item is playing a high-risk game - small fluctuations in that flagship item (whether sales or supply chain) will have a disproportionate effect on the overall company profit margin. And given that everyone agrees that Canon is a conservative company it seems highly unlikely


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... understands that *a 'profit margin' is a ratio of price to cost, usually expressed as a percentage. I mean...surely. Well, except for the fact that you think being *premium priced* is relevant for profit margin*, which indicates your typical lack of understanding.



You understand, ... I mean, surely .. that QUOTIENT [margin] = DIVIDEND [price] divided by DIVISOR [cost]. 

Now tell me again, whether *premium price" [= very high price] being the DIVIDEND in this operation, is **relevant for profit margin** or not ... 

or in simple terms for non-economists: the higher the price, the higher will be profit margin at any given cost. Don't know what you learned about economics and business ...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Am I supporting AvTvM's assumptions? Nope. All I ma saying is that it is extremely difficult to make any definitive conclusions on how much a given camera contributes to overall gfgross profit. *But any company who relies on a majority of their profits to come from a (relatively) low-selling item *



well, I guess everybody here knows, that Canon definitely not only/pre-dominantly makes and sells premium-priced flagship products. Everybody is well aware of the gazillion units of Rebel/Kiss mirrorslappers releaased into the wild every year. So I guess, we can cut the argument short right there. 

I still *assume* that Canon 1D-series carry high profit margins, despite costs also being higher than for digital rebels. Price certainly appears to be way more exaggerated than cost differential. But, none of us knows for sure. Well, maybe Canon sent their internal calculations to CanonFanBoy and Neuro .. who knows. ;D 

Anyway, I will end this little nitpicking session here.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> or in simple terms for non-economists: the higher the price, the higher will be profit margin at any given cost. Don't know what you learned about economics and business ...



But you talked about (and I quote) 


> Typically the products geeks in forums drool over and debate are *the very products with the highest margins that contribute most to company's bottom line*



The way I see to interpret that (and I accept it may not be what you meant ) is:

_$ profit margin per 1Dx unit x 1Dx unit sales _are greater than 
_$ profit margin per Rebel unit x Rebel unit sales _

That may or may not be what you meant, but the fact that several people have interpreted it that way suggests that if it is not what you meant, you explained yourself badly.

There is a very high likelihood that that 1Dx unit profit is higher than a rebel. But that does not mean the accountant looks at their balance sheet and says 'the amount of dollars we are pulling in from 1Dx is greater than the amount of dollars from the entire Rebel range?

If you were not limiting yourself to the 1Dx, did you include the 5DS(R), 5DIII, 5DIV, 80D, 7D2?
If you definition of 'drool over' is any model with new tech then your statement may have some merit but it widens your statement to almost become meaningless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... understands that *a 'profit margin' is a ratio of price to cost, usually expressed as a percentage. I mean...surely. Well, except for the fact that you think being *premium priced* is relevant for profit margin*, which indicates your typical lack of understanding.
> ...



"At any given cost...," so you're suggesting that the cost of premium priced items is the same as that for lower-end items?

Let's compare the *premium priced* 1D X to the Rebel T6i...which quotient is larger?

1) $5,999 / $4500

2) $749 / $450

If you answer #1, you may think that *premium price* means higher profit margin. If you answer #2, you'd be correct.

Please explain again how the **premium* price* numerator is the main determinant of the quotient? 'Price' is relevant for profit margin. 'Premium' is irrelevant. Don't know what you learned about economics or business...or math...or reading comprehension. :


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> In crude terms: it all depends on which column the accountants put the numbers and when.



Spot on. Without getting into specifics, I am in a business that (broadly) sells nails and gives away hammers. The money from the nails underwrites the R&D/production/marketing/etc. of that nail as you'd expect, but it also covers the staggering cost of _making sure that each customer always has a hammer at the ready_. Every time someone I work with espouses a spruce goose sort of mega-premium product I remind them of that reality and always ask them to run the numbers before pushing such an idea.

I recognize this isn't Canon's business model (in imaging) for the most part. But each business -- like each market -- is different, and the devil's in the details. For all we know, Canon may actually be giving the 1DX2 away at cost given the lower production volumes and (I would imagine) much much higher quality and service expectations of that clientele. But someone probably ran the numbers and said they'd sell 20% more Rebels if the world thought they were the best at the most demanding forms of photography, so at-cost 1DX2's for everyone it is.

...or they are ripping off everyone with all 1D products like they are immaculate storytellers from Leica. ;D

We'll never know as we can't glimpse into the books, right? Has anyone at Canon ever gone on record to talk about which lines command what premiums?

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ...
> You understand, ... I mean, surely .. that QUOTIENT [margin] = DIVIDEND [price] divided by DIVISOR [cost].
> ...


Sorry to interrupt here, but even an engineer (me) knows, that finance math looks a little bit different. 
So to make it more correct:

margin [absolute] = price - costs (of goods sold) (MINUS, not DIVISION) 

Even if you want to get the percentage of margin your formula is wrong. Correct one:

(net profit) margin [percentage] = net profit/revenue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_margin

Or on the other hand:
Gross Margin [percentage] = (Revenue – Cost of goods sold) / Revenue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin

And as we do not have access to these values (net profit, cost of goods sold) for individual products of Canon this discussion and calculation is meaningless.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy ... you nick says it all ...
> 
> Yes, i assume. So do you and you sound off here as well. You come across as a really pesty little nitpicker. Like those idiot small dogs barking up some tree ...



You just can't stand that the mind of this idiot small dog runs circles around your Slurpee mind and is smart enough to not lap it up as you are serving it. :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2017)

well, back to thread topic. Nikon is hurting. As far as their imaging business is concerned, reason seems pretty obvious: lack of mirrorless cameras and native lenses plus a totally unclear future perspective, no roadmap whatsoever. 

Many of their customers are neither interested in Nikon dwarf-sensor Coolpix compacts any longer, nor in boring iterations of mirrorslappers nor in failed Nikon 1 system. Quite a few leaving for Sony and Fuji. Nothing in the entire Nikon lineup right now, that I would want to buy - even if I was starting out new, with no investment in Canon gear. 

