# Canon Fiscal Year End 2017, It Was a Good Year



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 30, 2018)

```
Canon has released their 2017 year end results, and they were quite good for the company. Canon saw a nearly 20% gain in sales and operating income up about $3 billion USD or 44.8%.</p>
<p>Canon is a large company, and their acquisition of healthcare and security companies has had a very positive effect on their bottom line, as well as their tried and true office imaging division.</p>
<p>Things are also looking up for the camera imagine division, which saw growth in a declining market. Canon saw almost a 4% increase in sales and a very good 22% gain in operating profit for the division.</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-33290" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/canon2017yearend-728x462.jpg" alt="" width="728" height="462" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/canon2017yearend.jpg 728w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/canon2017yearend-225x143.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/canon2017yearend-610x387.jpg 610w" sizes="(max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px" /></p>
<p>Canon achieved their sales growth with the launch of 6 new cameras, which was the most in the industry, and their growth in mirrorless remains in double digits.</p>
<p>Canon predicts a small growth of 1.2% in camera sales, which would suggest they’ll continue to announce more cameras than anyone else in the industry.</p>
<p>Canon also plans to continue developing their G series line of cameras, even as the compact camera market continues to shrink at a fast rate, Canon predicts a 16% decline in compact camera sales in 2018. Canon will continue to work on increasing their market share, as well as increasing profits in the segment.</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-33291" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017imaging-728x462.jpg" alt="" width="728" height="462" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017imaging.jpg 728w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017imaging-225x143.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017imaging-610x387.jpg 610w" sizes="(max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px" /></p>
<p><strong>Canon had this to stay about the state of the Camera industry:</strong></p>
<p>In 2017, the market for interchangeable-lens cameras shrank by 1% to 11.4 million units. This rather small decrease reflects, among others, the market’s recovery from the supply shortage caused by an earthquake in 2016. We, on the other hand, posted a sales decline of 3% to 5.51 million units, which was in line with our plan. Although our sales decreased at a faster rate than the market, this was expected as our sales were at a high level in 2016 because the earthquake did not affect us.</p>

<p>Canon took steps to stimulate demand through new products, launching 6 models in 2017, the most in the industry. All of these new products were well received by the market, receiving high markets for their enhanced network connectivity and AF capabilities for which there is strong user demand. Among these, we grew sales of the 6D Mark II – a model that features a full-size sensor in a body that is relatively compact and light and offers improvements in basic functions, which contributed to the shift to hi-amateurs. Launching such new products, enables us to limit the decline in selling prices and as a result, we improved sales and profitability compared with last year.</p>
<p>As for 2018, given that the market in 2017 was at a high level due to the earthquake, we expect the market to shrink by 4% to 11 million units. Within this market, however, we expect our unit sales to be 5.5 million units, which is in line with last year.</p>
<p>The new products launched in 2017 that were just highlighted will contribute to sales for a full-year. With this and continued efforts to enhance our lineup we will stimulate demand and work to further increase our market share. Within this, for mirrorless cameras where we are working to enhance our lineup, this year we continue our aim to grow at a double-digit rate, putting focus on expanding sales of mainly new products that captures SNS user demand.</p>
<p>From a profit perspective, we will work to improve our product mix by raising the proportion of new product sales. Additionally, to reduce costs, we will promote automation and in-house production as well as accelerate sales of mirrorless cameras thereby benefiting from lower cost of sales through volume effect.</p>
<p>Next, compact cameras.</p>
<p>In 2017, the market shrank by 10% to 13.5 million units, while our sales were flat at 4.04 million. In 2018, we expect the market to shrink by 19% to 11 million units. Within this, we expect our sales to decline 16% to 3.4 million. Despite the markets continued decline, we will continue to take steps to improve our profitability and market share, expanding sales of mainly G series premium models.</p>
<p><strong>You can find all of the Canon financial results below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://global.canon/en/ir/results/2017/rslt2017e.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Fiscal Results (PDF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2017e.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Presentation (PDF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2017e-sum.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Speech Summary (English Translation) (PDF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2017e-d.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Supplementary Data (PDF)</a></li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2018)

_"In 2017, the market for interchangeable-lens cameras shrank by 1% to 11.4 million units. This rather small decrease reflects, among others, the market’s recovery from the supply shortage caused by an earthquake in 2016. We, on the other hand, posted a sales decline of 3% to 5.51 million units, which was in line with our plan. Although our sales decreased at a faster rate than the market, this was expected as our sales were at a high level in 2016 because the earthquake did not affect us."_

I expect the 'all is well' and YAPODFC camps to slice the above passage very differently.

