Canon falling behind ??

With Sony releasing a two new mirrorless full frame cameras it takes me one step closer to believing the "Canon is falling behind" hype we read on other forums. So I did some checking.

Canon's R&D spending peaked about two years ago, last year it dropped 12 to 14% and it was lower last year than it was 2011. Looking at the mid year financials it looks like R&D will drop again this year, it appears to be 25% under 2012. As someone who believed in Canon as an investor in the past it concerns me now. Right now I have no stock, I think it is still to shaky to get back in. With the P&S market dying and less R&D it makes me wonder will the be ahead again.

A few other things that I think are of concern when it comes to my lens and camera investment. When the 5D III and the 1D X were released it seemed Canon rushed these bodies out to answer Nikons latest selection. When they did Canon had went a different direction than Nikon. At the time it appeared that possibly Canon had ideas that may work out to be better than Nikon's, their were improvements but were these improvements just the best they could do?

Then there is video, it seems all of the latest releases have been geared more toward video than photography. Even the new sensors and new AF system seem to be designed for the videographer not the photographer. It makes me think that Canon is not focusing very hard on photography improvements unless they go in hand with video.

Then the Rumor Mill site seems to be dead ( or not very active) this year. Rumors are few and far between and no announcements expected till next year. If R&D was taking place wouldn't there be a few leaks?

Should we be concerned yet?
Should we be comparing Nikon lenses to see if they would be good enough?
Will there be a EOS M II?
Will there ever be a 7D II?

HD, when you talk about R&D is that the Camera division or for Canon in general?

As I understand it the reason for Canon's new body delays had been the new sensor mass production facilities.

Sent from my XT905 using Tapatalk

.....take a step back from the ledge Rick. Everything is ok.

First, whenever I start to let threads at CR get to me, I go check out nikonrumors.com and they are just as bad if not worse. For example, you ask about the 7DII, they've been waiting for the 400s even longer. How about Nikons service? Or their quality control?

Is anyone making money in the mirrorless market?

I am not so much trying to defend Canon but I just don't see greener grass elsewhere.

I think we are looking at a shrinking (mostly P&S) and maturing market. The shrinking part is going to lead to cuts like in R&D. The maturing part is going to lead to a leveling of the playing field. Just look at Apple and Samsung.

All that said, i think Canon has a big problem on their hands: How to get anyone to buy a 5DIV or 1DXII. Right now I think it has to be significant sensor improvement. But we'll see how Canon solves their problem in about 2 yrs.

At least that is how I look at it.

That was Canon in general and of course they have many divisions.
I think we might have to dig deeper in to the financials to see how it is divided up. With the P&S market collapsing I wouldn't think that the ratio of R&D went up for cameras and is less for other divisions.

Years ago I remember Intel's CEO giving an interview, and Intel's philosophy at the time is if you start to fall behind or the economy goes bad you increase your R&D. When profit margins go down you increase R&D. R&D is what fuels a tech companies progress.

Brant, it would be a year or more before I fell off the edge. I just see a pattern developing from Canon where video is the focus. Will still photography benefit enough from this focus to keep up? I guess we will see.

I doubt any companies are making money on mirrorless, but I think mirrorless is the future. I think they will replace the conventional mirrored DSLR eventually. The idea of the mirror was to give you the view through the lens, eventually the technology will take us to a point that you can do that digitally through a viewfinder. For sure we are several years away from this happening though, many hurdles to overcome. AF and battery power I think would be the biggest things to overcome.

In short, Canon's performance beginning from the original 1Ds, through the 5Dmk2 to the latest gen, have turned them into this guy:
http://manwithasoundrecorder.files.w...y-cd-front.jpg
They're growing fat on the profits from their previous successes, so why should they spend more on R&D? Consumers keep buying whatever they put out with whatever R&D budget input they use, so it's naturally falling.
Don't forget, Sony (at least their camera division), are a small fish in a big pond, they need to spend the R&D money to bring out the products like this to make the waves they need to make to survive.