Demand is there. Supply is not. We got a business problem here. oO 

But hey, Nikon is still profitable and keeps making loads of mirrorslapper cameras and F-mount lenses, so everything must be fine according to some people's "business logic". ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> But hey, Nikon is still profitable and keeps making loads of mirrorslapper cameras and F-mount lenses, so everything must be fine according to some people's "business logic". ;D



Canon ILC+lens unit sales gained 2%. Nikon ILC+lens unit sales dropped ~23% over the past year and their net sales revenue dropped ~29%. The latter doesn't sound fine to me. But what is clear is that whether you're speaking for yourself or putting words in other people's mouths, your 'business logic' is neither logical nor sound.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> well, back to thread topic. Nikon is hurting. As far as their imaging business is concerned, *reason seems pretty obvious*: lack of mirrorless cameras and native lenses




Based on what?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 23, 2017)

Based on a belief that his needs reflect those of the wider camera market and that his disappointment provides an explanation of the death of Nikon.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Based on a belief that his needs reflect those of the wider camera market and that his disappointment provides an explanation of the death of Nikon.



Photo credit Japan Trends


----------



## Woody (Feb 24, 2017)

Thom Hogan gives a pretty good write-up here:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-nikon-q3-financials.html

"...Every serious shooter I know—every darned one—wants a camera that works the same as, uses the same accessories as, and functions the same as their main DSLR camera. But it must be compact and thus able to fit in a small bag or even a jacket pocket so as to be carried everywhere. 

Right now, Nikon DSLR users are picking non-Nikon products to do that with. So the compact camera they choose doesn’t work the same, doesn’t use the same accessories, and doesn’t produce the same results. Not. What. They. Want. Not what I want, either...

Look at Canon: we’re slowly seeing them develop into a 1”, APS mirrorless, APS and full frame DSLRs range of cameras that work similarly, use the same accessories, and produce similar results (DIGIC)...

Where we are with Nikon is this:
- An FX line that sells modestly well (and decently against Canon), has mostly strong choices, and is probably on a standard iteration schedule now.
- A DX line that is starting to sell less well—especially at the low end—and doesn’t have a full set of lenses so can’t defend against crop-sensor mirrorless (buzz buzz). But at least iteration is on a regular schedule again.
- No mirrorless line with a reasonable-sized sensor.
- A mirrorless “line” with the smallest sensor, an odd set of lenses, that doesn’t use DSLR accessories, that is overpriced to the competition, which Nikon doesn’t promote any more, and which most dealers won’t stock.
- No serious compact line. 
- Action cameras (KeyMission) that really aren’t doing well, which were late to market with too little, and which rely on software that is flakey and immature, at best.
- Some random Coolpix, most of which have no real visibility in the photography market, and certainly none of which match up with Nikon’s DSLR strengths. I’ve written before that Coolpix was hurting Nikon’s brand reputation, and now that’s especially true.

Last week I offered my product plan for Nikon. That was an attempt to fix the things that Nikon already offers. But if Nikon really wants to shrink and do everything right in a new smaller corporate size, then the plan is far simpler:

- Continue with FX as I suggested.
- Rationalize DX fast. Three cameras, build out full lens set. 
- Create a DX mirrorless that replaces the D3400. Use DSLR-like controls, accessories, performance. Lens road map absolutely necessary.
- Create what the DLs would have been: one, two, or three serious compacts that are as close to the above three lines, but compact in size and high in performance. Add an AW model.
- Kill KeyMission.
- Kill Coolpix.
- Kill Nikon 1.

But the downside to downsizing is this: every product has to be dead on for that to work. That means that Nikon needs to understand their customers better, and get better feedback on what is and isn’t important. It means that we can’t have more repeats of the D600, D750, or D800 QC problems. It means that we need road maps for lenses. It means that things like SnapBridge have to actually work when they come out. Support has to be there, and marketing has to be on target."


----------



## Aglet (Feb 24, 2017)

Hmmm... Maybe Nikon's gear is just _so_ darn good that all those who bought it within the last few years aren't compelled to upgrade in (Canon-user-like) hope that the newer model will provide better IQ. ;D

That's certainly the case for me; my d800s still deliver so well that the minuscule improvements are not worth the bother. Same with the crop bodies with the exception of the new D500 beast. But if you have a 7100 or 7200... few need what the 500 adds. Even the d5x00 bodies are extremely capable if you don't need weather-sealing or really high frame rates.

There seems to be a constant stream of Canon upgraders in good volumes, hoping to get better gear, improve their skills, maybe discover they want even _better_ gear, keep buying the _same_ brand... still hoping for more... I'm glad I got off _that_ gear-train.

As discussed earlier in this thread, however, Nikon's overall product lineup, is a bit muddled. That certainly doesn't help business.

Very good IQ, small size, style and shooting ability are also available in some of the ML products available from MFT mfrs and others. The sales in this area may be getting a bit soft for the big players when you have Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji angling in that low to mid market along with those infernal smart-phones with ever-better imaging abilities.

Canon is still irony-in-action; produce and sell vast quantities of sub-par product, still hailed as the _leader_.
At least their IQ is starting to close the gap with the competition in the last year+.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Neuro, how about sticking to topic of thread? Or answer to postings?
> 
> Rather than just INCESSANTLY launching "ad hominem" attacks on me? Is attempted CYBER BULLYING really all you can? :



I think you are perceived as a reincarnation of Dilbert! 

Jack


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, how about sticking to topic of thread? Or answer to postings?
> ...



Off topic. But just for the record: no, I am not Dilbert. And I give Jack all  about some forum members' "perceptions" and their incessant personal attacks and attempts to bully me. I know what I know. And I say what I want to say. Deal with it. I have to deal with Canon Defense League too ... ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Off topic. But just for the record: no, I am not Dilbert. And I give Jack all  about some forum members' "perceptions" and their incessant personal attacks and attempts to bully me. I know what I know. And I say what I want to say. Deal with it. I have to deal with Canon Defense League too ... ;D



The problem is, what you claim to 'know' is often unsupportable, and is little more than opinion; then based on that 'opinion' you make claims that Canon do not know what they are doing in the camera market. You would get more kudos if you acknowledged it was opinion, and that the feature sets you propose were a wishlist and not some panacea to ensure Canon's survival. 

