Canon’s 2023 Financials

[Richard CR]

I'll make a wild guess completely out of left field and say wanting third party autofocus on the RF mount makes some people hope Canon is struggling with R sales and only surviving from the EF mount, because their thinking will be proven correct and Canon will have to give in.

I don't think so.

Wanting something to improve and publically talking about it - isn't the same as wishing doom on the company.

Seems some are offended that people think Canon could do better.

Canon and any manufacturer can always do better. If their consumers don't tell them, who will?

Canon will relent over time, they have already stated it will be quasi-open - but what is missing is how that will work without causing even more confusion to the end consumer.

Canon is a great company - but thinking they can do no wrong because they are leveraging a pivot from a 100 million unit installed base to selling 2 million new cameras or so a year... okay.

I would rather voice an opinion, and have others voice it as well, versus just everything being "suck it up princess, they have a 50% marketshare".

 

[Richard CR]

Did their slice of pie get smaller though? I had the feeling that their market share was mostly growing. I checked with MS copilot and got these numbers:



The sources cited were statista and dpreview. I can post them aswell if anyone is interested. Maybe you were referring to only MILC and not ILC in general? Also AI can sometimes provide false numbers, so take these with a grain of salt.

that's not from sony though. there's a difference there and the data is wrong. the global market size numbers are definitely not accurate.

 

[cooldood]

they did a half Sony!

Half a Sony? So

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Did their slice of pie get smaller though? I had the feeling that their market share was mostly growing. I checked with MS copilot and got these numbers:

Sony's mirrorless pie has decreased with increasing competition from Canon and Nikon.
They never really bragged about the camera market in general.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon and any manufacturer can always do better. If their consumers don't tell them, who will?

The majority of customers for most manufacturers could not care less whether or not they stay in business.
The trick is to know which customers to listen to.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I would rather voice an opinion, and have others voice it as well, versus just everything being "suck it up princess, they have a 50% marketshare"

Excellent point.
They have maintained 50% in a shrunken market that is slowly expanding with no hope of it reaching what it once was.

 

[EricN]

I don't think so.

Wanting something to improve and publically talking about it - isn't the same as wishing doom on the company.

Seems some are offended that people think Canon could do better.

Canon and any manufacturer can always do better. If their consumers don't tell them, who will?

Canon will relent over time, they have already stated it will be quasi-open - but what is missing is how that will work without causing even more confusion to the end consumer.

Canon is a great company - but thinking they can do no wrong because they are leveraging a pivot from a 100 million unit installed base to selling 2 million new cameras or so a year... okay.

I would rather voice an opinion, and have others voice it as well, versus just everything being "suck it up princess, they have a 50% marketshare".

I was not saying anyone wishes doom or that this kind of thinking has to be conscious, but you go exactly to what I am saying with, "Seems some are offended that people think Canon could do better." Generally, we like to be proven correct, consciously or consciously. If you think that Canon can do better, yes you may be right, but until you know you are right, you have the incentive to consciously or consciously look for clues that may or may not be there to show you are right.

I can't remember anyone saying anything to the effect of, "they can do no wrong." It's very different from, "they are doing the best they can." Hopefully, we all know realize that. Whether they make a 35mm F/1.2 or not, either Roby or someone else is going to be unhappy, but do you consider if it is as gloomy as you sometimes hint at, then maybe Canon needs to keep third party A/F at arms length until they can stabilize themselves economically?
What I'm saying is there's usually a reason companies, governments or individual people do what they do and it's often difficult to know why. Sometimes, no amount of protesting or voicing opinions will change things even if your opinion is correct because the other party already made a decision that can't be changed easily. I hope you understand what I'm saying.

 

[John Wilde]

They have maintained 50% in a shrunken market that is slowly expanding with no hope of it reaching what it once was.

That's why Canon is expanding new businesses.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'll make a wild guess completely out of left field and say wanting third party autofocus on the RF mount makes some people hope Canon is struggling with R sales and only surviving from the EF mount, because their thinking will be proven correct and Canon will have to give in.

I would be happy with manual focus for wide angle astro if Canon (or a 3rd party) would provide on option. eg a 14/1.4 or 20/1.4 with decent coma / edge sharpness. Canon haven't been interested in that niche before and if the same applies in the future then I don't see an issue to allow 3rd parties ie Sigma to make a R mount version.

 

[roby17269]

I can't remember anyone saying anything to the effect of, "they can do no wrong." It's very different from, "they are doing the best they can." Hopefully, we all know realize that. Whether they make a 35mm F/1.2 or not, either Roby or someone else is going to be unhappy, but do you consider if it is as gloomy as you sometimes hint at, then maybe Canon needs to keep third party A/F at arms length until they can stabilize themselves economically?