This all sounds very similar to the big AMD vs Intel battle of a few years ago. AMD brought out a vastly superior Opteron Dual Core when Intel were just chasing clock speeds higher and higher with their Pentiums. It took a few years, but AMD's market share went from something like 10-15% to 15-20%. Not much in the scheme of things, most OEMs had long-standing contracts and brand loyalty, and most customers didn't know or care enough to switch. Eventually, it got to the point that AMDs chips could crap all over the Intel offerings, at half the price and a fraction of the power, while Intel's chips were, per square mm, putting out more energy than the surface of the sun.
Someone at Intel finally woke up to all of this and realised that they were going to lose, and lose in a big way, to AMD if they didn't turn around. They canned almost their entire work up to that point, took a little-known notebook-chip architecture from their Israeli plant as their starting point, and within a year they had built the new Core architecture. Now Intel has the (arguably) better chip, and sells more of them.

In short, my point is that Canon aren't losing market share, so there's no impetus to do anything dramatic. Give it a few years until they start losing market share, then we might see them wake up and respond, and in a big way. Or maybe they're just completely misguided and spending all the R&D money they do have chasing the video-market, believing that to be the bigger profit-making area. It might be, I don't know. But they're certainly (still) not giving me any reason to upgrade from my groundbreaking-at-release-time 7D, there's just nothing remotely affordable that does much better than I need. (That said, I love the idea of the A7R, but I still can't afford one...)

Dr, it appears that when profit and sales started to slide down Canon reduced R&D spending. Sound business? Maybe, maybe not. If you slow your R&D down in a tech industry and start to slide behind it only takes a short while and you are a generation behind on your product.

I think it was in the 90's I remember the Intel CEO interview. They spent a huge amount in a down year and made little that year. Profits and R&D were not linked together by the balance sheet as much. It worked for them, even if AMD has caught up or not they established themselves as a company that demands a premium for their product.

Oh just stop myself.....

I am really interested in mirrorless technology, afterall the mirror has been around for a long, long time. just about as long as the keyboard..... w/ the dual pixel, etc tech the focusing need is rapidly going if not gone. I don't know if the focusing speed on the 70d is "maxed out" or moderated for future enhancements - either way some more CPU power is all that is needed and Moore's law on that has yet to fail.

Kodak was the major benefactor of the film camera boom - film, chemicals, paper - an annuitized revenue stream. Digital P&S crushed film, and jpg & e-mail crushed paper, cameras in cell phones is crushing P&S and actually opened a window for the HERO mini/waterproof still/video cam with space & left over bucks that the cell phone camera provided. Lets face it "kids these days" seem to want to do video. And why not, strap on a Hero, vid some gnarly waves, up load by the time you get back to shore and "cool dude" vs. pics from shore, waiting 1 week to be developed in and printed - an amazing shrink in the delay of gratification. And by the way - I think lots of the Hero shots are indeed way cool. :)

Now 4k video - basically 8mp stills are at the door step - TVs are coming out w/ 4k resolution. It isn't going to be long before we can have reasonably priced 4k monitors.

6k or 8k video is inevitable. I recall a "shark week" episode of the flying great whites, the guy had a machine the size of a dorm room fridge that could do something like 10 seconds of HD "retro" he would push the shutter and it would then keep the last 10 or 30 seconds - all because the file size/data pipe was soooo big - ha 256g flash card, i am good for a long long time.

There is something romantic about clicking the shutter at the exact right moment - I live for that and have experienced a few times in my life. With data pipes and resolution getting solved, the batches of lenses from all manufacturers are pushing new resolution boundaries, why not experience life at 60 fps, 18mp/8kvideo?

My fantasy is that it comes quickly, in between now and then, I still dream of being able to swap out a sensor for uber low light, to uber high res.

And yes, I will give Canon until the spring to come out w/ a M2 otherwise there is an A7 in my future. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

...I will give Canon until the spring to come out w/ a M2 otherwise there is an A7 in my future.

---

I was initially thinking along similar lines. However, the EOS M won't be FF, and it will almost certainly be much smaller...and size is the main reason I got the EOS M in the first place. Quick scaled comparison of the EOS M, Sony a7, and 5DIII:

Attachment 2021

While the a7 is certainly smaller than my 1D X, the EOS M + 22/2 fits in a small belt pouch. The a7 body is larger and over 0.5" thicker, and the 35/2.8 is also over 0.5" longer, making the total package a lot less portable.

Food for thought...

First off...love the Fat Boy Slim reference....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raid

As I understand it the reason for Canon's new body delays had been the new sensor mass production facilities.

Sent from my XT905 using Tapatalk

---

I think everyone here hopes you are right Raid. It would be great to see a new sensor in a 7DII in in 2014 with the same technology moving into the 5DIV and 1DX II in 2015.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I just see a pattern developing from Canon where video is the focus. Will still photography benefit enough from this focus to keep up? I guess we will see.

