Monopoly or Strategy ?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Hi everybody,

So far all of you have been kind enough in answering my every question. I guess I don't bore you too much with my questions. Since i felt that this is platform for discussion I ask whatever come to my mind.

The question I would like to ask everyone is that why does Canon want to keep its monopoly. Why does Canon asks for more money for the similar camera and equipments. Body is fine. What about lenses, flash and other accessories. I mean all the Canon users would be very happy to see Canon's lenses being sold at the price nearly equal to that of Sigma and other third party lenses. Higher end third lenses can be as good as Canon's in much lower price. Ofcourse, a third party accessory can have future compactibility problem. But is this the only reason for a high price in Canon accessories. Sigma's EF 500 Super is almost equal to Canon's 550 EX flash in nearly half price. I guess Canon users are pretty much disappointed by this. Or is Canon charging for its NAME. May be Canon doesn't want its users to go for a third party accessories. In every manual Canon writes *USING A THIRD PARTY ACCESSORY WILL CAUSE THE EQUIPMENT(usually body) TO MALFUNCTION. So far, I think, nobody has seen any such problem or than incompactibility with newer bodies.

What do you think about this ? Should Canon change its strategy to satisfy its users or maintain the present status ?

I am quite new to this field of photography. My question is based on what I have heard and read in last few month. May be I am wrong. But I would like to know whats the actual reason. Your opinion about this regard would be useful.

Thanks

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), March 02, 2002

Answers

I have no problem with Canon's prices. I cannot AFFORD to buy much of the Canon equipment but I don't have a problem with their prices being higher than aftermarket equipment. I'm not disappointed at all.

Canon spends lots of money on researching and developing their products. Their EF lens mount is a wonder of adaptability and function. They developed Image Stabilzation lenses for photographic equipment. They developed their own flourite and low dispersion glass. They developed molded aspherical lenses. They developed eye control focus. They developed focusing motors that were reliable, accurate and small enough to fit inside their autofocus lenses. The list goes on. They deserve to be compensated for their accomplishments. Other makers such as Nikon, Minolta and Pentax do a lot of their own expensive research and development and they, too, deserve compensation. I don't believe many of the aftermarket makers do a lot of this. They tend to follow the camera manufacturer's lead and adopt their designs.

I generally do not buy aftermarket equipment. When I used Nikons, I found Nikon equipment worked better than other brands built to fit Nikons. Since I have been using Canon equipment, I have never considered buying other brands of lenses. My reasoning is simple: I bought into a system that offers what I need without looking elsewhere. There are, indeed, very good aftermarket lenses but none of them actually surpass Canon's quality. Sigma is a popular lensmaker and some of their lenses are well regarded for their optical performance. On an individual basis, however, I don't believe any of their lenses surpass the optical, mechanical, electronic and build quality of the equivalent Canon lens. The best any of these aftermarket companies can hope for is to be second best. And there have been quite a few instances of aftermarket lenses causing EOS cameras to lock up or otherwise malfunction.

The best, most reliable equipment will always costs more. Look at the prices of Leica (rangefinder and SLR) 35mm lenses, Zeiss (Hasselblad and Rolleiflex) medium format lenses and the Schneider and Rodenstock large format lenses. You will feel better about the cost of Canon lenses in comparison. You're paying for a lot more than just a name brand.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 02, 2002.


There are many reasons that a Canon lens is more expensive than a third-party lens.

1) Build...generally, the Canons are better. 2) Technology. The Canons have USM (often), and thus are more expensive to make. 3) Design. Typically, Canon lenses are better designed than equivalent third party models. 4) User base. A Canon lens design can only be used on canon cameras. A Sigma (for example) can be used on Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Sigma bodies without redesign of the optics or much of the mechanicals. Thus Sigma can reduce unit price by selling more of a specific model.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), March 02, 2002.


I think Canon does charge extra for the name. Lots of companies do. I cost them plenty to develop enough good products and to market them well. It's reasonable that there should be some monetary rewards fot this investment.