But but but I am the only one whose feelings matter on the 35!

Seriously though, I would consider a "tactical" decision on the max aperture of a prime different from a "strategic" decision on whether to allow or not 3rd party lens manufacturers to sell RF AF lenses, in that the latter will affect more customers and will have a bigger impact on the composition of the portfolio of available RF lenses.

What I'm saying is there's usually a reason companies, governments or individual people do what they do and it's often difficult to know why. Sometimes, no amount of protesting or voicing opinions will change things even if your opinion is correct because the other party already made a decision that can't be changed easily. I hope you understand what I'm saying.

True indeed. We do not have access to all of the relevant market data and to data about the interdependencies (such as how past decisions affect the present and the future). We can only be sure on how visible decisions affect us.

 

[Richard CR]

That's why Canon is expanding new businesses.

the corporate pivot has been pretty wild to watch over the years for sure.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Canon always have that final card of open to 3rd parties to recover their sales if needed. However the current RF bodies are good enough. RF lenses that hated by the internet community is actually selling well in real life.

Anyways..... CaNoN iS dOoMmMmMmMmEeEeEeDdDdD

 

[Skux]

Yes but think about how much higher their margins would be if they made f/1.4 primes

 

[DhlcadR6]

Yes but think about how much higher their margins would be if they made f/1.4 primes

Actually less in a big picture.....expensive gears usually have higher costs. Making cheap lens will earn much more revenue despite lower profit margin per piece.

Not everyone is Apple where making expensive+overpriced products will still sold in huge quantities.

 

[Quack]

I would be happy with manual focus for wide angle astro if Canon (or a 3rd party) would provide on option. eg a 14/1.4 or 20/1.4 with decent coma / edge sharpness. Canon haven't been interested in that niche before and if the same applies in the future then I don't see an issue to allow 3rd parties ie Sigma to make a R mount version.

Manual focus lenses have always been allowed for the R mount. Reverse engineering has always been allowed for the R mount. Violating Canon patents is the only thing that has not been allowed, as far as I know.

 

[Quack]

I don't think so.

Wanting something to improve and publically talking about it - isn't the same as wishing doom on the company.

Seems some are offended that people think Canon could do better.

Canon and any manufacturer can always do better. If their consumers don't tell them, who will?

Canon will relent over time, they have already stated it will be quasi-open - but what is missing is how that will work without causing even more confusion to the end consumer.

Canon is a great company - but thinking they can do no wrong because they are leveraging a pivot from a 100 million unit installed base to selling 2 million new cameras or so a year... okay.

I would rather voice an opinion, and have others voice it as well, versus just everything being "suck it up princess, they have a 50% marketshare".

Of course Canon can do better, And their customers have every right to let them know. There are two issues with voicing an opinion; firstly, is that opinion informed? If it is not informed by facts, then it is better not expressed. An ignorant opinion is detrimental to any conversation. Secondly, voicing an opinion is fine as long as long as it is clearly an opinion and not stated as a declarative fact. Many folks seemingly do not understand the difference.

The other complain that I think is valid when it comes to this forum and social media in general, is that if one really has a strong opinion and or suggestion on how to change things, then do it in a place where it may actually matter. Canon can be contacted directly. Canon has their own forums. My guess is that few actually use those avenues, which tells me it is complaining for complaining's sake and whining for whining's sake.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[EricN]

But but but I am the only one whose feelings matter on the 35!

Seriously though, I would consider a "tactical" decision on the max aperture of a prime different from a "strategic" decision on whether to allow or not 3rd party lens manufacturers to sell RF AF lenses, in that the latter will affect more customers and will have a bigger impact on the composition of the portfolio of available RF lenses.


True indeed. We do not have access to all of the relevant market data and to data about the interdependencies (such as how past decisions affect the present and the future). We can only be sure on how visible decisions affect us.

You're right, it was a bit irrelevant, but I said that for you

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That's why Canon is expanding new businesses.

I had no idea that Canon acquired Toshiba Medical.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I would be happy with manual focus for wide angle astro if Canon (or a 3rd party) would provide on option. eg a 14/1.4 or 20/1.4 with decent coma / edge sharpness. Canon haven't been interested in that niche before and if the same applies in the future then I don't see an issue to allow 3rd parties ie Sigma to make a R mount version.

Canon RF lenses have had pronounced vignetting.
I generally do not care about that but it would bother me with wide angles.

 

[KirkD]

That 3.7% could easily be accounted for by price increases alone rather than volume increase, and doesn't really tell us how their market share did. One could infer that the market share decreased simply by the observation, "This year the information was extremely vague and didn't include Canon's estimate for the overall market." If it was good news, there would have been no need to be vague.