RDKirk wrote:
But did (or could) Canon predict in 2003 or 2004 that they could produce a profitable $1200-$1500 24x36mm camera by 2010? We don't know even now if they actually can.
There is always a used market willing to accept older technology--heck, there is a used market for D30s...that doesn't mean it would be profitable for Canon to continue to produce D30s.
This assumes that Canon refuses to adapt and change to suit the market or that they're a slow and laborious beast. I find that difficult to believe considering that within the past 1.5 years, THREE different Rebels have been released.
For instance, let us accept that Canon does utilize a 5-year development cycle, meaning that Canon conceives and develops cameras meant for release 5 years ahead of time. This would mean that in early 2003, the following cameras were somewhere in the development process: Digital Rebel, Rebel XT, Rebel XTi, Rebel XSi, Rebel XS, 20D, 30D, 40D, 1DS2, 1D2, 1DS3, 1D3 and 5D all at the same time. Each Camera I listed was released in 2003-2008, which falls within the so-called 5-year development cycle. I find it difficult to believe that incremental updates of these cameras would require multiple years of constant R&D and that you could have 3 generations of cameras in development at the same time.
It may have taken a long time to develop the original Rebel or the original 5D, but once you design the base standard, it doesn't require an entire re-design to move on to the next model. e.g., the 40D and 50D look almost identical on the front and the design of the rear is very similar.
Fred Relaix wrote:
Well, unless they are starting to lose market shares, which is still unclear to me at this point.
A couple of years ago, none of my friends use Nikon, many of them were using Canon P&S. When DSLR hit the the sub 1K price point, many of them bought DSLR. Now half of them have Nikon DSLR, and a lot of them are thinking about D300, D300s and even D700 as their next purchase. This is a big sign of Canon losing their market share. If Canon doesn't come out with a FF cheaper than 5D2 before Nikon does. I am sure I will be think switching as I like what Nikon is doing in the past couple of year with their FF, DX->FX and their new zoom lenses. I am pretty sure their prime will be updated soon to make with Canon which is one of many advantage of Canon at this point.
Incremental updates are the evidence for long term development cycles. At Canon they made a plan for rebels, for XXD's, for FF and for APS-H. Big changes can't be made, because the design is for say 90% set.
Canon's been in this business since before most of us were even born and they've been one of the big fish in the pond for a long time, I think it's safe to say that they know what they're doing... regardless whether we approve of their decisions or not.
I find it difficult to believe that incremental updates of these cameras would require multiple years of constant R&D and that you could have 3 generations of cameras in development at the same time.
Sure they can. It's inevitable that they must, and we have evidence that they do. When the 20D was released in 2004, a Canon exec stated in a Photokina 2004 interview that they were looking at internal sensor cleaning...but we only saw it enter production last year.
It's long-term planning that sets R&D into motion for something like a sub-$3000 with a 24x36mm sensor. Engineers don't just suddenly break into a board meeting announcing "Eureka! We've discovered a cheap 24x36mm sensor! Let's put it into a camera this year!"
Rather, marketing would have stated a desire for a lower-cost 24,36mm sensor and the engineers would have been asked to predict whether they could develop one within some given period of time. If that answer was mostly affirmative, then they'd have been funded for it, and there would have been a target date.
n0b0 wrote:
Canon's been in this business since before most of us were even born and they've been one of the big fish in the pond for a long time, I think it's safe to say that they know what they're doing... regardless whether we approve of their decisions or not.
yep, just like ford & chevy
RDKirk wrote:
That would take a recognition and acknowledgement that their entire view of their market was mistaken. Otherwise, it would accepted as a matter of "we're in the closing phase of our last planning cycle--we will regain market share when we release the products of our current planning cycle."
And that's the thing: We consumers don't know where they are in their planning cycle, except that we can be sure they don't scramble to design their next camera with every Nikon or Sony release.
Whatever we see released is always a result of what they thought several years ago would match their entire line-up with market desires at that future time of release. In other words, Canon predicted several years ago that the cameras they're releasing now would be what the market would want now (and let's remember that their view of their market does not equal Internet forums).
