Canon’s Q3 Profits Tumbled Down By 42% (Revenues By 13%) – Some Thoughts

What It Takes To Image - Canon At PhotoPlus Expo 2012

Bad news for Canon. According to the Q3 earning reports, the Japanese company profits lost 42% (down to $908 million), while the revenue tumbled down by 13% (down to $10.3 billion), both figures compared to the previous year's Q3. According to Engadget Canon blames the

[…] “negative impact of economic deterioration” in Europe and emerging markets like China, as well as the strong yen […] DSLR sales fell over last year, with Canon mentioning that its launch of new models like the EOS 5D Mark III didn't help to shore its camera figures up. […] printer sales falling and business-to-business numbers flatlining. The company doesn't see a bright fourth quarter either […]

Uh, I guess I heard similar stories before. Sure, there is an economic crisis in Europe, that's true, but I don't think this is much affecting Canon's sale figures. Maybe the major problem that Canon has to and should face as soon as possible is to become again an innovator, a company that makes products that are awesome. Products that people want to have, not products that are just alternatives to other brand's products, or products you buy because you have a huge EF lens collection. Yesterday's announcement of a new firmware for the EOS 5D Mark III made me think. Let me share some thoughts about Canon with you.

The [shoplink 2431]EOS 5D Mark III[/shoplink] is a great, professional full-frame DSLR. If it didn't produce the sales figures Canon was expecting it is mainly because of the initial price tag in relation to the feature set. The EOS 5D Mark III started with a price tag of $3500 (body only), much more than Nikon's counterpart, the D800. Nikon's D800 had also a powerful WOW-factor: an amazing resolution of 36MP (which, btw, few people really needs). Not that Nikon is much more innovative than Canon, they just managed to be innovative enough, compared to Canon, when they launched the D800.

The EOS 5D Mark III has an advanced auto-focus system (it's really advanced and high performing), but then sports almost the same resolution as its predecessor, and no amenities like built-in WiFi and GPS (which cost few pennies to implement). Customers don't like this, and easily oversee that the EOS 5D Mark III has an astonishing low-light/high ISO performance the D800 will never approach. DXOMarks are not telling the whole story: the sensor in the 5D Mark III is a very advanced piece of technology, despite its maximum resolution. The EOS 5D Mark III price is now going down. How many 5D Mark IIIs would Canon have sold if they started from the beginning with a lower price tag? Blaming the Yen or Europe's economical situation for missed sales figures doesn't really convince anyone. And dropping the price of the 5D Mark III after just 7 months definitely doesn't make happy those who buyed the 5D3 on day one.

Canon didn't do everything right with the 5D Mark III, and I think it is embarrassing that Canon announces a firmware upgrade for the 5D Mark III that promises features that are available in the D800 (i mean clean HDMI output). Moreover, features you can get today on your EOS 5D Mark III simply by installing a firmware replacement like Magic Lantern. We all know that companies are artificially crippling features only to fit their gear better into the market. It's sad, but it is common business practice. I just would like it wasn't that obvious. Announcing a firmware update that promises the same features as a firmware hack that was announced the day before is, well, awkward and disconcerting. And it gives a feeling of disorganization, especially if you consider that the firmware update will be available in April 2013 (that's more than 6 months from now). Did Canon really announce this update only because Magic Lantern made a feature like clean HDMI output available for everyone? Looks like. On the other hand, it is not the first time I am disappointed that Canon didn't implement some features other brands did. Maximum exposure range (for HDR) and an useful auto-ISO are just some examples from the recent past. It is even more annoying since these features can easily be made available by firmware.

It's no secret even for hardcore Canon fans that other manufacturers are doing better in some areas. For instance, take the [shoplink 6091]EOS M[/shoplink], Canon's entry in the mirrorless market. It's a solid performer with high image quality and much more you may want on a mirrorless system camera. Nevertheless, myself and others can't get rid of the impression Canon did something halfhearted. They had to do it (Canon was the last big manufacturer to announce a mirrorless camera), and they made something that could have been done better (e.g. flippable display, viewfinder). However, my EOS M has yet to arrive, and I don't want to criticize too much before having it had in my hands and having tested it. What I want to say is that Canon just did what it had to do, nothing more, a robust performing camera with no WOW-factor. These are probably business rules: you have a big, well working DSLR market, and you do not want to cannibalize it producing an awesome mirrorless system camera. This may work for a while, not forever.

So, maybe you consider what I said as the rants of a disillusioned Canon fan boy. I am not. I think Canon makes great cameras, I think they have some of the most advanced image sensors you can get (Canon developes sensors on its own, they have a strong research unit in this area), I think I will buy more Canon DSLRs in the future. But I also have an engineering background, I know about software and firmware, and about hacking. Yesterday's firmware update announcement for the 5D Mark III simply reminded me about how easy it is to add features. And also how easily companies decide not to add features, maybe because you are offering these features in a higher priced gear. Or because it isn't the right marketing strategy. That's annoying.

 

Remains of the Day

[Deal is over] It’s getting crazy: Canon EOS 5D Mark III for ridiculous $2.799 – Update 2

It's getting crazy: Canon EOS 5D Mark III for ridiculous $2.799

Update 2: it is really getting crazy. There is already another sale going on at eBay. Top rated seller getitdigital sells the EOS 5D Mark III body for [shoplink 8015 ebay]$2999 (click here to see if sale is still active)[/shoplink]. Not a bargain as the original deal I featured here but still a good price for the EOS 5D Mark III. Limited quantity in stock.