I doubt any companies are making money on mirrorless, but I think mirrorless is the future. I think they will replace the conventional mirrored DSLR eventually. The idea of the mirror was to give you the view through the lens, eventually the technology will take us to a point that you can do that digitally through a viewfinder. For sure we are several years away from this happening though, many hurdles to overcome. AF and battery power I think would be the biggest things to overcome.

---

I am concerned about the video trend too. I don't mind some overlap as I do occasionally switch to video mode at family functions. But 99% of my use is for still photography. The item that concerns me the most was this video on the 1DC and that people may think this is the future of still photography. I certainly understand the concept of trying to grab a frame of a video and using it as a still and certainly their images looked good. The obvious issue is resolution, but I've also read that there are significant differences in how you optimize an image for video vs still photography. The concept I could most easily understand from what I read and thus remember is that with video you actually want a certain amount of motion blur at all times. Going from sharp image to sharp image actually makes the video look a little choppy. Of course, with still photography, you usually want the sharpest image you can get. These two can not co-exist. I am not sure if these boil down to the camera hardware, but it certainly impacts the style promoted in the video.

So, I am hoping that the "Cinema" series are optimized for video and that the still series, such as the 1DX and 5DIII, etc, remains optimized for stills with the availability of video. For that reason, I was actually happy that the "C" series was introduced. At least Canon has the structure to split the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

Oh just stop myself.....

I am really interested in mirrorless technology, afterall the mirror has been around for a long, long time. just about as long as the keyboard..... w/ the dual pixel, etc tech the focusing need is rapidly going if not gone. I don't know if the focusing speed on the 70d is "maxed out" or moderated for future enhancements - either way some more CPU power is all that is needed and Moore's law on that has yet to fail.

And yes, I will give Canon until the spring to come out w/ a M2 otherwise there is an A7 in my future. :)

---

I remember a thread a few years ago where Daniel Browning was talking about the benefit of mirrorless cameras. I remember him mentioning several benefits, but I only recall four: 1) increased fps as the mirror no longer limits; 2) Increased camera life as you remove number of shutter actuations as the common limit to a camera life; 3) You remove the slight vibration caused by the shutter actuation for those that want the sharpest of images, and 4) smaller camera bodies as you don't need the space for the mirror box/OVF.

Are there any others? Hopefully this doesn't make me "old" but I've never been too into the mirrorless concept because I am only slightly interested in any of those benefits. I am probably most interested in #1 and #4. But #1 creates additional issue (file storage, memory card size, transfer rates, etc). And I already have a tough time selecting between photos. #4, sure you can make a camera smaller, but very soon the lens becomes the primary bulk of the camera, not the body. Even on the current EOS-M, those two lenses are what drive the "bulk" of the camera, not the body.

Maybe I am missing something on the mirrorless market. I'd love to hear from the rest of you. But as of now, I see it as a niche whose primary benefits are for mid-size/rangefinder camera bodies between pocketable cameras and dSLRs such as Sony just released. As others have pointed out, that could really hurt Canon's consumer level line, so I get why they haven't raced into the field yet. Granted, I think they should evolve the consumer line to include the M.

Just a quick update, doing a bit more research on R&D.
According to the financials Canon has historically spent between 8 & 9 percent of income on R&D. The percentage has remained fairly constant however it dropped a small fraction this year.
The strength of the YEN had some effect on this as well. If you compare the numbers in YEN it does not look as bad as if you compare in Dollars.

Last, in Imaging Canon still outspends Nikon in R&D, from my quick look it appears to be about 10%. I take this as a positive.

I would guess the Nikon D800 has hurt Canon badly.....I am no expert on manufacturing or accounting but if they offered the same or better sensor in a Canon body AND managed to get their wide angle lenses on par with Nikon then (I believe) they would be far ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

Adaptors to use Nikon lenses on Canon bodies exist. One of the reasons I went with Canon EF mount in the first place is the ability to use other brands of lenses without optical adaptors as I had lots to start with. In WA I have Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss lenses (some rebranded for other manufacturers). Pick the best lenses to do the job that you can mount on your camera body and carry on. Don't worry about who made them.