Seems reasonable to me, but you can't really say "well, they are just getting back the sales the earthquake took away" each year.

It remains a contracting market and here they are proliferating new product lines _in-between product lines_ with very little feature differentiation. Seems a very expensive way to squeeze the slightly nicer body upcharge out of buyers, as it dilutes the total number of bodies each line is churning out and it carries a ton of weight for excess and obsolescence. 

Overall, I think they are doing fine, but I'm not sure how sustainable fragmenting the crop market into so many little segments will turn out to be. 

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 30, 2018)

Canon is very conservative and predictable in dealing with competition. They have invested heavily in automated assembly over the past several years, and as it matures, they can produce cameras for a significantly lower cost than the competition.

Their plan is simple, more discounts and sales, particularly in the mirrorless area in order to run production lines at full capacity and to capture more market share. They are introducing more new models because buyers pay more for new models, even if they are almost identical to the older one. We have always seen that happen in compact cameras, now the policy will move up a tier.


----------



## Talys (Jan 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> _"In 2017, the market for interchangeable-lens cameras shrank by 1% to 11.4 million units. This rather small decrease reflects, among others, the market’s recovery from the supply shortage caused by an earthquake in 2016. We, on the other hand, posted a sales decline of 3% to 5.51 million units, which was in line with our plan. Although our sales decreased at a faster rate than the market, this was expected as our sales were at a high level in 2016 because the earthquake did not affect us."_
> 
> I expect the 'all is well' and YAPODFC camps to slice the above passage very differently.
> 
> ...



Even though it sounds obtuse, the statement actually does make sense.

In plainspeak: "When the earthquake hit in 2016, some of our competitors' supplies were constrained, while ours were not. Some people who would have bought competing products either bought our products instead or held off on their purchases. However, we never expected that shift to be permanent, and now they longer have a supply issue. We expected this, and our business plan made up for profits by stratifying our products to maximize our sales per customer."


When you look at the chart of CIPA ILC sales by canonnews.com, it actually bears out that way. 

2015 - 5.57 Canon / 13.05 total
2016 - 5.67 Canon / 11.61 total
2017 - 5.51 Canon / 11.50 total

So - (1) Canon got a big bump from 2016 as a percentage of total sales due to other companies not being able to provide cameras; even if their sales just remained steady, the non-availability of other brands would have caused their market share to rise, and

(2) Canon got a little bump in 2016 by winning a bit of the business from normally non-Canon buyers, just by having something to sell.

(3) in 2017, some of that reverted - ie some shops who normally buy mostly Sony went back to buying Sony, and the Canon is now just another body in the shop.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 30, 2018)

The key numbers are not units sold but the operating profit and net profit increases. The holding of the premium price on the 5D MKIV and the launch of the 6D MKII no doubt helped this (as does the launch of new lenses). Despite the fact Canon must invest more in R&D and tooling to make 6 new DSLRs to make profit improvement in an overall falling market point to great cost controls and product customers will pay for all in all a positive outcome for Canon and its user in the form of reinvestment in product.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> The key numbers are not units sold but the operating profit and net profit increases. The holding of the premium price on the 5D MKIV and the launch of the 6D MKII no doubt helped this (as does the launch of new lenses). Despite the fact Canon must invest more in R&D and tooling to make 6 new DSLRs to make profit improvement in an overall falling market point to great cost controls and product customers will pay for all in all a positive outcome for Canon and its user in the form of reinvestment in product.



