Canon boosts 2017 profit forecast following strong Q1 financial results

Wrong actually. Diffraction isn't an issue at all.

it must have been a pretty puny meteor then.

Sure they are... As they still sell 3 million ilcs a year.

@fujica
You're not taking into account two things:

- The SLR/DSLR tech has been close to perfect for users for a long time already. So users are less inclined to buy a new model often. Whereas mirrorless tech has been slowly fixing it's problems with every iteration.

- The increase in people buying and using analog cameras.

For your info we do talk to our competitors and they go through the same trend.5D MKIII's are swapped in large volumes for the mark IV ;)

But if you think analog photography makes a BIG impact on the digital market I can say to you that you should stop dreaming about a comeback of analog photography.

It will forever be a niche adored by just a small group of photographers.

The same will happen with the DSLR. It will not entirely go away but in 10 to 15 years the majority of cameras will be of the mirrorless type.

It is the exact same trend as we saw 15 years ago when analog came to an end.

Also then I saw many people not being convinced that digital would be the future. They even told people that digital would never be up to par with analog. Do then not forget that film is limited in dynamic range to about 8 stops. We now use camera's that exceed 14 stops.

If you want that filmlook then those who are capable enough with LR and Photoshop can do so with more ease then ever before.

Mirrorless will be the norm once Canon and Nikon decide it is. it won't be decided by Fuji, Sony, Olympus or Panasonic.

Once Canon (pretty close) and Nikon (who knows) are close to having EVF and also AF as good as what it would be as with PDAF, then they will switch.

"Mirrorless will be the norm once Canon and Nikon decide it is. it won't be decided by Fuji, Sony, Olympus or Panasonic."

Hmm... Canon's and Nikon's soft landing is not so simple. Mirrorless cameras rely heavily on electronics, an area where Sony is light years ahead. Also, what will Canon and Nikon do with the extensive line of lenses they have built over time for their DSLR cameras? They will have to build a new line of lenses right from the scratch, something Sony has been doing for some time now. When Canon and Nikon jump into the mirrorless wagon, Sony will be well ahead.

easy. Mirrorless can still use the EF mount and the F mount with great success.

people still will want the ergonomics of the DSLR, which makes the grips deeper than the registration distance of the perspective mounts.

case and point. there is nothing stopping canon from making a mirrorless full frame camera the same size as the SL1. with the notable exception of cramped horrid ergonomics that the current vendors of mirrorless seem to enjoy foisting on people.

Not so easy. Using the EF mount in a mirrorless camera would be a bad idea. Take the Sony case. Why did not Sony use the A mount in the A7 cameras? It would be so "easy" ... In reality, the A mount has a too long register for a mirrorless camera. To make viable the A7, Sony had to build a new line of lenses, which is still in progress, by the way.

The extensive line of EF lenses that today is an asset will be a burden to Canon tomorrow. When Canon launches a serious mirrorless camera, the entire EF line will become obsolete overnight, just as it did with the F-lenses. Canon's future is uncertain, you can be sure of that.

of course.. use Sony as an example, a company that still has not regained it's marketshare from it's FE mistake.

why would canon or nikon want to repeat that history?

EF lenses is not a burden, there's no need as explained above to make a registration distance camera smaller than the EF or F mount simply because of the grip depth. a shorter registration is unnecessary in a move to mirrorless. Canon could make a SL1 full frame mirrorless camera, which is around the same size as an A7II,A7RII which is EF mount and would have the same cramped, idiotic ergonomics as them as well.

Reading is hard.

FE mistake? The A7 is a huge success for Sony! Are we living on the same planet?

Why has Hasselblad designed a new mount for the X1D, which is a mirrorless MF camera? Why did not Hasselblad use the H mount on the X1D camera?

What does the register have to do with grip depth or ergonomics? Nothing! The advantages of short register is for the design of lenses, especially wide-angle lenses.