---

That's true but I want an adapter to use a Sony (Nikon D800) sensor in my Canon body:)

It appears to me that Canon rely heavily on economies of scale and when they release a major update(certainly in their minds) like the 5Dmk3, there has to be a reasonable product life length.
On the surface other makers seem to be a little bit more reactive to other brands product developments and are releasing newer models quicker.
I don't think Canon are falling behind, they are committed to what they have got and unfortunately they are behind. Certainly in expectation and certainly at the 36MP standard.
And I think 36MP or better will be the standard. If Canon don't come to the party, more will leave. And what should be even more of a worry to us loyal Canonites is what is going to come after the D800. I have never gone to the other brand fan sites, but I think they might all be craving for what is going to come next as well.
If I had more commercial needs driving my photography passion I think I would have brought a D800 into the stable by now, just to keep up with the results that portrait shooters are getting with it.
I think the 70D is a sensational development at the price and the features(video) and the 1DX has sport and bird photographers satisfied.
But I am hopeful that the next Canon development is earth shatteringly good, but aimed towards portrait and landscape shooters, who have been left behind by the developments of other brands. I am hoping for around 40MP, low light and dynamic range field leading performance and to top it all off not a medium format price tag. With the D800 and the a7r at just over $3000, if Canon don't play in this price ball park, or near enough to it, I think the Mk2's from those brands will blow the socks off Canon.
You know it's funny. Funny like a dual edged sword, which isn't funny.
While I look to the stars and am so grateful for the quality of all my canon glass. I am also starting to feel a little trapped by the huge investment I have made in this glass. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

4 Not up to 1,000,000 fps or better that I play with at work, but even 10 kfps is adequate for many things.

---

Let me know when it is take your son to work day, and I will show up with a beanie if need be. I will even spring for lunch :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I was initially thinking along similar lines. However, the EOS M won't be FF, and it will almost certainly be much smaller...and size is the main reason I got the EOS M in the first place. Quick scaled comparison of the EOS M, Sony a7, and 5DIII:

While the a7 is certainly smaller than my 1D X, the EOS M + 22/2 fits in a small belt pouch. The a7 body is larger and over 0.5" thicker, and the 35/2.8 is also over 0.5" longer, making the total package a lot less portable.

Food for thought...

---

Good food.

I am really looking for that small form factor for "party shots" & Street types vs. foisting the 5dIII in someone's face, etc, etc. and you do the M great service with comparisons.

I wonder if the A7r might not be the compromise (which means it doesn't do anything best perhaps) could still use all the C-Glass, it would likely have a pancake at some time so it will reasonably small, and yet have the uber resolution to use the existing glass investment - how often would I really reach for the 5dIII???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

Good food.

I am really looking for that small form factor for "party shots" & Street types vs. foisting the 5dIII in someone's face, etc, etc. and you do the M great service with comparisons.

I wonder if the A7r might not be the compromise (which means it doesn't do anything best perhaps) could still use all the C-Glass, it would likely have a pancake at some time so it will reasonably small, and yet have the uber resolution to use the existing glass investment - how often would I really reach for the 5dIII???

---

IMHO Sony's goal is NOT to sell you a full frame mirrorless to use when you want a small camera, their goal is to be beat Canon / Nikon's image quality and have that be your primary camera. Canon and Nikon treat mirrorless cameras as a nuisance that keep people from buying their expensive, and presumably highly profitable, pro level DSLRs, and it shows in their mirrorless product offerings.

I am sure I am in the minority with this, but 20 MP is just fine for me. I don't want enormous files that cause me to need even more storage capability and better computer(s) to process the files. I also don't want to have to buy better, read: more expensive, lenses required to get another 5% out of the 36 MP or 40 MP camera. I don't approach digital photography as an arms race. Good enough is good enough.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

Another question to ask is whether rebuilding activities after tsunami has also put infrastructure costs under a different budget heading.

---

Canon's big lens plant was down for a while. They lost some lenses that were in transit as well. From what I read Canon's R&D department was at work and experienced no damage or delay. However Nikon was hit harder, I think they were down for a while. I thought this time frame would have been a good time for Canon to get ahead. Maybe they have a heart and slowed down to let Nikon keep up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

The item that concerns me the most was this video on the 1DC and that people may think this is the future of still photography.

