Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[neuroanatomist]

I am speculating that maybe there is some target readout speed they wanted to hit for AF, and there was a trade-off to be made here.

Yes, there has to be some bottleneck. It’s just not possible that Canon decided 24 MP was the best choice based on buyer needs. I mean, the R100, R50, R10, R8, R6II and R3 are all 24 MP, so nobody really buys 24 MP cameras.

What was Canon thinking? We wanted to go higher for the R1, but we just couldn’t manage it. Yeah, that must be it.

 

[frankchn]

What was Canon thinking? We wanted to go higher for the R1, but we just couldn’t manage it. Yeah, that must be it.

Well it certainly won't be the first time Canon was held back by its sensors

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well it certainly won't be the first time Canon was held back by its sensors

View attachment 218736

Thanks for that 12 year old data. I note that you say there must be a bottleneck now, but not what. Why must there be one? Because Canon didn’t do what you think they should have?

By the way, how did Canon being held back by their sensors affect their market share? Did the brands with better sensors take net customers away from Canon? The DRones on this forum assured us that would be the inevitable consequence of Canon’s “poor, sub-par” sensors with “unacceptable” DR.

 

[frankchn]

Thanks for that 12 year old data. I note that you say there’s a bottleneck but not what.

By the way, how did Canon being held back by their sensors affect their market share? Did the brands with better sensors take net customers away from Canon?

I don't think any of us here are camera engineers, so we can only speculate, but it might that they wanted to a fast readout speed so they can get better autofocus performance out of the sensor? They did say that the R1 has better AF performance compared to the R5II -- this might well be one of the differentiating factors.

As a long time Canon user (and with an R5II and 2 R1s on pre-order), I don't think it is unfair to say that Canon builds excellent cameras in most respects, except their sensor technology is sometimes a step behind state of the art (and for good reason -- Sony Semiconductors is huge with large R&D budgets).

What keeps me shooting Canon and in my opinion differentiates Canon from the others is not the sensor (though it is OK), but things like the build quality, the eye-control AF, the menu structure, and the lenses.

In any case, regarding market share, it seems like Sony is #1 in the US in 2023 in FF cameras shipped in terms of both units shipped and revenue, so that should count for something right?

 

[CJaurelius]

If I had a nickel for every time a company just put out a product without considering all of the options, I might have a decent chunk of change. My suspicion is Canon went to their "pros" and listened to them but did not consider a larger market that could/would buy this camera if it had higher resolution because it is "the way they have always done it", another term that I have heard so many times as a justification it sickens me. The poll I was speaking of would preferably sample a broad range from your prosumers to your professionals, I would exclude your hobbyists as they probably would/could not buy the camera regardless of its specs. I think it would be interesting to see the results. It would put a lot of the discussion to bed. The most likely reason Canon did this would be to have the large gap between the 1 and 5m2 to protect the sales of both units. I am also reading the comments here on these forums and it seems as if more people wanted a higher resolution than those who did not, but that is hardly scientific.

Take a look at all the R1 reviews on YouTube. EVERY SINGLE REVIEW whether they were pro Canon or not ALL said that the R1 was NOT a true flaghip. And were talking about the people that Canon PAID to fly to Arizon to have early access to this camera.

Honestly I am really hoping the 5m2 really knocks my socks off and I wind up just using that as my primary camera and my R3 becomes the backup. My only concern is the buffer size of the 5m2 being too small for large groups of athletes coming by or a large group of motorcycles doing the same.

I have no doubt that the R5mii will me the best camera out for the price this year. I think its a great camera for Canon shooters. But I don' think its going to convince anyone who wasn't already a Canon shooter to switch. What I do think however is that since the R5mii is basically just catching up to what Sony/Nikon already has out, when they refresh their lineup probably by next year from the outside market thr R5mii will fall behind the pack.

Again it's an extremely capable camera and the R5 was awesome so I'm sure it will be too. I just don't think it will age well agains the competition. Look at it this way, Sony could take its 4 year old A1 sensor drop it in a slightly cheaper body, add their 3 year old AI processing chip that is now in cheap $2k cameras and just like that without ANY new tech they would have an R5mii competitor that has MORE megapixels and a FASTER readout speed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In any case, regarding market share, it seems like Sony is #1 in the US in 2023 in FF cameras shipped in terms of both units shipped and revenue, so that should count for something right?

You realize that you’re talking about Sony leading something like 6% of the global ILC market, right? If that says something to you, that’s nice.