Canon would be a stupid company if adopted the EF mount for its future FF mirrorless cameras.

actually the A7 has alot of hype - but in actuality, Sony hasn't recovered to it's pre FE mount marketshare in over 5 years.

or you are simply too short sighted to see the gains are actually very little and really limited to WA primes in between 18 and 44mm. and canon already has small primes in that range as well, not to mention the gains as far as lens design are countered by the more difficult sensor technology required for the camera.

the lens savings are also really break even because anything over around 90mm or so has to be larger. Not everyone shoots with WA primes, as a matter of fact, the vast majority do not.

Economic report the other day said that Americans now are too timid to move in order to economically better themselves like they would have done in the 1960's. Americans are becoming fear-averse and it's going to hurt them in the future. No risk, no gain.

I wanna be a coal miner, but I'd have to move.

actually. "yes really"

unit sales +6% and sales $ for cameras on the whole up 10% forex adjusted, is most certainly not declining.

stating anything else is pretty alternative fact based.

canon's also has such a massive installed base that what we look at as "upgrades" isn't necessary what canon is aiming a particular camera for or at.

My not really was a reply on
"Must be hard for some.."

If they make good products that add value to the marketplace they deserve to make some profits in my book.

They did especially for stills shooters. Even though video adopters may feel left behind. They need to take their business elsewhere.

ah I get it, my apologies .. yeah .. well some in here that are well published sony fans seem to be struggling with this news that canon isn't rolling over and dying.

IMO, it's harder to make a line of 10+ ILC's and maintain what some are looking for as innovation because your time is spread all over, versus launch a few cameras and call it a day.

didn't have electric toasters back then.

I think NIkon needs to transition into the mirrorless again.... maybe not jump in head first, but come up with a line of mirrorless bodies that are APS-C based and that are smaller, but that can still use the Nikon glass (probably the DX glass as it's smaller and lighter, but would also be compatible with FF glass if you wanted to use it in a studio, for example). Anyway, I think if Nikon focused a little LESS on the mid-range market (releasing D3000-D7000 bodies a little less, and introduce the new line, they can win back some of the market and give them a good footing for the transition into the mirrorless market. So maybe instead of releasing a new D7000-series body every two years, make it three years, and start working on a "M" (for mirrorless) line that follows similarly to the DSLR line. (like the M3000 or M7000).

Sony isn't number 1 in any market, and was only #2 for the worst two months of the calendar sales year because they ran a sale after canon and nikon finished up theirs over christmas.

not to mention that full frame is such a small percentage over the overall ILC market to begin with.

Nikon is more than fine, and even by current "numbers" Nikon has something like a total marketshare something in the order of 2-3 times the size of Sony's. even with sony's over inflated term "marketshare" which they use as value of cameras and lenses, they are only 12% of the market, whereas Nikon is somewhere around 27-30%

for some time.. germany for three months. that's "for some time..."? and denmark? denmark? that's a real heavy hitter here.

and those aren't markets, they are narrow focus sales stats that what Sony uses as being "value" versus "units" like the rest of the industry.

25% of full frame market in europe and full frame is only around a 25% share of the entire ILC market. so yes, that's a real win there?

It's the opposite of "such a small pittance" and "massive drop in marketshare".

yeah cherry pick two countries out of the world for a few months of the year.. that works.

fake news much?

in the real world .. sony went from around an 18% marketshare down to a current 12%. that's a 50% marketshare drop globally.

Even by sony's shored up fake marketshare numbers they only hit 12%.

that's what you call massive.

It depends on what specific market segment you're looking at? In the integrated lens camera market, maybe, because the Sony RX100 tramples the Nikon equivalent. But if you look at interchangable lens cameras, not necessarily. Nikon and Canon are still the top two (now which one is number one would require a bit of research to find out who really is #1). But again, it depends on which market segment within the Photography industry or imaging industry you look at. Yes, Sony's new A9 is impressive, but it doesn't automatically put it to the #1 spot. Maybe in mirrorless, but overall, not really. You also need to look at growth rates compared to other companies in the industry. 12% looks great, but also can look bad if the average growth rate is 20%. On average, though, across most industries, 10%+ growth is good. But we also don't know how much or if the numbers are a bit fudged or padded either.