I was always amazed how well the 5D3 could sustain demand despite Canon not dramatically lowering its MAP for a very long time. So I'm not surprised the 5D4 is similarly holding price well.

But the 6D1 seemed to have the floor drop out on its MAP at a much steeper rate. I'm curious to see the year 2-3 MAP Canon holds that line to. We here at CR seem to care a great deal about the on-chip ADC famously being withheld from the 6D2, but we aren't the market -- perhaps the tilty-flippy + DPAF + touch combo in a FF rig will retain price better than the 6D1 did.

- A


----------



## Tugela (Jan 30, 2018)

When talking about the competition you have to bear in mind that the market breaks out into subsectors that are not captured in the overall numbers. Sony (and lately Nikon) claim to be leading or doing very well in the FF subsector. Canon produces a lot of entry level ILCs, whereas other companies do not, instead they tend to sell a combination of ILCs and fixed lens to the purchasing group. Sony does not have an entry level product at all. That creates an artificial sense of where Canon really is at in the premium ILC subsector since their numbers are heavily skewed by low margin products that their primary competitors don't care about. Competition for Canon in the low margin consumer product area instead comes from different competitors, such as Panasonic and Fuji. 

Because Canon markets products to all subsectors while their competitors focus on specific subsectors, Canon can lead the overall market share even while being beaten in the subsectors. They are just being beaten by different companies in different places. Which is why it is necessary to be cautious in reading too much into the overall percentages.

If you look at only FF cameras I suspect that you will see market trends that are very different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2018)

Tugela said:


> Because Canon markets products to all subsectors while their competitors focus on specific subsectors, Canon can lead the overall market share even while being beaten in the subsectors. They are just being beaten by different companies in different places. Which is why it is necessary to be cautious in reading too much into the overall percentages.
> 
> If you look at only FF cameras I suspect that you will see market trends that are very different.



Is your suspicion based on any actual evidence?

For 2017, Sony announced via press release (i.e., made a big deal of it) that they were #2 in US FF ILC sales for two months of the year (passing Nikon). Nikon then announced via press release that they were #1 in FF ILC sales for one month of the year. Who do you suppose was #1 in FF ILC sales for the other 11 months of 2017? Pentax? : Leica? : : 

So, as usual, your 'suspicion' is merely more of your typical rampant speculation based on 'facts' that are completely at odds with reality.


----------



## Woody (Jan 30, 2018)

It's amazing to see how Canon continues to dominate the market.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 30, 2018)

Tugela said:


> When talking about the competition you have to bear in mind that the market breaks out into subsectors that are not captured in the overall numbers. Sony (and lately Nikon) claim to be leading or doing very well in the FF subsector. Canon produces a lot of entry level ILCs, whereas other companies do not, instead they tend to sell a combination of ILCs and fixed lens to the purchasing group. Sony does not have an entry level product at all. That creates an artificial sense of where Canon really is at in the premium ILC subsector since their numbers are heavily skewed by low margin products that their primary competitors don't care about. Competition for Canon in the low margin consumer product area instead comes from different competitors, such as Panasonic and Fuji.
> 
> Because Canon markets products to all subsectors while their competitors focus on specific subsectors, Canon can lead the overall market share even while being beaten in the subsectors. They are just being beaten by different companies in different places. Which is why it is necessary to be cautious in reading too much into the overall percentages.
> 
> If you look at only FF cameras I suspect that you will see market trends that are very different.



kind of a strange conclusion to pull out of the air.

canon's OP profit margin for the year was 15.5%

since we don't have year ends for the rest of the industry, we'll go with third quarters for canon and the rest in around the same timeframe for only a quarter.

canon imaging had a 14.5% op profit last quarter.

nikon imaging last quarter had a op profit % of 8.7%

sony IP&S last quarter had a op profit % of 12%

olympus had a op profit % of 4.5%

Canon it seems carries a higher operational profit % to actual sales than anyone else.