If they are wrong in their estimation of the future desires of the market, it's largely going to take until the next planning cycle to correct it (notwithstanding moderate feature corrections that can be made through firmware these days).
So, it was probably 10 years ago that Canon decided 24x36mm DSLRs would succeed in the upper half of its market by 2005, and probably 5 years ago that Canon decided video would be the important feature by 2009 or 2010. ...Show more →
I think you have some great insight here, and I agree with you on almost every point. The only flaw I see is you have put planning into neat little 5 year buckets where one 5 year cycle ends before another begins. Planning in most business is a continuous process. This years 5 year plan includes four of last year's with slight modifications to each year in between. Certainly the planning for the 7D (or whatever will be announced) began months or years ago, but there is always some wiggle room in the plan until the point of manufacture, hence the prototypes. Technology advances and market demands must be allowed for. This is to say real data and not internet or forum buzz. There is not enough wiggle room to react to the D300s or any thing Sony puts out.
A couple of years ago, none of my friends use Nikon, many of them were using Canon P&S. When DSLR hit the the sub 1K price point, many of them bought DSLR. Now half of them have Nikon DSLR, and a lot of them are thinking about D300, D300s and even D700 as their next purchase. This is a big sign of Canon losing their market share.
Not necessarily. A great many DSLR buyers are not upgraders from P&S cameras. I suspect most P&S owners never upgrade to DSLRs.
The question is not how many former P&S owners bought a Nikon or Canon this year, the question is: Of all purchasers of consumer-segment DSLRs sold, what percentage bought Canon and what percentage bought Nikon (or some other brand).
Moreover, whether Canon would be worried would depend on where they were in a planning cycle or a release cycle and what their sales projections were. In one interview, a Canon excutive suggested that their expectations for the original 5D were actually quite modest--it was targeted specifically at well-heeled Japanese amateur "enthusiasts" who were still shooting film. I suspect the 5D actually greatly exceeded their sales projections, and that it need do nothing more than make up for losses from their remaining film cameras.
The only flaw I see is you have put planning into neat little 5 year buckets where one 5 year cycle ends before another begins. Planning in most business is a continuous process.
Right, we can't say it's so neatly sliced. The engineers may reach a goal earlier or later than initially predicted--certain feature sets may lag behind others.
And there are certainly cycles within cycles--the EOS Division may have the large, fairly vague 5-year cycle while the EOS consumer department is running in 12-month cycles and the EOS 1-Series department is running in three year cycles.
One company I worked for ran in company-wide 3-year planning cycles, but within Systems Project Development, there were numerous smaller cycles continuously turning--but all within the framework of the 3-year cycle.
RDKirk wrote:
When the 20D was released in 2004, a Canon exec stated in a Photokina 2004 interview that they were looking at internal sensor cleaning...but we only saw it enter production last year.
It's long-term planning that sets R&D into motion for something like a sub-$3000 with a 24x36mm sensor. Engineers don't just suddenly break into a board meeting announcing "Eureka! We've discovered a cheap 24x36mm sensor! Let's put it into a camera this year!"
Rather, marketing would have stated a desire for a lower-cost 24,36mm sensor and the engineers would have been asked to predict whether they could develop one within some given period of time. If that answer was mostly affirmative, then they'd have been funded for it, and there would have been a target date. ...Show more →
Very true. It was only like 18 months ago that FF was exotic. A couple others tried and failed, and Nikon was holding to their position against FF (or FX, which they coined)
On the flip side, there was the D30, D60, and the 10D before the first sub $1k DSLR! We've already seen 5 generations of FF on Canon bodies, but I don't think a cheap FF will be announced soon.
RDKirk wrote:
...
Today, Canon won't "answer" the Nikon D700. We don't know where they are in their current 5-year planning cycle. They could be near the end, and we may in the next year or two see the results of a new planning cycle, which will be intended to place Canon ahead of what Nikon or Sony can do over the course of their current planning cycle.
Thanks for your always insightful and interesting essays.
The ironic thing is that Ford and Chevy have sold what their market wanted. The fact is, over the last decade or so, the US market wanted trucks and SUVs, gas mileage be damned. American manufacturers could be pretty well assured that any large vehicle they made would sell well, and that was the truth.
