Canon eating its own words?

[JBM]

Maybe they will integrate the Eye Toy for PS2 into the Digicam so that the camera can have the Party mode that was supposed to be in the Hello Kitty Hapi Kit 300D

--
It's me.
I just checked.

 

[JBM]

I think Zeiss made a good move to make Nikon mounts now and thereby boraden their SLR base before they become a SONY apparatus entirely.

Either that, or SONY may make a Nikon mount body.. now that would be interesting...

But useless speculation ... SONY has a way to get good glass from ZEISS, but I think the Canon guys got it right because SONY makes still cams for people who think like TV camera guys..

--
It's me.
I just checked.

 

[Jim_R]

"Canon has announced today that it plans to roll-out nearly 20 new
compact digital cameras in 2004 in an aggressive product push to
grab 25 percent of the global market and it seems that this is
aimed squarely at Sony.

Merely says they are being agressive. Since Sony sold more camera than anyone else in 2003(if memory serves) one can expect their gains would come from Sony's loss.

Takashi Oshiyama, head of Canon's digital
imaging business group, told Reuters in an interview "Those
companies out there that have no experience producing film cameras
have yet to create a camera that performs like a real camera
should. I won't say who that is."

When you have a market advantage, you tell your customers what that advantage is. Corporate spin, if you will.

Oshiyama said shipments of
digital cameras by Japanese manufacturers would total between 40
and 44 million units in 2003. That compares to last year's 25
million units, according to Japan's Camera and Imaging Products
Association (CIPA)."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1019

I'm by no means a troll, but it sure seems Sony really stuck it to
Canon this time.

Sorry, I don't see what you are saying here. I see the reverse. Canon stuck it to Sony (made some gains in the market place, in quality and sales), and Sony is reacting, buying K-M to further their own line, with special interest in the DSLR of Konica Minolta.

--



http://www.sublogic.net

--
Jim Rickards

 

[Pyogenes]

The corporate world isn't that simple.

Sony gains:
1. experienced human capital

2. customer base/market share (through use of len mount, as well as brand loyalty to KM)
3. brand recognition (no longer a company without film history)
4. a foothold in a new market (DSLR)

Of course, it's likely they will only retain a percentage of what KM had prior to the transfer of assets

All for a price that is probably well below the price they would have paid to done all this on their own.

Sony doesn't need to buy its way to #1. Just buy its way into the game.

--
Joe

http://www.pbase.com/pyogenes/favorites (Not exactly a good example of photography...)

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.

 

[PhotoTom]

--
Tom

 

[sublogic]

I can't believe some of you still think this is about who makes better cameras or claiming the #1 seed in net sales. Canon didn't directly mention Sony's name, but I think even Phil Askey would agree they were referring to Sony as not having any film camera knowledge, so Sony bought out a company that does. Simple as that, sticking it to the man.

What if some Getty photographer said you weren't a pro because you have no experience and taking photos is not your paid occupation. Well what if that person bought a small photography studio and made a paid occuputation out of it. Technically that person is now a pro and in the "game". What's to stop that particular person from gaining experience and expanding his studio in the future as his own personal "Getty" or beyond?

Yup, simple as that.

And BTW, I own a Canon 20D and don't really intend on switching systems anyway, even if I think Canon is full of it. I just look forward to the competition and the new exciting toys that will come out of it.

--



http://www.sublogic.net

 

[Hellashot]

The Sony name is still Sony - one I avoid. Sony slaps their name on any electronics piece of junk.

Do people want quality or cheap price? Get bit once and you'll avoid buying from that company again is what most people do.

All the digital cameras in my family are Canon, Olympus, and Fuji - all camera/imaging/lens companies except one - my brother who has shot lots and lots of film with a Pentax K1000 unfortunately bought an HP dP&S without asking me for recommendations. I would have told him to look at Canon,Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji because they've all been doing digital longer than everyone else - plus they are camera/lens/imaging companies.

Minolta had a problem with their dP&S designs - they look so funky and non-camera like. I'm sure that was a big reason they didn't do well.

 

[Pyogenes]

I would have
told him to look at Canon,Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji because they've
all been doing digital longer than everyone else

How long a company has been doing something is a horrible measure of quality. All it really means is that they've found a way to be profitable. Congratulations, you fell for a classic marketting ploy.

--
Joe

http://www.pbase.com/pyogenes/favorites (Not exactly a good example of photography...)

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.

 

[akyrl]

Looks like Pyogenes is the only one here with common sense. This
isn't about Sony beating Canon at its own game, this is about Sony
basically making Canon eat their own statement.

Canon aren't eating anything right now. Frankly having used a few
Sony Compact P&S cameras they could use all the help they can get
when it comes to designing a camera to take photos.

--



http://www.sublogic.net

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

I must admit i am not a fan of P&S... the only P&S i find i like are Canon Powershot G series (and Pro1), Nikon Coolpix 900, 990, 995, 4500, 5400, 8400 etc... didn't really like the Sony or Fuji cameras... but i will NEVER go back to point and shoot (except for cheap underwater photography)

The only reason sony's sell is because they are pretty and typical consumers are fickle and often uninformed. I am by no means trying to knock sony (hell i audit 2 sony entities in Australia), but i do not think that Canon should be worried in any way whatsoever, true sony have a lot of critical mass, but none of their cameras have impressed me to date.

 

[Pyogenes]

Looks like Pyogenes is the only one here with common sense. This
isn't about Sony beating Canon at its own game, this is about Sony
basically making Canon eat their own statement.

Hey, I didn't necessarily agree with what you're saying. I just put it in different words. ;-)

Technically there's a whole slew of other companies that Canon could have been referring to instead of Sony. Panasonic, Samsung, etc.

--
Joe

http://www.pbase.com/pyogenes/favorites (Not exactly a good example of photography...)