The FF market is a small part of the market. The fact is that Sony did lose market share by switching to mirrorless. They recently published a 12% global market share in ILC (DSLR + mirrorless), which is less than they had back when they only made DSLRs. So they basically replaced DSLR sales with mirrorless sales, but not quite. That they are successful in the FF part of the market in certain countries doesn't change the overall picture.

canon has a 48% marketshare in ILC's and nikon has around a 26% that leaves around 26% to divide up between sony, olyumpus, fuji, panasonic,et all.

sony claims to have around 12% - in actuality they probably have a little less than that because of their trumped up statistics.

@joe_leads: I agree with you that Nikon needs to figure something out, but it still holds the #1 or #2 spot in the market. Sony is at best at #3, if not lower on the scale. They win out in the mirrorless market probably, but comparing mirrorless to DSLRs is like comparing apples to oranges. Not quite a fair comparison. Now you could put Canon vs. Sony, as they both have mirrorless options, and that would be a more fair comparison, although Canon only focuses on crop-sensored (or smaller) mirrorless as it has other cameras (DSLRs for example) that it focuses on too. For sony, their FF and APS-C mirrorless is its only cameras in the market.

In this 2015 article, Sony is at 13% worldwide. Before the A7 they were close to going out of the business.
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Sony-bets-on-mirrorless-cameras-for-revival?page=2

If they are now around Nikons level, sometimes ahead, sometimes a bit behind, I think that is a great success for them.

actually they aren't.

they aren't even close to Nikon.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/calendar/presen/irday/irday2016/IPandS_E.pdf

from Sony's own trumped up statistics where they are the only ones to assume that marketshare is camera + lens "value" they only hit 12%.

Nikon estimates to sell around 3 million ILC's this fiscal year which amounts to around a 26-28% of the market.

Or, how elecronics (Samsung) started to like pharma (biosimilars): guess what, this is serious profit.

As someone who works in health care, there is an ENORMOUS amount of money in health care. Everything is on a 'spare-no-cost' basis, since it's about saving lives.

Ever save a life with a $5.00 Q-Tip?

Imagine them providing 3 more features available with paid firmware upgrades, all at a small cost.
Should C provide 5 firmware versions?
Or 15 to cover all permutations?

And them imagine a bugfix in the core or an upgrade due to a new lens emerging.
Suddenly there is 5 to 15 different firmware's to maintain.
Or just provide the bugfix to the full package.

Providing ONE upgrade at a cost is not a big problem.
But as a business model, it will make everyone frustrated if continues.

Sony asks €600 for 4k upgrade (licence) on the PXW X70 which is already 4k ready...

@Eleson I would let Canon engineering figure out configuration management. How they do it is up to them. Apps are great way to distribute buts of software on top of a platform. There may be other ways..

As a consumer I would like manufacturers to release hardware refreshes every 3 to 5 years and give me software extensions in the interim. The exact mechanics of that are challenge for manufacturers to solve.

They are not ditching it, but the customers of today want something else than for 10 years ago.... You can't win by just having the best sensor. In videography canon is doing much better than Nikon, and I guess that many buy Canon SLRs because theya re good for taking video as well as decent photos.

But at the same time. some companies will continue to run a division at a loss, especially if another division does extremely well, probably for tax reasons. It's not illegal, but looks bad on the surface. But underneath, in the financials, it can help the company "balance out" its overall earning across all divisions. So sometimes dropping non-profitable lines or divisions isn't always the best either, especially if you have a VERY profitable other division(s). You can sometimes share the loss across divisions to reduce income tax liabilities as a whole. Also, some firms run divisions at a profit or loss because they maybe just want to stay in that market, at whatever cost, so they can be "equal" to the competition and offer the same product/services as the competition, even if they are only breaking even or even losing money on that specific division.

