Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 27, 2006, 12:01 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12
Default

When do you think is this going to happen? Canon will certainly lose some profits and might anger existing IS lens users, but it'll also gain new supporters and will remove an advantage its competitors have over it.

Integrating IS into an SLR body makes a lot more sense than putting it in a lens, so I think it's nowonly a matter of how long Canon can hold out against the advancement of technology in this area.
takipsilim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 27, 2006, 12:11 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

With Canon? NEVER. Why would you ever think they would with virtually every pro EFlens now sporting image stabilization built-in? Does it look like Canon needs to change their strategy?What logic would dictate they change? Canon sets the benchmark for everyone else in terms of sales. You don't play down to the field, and that's what changing what they do now would be doing, besides what it would cost them to re-tool to change everything.

If you like IS in the body, the answer is simple....you buy from one of the bit players offering it, and that's what they are. Those guys aren't competing against Canon- they're competing against one another for the rest of the digital SLR sales pie and yes, that includes Sony who, as far as I can tell haven't sold one DSLR yet, and they aren't exactly getting into the business with the biggest existing customer base.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 1:49 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

IS in the lens has 2 principal advantages that I can see - firstlyyou get a more stable picture in the viewfinder, secondly (on an EF lens) you can use it with both APS-C sensors and 35mm sensors!

I can't myself see any particular reason why Canon couldn't produce an in-camera IS system to work in conjunction with their IS lenses. They would need a fairly advanced algorithm however to make sure the IS in the lens and the IS in the body didn't interfere with each other and actually complemented each other. That would be a marketing necessity.

A5D or 1D with IS in the body would have to bequite a lotbigger, so if it happens at all I would expect to see it in an entry-level body first.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 8:29 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I have a simple algorithm - Turn the lens IS off if you have IS in the body
(or turn the IS in the body off if you want to use the lens...)

Let just wait till the market shake out
-> if you add every pro's up - it's still a very small niche as compared to the general CE market as a whole
(if one looks up the Canon's financial for all the lenses, it only represents a small fraction of their sales) :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 9:02 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
(if one looks up the Canon's financial for all the lenses, it only represents a small fraction of their sales) :idea:
But, if you look at profits in just the DSLR arena - how much of Canon's profit is generated by lenses vs. bodies. I'm guessing there's a HUGE difference in profit margin. Looking at all Canon's financials is misleading because there are numerous products which have nothing to do with DSLRs.

Sales figures are a less useful metric than profit margins and total profit.

And, there goes the competitive advantage of some of Canon's lenses in the non-pro market: 17-85 IS, 70-300 IS, etc. etc. How many people would switch to buying third-party lenses because they're less expensive and have nearly the same IQ as the Canon lenses. And if Canon has IS in body then why would the consumer buy the non-L lenses?

I'm still with Gregg on this one - give me a compelling business case for Canon doing this. So far, companies at around 5% market share are not a compelling enough reason. Just because people want it doesn't mean Canon has to do it. They have no reason to.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 10:38 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
how much of Canon's profit is generated by lenses vs. bodies. I'm guessing there's a HUGE difference in profit margin.
Out of the camera group:
o 15% is attributed to lens and film(dying) camera
o 73% is going to digital cameras in general (i.e. not just dSLR)
http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2006/rslt2006q1e.pdf (see S2 and S3)
The camera group moved up a little in 06, but still trails their copy machines @ 22% overall :idea:

But bear in mind Kodak and Sony are going in and out of the top spots in term of marketshare without even a single dSLR in their line up...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/con...-US-Market.htm


I guess the pro's are not going to buy in the future (since they all already have a camera)!
-> They'll have to sell them to the mass then... :lol: :-) :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 11:06 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Interesting.

I can see where you got the 73% and 17% from

When I look at their product breakdown (page 13) I see sales as follows:

Cameras - 980,200

Optics & other - 595,500

So I'm a little shaky on how those figures jive with the 73% and 17%

But, we're only talking SLRs here so you can't include sales of non SLR cameras. The question at hand is SLR body sales and profit vs. Lenssales and profit. I don't see anything in this sheet that allows us to get at those numbers. The non-SLR digicams and their sales numbers are unaffected by whether or not Canon puts IS in the body of a DSLR. So it's just noise.

As for Sony & Kodak being in the top spot that's not the SLR market. In DSLRs, Canon and Nikon have 90% of the market share between them. The only digicam data that would be relevent to this discussion is if either decision Canon makes would somehow HURT their market share in digicams.