so the consideration that canon only does low margin, cheap cameras doesn't seem to be there unless you have some other detailed information than please share, I'd love to see it and incorporate it in the follow up report in a few days time.

then you have full frame. at least in the Americas or in particular NA it seems, canon carried #1 spot for 11 months out of 12. and didn't carry 12 only because Nikon didn't ship D850's until december, so had a double whammy effect during Christmas.

Canon is carrying enough of a lead in markets, they don't feel the need to brag. that alone should say something.

Thom for instance, doesn't think that much of Nikon's announcement.. 

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/whos-number-1-this-month.html


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2018)

I was going to write a reply, but somebody else already made up the "facts" I was conjuring up to post. *sigh*


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 31, 2018)

_"A few years ago Canon said they were going to release cameras that were more focused, rather than jack-of-all-trades models, and I think that has started to happen and will continue. Expect more of the same in 2018, with an industry leading number of new camera bodies, starting with at least 3 new ones in February."_

We're certainly seeing this with the ##D vs. 7D# models in crop. 

But this one will be hard to square up at the top of the (non-gripped) FF line. If a 5DS2 comes out with the added throughput we'd expect, we'd have an [on-chip ADC] + [50-70 MP] + [6-7 fps] + [DPAF/touch] + [5D4 AF] camera _that would become the jack of all trades camera_ because there's nothing the 5D4 does that the 5DS2 couldn't also do.

Again, the foresight/bravery to release a 9 fps 5D4 would have solved this problem in advance. Now, it seems the 5D4 is on a fast track to being the middle child in the good/better/best (6D2/5D4/5DS2) future state.

That doesn't seem all that 'focused' to me. It sounds like what Nikon is doing.

- A


----------



## Talys (Jan 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But this one will be hard to square up at the top of the (non-gripped) FF line. If a 5DS2 comes out with the added throughput we'd expect, we'd have an [on-chip ADC] + [50-70 MP] + [6-7 fps] + [DPAF/touch] + [5D4 AF] camera _that would become the jack of all trades camera_ because there's nothing the 5D4 does that the 5DS2 couldn't also do.
> 
> Again, the foresight/bravery to release a 9 fps 5D4 would have solved this problem in advance. Now, it seems the 5D4 is on a fast track to being the middle child in the good/better/best (6D2/5D4/5DS2) future state.



I definitely agree. I think in the end calculus, 5D4 will be a camera that sits between 6D2 and 5Dx that's competitive with D850 in featureset. But, keep in mind, this is a necessity driven by the D850 being generally a great camera that ticks a lot of boxes -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing. 

I would be happy with a D850 with an EF mount, RT flash system, Canon's EF mount, DPAF, and Canon's color science  I would still prefer 6D2's fully articulating screen, but I could live with a Nikon flip-down.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jan 31, 2018)

"From a profit perspective, we will work to improve our product mix by raising the proportion of *new product* sales. Additionally, to reduce costs, we will promote automation and in-house production as well as *accelerate sales of mirrorless cameras* thereby benefiting from lower cost of sales through volume effect."

Good news for mirrorless lovers.


----------



## tmroper (Jan 31, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> The holding of the premium price on the 5D MKIV and the launch of the 6D MKII no doubt helped this (as does the launch of new lenses).



But the 5D MKIV has been available on the gray market for around $2500 for awhile now. ($2,479.99 from "DealsAllYear" right now on Ebay). That seems to be greater discount than I remember for the MKIII, but in any event, it must have helped sales.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 31, 2018)

Diltiazem said:


> "From a profit perspective, we will work to improve our product mix by raising the proportion of *new product* sales. Additionally, to reduce costs, we will promote automation and in-house production as well as *accelerate sales of mirrorless cameras* thereby benefiting from lower cost of sales through volume effect."
> 
> Good news for mirrorless lovers.



Pushing mirrorless is a no-brainer -- the market is headed that way, it plays to the future seamless stills/video world, mirrorless cameras should be cheaper/easier to build so for a given market price they will have higher profit margins, etc.

