
Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge - fezz
https://www.eoshd.com/2019/07/canon-rush-to-reassure-investors-as-camera-profits-plunge-64/
======
zazaraka
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 CPU cost, when you have $100 phones
with these features?

A lot of influencers would buy these cameras if they had a simple auto-mode
(which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) and upload to instagram
feature. The workflow for using a DSLR to post to instagram is terrible, SD-
cards, WiFi adapters, laptops, ... Not to mention that you need a lot of
technical knowledge to hook everything up. No wonder few bother with the pain.

It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to
the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.

~~~
jdietrich
It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent
user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that
don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone
actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more
problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and
putting it into a card reader. The main users of Wifi tethering appear to be
sports and news photographers, who do sometimes need to upload a photo _right
now_.

Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness -
the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost
certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're
not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.

~~~
mdorazio
This is akin to people who said "why would you want computer-like features on
your phone? Everyone who's willing to pay $500+ for a phone already has a
laptop!"

A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either -
YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom,
interchangeable lenses, etc. of a full-body camera, but don't want to deal
with the clunky interfaces and multi-step processes just to get your
images/videos to a format, style, and place you want them. Yes, that's a
subset of the market, but it's probably a bigger potential userbase than
traditional "pure" photographers.

~~~
75dvtwin
> A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either
> - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical
> zoom, interchangeable lenses,

I also agree with you.

It seems that the most appealing features of modern DSLRs, except fast
autofocus, are hidden behind 90s interfaces with multi-button setups and so
on.

Additionally, modern DSLRs must have appstore-like capabilities built into the
camera (rather than into a phone device that attaches to camera).

This is where Nikon/Sony/Cannon/Panasonic/Olympus/Pentax(or whoever their new
owners are) -- really need to come together with some standard API/interfaces.

I am somewhat disappointing that Samsung with their NX line exited the market,
they had some interesting features that I would like to see licensed-for-free
to other makers -- like lens based controls.

There is so much of unexplored UI real-state on the cameras, and opportunity
for standardization -- that's is so sad to see complete lack of innovation
from the dSLR makers.

I do not think vanilla mobile OSes are right platform for the camera...
(because of the UIs).

If anything, I suspect these companies have the people (or could get them),
but they have to change their culture across marketing/support/software
engineering areas. Not just how they do business, but how they hire.

A somewhat separate example: companies like Panasonic, while excelling at
device engineering and manufacturing seem to be completely and utterly
incompetent when building phone apps that control their own devices (in this
example talking about home security products).

~~~
hestipod
>It seems that the most appealing features of modern >DSLRs, except fast
autofocus, are hidden behind 90s >interfaces with multi-button setups and so
on.

What features are you referring to? Personally as someone who likes to take
photos, I find the tactile multi-button/dial interface ideal and don't want a
menu driven touch UI. It seems like some people want to co-opt a camera type
made primarily for photography and turn it into a social media focused
camcorder. I know the companies are trying to tap into that market but it
feels like it is turning cameras into jacks of all trades and masters of none.
I find the pricing obscene, but some current Leica models are stills only and
have very elegant and simple interfaces designed purely for taking
photographs. There are high quality cinema cameras all over to choose from. It
seems people are pulling the DLSR/interchangeable lens mirrorless camera
market in two different directions with opposing goals...photography vs social
media/video production.

~~~
75dvtwin
> What features are you referring to?

Multiple exposure bracketing

Rear curtain flash sync

Exposure compensation

Overall -- the 'preview experience is not great, at all

    
    
      -- this should be picture-in-picture kind of view.

Where I can have multiple settings previewed in different windows
simultaneously, so that I can decide quickly which setting to choose, or click
to take a 2 pictures, one for each setting...

I do not do much video, because I could not really figure out how to control
auto focus selectively (when I want certain things in focus, and certain
things out of focus as I pan)

~~~
hestipod
My 14yo Lumix bridge camera can do Bracketing and Exposure compensation with a
button press. Every DLSR I have used can with no look buttons and dials as
well. I don't know about the flash sync as I never used that. What cameras are
you using that the above things require menu hunting?

The multiple settings preview thing sounds interesting but isn't something I
can see using myself. The video autofocus stuff is another example of why I
don't like photography cameras being repurposed as camcorders, although I read
dual-pixel AF and its equivalents are quite good. No personal experience
though as I have no video interest really.

------
UI_at_80x24
I used to work for Canon in a different division. It was an interesting
company to work for, fantastic human-perks i.e. 2 weeks paid time off (not
counted against vacation) if you got married, 1 week of paid time off if you
moved. (not counted against vacation) You got your birthday off (paid and not
counted against vacation).

Upper (middle?) management were all dinosaurs, and stuck in their ways. The
entire 'digital revolution' caught them unaware and unprepared. And most
importantly IMHO, they didn't eat their own dogfood. The only saving grace for
the printer/copier division was HP's controller boards and drivers.