The Canon Defence League is a figment of your imagination. While I (and others I presume) think your proposed features are either something that would be nice, we also make an effort to understand the reason they are not in there yet and may not be in the near future. By your logic, a psychologist who tries to understand psychopaths agrees with what serial killers do...which patently ludicrous.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Off topic. But just for the record: no, I am not Dilbert. And I give Jack all  about some forum members' "perceptions" and their incessant personal attacks and attempts to bully me. I know what I know. And I say what I want to say. Deal with it. I have to deal with Canon Defense League too ... ;D
> ...


+1
Well spoken, Mike.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The Canon Defence League is a figment of your imagination. While I (and others I presume) think your proposed features are either something that would be nice, we also make an effort to understand the reason they are not in there yet and may not be in the near future.



Yes, this is the very definition of "Canon Defense League" people. 

Basically dumb customers who are always APOLOGIZING Canon, always exculpating, always explaining "why this might not be possible and that might not be possible" ... while other companies are implementing those very "impossible" features and solutions in their products left and right. 

Rather than PUSHING Canon to not constantly nerf, cripple and "marketing differentiate" the products they want us to buy. But instead deliver truly "industry leading, innovative, class-leading equipment"... or at least "fully competitive" ... at every level and price point! 

Just as one example: why ze f*ck is there still no Canon Eye Control AF Mk. II in your beloved Canon digital mirrorslappers? Or in EOS M5 EVF? Canon has the patents, it would be useful with every capture we take [for almost? everybody] and a truly unique sales proposition. Why not? Cannot be done? Would be too expensive?? Whimper, whimper, whimper. Apologize, apologize, apologize ... *stupid* Canon!


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Basically dumb customers who are always APOLOGIZING Canon, always exculpating, always explaining "why this might not be possible and that might not be possible" ... while other companies are implementing those very "impossible" features and solutions in their products left and right.


Explaining why we think they have not installed a technology is not the same as apologising. To continue my analogy, does a psychologist apologise for the actions of a serial killer? Nope. 
Who said we were talking about 'impossible' technologies? Canon had DPAF, other companies don't - does that make them dumb? No, it means they have given different technology a different priority. That is all. Sony have a great product but reputationally appalling after sales service - does that make them stupid? Ask Sony the cost impact on their products if they chose to offer the same level of customer service.

Canon have concentrated on improving and evolving what they do have, Sony concentrated on taking great leaps forward. The market decides which is more successful and the market suggests Canon have got it right. 

Note here I am talking about relative rates of improvement - tortoise and hare. You cannot deny that while Sony took great leaps in some respects, Canon are catching up. They will get there and all we are talking about is when.
Your argument is that because they are not doing it _now_ they obviously don't know what they are doing. I disagree, and (it seems) so does the market. 





AvTvM said:


> Rather than PUSHING Canon to not constantly nerf, cripple and "marketing differentiate" the products they want us to buy.


Are you saying Canon are listening to me and using my comments as a reason to not develop new technologies? 
Perhaps I should charge them for my marketing nous because they clearly aren't listening to you



AvTvM said:


> But instead deliver truly "industry leading, innovative, class-leading equipment"... or at least "fully competitive" ... at every level and price point!


They will. it is a matter of when. I understand why they are not doing so. You refuse to accept there is any possible reason (financial or technological or talent) as to why they have not done it already. 
But Canon are competitive at every price point. The technology has advanced so much so quickly that 999/1000 people will never use the full capacity of any camera. Most photographers are happy with the image on their cell phone. I doubt very much that if I showed you a photos of the same scene you would be able to tell me if it was a Sony A7RII, or a Canon 5DIV. I doubt you would even be able to tell me reliably if I showed you those two photos side by side. 

This means it is all about compromises...and people prefer Canon's compromises to Sony's. Canon win. Smart Canon. 

There have been numerous threads here and other fora discussing Nikon's financial stability and the rationality of their range; or about whether Sony even want to stay in the camera market. The only think I read about Canon is how successful they are. They are clearly balancing the competing needs of innovation, releasing only models that work, and meeting market needs. Smart Canon.




AvTvM said:


> Just as one example: why ze f*ck is there still no Canon Eye Control AF Mk. II in your beloved Canon digital mirrorslappers?


Because it is a 'nice to have' and when they did have it there were issues with it. Quite a lot of people who remember it are interested but no-one I have read is saying it is a high priority, and if it is not a high priority for the buyer, why would Canon give it a high priority? Type 'Canon eye control' to your search engine and there are many threads asking why they have not resurrected it and a few that explain its shortcomings. 


Question: which non-mirror-slappers have eye control? Where is the market imperative to give it priority?
Oh, yes, the same market imperative that you believe exists with developing a mirrorless camera when you admit that every other mirrorless manufactuter had messed it up.
Compromises....




AvTvM said:


> Or in EOS M5 EVF?
> Canon has the patents, it would be useful with every capture we take [for almost? everybody] and a truly unique sales proposition. Why not? Cannot be done? Would be too expensive?? Whimper, whimper, whimper. Apologize, apologize, apologize ... *stupid* Canon!


I don't know. Ask them. 
But the M5 seems to be selling well without it so a likely explanation is that they don't think it is needed. And if it sells it means it meets the needs of the target market, so what is 'stupid' about the decision they made? 

As I said above, you come up with some good questions and suggestions but in the next breath morph that into a comment that Cano are stupid for not incorporating them. It is that inability to think beyond your own selfish (and I use the word in its strict sense) needs and your clear business incompetence that draws the flak. 


When the 'Canon Defence League' meets the 'I want it now but haven't got a f**** clue' I think rationality will win.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

apologists ... all the way. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2017)

Aglet said:


> ...my d800s still deliver so well that the minuscule improvements are not worth the bother. Same with the crop bodies with the exception of the new D500 beast. But if you have a 7100 or 7200... few need what the 500 adds. Even the d5x00 bodies are extremely capable if you don't need weather-sealing or really high frame rates.
> 
> There seems to be a constant stream of Canon upgraders in good volumes, hoping to get better gear, improve their skills, maybe discover they want even _better_ gear, keep buying the _same_ brand...



So, in essence, you're saying that Canon offers improvements that are sufficiently impactful to tempt users to upgrade, while Nikon offers only minor improvements that aren't that very attractive to users. 