But, I haven't seen an argument that an in-body IS solution would do anything to their digicam market. So, IMO, we should only be considering the DSLR segment of the market - of which Canon and Nikon have 90%

As to sales and profit - again you need to see those numbers for ONLY DSLR bodies and lenses. Other data skews your analysis away from my original question: where is Canon deriving their profit from - the SLR bodies or the lenses? And I don't see the financial release contains that granularity of detail (i.e. no way to break out DSLR sales from digicams).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 11:10 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
So I'm a little shaky on how those figures jive with the 73% and 17%
See page S3...

Every group add up to 100% and the camera group is only 21% of total, i.e. lenses are only 15% of the 21% (~4% may be):
Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 11:16 AM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
-> but bear in mind Kodak and Sony (or even HP) are going in and out of the top spots in term of marketshare without even a single dSLR in their line up...
Yep.. Sony is currently number two in total digital camera sales (running neck and neck with Canon). Here is a recent article discusssing market share and their entry into the DSLR market.

http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/20...l_0605slr.html

I can remember reading one place that if Konica Minolta's sales would have been included, Sony would have been number 1 in total digital camera sales (point and shoots and DSLR models combined).

I think they'll likely start grabbing DSLR marketshare quickly over the next few years. They're targeting > 25% DSLR marketshare over the next few years (and have mentioned to investors that they want to get it to around 31.7%, which is about where Minolta was in 1986, after they introduced the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha lineup with body integrated Autofocus in 1985).

Only time will tell how well Sony will do. Wanting marketshare is one thing, getting it is another. I would not underestimate them, though.

As for body based stabilization, it's been interesting to watch the types of users upgrading from pont and shoot model to a KM DSLR, based on forum threads discussing them. I see a lot of Panasonic users making the switch, because they can appreciate the advantages of stabilization and don't want to use a camera without it.

Since the KM DSLR models allowed you to get stabilization with any lens (including bright primes, cheap zooms, macro lenses, etc.), it's a less expensive solution for P&S users wanting to make the jump to DSLR models versus a stablized lens solution from Canon or Nikon.

I think Pentax will attract a lot of P&S users with the new K100D (with built in stabilization), too. It's due to start shipping in August:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/pe...-k110d_pr.html

Because Konica Minolta was the "new kid on the block" with competitive DSLR models, the used lens market hasn't been hurt as much either. Minolta manufactured 16 Million Autofocus lenses compatible with KM (and now Sony) DSLR models since 1985. That's a lot of lenses in the market (and that's not counting 3rd party lenses from Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Viivtar/Cosina, etc.).

Even Canon has only manufactured 32 Million lenses in EF mount. But, because they've been in the DSLR market much longer, you've got a lot of DSLR owners picking over the used market, versus a very small number of KM DSLR owners in comparison.

Of course, that's probably going to change quickly with the launch of the new Sony Alpha DSLR line. lol They'll be shipping a lot of cameras. Their initial production is only going to be around 80,000 Sony Alpha 100s per month. But, depending on how well it's received, that could increase. I'm sure it's not the only body we'll see from Sony capable of using Minolta lenses, either. The DSLR market may get pretty interesting over the next few years.

The new Alpha is targeting an interesting market niche (higher priced than most, but far less than other DSLR models with more resolution). Of course, we're looking at list prices ($899 for the body, $999 for kit), and Sony cameras are often found at good discounts.

It's higher resolution (10MP) compared to most entry level DSLR models (and whether or not users need more megapixels, it tends to sell cameras).

Although not in the same class of camera, you'd need to pay around $1,699 (typical "street price") for a Nikon D200 to get the same 10MP Sony sensor (or one that appears to be virtually identical anyway), and you still wouldn't have the advantages of built in stabilization without spending the money for stablized lenses (and you have a limited offering of lenses available with it versus having every lens stabilized with a body based solution).

Note that I'm biased, since I'm shooting with a KM Maxxum 5D. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 11:33 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

From JimC post:

"--first-time SLR buyers and advanced amateurs--is an "extremely savvy" approach to entering the market, since more than 80% of all SLR sales are $1,000 and under"

o < $1000
o more resolution
o built-in IS
o built-in 'duster'
o Zeiss lenses
-> It looks like a hit to me... (I'm biased)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.