But _how _and _when_ to push mirrorless, however, is a quandary for the bigger companies. At some point, Rebels will pitch their mirrors (not now, but someday), then the XXD line, and so on until mirrors are only in the most demanding market segments (e.g. 1-series). How Canon chooses to do that, when Canon chooses to do that will have to be very carefully thought out.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 31, 2018)

tmroper said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The holding of the premium price on the 5D MKIV and the launch of the 6D MKII no doubt helped this (as does the launch of new lenses).
> ...



grey market is more to do with currency variations than anything canon is responsible for.


----------



## blobmonster (Jan 31, 2018)

They're financial results for the fiscal year. Fiscal means tax, and they're not tax results, even though tax is a part of them. Sorry to be the financial vocabulary person, and thanks for a great site!


----------



## Tugela (Jan 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Diltiazem said:
> 
> 
> > "From a profit perspective, we will work to improve our product mix by raising the proportion of *new product* sales. Additionally, to reduce costs, we will promote automation and in-house production as well as *accelerate sales of mirrorless cameras* thereby benefiting from lower cost of sales through volume effect."
> ...



Frankly, I am surprised that the Rebels have not ditched their mirrors years ago. You would think that it is limiting to that line, a MILC would be a more sensible option.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Because Canon markets products to all subsectors while their competitors focus on specific subsectors, Canon can lead the overall market share even while being beaten in the subsectors. They are just being beaten by different companies in different places. Which is why it is necessary to be cautious in reading too much into the overall percentages.
> ...



Does not change the fact that the OP was comparing apples to oranges and you know it. Canon's data is a conflation of many market spaces, whereas competitors have more targeted market spaces. Where Canon is positioned in the overall market therefore does not reflect how they are positioned in specific markets. Or is this concept too complex to understand?

If Sony were #2 in FF in the US, where MILCs are less popular, where do you think they ranked in other markets where MILCs are more popular? DSLR sales are dropping at a steady pace (around 9-10% per year), MILC sales are rising, and if this is not being driven by the NA market, it is being driven by other markets. That differential has to come from somewhere, and if it is not in NA then the differential is much more dramatic in places like Asia. For a camera company that is looking for growth potential, which market do you think they are likely to find it?

There are forces at play here that you clearly do not get. While you do not understand, both Canon and Nikon do, which is why both of them are likely to produce some sort of FF/APS-C MILC in the near future even if it is not as good as what companies like Sony and the others are making. There is a reason for them doing that, namely that they understand the market direction even if you do not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2018)

Tugela said:


> Does not change the fact that the OP was comparing apples to oranges and you know it. Canon's data is a conflation of many market spaces, whereas competitors have more targeted market spaces. Where Canon is positioned in the overall market therefore does not reflect how they are positioned in specific markets. Or is this concept too complex to understand?



No, _you're_ comparing apples to oranges...badly. Canon was talking about fruit. 

Incidentally, Sony used to make dSLRs – they abandoned that particular variety of fruit because they couldn't compete effectively. 




> There are forces at play here that you clearly do not get. While you do not understand, both Canon and Nikon do, which is why both of them are likely to produce some sort of FF/APS-C MILC in the near future even if it is not as good as what companies like Sony and the others are making. There is a reason for them doing that, namely that they understand the market direction even if you do not.



I understand just fine, but that wasn't the subject of the discussion. You stated a speculation that is at odds with the actual evidence, I called you on it, and you change the topic. If you want to move the goalposts back, go ahead...I speculate that you'll still manage to kick the ball sideways, as usual.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 31, 2018)

Tugela said:


> If Sony were #2 in FF in the US, where MILCs are less popular,



cool story bro.

but they are not.


----------



## Woody (Jan 31, 2018)

Tugela said:


> Frankly, I am surprised that the Rebels have not ditched their mirrors years ago. You would think that it is limiting to that line, a MILC would be a more sensible option.