Smart Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> As I said above, you come up with some good questions and suggestions but in the next breath morph that into a comment that Cano are stupid for not incorporating them. It is that inability to think beyond your own selfish (and I use the word in its strict sense) needs and your clear business incompetence that draws the flak.
> 
> When the 'Canon Defence League' meets the 'I want it now but haven't got a f**** clue' I think rationality will win.



+1

Rationality does win…in the real world. However, when someone is so delusional that they believe their personal opinion represents that of millions despite ample evidence to the contrary, and that they know more about running a major corporation than those actually doing it successfully, it's clear that for that individual, rationality has already been tossed out the window.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

hehe, i wil just sit back and see, which of those *oh so infallible* corporations follows Nokia and Kodak next ...


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> hehe, i wil just sit back and see, which of those *oh so infallible* corporations follows Nokia and Kodak next ...



Probably Sony ;D


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 24, 2017)

Seems to me that Pentax is most vulnerable. Pentax is a tiny part of their overall parent corporation - qualifying simply as 'Other' in financial reports. Yet, they seem to find partners (Sony sensors, Tamron lenses) and still innovate. The question is whether the market will provide them a comfortable niche' that doesn't require the uber-expensive, 'big white' class, lenses. (They have one 560 mm white lens, but it needs refresh to mate well with higher resolution bodies.)

Excepting government intervention, it is after all the market that decides. It's easy to find examples where companies already in a particular market miss (or won't accept) innovations that are disruptive. Kodak effectively invented digital photography yet couldn't resist protecting their status-quo. Mountain bikes are another example of existing manufacturers ignoring all the signals and being displaced by new upstarts.

At the same time it is too easy to out-innovate the market's acceptance. Once a company does that they tend to become very conservative the next time. Electric cars might be an example. Government credits may encourage the market; but, by itself it isn't ready. Eye-controlled focus... did anyone actually try to use it in the Elan 7e? It requires a level of user discipline that is hard to master. Touchscreen focus selection works much more effectively for me. You can check the overall frame composition while still tweaking the focus point.


----------



## bwud (Feb 24, 2017)

My suspicion on canon and offering a high-end mirrorless rig:

The tech isn't ready. Canon has a strong reputation when it comes to performance and usability, particularly with respect to autofocus. They also have arguably the best on-sensor AF hardware with DPAF. However, in equipped cameras, people still largely opt for the off sensor AF unit in critical scenarios like action. 

Similarly, Sony, who has been pushing the mirrorless segment, recently had to put a mirror (albeit a translucent one) in front of the A7R ii sensor to get it to focus well. 

If and when the on-sensor tech is up to snuff, I expect canon will move on that market segment.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon Defence League is a figment of your imagination. While I (and others I presume) think your proposed features are either something that would be nice, we also make an effort to understand the reason they are not in there yet and may not be in the near future.
> ...


Several months ago you started making it clear why you do what you do: you're trying to create a swell of demand in the Canon community. I don't think it's going to happen, and it's not worth my time to participate. There are other things much more worth my time and energy.




> Basically dumb customers who are always APOLOGIZING Canon, always exculpating, always explaining ... while other companies are implementing those very "impossible" features and solutions in their products left and right.


The REL (Reality Elucidation League) has not said "impossible:" features do not magically come into existence, and the tools to produce them do not grow from bare earth. The tech requires R&D, and the factories must be re-tooled. All these cost money. Every camera manufacturer makes choices about which features to put into a particular camera or lens, and that contributes to the eventual cost to the purchaser.



> Rather than *PUSHING* Canon to not constantly nerf, cripple and "marketing differentiate" the products they want us to buy.


How do you intend to *PUSH*? Seriously, what's your big-pictures plan to push Canon? Please explain it, because I can't see how a few hands full of gearheads can affect the market more than the sales data and formal surveys.

Seriously, what's your plan to push Canon?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> hehe, i wil just sit back and see, which of those *oh so infallible* corporations follows Nokia and Kodak next ...



Now I have time, let's have a look at why Nokia phones crashed - they went into a disastrous deal with Microsoft. They developed a new platform to counter Android but MS forced them to change tack and that affected confidence in them. But Nokia are far from bust - they simply concentrated on network and not hardware. 

Kodak crashed because they misunderstood the market and underestimated the digital imaging technology they had developed, and in response they invested in a disastrous business model which included boosting presence in other areas (prints, inks etc) where the market was also changing quickly. Canon has shown signs of neither error - they have a strong business model and are adapting to the new markets. And if you want to draw a parallel between Kodak's attempts to bolster film in the face of the digital revolution, and what you see as Canons' attempts to bolster mirror-slappers in the face of mirrorless, then market success (in fact, increasing market success) suggests that is a misplaced analogy.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Seriously, what's your plan to push Canon?



Rather simple. There is 2 things i and every other (!) - existing or potential - Canon customer can easily do:

1. not buy anything Canon, as long as they don't offer the right products.. 
Done. Not purchased anything from them during the last 2 years.

2) rather than posting in forums like apologetic Canon employees and Defense Leaguers, I voice my opinion *as a customer*, what I like, what I would like and what I don't like. 
Work in progress. 

And if a lot of us do so these 2 simple measures will provide rather *strong PUSH* to suck up to us. Rather than people publicly sucking up to them. 


Actually, Nikon is feeling this kind of PUSH rather nicely at the moment. No even halfway decent mirrorless offering - not even APS-C ... and they are being punished by us, their boss: the customers. I like.


----------



## JBSF (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, what's your plan to push Canon?
> ...




1. If you haven't purchased in two years you are not a customer.

And 2. Hurtful as it may be, Canon is not and never will be listening to you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, what's your plan to push Canon?
> ...



Still living in your delusion. Fine, you haven't bought anything from Canon in the past two years. Who cares? The thing is, every other existing and potential Canon customer _could_ easily choose to not buy Canon gear..._but they're not making that choice_. Instead, Canon's ILC sales went *up* over the past year, despite a continuing overall drop in global ILC sales. 

So the only place this 'strong PUSH' exists is inside your delusional headspace. Out here in the real world, the exact opposite is happening...Canon's ILC sales are increasing, which sends a very strong message that they're doing the right thing.

Your 'pushing Canon' is just as ineffectual as your feeble and pathetic attempts to understand business and economic principles, i.e. a total fail. 