This was a situation where you knew you were on a sinking ship. Some R&D and
advancements were INCREDIBLE, some of the behind the scenes tech was very
compelling but I don't think management could get out of the way.

~~~
dheera
We live is a world with a distorted notion of success. About 1/2 the people I
know who take photography seriously use Canon cameras. I'm also a happy Canon
customer. How is this a sinking ship?

~~~
kenhwang
Can the people who take photography seriously sustain Canon's camera business
on their own? That's the main problem.

~~~
dheera
This might be one of the failure modes of the current incarnation of
capitalism. My Canon cameras last me forever and that's why I _like_ them. I
consider them a blazing technical and scientific success.

If under the current mode of capitalism they want to "succeed" financially
they might need to make crappier cameras on purpose so that people replace
them every year.

Crocs are also amazing. I bought a pair and never needed to buy another pair.
Bad for their balance sheet, but they are an amazing success in terms of
sustainability and not creating trash.

~~~
vr46
Mean time between cameras has probably been increasing due to the very high
quality of DSLRs for a decade now. Upgrades aren’t really worth it and there’s
better things to spend money on if one wants to improve: lighting, triggers,
lenses, supports, and travel!

Film cameras used to last a very long time in the range, Nikon, for example,
went from the F to the F4 in forty years. Around ten years between the pro
cameras. That’s down to about four years now. My 1DX shows no signs of needing
replacement, despite wanting WiFi and GPS, everything is great, and despite
fewer pixels than the previous 5D2, enlarges to wall-size without drama. The
iPhone takes care of casual use, and a £110 Fuji XM1 covers everyday carry. A
secondhand digital camera from six years ago is good enough and costs around
£100. Well, why upgrade indeed?

------
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.

~~~
la_barba
While it may appear so from a retail consumer standpoint, I don't think Canon
is lagging behind in tech from an IP and R&D standpoint. The thing is they
make the sensor themselves, and the fabs and tooling is super super expensive.
Canons MO is to extract as much profit as possible from a pre-existing process
before moving over to something new. They already have BSI tech.. they already
have the means to create a 100MP sensor as well as compete on AF (for video I
think dualpixel AF is already ahead of the competition). Canon has diversified
product lines and doesn't want to upset its Cinema EOS lineup too much by
offering "too many" features. Sony, being the newcomer has sunk a ginormous
amount of capital into fabs and tooling to differentiate itself in a saturated
market and it has worked for the amateur and enthusiast crowd. They have a few
weaknesses, specifically ergonomics, color science, the smaller E mount
diameter, and a less rugged body for professional use (compared to 1DX or D5).
It will be interesting to see how they tackle the new challenger..

>but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel
lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.

Canon already has this tech, as they showed in their 400 DO II, which is a
freakishly awesome lens.

>his too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss

Hmm, have there been any sony-zeiss lenses since Sony started their GM lineup?

------
goldcd
I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak -
[https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak...](https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak-
misses-its-moment)

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](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.

~~~
hestipod
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.

~~~
throwanem
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.

~~~
hestipod
I had no desire to live with the limits of film again, I just thought it might
be a cheap workaround. Ends up not being the case. I really cannot justify
spending at all right now but I have looked at the prosumer stuff you
mentioned. While they are good for the new cost there are a lot of compromises
and each iteration seems to remove some obvious feature like a remote port or
ISO button etc as they keep shoving old guts into new bodies and optimizing
production costs. The math always works out cheaper to get used stuff with
more appropriate specs when/if I can afford to do anything at all. Rather than
spend twice on a kit then upgrading, it's more sensible to buy once and keep
that stuff as long as it is physically possible to maintain it. My hopefully
"buy it for life" rational desire is a Canon 6D Mark I, a fast everyday zoom,
and a really fast prime for the stars. Some day.

~~~
throwanem
Give it a couple of years. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, mirrorless
is already starting to displace mid- to mid-high-range DSLRs into the used
market, and by then it should be displacing the high-end stuff too.

(And I feel you about the UI issues. Part of the reason I switched from a
D5300 to a D500 was because the prosumer bodies are really designed to be shot
in program auto, and you just don't have enough direct control of basic
parameters - you need to be in the 7xxx range even to have an aperture dial!
I'm waiting for D850s to start hitting the used market in numbers for
precisely that reason - 45MP full-frame is just about ideal for the macro work
I do, despite the relative DoF loss, and the UI commonality between that and
the D500 means I won't have to worry about missing the perfect shot of a wasp
or whatever because my hands got confused about how to operate the camera.)

------
hestipod
I am probably a minority but I hate live viewfinders as looking at a tiny
screen, despite the benefits live exposure composition offers, gives me
eyestrain and headaches. I much prefer an optical viewfinder so for this
reason I really hope the mirrorless hype isn't going to displace DLSRs
entirely and Canon keeps making them.

Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with
manual settings that still takes good photos at 14 years old (just super
limited due to sensor size and a 400 max ISO) and had to sell the DSLR for
financial reasons. Still have a dream to get back into photography if things
ever look up enough I can justify spending on a hobby. I really enjoyed it. I
would love to do some astrophotography especially. Even an original 6D (superb
low light clarity) and the right lens would probably suit me for life with no
compromises to my interests as long as I could keep it serviced and alive.
Tried shooting the Milky Way recently with the LX1 but the low light ability
won't allow it.

Bright side is maybe even if mirrorless is the future, it would make DLSRs
more affordable used as people sell off the "deprecated" tech.

