Canon Sales Continue to Plummet
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
From the link @DLD posted:
“Cartels
A cartel is a grouping of producers that work together to protect their interests. Cartels are created when a few large producers decide to co-operate with respect to aspects of their market. Once formed, cartels can fix prices for members, so that competition on price is avoided. In this case cartels are also called price rings. They can also restrict output released onto the market, such as with OPEC and oil production quotas, and set rules governing other aspects of the behaviour of members. Setting rules is especially important in oligopolistic markets, as predicted in game theory. A significant attraction of cartels to producers is that they set rules that members follow, thus reducing risks that would exist without the cartel.
The negative effects on consumers include:
Higher prices - cartel members can all raise prices together, which reduces the elasticity of demand for any single member.
Lack of transparency - members may agree to limit output onto the market, as with OPEC and its oil quotas.
Carving up a market - cartel members may collectively agree to break up a market into regions or territories and not compete in each other's territory.
When are cartels most powerful?
They are at their most powerful when there are high barriers to entry into the market or industry, and when all members can be ‘policed’ by a dominant member.
Cartel-like behaviour
Some firms may act as though there is a cartel and undertake cartel-like’ behaviour, even though there is no formal cartel, and this may be subject to investigation by the regulators.
See also: Complex monopolies
Example
The Siemens led electronic equipment cartel
In January 2007, the European Commission imposed a record fine of £500m on 11 European power equipment firms, led by the “German firm Siemens. The Commission argued that Siemens, along with 10 other firms, had ‘carved-up’ the European power equipment market between 1988 and 2004. The market had been carved-up along geographical lines and through a quota system.
One of the cartel members, Swiss based ABB, had escaped a fine because it has been a ‘whistle blower’ and provided crucial evidence to the Commission. ”
“Cartels
A cartel is a grouping of producers that work together to protect their interests. Cartels are created when a few large producers decide to co-operate with respect to aspects of their market. Once formed, cartels can fix prices for members, so that competition on price is avoided. In this case cartels are also called price rings. They can also restrict output released onto the market, such as with OPEC and oil production quotas, and set rules governing other aspects of the behaviour of members. Setting rules is especially important in oligopolistic markets, as predicted in game theory. A significant attraction of cartels to producers is that they set rules that members follow, thus reducing risks that would exist without the cartel.
The negative effects on consumers include:
Higher prices - cartel members can all raise prices together, which reduces the elasticity of demand for any single member.
Lack of transparency - members may agree to limit output onto the market, as with OPEC and its oil quotas.
Carving up a market - cartel members may collectively agree to break up a market into regions or territories and not compete in each other's territory.
When are cartels most powerful?
They are at their most powerful when there are high barriers to entry into the market or industry, and when all members can be ‘policed’ by a dominant member.
Cartel-like behaviour
Some firms may act as though there is a cartel and undertake cartel-like’ behaviour, even though there is no formal cartel, and this may be subject to investigation by the regulators.
See also: Complex monopolies
Example
The Siemens led electronic equipment cartel
In January 2007, the European Commission imposed a record fine of £500m on 11 European power equipment firms, led by the “German firm Siemens. The Commission argued that Siemens, along with 10 other firms, had ‘carved-up’ the European power equipment market between 1988 and 2004. The market had been carved-up along geographical lines and through a quota system.
One of the cartel members, Swiss based ABB, had escaped a fine because it has been a ‘whistle blower’ and provided crucial evidence to the Commission. ”
What were your main beefs with the EVA1 ?
I'm curious. ( it's not my favorite camera either, but I do like the image from Panasonic's Varicams )
Not to throw things out of perspective, but yes they are sometimes a cartel. Look up the recent class action or antitrust cases about capacitor and resistor price fixing. May not happen on the finished product side, but on the manufacturing side it most certainly has been done.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2018/03/22/eu-fines-capacitor-makers-e254m-over-price-fixing-cartel/
And it looks like Panasonic was the whistle blower, but now their protections may be at risk due to participation, but I only found one link to this so it may not be true about losing their protections.
I didn't look up the resistor cases, but I did get a mailer from the legal team telling me I had to specify the exact number and values that I had purchased between a period of time. Hobby level so I'd get like $0.25usd back from that and not going to bother. I had a similar piece of mail a couple years ago about the capacitors, and again ignored it due to the lack of money coming back to me from my limited use.
Came through the wires today.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-after-investor-loebs-prodding-idUSKCN1VJ0ON
Loeb has been pushing Sony to spin off its sensor division because, as Willie Sutton said, that's where the money is.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-after-investor-loebs-prodding-idUSKCN1VJ0ON
Loeb has been pushing Sony to spin off its sensor division because, as Willie Sutton said, that's where the money is.
Component price fixing is still going on? Decades ago they were propping up prices on memories. The penalties were pretty substantial, but probably pennies in the full scheme of things.
The contradiction to the cartel conspiracy (at the product level) is the title of this thread. If there's a cartel, it isn't working.
The contradiction to the cartel conspiracy (at the product level) is the title of this thread. If there's a cartel, it isn't working.