Look at Sony and the Playstation up until the PS4. Sony was either not making money or was losing money on the actual hardware. Where it was making up that money was licenses to game developers, so that was helping pad the loss on the hardware. They have since changed that and now they at least make a little on the PS4 hardware itself, aside from software licenses and game sales.

The same can be said for Fujifilm.
Moreover, you can use Fujifilm makeup for your model when shooting with their cameras ;)
http://www.astalift.com.sg/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=4

It's how long ago they were released, cameras start priced as expensive as they can charge and still sell all they are making, then they decline. (They are in the business to make money, if they have any sense.) Also exchange rates and how closely you follow them play a big part (the manufacturers will hedge against them to many months in the future, so there's quite some lag in that).

Actually Canon is most noticeable for not adjusting the recommended selling price all that much, so it gradually creeps away from the street price.

If you want a cheaper 5DIV just wait until supply overtakes demand.

The 5Dsr was launched at £3200 (I paid £3100 for mine, which was a super deal at the time) but can be had for £2900 now despite the exchange rate going south - it was about 193 to the £ when I bought mine and is 142 now, climbing from even lower, so £3200 then would be £4000 now (assuming two thirds of the cost is in Yen) and £2900 looks a pretty big discount.

Interesting point. I also find this intriguing. I use a Canon 5DII, and apart from its weight/bulk, I find it to be a superb camera: easy, intuitive and quick to use, with fast single-point focus, which is all I use - no complaints. I'm sure the Canon 5DIV is much better, but it is also much, more expensive. When I look at the specs of the Nikon D750, it seems to offer a great deal - an excellent sensor with great dynamic range, a good viewfinder, a flip-up screen etc. etc. and indeed it does seem like a much better camera than my 5DII and much more of a bargain than the 5DIII for instance, which still sells for more, even though it is an older camera.

I haven't handled the D750, so cannot comment on that, but is there some convincing reason why someone might still choose the 5DIII over the seemingly better value and more advanced D750? Shouldn't the D750 be a runaway seller for Nikon? Shouldn't Canon worry about providing a competitor closer in spec and price? A mystery.

BTW I went from 5DmkII to 5Dsr and found it a very good upgrade. The extra pixels means you get an APS camera thrown in for free to give extra reach for Wildlife (or just to carry less lenses), the AF is a big step up and I find it a great tool. Also more DR (maybe a stop). The 5DmkIV doesn't seem worth the current extra cost unless you need the Dual-Pixel AF.

I'd agree the D750 is generally better than the 5DmkIII, but the latter is a very old camera now. Also changing systems is a big cost and it's probably cheaper to just buy a better camera in your current system.

@Dr_jon
I wasn't thinking of upgrading to the D750 (I've too may Canon lenses), but more just wondering how Canon manages to sell the 5DIII for more money. Why the premium and why are people prepared to pay it.

I'm not arguing that the Canon is not a good camera, it obviously is, but wondering about what exactly its attraction is over the seemingly better specced Nikon.

With regard to canon pricing I think it comes down to simple math. Canon could theoretically ship a body to wholesalers for $1000 with a net operating profit per unit of $50 or they can leverage brand strength and percieved value by shipping same body for $1100. That would be a 300% increase in net operating profit per unit. Looks to me like intelligent business if your brand strength can maintain the sales.

Ok, ill quote the article word-by-word:
"However, the company's outlook on 2017 camera unit sales are gloomier, with ILC unit sales dropping 7% and compacts down 13%, working out to -9% overall."
where did you get your numbers from?

Edit - 2017 forecast, my bad, reading comprehension failure :)

I'll see your Toyota and Yamaha and raise you a JBL

M5 is great for its class. What people asked (minority but still) is fullframe mirrorless from Canon...

Should you get the Sony, don't let it get wet!

ttran - Fair enough, I hope you are happy with whatever gear you eventually choose.

Thanks entoman, I have long past the point of return on OVF cameras. If Canon or Nikon offered better EVF cameras I would seriously look into them.