-----
I remember a thread a few years ago where Daniel Browning was talking about the benefit of mirrorless cameras. I remember him mentioning several benefits, but I only recall four: 1) increased fps as the mirror no longer limits; 2) Increased camera life as you remove number of shutter actuations as the common limit to a camera life; 3) You remove the slight vibration caused by the shutter actuation for those that want the sharpest of images, and 4) smaller camera bodies as you don't need the space for the mirror box/OVF.

Are there any others? .

---

I think frame grab is Canon's vision for the future. Canon was pushing frame grabs when the 1C came out. I read comments like video is just still photography with a fast frame rate. If we knew for sure Canon's vision of the future we might understand where they are going with R&D.

I can think of several other reasons for a mirrorless, but these items can be done with a normal DSLR as well if Canon would add a few things.

I do not know how you compose your landscapes and waterfalls, but if I am shooting off the tripod I almost never use the mirror. It is almost always in live mode with the mirror up. It is hard to bend over at odd angles and look through viewfinders. Live view works well for this but when you get at real odd angles it is even hard to see the screen. I wouldn't need a mirror at all for landscape work off a tripod. A flip screen would be very handy. High MP would be a welcomed benefit as well. A fast AF in live view would be welcomed to. It is not always easy to get my face to the viewfinder at the location I want to shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

If we knew for sure Canon's vision of the future we might understand where they are going with R&D.

---

If the number one Camera company (or any company really) released their Future Technology Roadmap to the market place they would be destroying the company.

Kodak only announced their decision to exit film production, when Blind Freddy could see it, it was no surprise.

The way companies keep ahead of the competition is to surprise the market. The new sensor with the built-in AF system in the 70D is a good example. As a poor user its very frustrating that we don't know what to expect. We don't know if our next purchase will be right or wrong, we just have to live with our decisions.

The one big change to how Canon operates (and most other tech companies) is that new hardware is no longer released in the 1 Series. They appear in the Consumer or Semi-Pro range before moving into the Pro family. Canon cannot afford the years of in-house testing to ensure long term reliability that the Pro market demands. Most of all, Canon cannot afford to have a mass 1 Series recall.

What we do know we get from Canon is the best QI from the glass... just wish they would let the price drop in Aus.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I can think of several other reasons for a mirrorless, but these items can be done with a normal DSLR as well if Canon would add a few things.

I do not know how you compose your landscapes and waterfalls, but if I am shooting off the tripod I almost never use the mirror. It is almost always in live mode with the mirror up. It is hard to bend over at odd angles and look through viewfinders. Live view works well for this but when you get at real odd angles it is even hard to see the screen. I wouldn't need a mirror at all for landscape work off a tripod. A flip screen would be very handy. High MP would be a welcomed benefit as well. A fast AF in live view would be welcomed to. It is not always easy to get my face to the viewfinder at the location I want to shoot.

---

I am shooting from a tripod more and more. I use live view if I have my 10 stop filter on as live view can focus through a 10 stop ND filter whereas the conventional phase detect AF can not. I typically prefer composing a shot through the OVF, when possible, I just like that experience better. I agree there are angles where a flip screen would be handy, but I seriously doubt one ever makes it to the 1D bodies, where the highest premium is put on construction, weather sealing and durability.

Eventually, it would be nice if Canon had some sort of line up like the following:

• P&S
• APS-C
  
  • Mirrorless
    
    • EOS-M low end version (priced with rebel)
    • EOS-M high end version (priced with XXD)
    
    
  • Rebel-Low end
  • Rebel-High end
  • XXD
  • 7DXX
  
  
• FF
  
  • Mirrorless
    
    • Rangefinder style (priced with 6Dx)
    
    
  • 6Dxx
  • 5Dxx
  • 1DX-x
  
  
• Cinema series
• MF
  
  • ??

I intentionally omitted the long rumored "High MP" 3D/4D, whatever it is going to be. I can see them splitting the 1D series with one version aimed at landscape/fashion photographers (high MP) and the other aimed at sport/wildlife photographers (current 1DX). Or, I could just as easily seem them not splitting the series, trying to find common ground with the 1DX and offering MF to those that want extremely high resolution.

So, in that lineup, I've added a high end version of the APS-C EOS-M and a Rangefinder FF mirrorless, and subtracted 2 different versions of the rebel (there are currently 4) and the 60D/60Da. Eventually consolidate the two EOS-M's and two Rebels into 3.

Anyways, that is just me. Overall, the future may be mirrorless. I personally suspect if it is it will be cost driven and not so much due to benefits to the photographer. I, of one, would miss the OVF.