As for voicing your opnion as a customer, you remind me of the occasional decrepit lunatic standing on a street corner and incessantly shouting obscenities. Sure, they have an opinion and they're voicing it...but they sound so asinine and ridiculous that most people just tune them out...and those who do bother to listen briefly quickly realize that their opinion is worthless, no matter how loudly they shout it.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> 2) rather than posting in forums like apologetic Canon employees and Defense Leaguers, I voice my opinion *as a customer*, what I like, what I would like and what I don't like.
> Work in progress.



Canon defence leaguers also express what they want and it is suprisingly similar to you. Or hadn't you noticed?
The difference is you believe Canon have not released those feature because Canon don't think they are wanted.
But if you haven't bought anything from them in 2 years, you are not a customer. You are an outsider thinking you know the Canon target market. 




AvTvM said:


> And if a lot of us do so these 2 simple measures will provide rather *strong PUSH* to suck up to us. Rather than people publicly sucking up to them.


Who is sucking up to them? There are plenty of threads explaining what we would like.
The difference is that you variously describe the lack of features you want as dinosaur-thinking within Canon, a deliberate withholding of technology that they could incorporate at the drop of a hat with zero impact on selling cost, or a sheer incompetence in not understanding the market. 




AvTvM said:


> Actually, Nikon is feeling this kind of PUSH rather nicely at the moment. No even halfway decent mirrorless offering - not even APS-C ... and they are being punished by us, their boss: the customers. I like.



Any evidence that lack of mirrorless is at the root of their problems? Please - show us some evidence.
Sony is purely mirrorless and it isn'tt working out too well for them. By your reckoning they should be increasing year on year, but they peaked in 2012 - *5 years ago*


----------



## scyrene (Feb 24, 2017)

What's that saying about playing chess with a pigeon...? :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Sony is purely mirrorless and it isn't working out too well for them. By your reckoning they should be increasing year on year, but they peaked in 2012 - *5 years ago*



well ... just imagine for a moment where Sony would be today *without* mirrorless camera systems? Had they continued only with A-mount mirrorslappers and SLTs ... where wojuld tehy stand? What would be their market share? More or less than Pentax and the 7 dwarfs? 

Mirrorless has saved Sony's a** ...


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 24, 2017)

yes, mirrorless did save Sony's ass. I am not denying that - but to be honest that is not saying a lot. It was the first large-sensor mirrorless allied with an amazing sensor and it rightly won a lot of customers and suited the way a lot of people work. 
If Canon introduced a similar spec camera I and many others would be pleased but (and here is the kicker) - it must do so without compromising any of the current Canon range qualities. In the current market my guess is that maintaining current standards in the 1D/5D/7D/6D level is more important than introducing the supposed benefits of mirrorless and making compromises. 


The Sony has issues with corner distortion - landscapers who use Canon would not (absolutely not) accept a mirrorless that gave them lesser performance simply to save 100g on body weight. I agree with you that these issues are not insurmountable but they haven't been beaten yet. And until they are beaten Canon will not consider them a realistic alternative to replace an existing model
There are issues with non-mirror AF systems. A 5D user or 1D user will not accept compromises in any form simply for the supposed benefits. So it will not replace any top range camera (yet). 
Don't forget that it is seeing pros use their cameras that is the best advertising for a Canon camera. If the pros start whining their market risks collapsing.

So Canon remain trialling their mirrorless technology in the Sony. 
To say 'Sony have it so Canon should' is arrant nonsense. They clearly give it a different priority in the short term - and that is the only point I have ever made. For all I know, they may already have a mirrorless AF that matches the Sony AF but do not yet think it is good enough for them (good enough for Sony but not good enough for Canon) to incorporate into the 5D/6D/7D range. 


If you reply, please can you counter these points rather than merely restating your biases?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> So Canon remain trialling their mirrorless technology in the Sony.



Given that, what does it say that Canon sold more MILCs than Sony last year?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

As we discussed, it would not be very difficult to avoid the shortcomings of the SOny A7 series ... remmebr E-Mount ... parameters suitable for APS-C, but highly compromised for FF? 

With a properly chosen mount and native lens lineup and Canon User Interface I would be more than happy to buy a Canon FF MILC matching all aspects of Sony A7 R II ... especially its sensor ... still beats 5D IV any day.


----------



## bwud (Feb 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> As we discussed, it would not be very difficult to avoid the shortcomings of the SOny A7 series...



What do you propose canon can easily do to avoid the AF shortcoming of the Sony Alpha line when Sony itself had to use a mirror to do so? DPAF would certainly help close the gap, but it isn't interchangeable.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2017)

bwud said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > As we discussed, it would not be very difficult to avoid the shortcomings of the SOny A7 series...
> ...



Sony A7 R II focuses just fine. At least for everyone who does not truly need 1D-X II AF performance. Like most other people - except a disproportionate number here on this forum - I never shoot BIF or action sports. 

Sony built the "mirrored" A99 II because they believe there are still some A-mount hardcore fans out there who will buy it.


----------



## bwud (Feb 24, 2017)

Are you speaking from experience?

In mine it doesn't compare, particularly for action and low light. I rarely shoot birds in flight and never shoot action sports, and the difference is still rather apparent. My a7r ii works great with abundant light and contrast using relatively short focal lengths. In other situations it struggles even with static subjects. Fortunately it is a dream to manually focus. Regardless, when I expect such situations I rely on 5D iii.

And of course they made it because they thought people would buy it. Why else would they?

However you didn't answer the question. So I'll ask again, given your confidence that it's an easy task to avoid the shortcomings. What can canon easily do?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2017)

bwud said:


> Are you speaking from experience?



Yes, AvTvM has vast amounts of experience. At least, vast amounts of one type of experience...


----------



## Aglet (Feb 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > ...my d800s still deliver so well that the minuscule improvements are not worth the bother. Same with the crop bodies with the exception of the new D500 beast. But if you have a 7100 or 7200... few need what the 500 adds. Even the d5x00 bodies are extremely capable if you don't need weather-sealing or really high frame rates.
> ...



Neuro, that's a _great_ example of quoting out of context by using selective quoting to try to depict the opposite of the original statement.
Did you get practice in this skill by working for politicians or big-pharma?..


----------



## unfocused (Feb 25, 2017)

While this is by far not the longest thread on this forum, it might set a record for being totally devoid of any substance. Nothing but goofy comments and insults, with a few folks trying vainly to introduce a bit of sanity without any success. 