Maybe Nikon sold the most FF MILCs in Schenectady last year. What would that say? And I bet Pentax sold the most cameras among brands starting with ‘P’. Parsing the market can be fun!

Canon did claim they were #1 in mirrorless sales in the US in 2023. And of course, they’ve sold more ILCs than anyone else every year for the past 21 years. I think that says something meaningful. YMMV.

 

[CJaurelius]

Yes, there has to be some bottleneck. It’s just not possible that Canon decided 24 MP was the best choice based on buyer needs. I mean, the R100, R50, R10, R8, R6II and R3 are all 24 MP, so nobody really buys 24 MP cameras.

What was Canon thinking? We wanted to go higher for the R1, but we just couldn’t manage it. Yeah, that must be it.

This tells me that they are very good at making 24MP sensors but don't have a good track record making high megapixel sensors.

Again right now Sony has 12MP, 24MP, 33MP, 50MP and 61MP sensors. The 33MP A7IV outsells the 24MP R6mii.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This tells me that they are very good at making 24MP sensors but don't have a good track record making high megapixel sensors.

Sure, they made the 50 MP 5Ds/R in 2015 (Sony launched the 42 MP a7RII that year, didn’t top the 5Ds until the a7RIV in 2019). They make the R5 and now the R5II at nearly twice the resolution of a 24 MP sensor (and likely kept to 45 MP for 8K video). They have produced 120 MP and 250 MP sensors, as well, though obviously not at commercial scale.

But you tell yourself whatever you want.

The 33MP A7IV outsells the 24MP R6mii.

Based on what data? If you have the global sales numbers for both, please share the source. I rather doubt you have those, and I suspect you are egregiously over-interpreting some ‘top 10’ sort of list for a store or a fraction of stores in one geography. Happy to see actual, global data…but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it’s become apparent you’re just trolling. And not even very well.

 

[CJaurelius]

In any case, regarding market share, it seems like Sony is #1 in the US in 2023 in FF cameras shipped in terms of both units shipped and revenue, so that should count for something right?

Canon did claim they were #1 in mirrorless sales in the US in 2023. And of course, they’ve sold more ILCs than anyone else every year for the past 21 years. I think that says something meaningful. YMMV.

These both are true and highlight the different strategies. Canon focus on the entire market from the low to high end while Sony is focused on the high end full frame.

Canon originally listed the R100 for $479 and now sells it for $299. There's simply not a lot of margin in a SUB US$500 camera. Dealers take 15-20%. Wholesale takes 25-30%. Sales and marketing take at least another 10%. So you have to make a profit by producing that US$500 camera for an out-of-the-factory cost of US$225. So there is little profit in selling that camera for $299. But selling thousands of these units at little to no profit helps Canon claim market share dominace.

Meanwhile the least expensive apsc Sony you can buy is the ZV-E10 on sale at $600 and being replace by the ZV-E10II at $1,000. Sony makes more revenue than Canon and is not focused on market share of selling lower end cameras with little margin.

I think the market share "dominace" holds weight with the older crowd like some here. But younger people don't really see it that way and aren't trying to identify with the lower end cameras sold at Walmart. To an analogy earlier Porshe may have models that compete with Toyota but they aren't trying to make $25k cars and compete on volume.

 

[Jethro]

There's simply not a lot of margin in a SUB US$500 camera. Dealers take 15-20%. Wholesale takes 25-30%. Sales and marketing take at least another 10%. So you have to make a profit by producing that US$500 camera for an out-of-the-factory cost of US$225. So there is little profit in selling that camera for $299. But selling thousands of these units at little to no profit helps Canon claim market share dominace.

How do you know this? (Simple answer: you don't). Canon has sold a wide variety of lower (and mid) level ILCs at or about this price level for decades. The Rebel and M-series are the headlines, but there have been others as well, leading to current versions such as the R100. If you think they don't do this to make an appreciable profit - why on earth have they done it for so long? Clearly they do make a profit, not only in the camera bodies, but in lens sales. A big advantage of (giving one example) the M series, was that they were sold in sets with affordable lenses. Most people did not then buy additional lenses, but some did. A certain number moved on from lower level bodies to mid and/or higher level bodies. With additional lens purchases. I'm an example.

I can only agree with Neuro that, at this stage in the 'discussion', you're just trolling.

 

[frankchn]

You realize that you’re talking about Sony leading something like 6% of the global ILC market, right? If that says something to you, that’s nice.

The US FF market is 6% of the global ILC market? Is that by revenue or by units sold?