Why? 

Here's why:
https://www.bcnretail.com/research/ranking/list/contents_type=41

The top selling ILC cameras in Japan are dominated by Canon DSLRs.

Not Sony MILCs. Not Olympus MILCs. Not Nikon DSLRs.

And this is in Japan alone, where MILCs are supposedly more popular than DSLRs.

Canon clearly knows the market better than you.

That is why Canon is #1 in worldwide MILC market shares for the last decade.

If Canon is run by the likes of you, they will be struggling in this dying market now.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 31, 2018)

Tugela said:


> ...Canon's data is a conflation of many market spaces, whereas competitors have more targeted market spaces. Where Canon is positioned in the overall market therefore does not reflect how they are positioned in specific markets. Or is this concept too complex to understand?



Apparently, only for you. If you are talking geographic markets, can you please identify a market where Canon is not #1? (Annual data please, not just one month). I'd also be curious as to what percentage of the overall market those smaller markets comprise. 

Or are you talking about niche markets. Granted, Fuji is No. 1 in instant cameras, which have been among the best-selling cameras in the world of late. However, that is not a sustainable market, but rather a fad. 

I'm curious why you would think that individual niche markets are somehow more significant than the total market. 



Tugela said:


> If Sony were #2 in FF in the US, where MILCs are less popular, where do you think they ranked in other markets where MILCs are more popular?



If Sony ranked No. 1 in any other market, you can be sure we would be seeing a press release about it.



Tugela said:


> DSLR sales are dropping at a steady pace (around 9-10% per year), MILC sales are rising...



The sales figures that have been reported by industry analysts show that the MILC market is largely static.



Tugela said:


> There are forces at play here that you clearly do not get. While you do not understand, both Canon and Nikon do, which is why both of them are likely to produce some sort of FF/APS-C MILC in the near future even if it is not as good as what companies like Sony and the others are making. There is a reason for them doing that, namely that they understand the market direction even if you do not.



Possibly, but right now the Canon and Nikon full-frame MILCs are just unicorns. However, I would agree that when and if Nikon and Canon enter the full-frame MILC market, Sony will be hard-pressed to compete.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2018)

Woody said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I am surprised that the Rebels have not ditched their mirrors years ago. You would think that it is limiting to that line, a MILC would be a more sensible option.
> ...





unfocused said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon's data is a conflation of many market spaces, whereas competitors have more targeted market spaces. Where Canon is positioned in the overall market therefore does not reflect how they are positioned in specific markets. Or is this concept too complex to understand?
> ...



Responding with logic and data? The usual expression would be 'falling on deaf ears' but since Internet forums are mainly visual, 'falling on blind eyes' _might_ be more appropriate. Except in this case, I think the underlying problem resulting in a lack of comprehension is neither the ears nor the eyes, but rather what's between and behind them, respectively.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Does not change the fact that the OP was comparing apples to oranges and you know it. Canon's data is a conflation of many market spaces, whereas competitors have more targeted market spaces. Where Canon is positioned in the overall market therefore does not reflect how they are positioned in specific markets. Or is this concept too complex to understand?
> ...



http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2017_e.pdf

Says it all. The writing is on the wall.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2018)

Tugela said:


> The writing is on the wall.



Yeah, I saw where you spray-painted, "I refuse to admit that I was wrong."


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The writing is on the wall.
> ...



Neuro, this is like the folks who proclaim the end of the world. When it doesn't come, the goalpost just gets kicked down the can a little bit, because the end of the world is still very close; there was just a minor miscalculation.

For most of them, you won't ever convince them that the world might be come to an end, but that it's _unlikely to be any time soon_ -- because in their core, they want you to make your future decisions on the basis of their beliefs. If the world didn't end, and you sold your house and all your stuff and spent the last year handing out leaflets, well, you're just more prepared for the _real_ date the year and a half later.