Hellraiser - I don't think ANYONE regards mirrorless as a fad. Even the most devoted DSLR users know that mirrorless is the future. The issue is, at what point do mirrorless become "better" than DSLRs? Many would argue that the Sony a9 and a99ii cameras mark that turning point.

However, none of that changes the inescapable fact that professionals and (probably) most serious enthusiasts still PREFER to use DSLRs - mainly because, generally speaking, they have better ergonomics and more complete lens systems.

vscd - The point I was making, is that whether DSLR devotees (and that includes me - check my profile) like it or not, DSLRs will unfortunately be phased out by manufacturers over the coming years.

Film cameras are now extremely rare, twin-lens reflexes and several other genres of camera are long extinct, and DSLRs will decrease in popularity as the smartphone and electronic gadget-orientated generation takes over.

It's not a question of what you and I like, it's a matter of what the mass market demands, and what the manufacturers will continue to support.

DPP - I guess that's part of the reason why Ricoh are able to offer Pentax cameras at such cheap prices.

Unfortunately, when costs are cut, it is invariably at the expense of service, reliability or performance.

In this world, you largely get what you pay for.

vscd - Yep, "Canon is dead, Nikon is doomed, DSLR is finished" - I agree totally that it's been said many times, often over-hastily.

But the truth of the matter, where the "mirrorless future" argument is concerned, is that it's not a case of IF, but WHEN. Put yourself 10 or 15 years into the future - do you really think there will be any DSLRs in existence then?

There may still be one or two (literally) ultra-expensive models available then, but the demand from the smartphone generation will be for sophisticated, mirrorless, AI-incorporating, mirrorless electronic gadget boxes, not for what you and I might consider "real" cameras.

It's a slightly sad, but inescapable fact.

I don't agree. Let's meet here in 10 years and you will see that the DSLRs will still be around and very likely be on the higher specced line. In fact all the advantages of weight and size are only measureable with some small primelenses from 35mm to maybe 60mm. The rest of the Job is done with a 70-200 or something like that and then only the bad batterylife remains. The EVF *has* advantages, but I really don't need any of them after playing around with the new features. Was bored after a few days and never used them. Greetings.

vscd - As a DSLR devotee I agree with your comments about them - I've tried several mirrorless, but I always come back to my Canon DSLRs. I've yet to find a mirrorless that provides the system lenses and pro service that I need, or the intuitive handling and pleasure afforded by DSLRs!

I guess we'll have to wait 10-15 years to see what happens. My feeling is that the high-end enthusiast/pro end of the market will be dominated almost entirely by highly developed and sophisticated mirrorless systems, and that the huge "non-photographer" market will be dominated by "cameras" based on a similar principle to the Light L16 (but much more advanced, and incorporating artificial intelligence).

Cheers.

Which is probably bad for 1-series owners expecting new stuff (as part of the cancellation was issues with the new 1" processing pipeline) but good for people wanting a Nikon APS mirrorless, which should be bookended with another "probably".

And proof that they couldn't make the DL 18-50 work?

They went from nowhere in mirrorless to #2 (having just about overtaken Oly as their sales fell) so it's an easy way to grow, having the vast bulk of DSLR sales makes growth tricky. (It's a bit like if I started selling a camera I could claim to have the World's fastest growing camera company, sell 1 in month 1; 3 in month 2; 20 in month 3 and I'm at 2000% growth. See Canon doing that to their 5.7M ILC camera sales. Gotta love statistics - BTW a good read is the book "How to Lie with Statistics".)

Oh and I do think a Nikon APS mirrorless can't be that far away, but wonder if they will protect low-end DSLR sales by keeping prices high as they did last time.

Yes, Canon's camera business is declining, but their market share have increased recently, more than any other company's; they have almost half of the interchangeable lens camera market. This means that they aren't declining as fast as their competitors, especially Nikon.

Unit sells do not mean much for the bottom line...Canon remains top dog with the Wal-Mart crowd.