~~~
mdorazio
Personally, I have the exact opposite opinion on optical viewfinders. Optical
is eyestraining, non-ergonomic, physically limiting (can't use an optical
viewfinder when you're shooting at foot or waist level without contorting
yourself into weird positions), and modern shooting modes often require a lot
more setup and selection than is comfortable to use without a full-size screen
and looking at the controls you're hitting.

~~~
throwanem
That last point depends strongly on the camera. I almost never have to take my
D500 away from my face when I'm setting up a shot, because it has physical
controls for the exposure parameters and displays in the viewfinder to show
changes of setting - not just shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, but even down
to stuff like bracketing and flash exposure compensation. Granted, a lot of
DSLRs, especially the prosumer ones, don't benefit from such thoughtful (and
expensive!) design. But you absolutely can get cameras that are ergonomic to
operate.

(Well, if you buy Nikon, anyway. I don't know who does Canon's UI design, but
whoever they are, they could be a lot better at it...)

------
apthnz
I initially read this as "cannon rush" and was wondering how StarCraft related
to camera profits

~~~
huseyinkeles
oh, I thought the same!! took me a few seconds to realize it's not about the
Protoss cheese :D

------
post_break
Canon ignored m43, put out some crappy mirrorless cameras, sony ate their
lunch. I'm not surprised in the least by this.

------
coldtea
They deserve every lost profit -- the way they have missed opportunity after
opportunity on the video and photo market (late to 4K, late to mirrorless,
lackluster features, fear of cannibalising their 6K+ models, and so on).

------
michaeldorian
Sony is out innovating them on every level. Faster releases, better features
etc. Honestly as an enthusiast they deserve to tank. They’ve done nothing
exciting in the space.

~~~
throwaway9d0291
I own an A7RIII (and preordered an A7RIV) but I actually think Fuji is the
most innovative right now.

In terms of image quality, my A7RIII blows my Fuji X-T3 out of the water but
in _every other way_ the X-T3 is better. The ergonomics are fantastic (I love
manual dials for all the settings), it has the kind of video you'd have to buy
a Panasonic GH-5 for in the past, the out of camera JPEGs are much more
pleasing to the eye (though I mostly shoot raw), the menu system is far more
sane and it comes with features like focus stacking.

Plus, Fuji routinely adds new features to old cameras with software updates,
while Sony for the most part tends to forget about a camera as soon as the new
one is released.

------
reustle
Maybe they could actually have a chance if they took note of what the users
really wanted. Magic Lantern was one of the main reasons many friends of mine
got a Canon, and the only reason it could exist is because some old source
code leaked. Why not provide an open interface for that kind of stuff? Or at
least provide similar features.

~~~
la_barba
Because they want you to buy their expensive, professional EOS Cinema products
for video use which have all the features you need.

------
woodgrainz
For those wanting to see more about Canon's stock:

[https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-
srch](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch)

------
jaggednad
I read the headline as “cannon rush” at first lol

------
mtgx
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.

~~~
fetus8
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 for years. It's kind of shocking how they seem to
consistently miss the mark on so many things. Their build quality and
reliability is still top notch though.

I think ultimately the professional market looking for larger sensor cameras
has gone to other brands due to this, which is probably hurting them a lot
more than expected.

~~~
rbritton
Canon's professional line has been lacking for years in the high ISO sensor
performance. Their saving grace has been their lenses, which are still
magnitudes better than the competition. That said, third party lensmakers like
Sigma and Tamron have really been getting better in recent years, and the
premium for Canon glass isn't always justifiable.

~~~
fetus8
High ISO performance, and their auto-focusing systems are put to shame by just
about every one else on the market.

While their lens quality and EF mount have probably been their saving grace, I
personally don't find their lenses to be worth the cost. I left the Canon
ecosystem for Fujifilm's X-Series cameras, and cannot believe the IQ their
lenses have, across the board, and they're priced very competitively. I'm just
a hobbyist at the end of the day, but when I can get an incredible portrait
lens on the second hand market for $650, that rivals L-series glass, it's
really really hard to justify that Canon premium.

~~~
la_barba
How are they put to shame by everyone else on AF? Could you be more specific?

------
prolepunk
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.

\- Electronics and firmware haven't really been updated since 2014

This seemed like a great little camera, but it let me down on every front.

I ended up upgrading to Panasonic GH4 that cost 5x more, and I'm actually
happy with it.

Given how poorly EOS R and EOS RP were reviewed about 6 months ago, I'm not
surprised.

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

~~~
prolepunk
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.

~~~
FireBeyond
Panasonic makes a roughly $200ish camera, too, and it's also... "not great".
4x optical zoom, 720p, 230k display.