Update: the sale is no longer available :(

Canon’s high profile DSLRs are getting cheaper and cheaper. Yesterday we reported that major seller have dropped the stock price of the EOS 5D Mark III. Since all major sellers dropped the price at more or less the same time, it could have been come directly from Canon.

Ok, top rated eBay seller datavis_sales has the Canon EOS 5D Mark III body for a crazy $2.799/€2.158 ([shoplink 7963 ebay]click here to check if they still have it in stock)[/shoplink]. Won’t last for long, limited quantity.

Canon’s Mike Burnhill Interviewed About The Canon EOS-1D C DSLR

Canon’s Mike Burnhill Interviewed About The Canon EOS-1D C DSLR

EOSHD posted an interview with Mike Burnhill, Canon’s product manager at Photokina. The topic of the interview is the Canon EOS-1D C ($12,999 – click here for specs), a DSLR made for serious movie makers (the “C” stands for “Cinema”). The EOS-1D C shares many things with its more photography aimed, pro-oriented sibling, the Canon EOS-1D X ($6,799 – click here for specs). There were rumors in the past that the EOS-1D C had exactly the same hardware and that the only difference between the two DSLRs was the firmware. This has now at least partially been countered by new information about the EOS-1D C interiors. Fact is, the EOS-1D C costs around $6000-$7000 more than the EOS-1D X. That said, we are obviously very interested to know what Mr. Burnhill has to say about this issue:

EOSHD: What are the main hardware differences between the 1D X and the 1D C?

Mike Burnhill: While the EOS-1D C is based on the core specifications of the EOS-1D X, it has been further optimised to provide even higher quality video performance that’s suitable for cinematic production. While both cameras feature the same sensor and processor, several of the circuit boards are different due to the high data rates and internal heat generated by up to 4K shooting.

Nothing we didn’t already know (and what does “optimized” imply??). There are hardware differences, mainly to better dissipate the heat caused by 4k video recording (absolutely plausible). Makes me think that the layout of the components may be different, not necessarily that the components are. On the other hand, a different circuit board layout could easily mean different chip sets where used. Until someone can’t resist to open an EOS-1D C, this will be the matter of speculations.

Personally, I think both cams share much more than Canon would like us to know. But then: you should know that the hefty price difference is also due to taxes. A gear classified as video camera is subject to higher tax tariffs. That’s also the reason your DSLR is limited to record clips that last no longer than 29 minutes and 59 seconds. If it would record clips with durations above 30 minutes, the DSLR would be classified as a video camera by tax laws, and cost more.

Canon has very clear ideas about the target of the EOS-1D C:

EOSHD: Who is the target filmmaker for the 1D C?

MB: The main target users for the EOS-1D C are film production industry professionals. However as the first DSLR camera of its kind, with a truly unique and highly-portable package optimised for high quality video recording, we believe it can be used in a wide variety of productions such as movies, TV dramas and commercials, promotional videos, film schools, weddings and events.

The type of user we feel this product will benefit includes:

  • Cameramen or DPs requiring a low-cost ‘B camera’ with high quality output
  • Field-based journalists requiring small size, light weight and option of stills capture
  • ‘In-house’ cameraman asked to cover both still and video capture
  • Users who require a range of lens options for different situations
  • Independent videographers (e.g. high-end wedding)
  • EOS 5D Mark II users looking to upgrade

There is much more in the interview at EOSHD.

Canon EOS-1D X price check: [shopcountry 4119]

Canon Full-Frame Image Sensor Development Analysis

Pixel Cross Section. Image credit: chipworks.com

Interesting and very technical if not scientific article by chipworks about the manufacturing, development and evolution of Canon’s image sensors. Canon’s full frame sensors are analyzed. Lot’s of technical details (and slang). The most interesting part of the article (in my opinion) is the part about a possible design issue that limits the maximum number of pixel of Canon sensors. Canon uses a 5µm pixel design, that’s the reason for the maximum resolution Canon full-frame sensors can get. It also means that if Canon is working on a high megapixel DSLR it has to move beyond the 5µm manufacturing process:

So, back to the rumors of Canon allegedly readying a high resolution competitor to the Nikon D800 [3]. Will Canon finally move off that 0.5 µm generation? It is worth noting that September 2012 marked the 10 year anniversary of Canon’s announcement of the world’s first CMOS FF sensor, the EOS 1Ds. While Chipworks didn’t analyze that camera, every Canon FF sensor analyzed since has used the same 0.5 µm design rules. It is a credit to Canon that it has remained competitive by continuing to optimize its pixels fabricated in a relatively mature process.

To some degree the technical analysis of chipworks appears to support the rumors of a new, big megapixel cam by Canon, which is also said to introduce a new technology (emphasis mine):

Canon does have a 0.18 µm generation CIS wafer fab process, featuring a specialized Cu back end of line (BEOL) including light pipes (shown below). It is possible to speculate that Canon may be preparing to refresh its FF CIS line to supply devices for a new FF camera system. Samsung and Panasonic currently use Cu fabs to produce APS-C and micro 4/3 CIS devices. It seems that Canon is destined to do so for APS-C and perhaps ultimately FF. Part III of this series will discuss CMOSIS/STMicroelectronics’ combined effort to produce FF CIS using sub 0.18 µm design rules for the first time.

What do you think…?

[via Image Sensors World]