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.

 

[Hellashot]

... because those companies know how to make cameras. So do you have a Kodak dP&S piece of junk in your purse? They got caught with their pants down with digital and have overloaded the market with cheap quality digital cameras. They are desperate to slap their name on anything digital - even CF cards - when none of their cameras take CF cards!! how funny is that?

Kodak is the one that is marketing on their name alone - "trust kodak", etc. and calling their color "Kodak color science" - what a bunch of bull marketing.

So I guess you were someone go bought a Yugo years ago, or now have a Kia. Cheap cars that no one wanted in the country the company was home to.

What better marketing is there than all the white Canon lenses at championship sporting events? And their ads that show up close of those photographers with Canon straps and logos all over the place? Those photographers won't go near a Sony camera.

 

[Jim_R]

--...with logic like that?

Jim Rickards

 

[Pyogenes]

have a Kodak dP&S piece of junk in your purse?

So I guess you were someone go bought a Yugo years ago, or now have
a Kia. Cheap cars that no one wanted in the country the company
was home to.

I see you'd rather not discuss this rationally based on your childish insults. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your lack of maturity was a momentary lapse in judgement.

I fail to see how your explanation negates my claims. I said that length of time in the industry is a poor measure of quality.

Kodak came out with their first DSLR back in March 1995 - a few months before Canon announced their first offering. I think Nikon's first DSLR was in 1999 (1997 for any digital camera), Fuji in 2000 (1997 for any digital camera), and Olympus in 2003 (1996 for any digital camera).

Kodak has been in the game longer than everyone else, but by your standards they make lousy products.

So I reiterate, time in the industry is a poor measure of quality.

--
Joe

http://www.pbase.com/pyogenes/favorites (Not exactly a good example of photography...)

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.

 

[1003mikey]

....

 

[Hellashot]

So I reiterate, time in the industry is a poor measure of quality.

And I reiterate that I strongly, strongly disagree with you.

Kodak is a film company or used to make film - which they outsource now. Their film boxes say "Produced in China FOR Kodak". Kodak is still playing catch up in digital cameras. They did a poll that 20% of women would be likely to buy a Kodak digital camera - because they would feel more comfortable witht he Kodak name, while only 10% of men would buy one because they know more about electronics and cameras.

 

[Pyogenes]

So I reiterate, time in the industry is a poor measure of quality.

And I reiterate that I strongly, strongly disagree with you.

I think you've more than made your point that Kodak is all about marketting, and I agree with you on that point. But you're still ignoring the fact that they were first to market with a DSLR. They are a prime example of having less than stellar products (by your standards) despite being in the market the longest.

More examples of the late comers catching up or even surpassing the older companies (limiting examples to digital electronics):

nVidia vs 3Dfx (graphic cards. 3Dfx isn't even around anymore despite their near-monopoly at one point for high end gaming cards)
AMD vs Intel (more or less neck and neck despite the huge lead)
Dell vs IBM for PCs (IBM non longer has no PC division)

Apple vs Sony for personal audio systems (Sony invented the market with the Walkman, but now Apple dominates with the iPod. If you think iPods are all marketting hype, replace with any other mp3 manufacturer. All are better than Sony's ATRAC crippled players...)

--
Joe

http://www.pbase.com/pyogenes/favorites (Not exactly a good example of photography...)

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.

 

[blankj]

A look at his website might give you some perspective on the experience, education, and backgorund upon which his analysis is based...and he's got some nice photos there too!

 

[Hellashot]

nVidia vs 3Dfx (graphic cards. 3Dfx isn't even around anymore

despite their near-monopoly at one point for high end gaming cards)

Do you know why 3Dfx was aquired by nVidia? They at one point sold their chips for other manufactureres to put them on video cards, but then they "wanted it all" and didn't sell them and started making their own video cards. So instead of playing nice with everyone, nVidia took the opportunity to make their own chip and over took and bought 3dFx.

 

[HMetal]

Having owned 2 Sony P&S, including the DSC-F717 and a Sony Handycam, I will NEVER again buy a Sony digital camera and, if I were to buy another movie camera, even that would probably be JVC. That could change but I doubt it. I've sunk a lot of money into Canon equipment (lenses) and it would take a real Canon-outperformer to make me sell it all and switch mount systems.

For that to happen, Sony would have to:

1. Figure out how to make their AWB work properly and not overexpose any of the color channels. Sony digicams are typically oversaturated in reds and have terrible color casts.
2. Make a body that will accept Canon AF lenses

3. Lose their idiotic EVF. I loathe EVF low light performance, looking like your eyesight has suddenly gone retarded and slow motion.

I'm sure there are other things that would have to happen for the moon and planets to align in Sony's favor, IMO. But these 3 would be a good start.

By the way, as far as the KM aquisition, I don't see any huge reason to worry, if you're of the brand-religious type. The only thing I found KM to be good for in the digital realm is their inkjet paper. You could immerse that stuff in water and it wouldn't bleed!

--
Ray A. Akey
http://www.pbase.com/hmetal/pad - Photo-A-Day
http://www.fanatixx.com

 

[Pyogenes]

Do you know why 3Dfx was aquired by nVidia? They at one point sold
their chips for other manufactureres to put them on video cards,
but then they "wanted it all" and didn't sell them and started
making their own video cards. So instead of playing nice with
everyone, nVidia took the opportunity to make their own chip and
over took and bought 3dFx.

So you'd agree that good (nVidia's) or bad (3Dfx's) business practices can have a far more drastic influence on product viability than who has been in the industry longer?

--
Joe

http://www.pbase.com/pyogenes/favorites (Not exactly a good example of photography...)

Any perceived rudeness, condescending tone, or insults are not intended, but rather the result of my inability to properly express myself with the written word.