If everyone believed that DSLRs were a thing of the past and that nobody would make new DSLRs or lenses or accessories in the next next year or so... they'd go buy MILCs to be prepared for the DSLRpocalypse, and there you would have a self-fullfilling prophecy.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Feb 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



DSLR advantages have continually become eroded with each mirrorless release cycle but it doesn't really matter if DSLRS are on their way out or not. The real message is to inform people of what mirrorless can do today and what DSLRS cannot, and vice versa. When I still see people mainly complaining that Sony's overheat or have poor battery life, it is doing a real disservice for readers coming to this site to see what the competition has to offer vs Canon. I don't believe many of the naysayers here have even used a Sony or mirrorless camera before. Maybe it is because of their own financial limitations, fanboyism or a fixed mindset, but I feel trying out the alternatives and weighing one's own choices is the best approach. Having the humility to admit where other competitors are strong and also weak is the first step to engaging in a positive dialogue with others who don't share your own opinion. Not just writing about how you feel about it, but actually using the products you are supporting or not supporting. 

When certain posters continuously spout market share, financial performance or use grammatical errors as a sledgehammer to reduce a poster's unpopular opinion, its frankly quite tiresome, and draws in more and more posters with limited posting history further trying to antagonize the mainstays here that support Canon. Photography is a creative hobby as much as it is a workhorse profession like a steelworker. People should know that there are other options that are potentially more innovative, exciting or fun that can drive creativity. Just because those competitors are trying to make a mark and don't currently command a leading market share, doesn't mean they offer an inferior product or are moving in the wrong direction. They can't afford to sit back and let their brand name solely drive their low end products en masse because they are not in a position to do so, and thus need to take risks to achieve more.

I commend these companies. Maybe we might all take a step back and look at the bigger picture from time to time.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> The real message is to inform people of what mirrorless can do today and what DSLRS cannot, and vice versa.



+1. Anyone who says mirrorless is all about being small needs to stop huffing paint fumes.

It's a complicated comparison and it depends heavily on how/what you shoot, but:


...for some folks, mirrorless _right now_ is better than an SLR for their needs. (Landscapers and product folks? Folks who love manual lenses shot handheld in an age where Canon is taking MF screens away?)


...for others (probably most of us), mirrorless vs. SLR is a mixed bag of upsides and downsides. We debate them all the time here.


...for some of us, mirrorless is a clear step behind what an SLR can do and it might be that way for some time (wildlifers, sports folks, etc.).
So we will always debate the _inevitability_ of mirrorless taking over (my vote: a certainty for most market segments) or the _imminence_ of that happening (my vote: it's going to be a while), but let's not lose sight of the fact that mirrorless isn't just a win for size and for manufacturer's costs -- it also takes pictures in a very different way that can help/hinder you depending on what you shoot.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > The real message is to inform people of what mirrorless can do today and what DSLRS cannot, and vice versa.
> ...



+10


----------



## Talys (Feb 5, 2018)

Tugela said:


> The writing is on the wall.



Did you see the Lombardi trophy behing presented after the Superbowl? There was a massive gaggle of professional photographers below, just in front of the raised podium. The only mirrorless were massive, broadcast-quality camcorders. There was a sea of identifiable Canon 70-200's and 100-400's, a couple of bigger Cannon big whites and a small number of Nikon DSLRs.

Guess what there weren't? I didn't see any Gmaster 100-400's. No Nikon 200-500's. No Olympus MFT's. The only small cameras were a few people up front with their smartphones.

As long as that's the case, DSLRs will do just fine, and so will Canon. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the choice of gear has nothing to t all to do with (a) weight (b) EVF (c) the last stop or two of DR or (c) cool techno-wiz features like zebras or WYSIWYG.

My thoughts: I suspect that they want to have the same body that they were using super tele's on during the game, for starters. It's a cold night, it might rain or snow, and it's damp, so if you're doing this day in and out, I can't imagine owning gear without real weather sealing. The last thing in the world the probably want to see is a flashing red low-battery light. And their gear will probably take a few good whacks, since they're crammed in there like a Walmart crowd on Black Friday.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The writing is on the wall.
