Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

eoshd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 132 posts

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#21

Post by criddell »

fetus8 wrote: post #3
mtgx wrote: post #2

This failure was a decade, if not longer, in the making, pretty much since smartphones started replacing DSLRs for travel photos for at least some people. But I'm sure Canon's leaders laughed it off until now.

While smartphones have decimated the smaller portable camera markets, there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras (APS-C, Full Frame, Medium Format, Etc.) Canon specifically has fallen drastically behind their competition in those spaces, allowing Sony to decimate them when it comes to features/performance and cost. Canon's current line up of cameras are missing features that their competitors have had fo…

> there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras

It's large, but shrinking according to:

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-shar...

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#22

Post by detaro »

prolepunk wrote: post #13

I'm a bit interested in making DSLR videos. May I present some anecdotal evidence. I bought a Canon consumer camcorder (Vixia HF R800) for about $200 last year and it was dismal: - Tiny sensor -- Terrible performance indoor - Lacks viewfinder -- terrible performance outdoor - No 4K, 1080p max - Abysmal bitrate 25Mbps for 60FPS 1080p - Connecting power supply when recording introduces 60Hz hum on line in audio. - Elec…

That's probably more related to you paying 5x more, and not the brand...

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#23

Post by goldcd »

I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak - https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak...

My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late.

My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#24

Post by tristor »

This isn't a surprise. Canon has lagged behind Sony on the sensor side of things for ages. Nikon was also lagging, but decided to do the right thing which was buy its sensors from Sony. For full-frame DSLR camera bodies, Nikon is far superior to Canon currently and has been for a long time.

Canon has primarily survived off brand loyalty with professional photographers driven by the extremely high quality lenses they produce. This too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss, meaning Sony lenses for mirrorless are on par or in excess of the quality level you can get from Canon lenses and Zeiss is financially able to offer similarly high quality lenses to the wider market, cannibalizing first-party sales. Nikon has historically had worse lenses than Canon and this hasn't changed significantly, but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.

Canon had some opportunities to right the ship, but their management seems incompetent. It's sad to me that they're in this situation because I respect what they've done for photography for decades. I don't see this improving though.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#25

Post by prolepunk »

detaro wrote: post #22
prolepunk wrote: post #13

I'm a bit interested in making DSLR videos. May I present some anecdotal evidence. I bought a Canon consumer camcorder (Vixia HF R800) for about $200 last year and it was dismal: - Tiny sensor -- Terrible performance indoor - Lacks viewfinder -- terrible performance outdoor - No 4K, 1080p max - Abysmal bitrate 25Mbps for 60FPS 1080p - Connecting power supply when recording introduces 60Hz hum on line in audio. - Elec…

That's probably more related to you paying 5x more, and not the brand...

Yes, but I feel cheated that Canon put their name on such a terrible product.

I would be fine with no-name Chinese camera for the same amount of money, which by the way would have 4K and a hotshoe mount.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#26

Post by hestipod »

goldcd wrote: post #23

I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak - https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak... My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late. My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company…

I thought about going back to film in order to get back into the hobby "cheaply", but quickly learned it was not going to be cheap at all and not worth the drawbacks even then. Prices are on the rise in all regards. Cameras and glass are "vintage" rather than just old, and priced accordingly. Film and processing costs are stupid high now, not on every corner like before, and not to mention the inability to process, learn, and deal with things easily at home like with digital. It's obviously supply and demand, but it's strange to have witnessed the extreme flip flop that occurred in the industry. As far as I know only Nikon (one model) and Leica (one model) are making non medium format film cameras anymore and they are both very expensive. I wonder what the next big leap/flip flop will be.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#27

Post by AWildC182 »

zazaraka wrote: post #14

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier…

If people just want auto upload to instagram, they'll use a phone. The advantage of a proper mirrorless/DSLR is the insane power you get with RAW file editing in post.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#28

Post by AWildC182 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #16
zazaraka wrote: post #14

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier…

> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.

Z6/7 does this with ease. Also, it has a touchscreen and can edit files on the camera but I don't know of anyone who bothers.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#30

Post by throwanem »

hestipod wrote: post #26
goldcd wrote: post #23

I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak - https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak... My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late. My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company…

I thought about going back to film in order to get back into the hobby "cheaply", but quickly learned it was not going to be cheap at all and not worth the drawbacks even then. Prices are on the rise in all regards. Cameras and glass are "vintage" rather than just old, and priced accordingly. Film and processing costs are stupid high now, not on every corner like before, and not to mention the inability to process, l…

If you want to get back into the hobby cheaply, go for one of the prosumer kits, like the Nikon 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series, or whatever in the Canon line is comparable. (I'm heavily invested in the Nikon F system, and as a hobbyist can't justify investing in Canon as well, so I don't really know anything about their lines.)

Film has become extremely niche in the last decade, even among the niche that is interchangeable-lens-camera hobby photography. As you've seen, that makes it expensive.

That said, if you're looking to get back to film specifically as opposed to photography in general, you can find good used midrange 35mm bodies without too much trouble. You'll still pay through the nose for film and developing services, and probably also for glass since that holds its value in a way 35mm SLR bodies don't, but you can at least avoid the $2600 bite of a brand-new F6.

Post reply on HN