Neuro and AvTvM can you two just get a room?


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 25, 2017)

I think it is a bad sign that Nikon has given up developing its own sensors for its DSLR's, and allows its up and coming competitor Sony to supply its sensors. I do not claim to be a business genius, but I read history and collect some antiques. The first step towards oblivion of many companies is not uncommonly the act of gutting your creative innovative side and simply rebranding other people's products as your own. If Nikon lose the ability to make cameras without Sony, are they really a stand-alone camera company anymore? What if Sony decides to end its practice of propping Nikon up with sensors, and Nikon no longer has the capability of resuming production of state of the art sensors?


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 25, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> I think it is a bad sign that Nikon has given up developing its own sensors for its DSLR's, and allows its up and coming competitor Sony to supply its sensors. I do not claim to be a business genius, but I read history and collect some antiques. The first step towards oblivion of many companies is not uncommonly the act of gutting your creative innovative side and simply rebranding other people's products as your own. If Nikon lose the ability to make cameras without Sony, are they really a stand-alone camera company anymore? What if Sony decides to end its practice of propping Nikon up with sensors, and Nikon no longer has the capability of resuming production of state of the art sensors?


And it makes me happy that despite all the trolling b1+ching about Canon-made sensors being a bit behind SoNikon in DR, my investment in lenses is still backed up by a vital and viable legitimate camera company producing new Canon sensors in their bodies. They used to whine about Nikon having higher MP but Canon shut them down, didn't they?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 25, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> I think it is a bad sign that Nikon has given up developing its own sensors for its DSLR's, and allows its up and coming competitor Sony to supply its sensors. I do not claim to be a business genius, but I read history and collect some antiques. The first step towards oblivion of many companies is not uncommonly the act of gutting your creative innovative side and simply rebranding other people's products as your own. If Nikon lose the ability to make cameras without Sony, are they really a stand-alone camera company anymore? What if Sony decides to end its practice of propping Nikon up with sensors, and Nikon no longer has the capability of resuming production of state of the art sensors?



Nikon still makes sensors, it's just that (of late) Sony has made _better_ ones that Nikon chose to use in many of their rigs -- I think a lot of Canon people would have wished Canon had done the same the last few years. But, to my knowledge, Nikon's flagship D5 sensor is their own, and it's possible that the D500 sensor is also from Nikon (I continue to search for a definitive yea or nea on that, please forward if you have that link).

Keep in mind that Canon buys other folks' sensors as well, just not in their bread and butter SLR space. I believe one of their lines of higher end compacts uses a Sony sensor (I don't follow that market enough to ID the model, forgive me). 

I personally wouldn't knock Nikon's level of sensor innovation -- I think they acquit themselves quite well (at least quality/value/performance wise) in the SLR space. Remember, they didn't exactly buy cut-rate sensors, they bought the best available on the market.

I would, however, knock their mirrorless strategic decision making. The Nikon 1 sensor size call was an unmitigated disaster unless a boatload of sales have been misfiled into the compact (non-interchangeable) camera segment that I haven't heard about. I don't want to hazard a guess on the total dollar impact of trying and failing so spectacularly. Besides all the R&D, excess/obsolescence, marketing, etc. that will be lost, they critically spun their wheels for a few years and lost even more time on the competition. Their work is certainly cut out for them.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Feb 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I believe one of their lines of higher end compacts uses a Sony sensor (I don't follow that market enough to ID the model, forgive me).



The 1" sensors in the G5X, G7X II, and G9X, for example, are Sony sensors.

I will say, I actually do see ScottyP's point. For the DSLR market space, everything Canon had was theirs while Nikon contracted out a rather significant element, the sensor, to Sony. I have no real numbers but I suspect the real issue there was that Canon could make sensors cheaper than Nikon could buy them, thus, Canon's profits were better making them a stronger company. 

At least from my perspective, Nikon's a bit all over the place. They have the loyal fan base, great. They have had some stellar lens releases (105 f/1.4, new 70-200 f/2.8, etc) but then some that may be upgrades to their lineup but lack compared to the rest of the industry (80-400, 24-70 f/2.8, etc).

Then, they have an intro lineup (Coolpix) and a premium lineup (FX DSLRs), but not much in the middle. No premium P&Ss, no mirrorless, etc. A couple of very loyal Nikon shooters I know have gone to other brands for those body types. 

So, I actually hope their strategy works out for them. I think the market is a better place with Nikon in it. But I also do not regret my choice of Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2017)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



No, I didn't depict the opposite at all. I'm a scientist, and I'm used to distilling away rhetoric and opinion to reveal the underlying data. I just reduced your statements to the essentials. But since I know some people lack the necessary metacognitive ability to separate themselves from their biases, I'll rephrase your statements in accordance with your biases:

Nikon makes superawesomefantastic dSLRs that are so amazingly incredibly stellar, that are packed with so many wonderfully astounding features, that have such superlatively stunning performance, and that use such futuristically advanced cutting edge technology that when they release an updated model, they're only able to make very small improvements. So, once you make the brilliantly intelligent decision to buy a Nikon dSLR, you never need to buy another one. Therefore, Nikon users don't upgrade and Nikon sells fewer dSLRs. 

Canon makes poor, sub-par, really abysmally terrible dSLRs that are so stinkily crappy they can barely take a decent picture. Once you make the idiotically foolish decision to buy one, you are locked into a viscous cycle and forced to frequently buy new iterations of Canon dSLRs in the vain hope that doing so will give you a little bit better performance and make your pictures ever so slightly less sucky. Therefore, Canon users upgrade all the time and Canon sells more dSLRs. 

Smart Canon.


----------



## Woody (Feb 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, I didn't depict the opposite at all. I'm a scientist, and I'm used to distilling away rhetoric and opinion to reveal the underlying data. I just reduced your statements to the essentials. But since I know some people lack the necessary metacognitive ability to separate themselves from their biases, I'll rephrase your statements in accordance with your biases:
> 
> Nikon makes superawesomefantastic dSLRs that are so amazingly incredibly stellar...
> 
> Canon makes poor, sub-par, really abysmally terrible dSLRs that are so stinkily crappy they can barely take a decent picture... Therefore, Canon users upgrade all the time and Canon sells more dSLRs.



Thumbs up! Yup, that's how I interpreted Aglet's post too.