But at the same time, they could could have invested billions in R&D for a nifty small car...and not be able to sell them. The American market is not willingly a small car market. Sure, while gas prices are rising quickly, we clamor for small cars, but you see that disappear as soon as gas prices stabilize and Americans adapt to the new price plateau--we go back to large vehicles.
This is not true of the Japanese manufacturers. They knew they always have a guaranteed return on investment in small car R&D in Japan, and that R&D gives them a ready product in the lots during gas price crises.
Ford has been able to successfully tap the foreign small-car market, which made R&D investment in small cars worthwhile, even while making their big money with large vehicles in the American market. Just as with the Japanese manufacturers, it gave Ford some ready responses on the lots when gas prices skyrocketed.
I don't know why GM has not been as successful overseas as Ford, but it's not because they misread the American market.
RDKirk wrote:
Sure they can. It's inevitable that they must, and we have evidence that they do. When the 20D was released in 2004, a Canon exec stated in a Photokina 2004 interview that they were looking at internal sensor cleaning...but we only saw it enter production last year.
I meant that I didn't think that it took 5 years to develop the XSi and another 5 years to develop the XS or that either camera was conceived 5 years prior to their release
The R&D dept took to the task of developing one camera, and immediately afterward, took to the task of refining or improving on previous designs.
U.C. wrote:
Incremental updates are the evidence for long term development cycles. At Canon they made a plan for rebels, for XXD's, for FF and for APS-H. Big changes can't be made, because the design is for say 90% set.
Are we suddenly going to find the Rebel series drying up because it's been 5 years? Of course not.
Moreover, since when does Canon require 5 years per camera? Are we to say that none of the developments that were achieved during R&D of either 5D camera cannot be applied to a new camera? I think the Rebel XS is a perfect example of using previously used developments and technology to create a cheaper camera at the low end, allowing the T1i to be more expensive than the XSi, thus creating another price tier.
kakomu wrote:
I meant that I didn't think that it took 5 years to develop the XSi and another 5 years to develop the XS or that either camera was conceived 5 years prior to their release
The R&D dept took to the task of developing one camera, and immediately afterward, took to the task of refining or improving on previous designs.
Are we suddenly going to find the Rebel series drying up because it's been 5 years? Of course not.
Moreover, since when does Canon require 5 years per camera? Are we to say that none of the developments that were achieved during R&D of either 5D camera cannot be applied to a new camera?...Show more →
I didn't say that after 5 year Canon have to start all over again, with a totally new plan. Before the end of a 5 year cycle a team will plan a new 5 year cycle. That team will evaluate the previous years and base their plan on those years. So, if they think that the Rebel-formula was successful, they will continue it with some minor changes/upgrades. But if they think that something went wrong with the XXD-line, they will change it to make it better.
Don't expect revolution, but evolution. They have a certain goal. And giving al they got isn't the most profitable. Somewhere deep in the labs are sensors, processors, viewfinders, AF-chips that are superior to everything available now. Put every together in a supercamera doesn't make the most long term profit. Slightly upgrading does. Giving just enough new features keeps the consumer buying new camera's.
I think the Rebel XS is a perfect example of using previously used developments and technology to create a cheaper camera at the low end, allowing the T1i to be more expensive than the XSi, thus creating another price tier.
The XS isn't something new, it's just a combination of older technology.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
So let's look at the current offerings for full-frame digital cameras.
Nikon D3X - $8000. 24 mpx.
Canon 1Ds3 - $6500. 21 mpx.
Nikon D3 - $5000 (Is this camera still in production?). 12 mpx.
Sony A900 - $2700 (Was $2999 at introduction 09/08). 24 mpx.
Canon 5DMKII - $2700 (No price drop since introduction 09/08). 21 mpx.
Nikon D700 - $2400 (Was $2999 at introduction 07/08). 12 mpx.
I don't know why I listed this down............but I did
You probably wanted to show that a $3899 Canon 3D would fit nicely between the Nikon D3 and the Sony A900 as well as demonstrating that there's room for an entry level Canon 7D below the Nikon D700