Also because of the fact that so many of Sony's competitors rely on Sony's sensors. It's both good and bad for the industry, because Sony is able to do things at scale that allow for even the medium format camera manufacturers to be using back-side illuminated sensors using custom color filter arrays, but it also gives Sony access to new sensor technologies in some cases a full generation before everyone else.
And it gives Sony a great negotiating power vs. its partners/competitors, what being that 900 lb gorilla and all.
As to the cartel not working, it's an arguable claim. It may have worked just fine on its way up and sliding sales were inevitable anyway due to the smartphone advancements. However, a brand new $1,400 A6600 lacking 10-bit video while its one year old competitor $1,500 XT-3 having it could be chalked off to an unforeseen accident ... had Sony not been manufacturing the XT-3 sensor (Fuji design) and providing both of the Medium Format (50 MPX and 100 MPX) devices.
More significantly, it's the only camera company that is technologically on par with Red. (Which just makes Arri's camera line all that more impressive, IMO.)
I don't think it's an accident at all. In fact, it's very unlikely, since there are so many other parts of the camera that have to support 10-bit recording for the camera to support 10-bit recording, not just the sensor. It's far more likely that Sony's marketing folks are making that decision based on what they think will maximize Sony's overall profits, not just the number unit sales.
You may not agree with or like that decision, but it's certainly not evidence of collusion. For an A6600, I think it's a reasonable choice to be frank. Not many will be buying those for serious video production; it's a camera that will however sell quite nicely to people who want better pictures and ergonomics than a phone offers, and also want to either make YouTube videos or capture family vacations. So its feature set is optimized around them... not around filmmakers.
I do think that it's a pointless limitation to restrict the current A7 line from recording 10-bit, even if it's external only, but I doubt that anyone at Sony is listening to anyone here. And frankly, I doubt that they'd care if even if they were; the sales for that line have been strong enough to convince Nikon and Canon to go mirrorless, which means that so far the 8-bit limitation in its consumer and prosumer cameras hasn't hindered it in any meaningful way, no matter what the armchair architects would like to believe.
G
Guest
Guest
Film makers don’t need a good image, they need a good story.
However, somone shooting family vacations and bdays does need and want a good camera. They just don’t know what to look for, but they know it when they see it, they have just never been given good image quality... so, it is a catch 22. They get sold subpar cameras because companies can get away with it.
Film makers, however, have been shooting on anything and everything, since the beginning of motion capture.
That's hardly news... though it seems lost on a lot of today's filmmakers.
But it is a visual medium, so at least decent imagery is a must -- the catch being that with just about any modern camera, lighting has more to do with it than the camera.
They are getting good cameras. They probably don't know or care that their cameras are only recording in 8-bit, because they rarely if ever try to do any color manipulations in post.
Consumers watch YouTube reviews and Sony's decision to cripple the video is brought up in all/most of them ... much like Canon's crop, frame rates and crappy codec. Yet, despite the public outcry, Sony not only "chooses" not to include 10-bit, it provides the following explanation.
This was in DP Review a few months ago.
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/9676983794/cp-2019-sony-interview-first-full-frame-then-aps-c
I say this is pure crap. It's like a Toyota executive saying that their FT 86 was too small for a super/turbocharger while ignoring the fact that one can install all sort of super/turbocharger kits bought on the aftermarket.
This was in DP Review a few months ago.
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/9676983794/cp-2019-sony-interview-first-full-frame-then-aps-c
I say this is pure crap. It's like a Toyota executive saying that their FT 86 was too small for a super/turbocharger while ignoring the fact that one can install all sort of super/turbocharger kits bought on the aftermarket.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
A lot of filmmakers don't even need a camera. They just need ideas, and plans, and then they can go around telling everyone that they are filmmakers.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Can we just pause for a moment and consider that intentionally crippling cameras is definitely not the only reasons cameras lack specs. Like, crippling is certainly not the reason that Canon has yet to release a 16 bit 16K resolution camera with 30 stops of dynamic range and better than Arri colors for $300. At that point it becomes technical limitations based upon the technology that Canon has, along with what they can afford to charge based upon the amount of R&D as well as the cost of hardware, software design, and assembly that they put into cameras.
That's not to say it's not possible that companies do intentionally hold back their cameras at times, but we must at least admit that there are always going to be technical limitations based upon available technology that also limit what can be put in a low priced camera.
That's not to say it's not possible that companies do intentionally hold back their cameras at times, but we must at least admit that there are always going to be technical limitations based upon available technology that also limit what can be put in a low priced camera.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
It is a collaborative art, so, that is pretty true. Oh wait, COLLABORATIVE ART.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I was more referring to aspiring filmmakers who don't need cameras to be filmmakers; they just need ideas and plans.
G
Guest
Guest
I love that sketch!
G
Guest
Guest
Ah, the seperation of image quality again.
If a pro needs a good camera for making images that meet the public’s standards.... who is the public? People care.
You're clearly confused. Of course, you're attempting to take what I wrote out of context to support your inanity.
The general public isn't making movies for the general public, so it's a fact that the general public doesn't know or care whether or not their cameras record 8 or 10 bit footage. Most of those folks aren't even using manual controls, let alone trying to any significant color grading in post.
G
Guest
Guest
Thanks
True.Tamerlin said:
Even i don’t care about bits. We do care about image quality though.