Unfortunately, that does not explain Nikon's complete absence in the field of MILCs... the total failure of their KyeMission and Nikon 1 offerings... the horrible horrible QC of multiple Nikon FF cameras (D600, D750 and D800)...

I am more inclined to trust Thom Hogan's assessment than Aglet's chest beating post...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 25, 2017)

Back to the original topic :, there's been a development of sorts worth looking at:

https://petapixel.com/2017/02/25/nikon-speaks-will-focus-medium-high-end-dslrs-lenses/

That's either...

a) ...a calm-the-waters reassuring statement to keep longtime enthusiasts and pros in the fold after a financial bombshell, or 

b) ...a major tell of things to come. 

Conspicuously absent on that list of what they'll focus on would be _the core vanilla SLR that we presume keeps the lights on at Nikon_ just as it does at Canon. Are they saying that market is lost, eroding, or soon-to-be unprofitable to compete in? 

In my often made statement that 'mirrorless will (eventually) consume SLRs, starting from the bottom of the portfolio and moving to the top', is a lack of focus on entry level SLRs potentially a tell that Nikon sees that happening sooner rather than later?

(I kind of love reading corporate tea leaves. )

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2017)

Several Japanese news outlets published an article based on an interview with Nikon executives. Here are the key points from a Google translation (if you have a better translation, please post it in the comments section):
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/24/nikon-we-plan-to-concentrate-on-medium-and-high-end-dslr-and-mirrorless-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/#more-110659



> The Nikon camera business is undergoing a major restructuring.
> This is a quote: "bringing in multiple mirrorless cameras at an early stage" - to me this means announcing multiple mirrorless cameras soon.
> Nikon is taking an aggressive approach to rebuild their camera business.
> Nikon has no plans for closing domestic or overseas manufacturing plants at the present time.
> ...




too late ... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> > In the future Nikon will concentrate their resources on medium to high-end DSLR cameras and lenses *as well as mirrorless cameras.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's too late to concentrate resources on... a mirrorless camera? Great, when will you stop asking Canon to?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 26, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > > In the future Nikon will concentrate their resources on medium to high-end DSLR cameras and lenses *as well as mirrorless cameras.*
> ...



too late for Nikon. Canon at least launched EOS M / EF-M series and is getting "closer to fully competitive" with M5/M6. Nikon ... mirrorless .. zilch!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> too late for Nikon. Canon at least launched EOS M / EF-M series and is getting "closer to fully competitive" with M5/M6. Nikon ... mirrorless .. zilch!



Because Nikon has never made a MILC? Because Nikon has less ILC market share than Sony? 

Or just because you personally don't want a Nikon camera?

Yeah, your rationale is as cogent as usual...for you. :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 26, 2017)

easy. There is nothing in all of Nikon lineup I would even remotely want to buy. Apparently many othrs are coming to same conclusion.

Nikon has no MILC. Nikon 1 was a bad joke, it failed, it does not even register as a blip on the map. WHY on earth do FUJI and SONY in 2017 have decent APS-C MILCs, but Canon only "half-decent" and Nikon zilcho?

It is hurting them and I like it. I hope, they will hurt a lot more. And if they on under, i will laugh.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



so because they haven't released a MILC to your liking in the past, it's too late to restrategize and concentrate resources on a mirrorless rig in the future. 

Right.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Nikon has no MILC. Nikon 1 was a bad joke, it failed,;;



Nikon 1 series is actually, technically, quite impressive in some areas.
If you consider the absolute AF performance and FPS the 1v3 could provide a few years ago you might reconsider your position.
The system was a marketing dud, however. Competition was strong and they chose too small a sensor.
The high performance camera was also considered too pricey for a small sensor compact with seriously limited low-light abilities, despite its impressive sprint ability in good light. Larger sensor systems at lower price points provided better IQ and overall value.
N1 lenses were also quite decent.

I'm sure Nikon learned a few things from that experiment which they could apply to an APSC sensor ML system if they decide to make one. They are capable of providing a formidably well-spec'd product should they chose to.
D500?...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 27, 2017)

Aglet said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon has no MILC. Nikon 1 was a bad joke, it failed,;;
> ...



I actually have to agree with AvTvM (and probably most everyone else) here. Regardless of the quality of the components or impressive spec sheets the bodies offered, Nikon 1 was a failure in that _years have passed and Nikon didn't build something lasting out of it_. If it was just a test platform to learn from, Nikon didn't seem to know that at the time and burned a lot of money in the process.

Nikon 'gambled on small' to open up a new market of shooters (candidly, women -- awesome idea on paper) and it didn't happen. It didn't sell as planned, and that's fine, but they _then_ threw a number of body updates at that platform and offered more lenses than Canon did with EOS M. All of that added up to throwing good money after bad, and now, 5+ years on, Nikon clearly lost their shirt on the investment and have no enthusiasm / lenses / mount to leverage with a new system they now must build in haste. Some tech lessons were learned for sure, but it was a bloodbath to the company otherwise.

And regarding body specs, ask the 15 fps / 28 MP / 4k APS-C juggernaut Samsung NX-1 how it did. Body specs do not singlehandedly carry platforms to success or we'd all be shooting A7 rigs right now. So Nikon's 20 fps was lovely, sure, but with IQ resembling a not-too-distant-future cell phone, I fail to see how Nikon could save the brand. 

- A


----------



## Aglet (Feb 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




Yawn... 
Keep bathing in rhetoric and patting yourself on the back; somebody has to.

FWIW, you do have the gist of the topic, as you restated it; albeit in a very unscientific manner laced with excessive amounts of superlative as you are often wont to do under the guise of an alleged sense of humor.

So take that theory, Mr. Scientist, and evaluate the merit of it instead of merely mocking it because it came from somewhere outside the nihilistic bounds of your crusty cranium.

The oft' quoted mantra of Canon's "superior lenses," a crock of guacamole outside of a few niche items, also reinforces that fear for consumers to stay locked into an underwhelming system choice.

NONE of my Nikon gear has proven disappointing in the least except for one particular design-issue in a low-end camera body that's easy to work around. There's been no need or desire to upgrade for a few product cycles.

As fas as the locked-in fear is concerned, it's overblown as well. Switching systems is easy. The best part about Canon's products is not the over-rated quality, it's the over-inflated resale value so one loses little by selling off and buying into another system that may be better suited to their needs.