In the first half of 2024, Canon Imaging reported 420B Yen in revenue, of which 170B Yen is from Americas, which is ~40%.

Unless people in Canada, Central, and South America are buying a lot more cameras than I thought they were, I think the US is probably around 1/3 of the world market for Canon Imaging by revenue. Since Canon is such a big player in the market overall, I think the revenue proportions from Canon is probably representative of the overall market.

If the US FF MILC market is 6% by the worldwide MILC market by revenue, then that means that in the US, FF cameras by revenue would be <20% of the total MILC revenue in market (18% x 33% = 6%), which seems unlikely given the cost of FF cameras vs APS-C cameras.

 

[CJaurelius]

Sure, they made the 50 MP 5Ds/R in 2015 (Sony launched the 42 MP a7RII that year, didn’t top the 5Ds until the a7RIV in 2019). They make the R5 and now the R5II at nearly twice the resolution of a 24 MP sensor (and likely kept to 45 MP for 8K video). They have produced 120 MP and 250 MP sensors, as well, though obviously not at commercial scale.

But you tell yourself whatever you want.

They have one medel in their RF lineup that isn't 24MP. That's a fact.

Not sure your point about keeping the R5mII at 45MP for 8k video as you only need 35MP for 8k.

Based on what data? If you have the global sales numbers for both, please share the source. I rather doubt you have those, and I suspect you are egregiously over-interpreting some ‘top 10’ sort of list for a store or a fraction of stores in one geography. Happy to see actual, global data…but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it’s become apparent you’re just trolling. And not even very well.

Yes that's exactly what I'm refering to. you don't think that all the top 10 list whether they be in the US or Japan count for anything? Canon sells more cameras at less revenue. It's pretty clear the more cameras that they are selling are lower end cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The US FF market is 6% of the global ILC market? Is that by revenue or by units sold?

In the first half of 2024, Canon Imaging reported 420B Yen in revenue, of which 170B Yen is from Americas, which is ~40%.

Unless people in Canada, Central, and South America are buying a lot more cameras than I thought they were, I think the US is probably around 1/3 of the world market for Canon Imaging by revenue. Since Canon is such a big player in the market overall, I think the revenue proportions from Canon is probably representative of the overall market.

If the US FF MILC market is 6% by the worldwide MILC market by revenue, then that means that in the US, FF cameras by revenue would be <20% of the total MILC revenue in market (18% x 33% = 6%), which seems unlikely given the cost of FF cameras vs APS-C cameras.

It’s by units, with an estimate of FF being ~25% of units sold.

The Americas account ~23% of the mirrorless market by revenue. CIPA’s numbers. That doesn’t jive well with 40% of Canon’s imaging revenue coming from that region. But Imaging includes network cameras, which are 35% of revenue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They have one medel in their RF lineup that isn't 24MP. That's a fact.

Is it? How many MP does the R5 have? How many MP does the R7 have.

Yes that's exactly what I'm refering to. you don't think that all the top 10 list whether they be in the US or Japan count for anything?

Is that a fact, too? On BCN monthly, the R6II is at #36, the a7IV is at #40. On Amazon right now, the R6II is at #7 and the a7IV is at #8. Do you not know how to count?

Apparently, you have no idea what a fact is. You don’t get to make up facts to fit your opinions.

I’m done with you. Anyone who posts blatantly false information is not worth my time. Same for anyone who posts such an easily refuted statement as, “They have one medel in their RF lineup that isn't 24MP,” and calls it a fact.

 

[CJaurelius]

How do you know this? (Simple answer: you don't). Canon has sold a wide variety of lower (and mid) level ILCs at or about this price level for decades. The Rebel and M-series are the headlines, but there have been others as well, leading to current versions such as the R100. If you think they don't do this to make an appreciable profit - why on earth have they done it for so long?

Again, because it allows they to claim market share dominance. In the past we used to sell 100 million digital cameras a year. The name of the game was volume. Canon is holding on to that tradition.

Clearly they do make a profit, not only in the camera bodies, but in lens sales. A big advantage of (giving one example) the M series, was that they were sold in sets with affordable lenses. Most people did not then buy additional lenses, but some did. A certain number moved on from lower level bodies to mid and/or higher level bodies. With additional lens purchases. I'm an example.

Yes Canon makes a profit. But again they make LESS revenue on MORE cameras. In the past the goal was to sell cheaper cameras to everyone and hope that people move up. That market is now gone. The

I can only agree with Neuro that, at this stage in the 'discussion', you're just trolling.

