Will Canon make a profit (globally) on the M10?

Peter63 wrote:

I think most of us can agree that the M10 is not going to be our next camera. I am curious how many of the DPR crowd believe (or are willing to admit they believe) that the M10 is likely to turn a profit for Canon.

Why wouldn't Canon make a profit on the M10?  I assume they've done their market research.  I assume this product has been in development for a while.

I don't think Canon just throws this out to the market in a casual fashion; they have calculated that this will make them money.

My bet is that it will.  How much money, I haven't a clue...but I bet it will generate a profit.

I don't see how they can't make a profit on the M10.  It is comprised of parts that have zero R&D expense.  Manufacturing of these parts should be inexpensive as they have been building them for a long time.  My guess is that Canon has the per unit cost of the M10 very low and did this by design.  I think the M10 is meant to hammer the competition on the low end to the point it might put one or two competitors out of this market segment.

The target groups are for Women ( esp. Japanese women) and people like selfie. You can see all the users in the M10 video are all women. They don,t need much quality. They just want smaller, lighter, thinner camera and lens(with suitable focal length for selfie).
M10 might be a suitable choice. The camera is not for advanced M1/M2 or M3 users

I see it more about minimising losses on the M/M2 rather than making a profit. The only new part is the body, which is just a plastic moulding. The rest comes from the dumpster of unused M/M2 parts out the back of the factory. Meanwhile any new M-series user will have a lens or 2 that will tip them toward choosing any better M they eventually produce.

kthxjapan wrote:

I think the sales volume would be significantly better priced at $400 with a decent zoom.

Obviously.  And it would be even better at $200.  And think what it could do at $100.

It would probably displace some of the point and shoot sales for people who have maybe owned a few P&S cameras and want something more "creative", though.

Right now I'd just suggest anyone buy an M3 kit instead.

The M3 is still too complicated / unnecessarily featured for a large sector of the market.

In the age of smartphone photography, telephotos are less useful day to day for what most people think of when they want to take a photo. Maybe swap the kit lenses between the M10 and M3, since most M3 owners I know aren't using EF-M glass for anything important (I now carry no EF-M lenses with my M3 bag).

Given the firesale pricing on the M/M2, this seems more reasonable than not.

I'll have to pass on that one since I don't know what you are trying to say.

Peter63 wrote:

I think most of us can agree that the M10 is not going to be our next camera. I am curious how many of the DPR crowd believe (or are willing to admit they believe) that the M10 is likely to turn a profit for Canon.

it's hard to say, it also may be a camera in which canon will deliberately not care about turning a profit on it.

I doubt anyone can really say yes or no, to this considering we dont' know what canon's costs are, nor the FOB prices and how they change over time.

when it comes right down to it, we all have absolutely no clue on how well canon does on a particular camera.

the M10 significantly leveraging economies of scale - as it reuses *most* of the M2 / M3 components and requires no new components.  (flash and digic from M3, NFC from M3, rest really from M2)

however, there's still a significant portion of development involved as well as certifications, firmware, manufacturing up front costs,etc - so once it gets past the initial outlays, you'd have to think it's fairly inexpensive for canon to manufacturer.

and I was actually very surprised that they produce this cam this way.. I expected something more.

It would´ve been nice if they make a body like the G5x with a very good EVF. I think that could be a way to please the customers and to get new customers....

kthxjapan wrote:

The reason these M camera bodies have not been super well loved, and photography sans smartphones is dying, is because of people who think of cameras as feature driven devices by marketing segment.

Canon should be doing what it used to do well: define it's market segment, determine what they will pay, and do the best you can in those constraints.

Isn't that exactly what they are doing?  The thing is they know what market segments they are interested in and are targeting those, not the market segments that a few here think they should be targeting.

The other players have demonstrated that people will pay a premium for crazy useless stuff, like the Nikon 1 V3's hilarious 60fps shooting speed and gazillion AF points. Make genuinely good stuff without falling down that trap, and people will notice.

The M3 is pretty close to this (which is why I like the thing).

The M10 was/is Canon's attempt to do the least it can with the highest return, but I suspect the potential customers are onto it.

Indeed, the potential customers (normal people, not photo geeks) will probably love it.

Until Canon is a lead innovator in mirrorless, they need to drop the pretense and simply do the best they can do.

What pretence is that?

CaMeRa QuEsT wrote:

It's just basic, good business strategy to try to sell as high as possible at the start and see how many suckers bite the bait.

Plus, setting the MSRP high at product launch makes people feel like they are getting a screaming deal when Canon drops the price 40% in the near future.

Yes.

It will be 182,544.73$

PK