Few other companies regularly hose their customers like Canon does with all their artificially limited products.
yes, it's probably good for business, which is why I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2017)

Aglet said:


> FWIW, you do have the gist of the topic, as you restated it;



Yes, I understand _your opinion_ on the topic. That doesn't mean your opinion has any validity in the real world or any basis in fact...as you so aptly help to illustrate. 




Aglet said:


> So take that theory, Mr. Scientist, and evaluate the merit of it...
> 
> The oft' quoted mantra of Canon's "superior lenses," a crock of guacamole outside of a few niche items, also reinforces that fear for consumers to stay locked into an underwhelming system choice.
> 
> As fas as the locked-in fear is concerned, it's overblown as well. Switching systems is easy. The best part about Canon's products is not the over-rated quality, it's the over-inflated resale value so one loses little by selling off and buying into another system that may be better suited to their needs.



By all means, let's evaluate it. But let's do so objectively, rather that through those flagrantly biased goggles you wear. You claim Canon's dSLR products are sub-par, and their system is 'underwhelming'. Why, then, has Canon been the ILC market leader for 14 years and counting? You claim switching systems is easy...that's likely true in many cases, and easy switching may be part of the reason Canon gained ILC market share last year, as Sony and Nikon lost market share. 

As for the high resale value that Canon gear commands, let's evaluate that objectively, too. Basic economic principles state that market prices are driven by down by higher supply and up by higher demand. Given Canon's long tenure as the ILC market leader, supply should be highest among brands...and that would be even more true if people were so dissatisfied with the Canon system. So if supply is high (and a quick perusal of Craigslist and major used retailers suggest that's true), prices would be substantially lower..._unless_ demand is also very high. So, evidently people want to buy Canon gear. 

An objective evaluation shows that the logical conclusion is that Canon offers a system that more people feel meet their needs than any other brand. 




Aglet said:


> NONE of my Nikon gear has proven disappointing in the least except for one particular design-issue in a low-end camera body that's easy to work around. There's been no need or desire to upgrade for a few product cycles.
> 
> ...I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.



Good for you that you're happy with your system, and I mean that sincerely. Anyone who isn't should switch, assuming there's something out there they feel will better meet their needs. The fact that the majority of ILC users prefer a system you don't like (or is that, rabidly hate?), should in no way detract from your enjoyment. 

Given the financial and strategic problems Nikon is currently experiencing, and the inconsistencies that are typical of Sony, some newcomers may come to rue your recommendations (assuming they chose to follow them). But at least it will be easy for them to switch to the most frequently-chosen brand.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 27, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Few other companies regularly hose their customers like Canon does with all their artificially limited products.
> yes, it's probably good for business, which is why I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.



Is your contention that Nikon's products are significantly better than Canon's? Can you provide objective measures of that? From what I gather, most of the two companies' lenses are similar in quality and capability (Canon has one or two specialist ones that Nikon does not), most of Nikon's DSLRs allow a bit more shadow pushing (except the D5), maybe 6 stops instead of 4 in the newer Canon bodies, and the D500 is a touch higher specked than the 7D2, but in almost all other regards, the offerings are similar.

I can get someone saying 'Canon isn't better', but to go a step further and say Canon are worse (than Nikon) is stretching. As for overpriced... well, the market determines the price. If nobody was buying Canon cameras, then they'd have to drop the prices. If they haven't, it shows the market judges their pricing to be about right (and that's where the sales stats come in).


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 27, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Is your contention that Nikon's products are significantly better than Canon's? Can you provide objective measures of that? From what I gather, most of the two companies' lenses are similar in quality and capability (Canon has one or two specialist ones that Nikon does not), most of Nikon's DSLRs allow a bit more shadow pushing (except the D5), maybe 6 stops instead of 4 in the newer Canon bodies, and the D500 is a touch higher specked than the 7D2, but in almost all other regards, the offerings are similar.
> 
> I can get someone saying 'Canon isn't better', but to go a step further and say Canon are worse (than Nikon) is stretching. As for overpriced... well, the market determines the price. If nobody was buying Canon cameras, then they'd have to drop the prices. If they haven't, it shows the market judges their pricing to be about right (and that's where the sales stats come in).



The Nikon lust was typically for EXMOR sensors and more resolution, that's really it. That's where people always got butt hurt about Nikon v. Canon, _but that was last-gen with D800/D800E/D810 vs. the 5D3_. Oh how times have changed.

The FF market has morphed since then. Canon's 2/3s of the way through it's next-gen of bodies, Canon has gone to on-chip ADC and started closing the sensor gap, and the resolution leadership changed hands yet again since the 5DS R came out. So, in short, the FF SLR world of 2017 doesn't look much like 2014 and everyone who loved pushing 47 stops on a D810 has probably already moved on to an A7R II.

And the rest of us wise people keep snapping away in our chosen ecosystems without the pains of migration. Canon and Nikon both make fine gear and declaring a winner of the two or lusting for what's on the other side of the fence seems a bit silly.
*
...except for spot metering at any AF point.* That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Few other companies regularly hose their customers like Canon does with all their artificially limited products.
> ...



Yes, he was quite explicit:



Aglet said:


> Canon is still irony-in-action; produce and sell vast quantities of sub-par product...



Objective measures? Well...Aglet likes Nikon better, so objectively, it must be better. That _is_ what you meant, right?  :


----------



## Jopa (Feb 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...except for spot metering at any AF point.[/i][/b] That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :



+1. You need to add extra few grands to the 5d price to have this feature. I'm wondering if the M series have it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...except for spot metering at any AF point.[/i][/b] That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :



Yeah, but the D3x00 line doesn't have auto-exposure bracketing. Many of their Coolpix P&S cameras have it, but not their entry-level dSLRs. 

You makes your choice and you pays your money.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 27, 2017)

Jopa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...except for spot metering at any AF point.[/i][/b] That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :
> ...



No idea, but a Rebel-level Nikon equivalent has it, as do most cellphones. I'm going to go out on a limb and declare a 5D-level body has the horsepower to manage the task. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...except for spot metering at any AF point.[/i][/b] That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :
> ...



Neuro, I never said I was leaving. I'm just bellyaching with a high level of consistency. 

- A


----------