> ...



In fairness to Tugela (yes, I just said that), you've just used what surely will be _the absolute last group of photographers to switch to mirrorless staying with SLRs_ as proof that the mirrorless revolution isn't happening.

(You are correct, of course, in all your assertions about _that_ camp's needs and why a thin mount rig or adapting is of little/no value to them. Sports/wildlife folks need all-battlefield equipment and living in a first party lens + body world is a must.)

But I'm not convinced that _*if sports/wildlife folks exist, everyone will still have an SLR available at the price point / feature set that they want ad infinitum*_. It's entirely possible mirrors slowly start disappearing throughout crop, 6D, 5D, etc. and the _only_ folks packing mirrors anymore will be the same 1-series people you just identified.

- A


----------



## Talys (Feb 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



You're right, except that this was not the sports event. This was the press gaggle after, and they were only a few meters from the podium.

The lenses you see are 70-200 and 100-400, not the big whites they have from the sidelines, and you see a lot of ungripped cameras. That tells me it is likely the second body - it would be a great place to use mirrorless, if you wanted one.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> You're right, except that this was not the sports event. This was the press gaggle after, and they were only a few meters from the podium.



Excuse me! I thought you meant the press on the playing field after the final whistle. My apologies.

Sure, general reportage is heavily CaNikon. However, I have seen some Washington political reportage folks packing A7 rigs of late at gaggles and congressional hearings. It's surely not anywhere near the majority, but mirrorless is at least making some inroads there.

I still see this as the less highly specific needs you have, the easier it will be to convert to mirrorless. On a market by market basis, Sony can change its sales posture accordingly:

Landscapers, Product photographers: go for the throat --> push IQ and lens adaptability all day; "you don't need to fully convert, just buy a body and an adapter and POW you get the sweet sensor hotness."

Weddings, Portraiture: Talk up silent shutter, talk up eye AF 

Photojournos, Travel folks: Talk up smaller footprint in the bag, talk up 4K

Reportage / Sports / Wildlife: Be up front and acknowledge it's not up to part with the D5 / 1DX2, but continue to develop the AF system, physical durability and weather sealing. Continue to publish the upsides of a blackout free VF, higher FPS without mirrorslapping, etc.

I'm not pulling for Sony here by any means, but their current campaign of 'anything your SLR can do, I can do better' resembles Charlie Brown whiffing at the football over and over again. They could focus their script depending on their market a lot better, IMHO.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2018)

Tugela said:


> When talking about the competition you have to bear in mind that the market breaks out into subsectors that are not captured in the overall numbers. Sony (and lately Nikon) claim to be leading or doing very well in the FF subsector. Canon produces a lot of entry level ILCs, whereas other companies do not, instead they tend to sell a combination of ILCs and fixed lens to the purchasing group. Sony does not have an entry level product at all. That creates an artificial sense of where Canon really is at in the premium ILC subsector since their numbers are heavily skewed by low margin products that their primary competitors don't care about. Competition for Canon in the low margin consumer product area instead comes from different competitors, such as Panasonic and Fuji.
> 
> Because Canon markets products to all subsectors while their competitors focus on specific subsectors, Canon can lead the overall market share even while being beaten in the subsectors. They are just being beaten by different companies in different places. Which is why it is necessary to be cautious in reading too much into the overall percentages.
> 
> If you look at only FF cameras I suspect that you will see market trends that are very different.



We now have the definitive answer, and it's no surprise...you are wrong. As usual.

As you _should_ know (but I've learned never to assume you are aware of basic facts), Canon has been #1 in global ILC sales for 14 years and counting. 

You claim that if you look at only at FF cameras, the market trend will be very different because, "Sony (and lately Nikon) claim to be leading or doing very well." But the reality is that for FF ILCs in the US, Canon was #1 in 2017. Just like they were in the broader global ILC market.


----------