It seems like the more you articulate a point people don't like people just revert to calling you a troll. Not sure people here look at non pro Canon info but you do realize they are laying people off?

https://petapixel.com/2024/07/25/canons-camera-sales-are-solid-globally-but-are-very-poor-in-japan/

Sales for Q2 were down 14% following a dip of 31% in the previous quarter. In fact, Canon in Japan has not performed well for a year, with the last four quarters dipping negative.

The goal would be to decrease staff costs, and Canon made good on that promise this month when it hit Canon USA with substantial layoffs which included the much beloved Rudy Winston. Canon’s choice to reduce staff internationally, where its sales are strongest, instead of domestically, where its sales are weakest, likely feels particularly unfair to its global workforce. It also seems shortsighted, as reducing the effectiveness of the company’s best-performing teams doesn’t seem like a strong recipe for future success.

For example, cutting its overseas workforce — where sales are stronger — while also initiating a massive $532.8 million stock buyback doesn’t look great. Companies repurchase their own stock for several reasons, but mainly it does so to consolidate ownership or preserve stock prices (or return them to “real” value). Stock buybacks take cash — cash that could be spent on people, so there is a real consequence for initiating them. It doesn’t look great when Canon lays off people and, at the same time, spends more on stock buybacks than it has in recent memory.

 

[frankchn]

The Americas account ~23% of the mirrorless market by revenue. CIPA’s numbers. That doesn’t jive well with 40% of Canon’s imaging revenue coming from that region. But Imaging includes network cameras, which are 35% of revenue.

Ah, CIPA data, thanks.

It does seem like even if you account for network camera revenues (unless network cameras are really selling like gangbusters in Americas -- like 50%+ of all network camera revenues), Canon cameras proportionally seems to do better in Americas than elsewhere compared to CIPA totals.

 

[CJaurelius]

Is it? How many MP does the R5 have? How many MP does the R7 have.

I was referring to Full Frame I should've stated it better.

Is that a fact, too? On BCN monthly, the R6II is at #36, the a7IV is at #40. On Amazon right now, the R6II is at #7 and the a7IV is at #8. Do you not know how to count?

Apparently, you have no idea what a fact is. You don’t get to make up facts to fit your opinions.

I’m done with you. Anyone who posts blatantly false information is not worth my time. And anyone who posts such an easily refuted statement as, “They have one medel in their RF lineup that isn't 24MP,” and calls it a fact is an idiot.

Yes there is no reason to speak to someone who constantly refers to people as idiots becuase they disagree over cameras. I wish you the best.

 

[Jethro]

Yes Canon makes a profit. But again they make LESS revenue on MORE cameras. In the past the goal was to sell cheaper cameras to everyone and hope that people move up. That market is now gone.

Is it? Do you know that? Hint: no you don't.

On the whole trolling thing - one thing that trolls tend to do is quote articles highly selectively to 'make' whatever point they are trying to get across. Like this case, in quoting Petapixel's article, where you ignore comments such as "the company’s global numbers look stronger than earlier this year" and "To broadly say that Canon’s camera sales are falling is inaccurate". Or: "It’s easy to look at Canon Marketing Japan’s presentation and take from it “the sky is falling,” but it’s only one small slice of the whole picture." That is Petapixel writing an article which is critical of Canon, but balanced in discussing the stats involved, and nuanced in commenting upon them. An approach worth emulating.

 

[Dragon]

Not sure your point about keeping the R5mII at 45MP for 8k video as you only need 35MP for 8k.

You continue to make dumb math errors because you are so focused on getting everyone to agree with your point that you don't bother to think through what you say. You NEED 45 MP in a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor to make 8k at video aspect ratios. It is as simple as that, but you happily deny reality in the interest of trying to make a point. Give it up!

 

[Dragon]

I don't think these people are wealthy. If you run a YouTube channel that makes you $100k a year that affords you the ability to purchase expensive camera gear but I wouldn't consider that wealthy.

This comment and others you have made suggest that the target market you are excited about is a bunch of youngish folks who are actually over their heads in debt (i.e. house mortgage, car loan, camera bought on a credit card, etc.) That is all well and good until the economy turns south (which it always does) and then, which of their overpriced toys will be the first to go?. Maybe, just maybe, Canon is on to something catering old folk who have their house and car paid for and have money in the bank. In a down economy, those will be the only camera customers to be found. BTW, that downturn is already whispering in the wind.