I also agree that Canon products are almost always superior to the offerings of third party manufacturers. If not optically then often with build quality. You bring up the Sigma EF-500 Super, which I think is a fine full featured flash that compares favorably to the 550EX. But it only compares so favorably because it's half the price. There are several better features of the 550EX and the build quality is clearly superior. If you are trying to make a living with very dependable gear, the Canon flash is clearly what you need to buy. If it's being used as a backup or if your life can function fine without it, save the money with the Sigma. The same can be said for Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L compared to Sigma's offering and most any other lens.

It's always the last 10% of perfection that costs the most.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), March 02, 2002.


One issue may be that Canon does not want responsibility for warranty claims with equipment that they did not manufacture. Imagine if you use a Canon bosy with a Sigma lens, and something does not function. Who do you complain to? Should Canon be responsible? What if one manufacturer claims it is the other's equipment, and the other manufacturer does the same? From this point of view, it is wise to accept no responsibility for any third party equipment, even if a lot of it works well. I'm sure Canon would also prefer you buy their lenses, but I think warranty coverage may be a big issue. Look at what happens in the computer industry when you try to get something resolved and you are using, say, Microsoft's operating system and another company's application. Deny and blame, deny and blame, deny and blame...

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), March 03, 2002.

I look at it differently. Canon is not charging more for the name, the third party is just trying to compete on price. No matter how low Canon prices its products, third party products will always have to charge less for equal performing products. If they were the same price, which one would most people buy? If Canon were to match prices with third parties, it would be followed by price cuts from them also, resulting in the same position Canon was in prior to the price cuts, only now all the companies are making less money. Canon might then be sued for anti-competitive practices.

-- D. Chan (deezer@juno.com), March 03, 2002.


Chan, i don't think thats the main reason for Canon's product being more expensive. because Canon products can be twice as expensive as a third party product which is not justified. As noted by Isaac, a third party product can be used bodies of different companies. So they can afford to reduce the price where as Canon produces equipments only for its own products.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), March 04, 2002.

Hi, Sajeev. Canon's strategy IS monopoly. Canon and Nikon and everybody else use proprietary technology: Canon cameras use a Canon lens mount; Nikon a Nikon mount, etc. Third parties are licensed to develop products that "fit" these cameras (physically and electronically). Canon can believe--and can promote--the idea that Canon lenses are the best match for Canon cameras because Canon engineers developed them exclusively. Other lenses may work fine and could even be superior, but they are to be "used at your own risk."

Everybody knows you can be perfectly happy with a good Sigma lens on your Canon body. Sigma has to price that lens considerably less than its Canon counterpart so people will buy it.

Canon does charge for its name, which is why Canon is a successful company. It's also clear to most users that Canon equipment is solid and performs very well, so the brand loyalty is justified.

Also, Canon's technologies can be forward looking, even though when you bought the product you didn't know or care what expanded functionality it contained. A good example is the Elan 7 (EOS 30) that makes available all of the expanded features (like full E-TTL metering, high speed synch) of the 550 EX. With that flash, the Elan performs like the EOS 3, 1n, and 1v--the higher-end pro cameras. Most people buying the Elan 7 aren't so concerned about pro-flash units. But if you buy the Elan 7, and later want to use what that flash offers, you are set.

I don't know if the Sigma 500 works the same way. I'm just saying that Canon can develop its products to work together in ways (now and in the future) that third parties can't foresee.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 04, 2002.


True, Canon's products ARE more expensive (thanks to build quality, research costs, etc.), but they are not overpriced. Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of photographers waste their money on Canon because they want "the name"?

The simple fact is that third party products are rarely (never?) as good as Canon's and Nikon's. I have owned probably five or six Sigma lenses for EOS; while the lenses were ok, each one of them eventually failed, some after a few months (one after a few weeks), some after a couple of years. On the other hand, I have never had a Canon lens break in 12 years. Bottom line: I now choose to pay the extra for Canon, and when I can't afford to buy the Canon I simply do without.

Sajeev asks, "Should Canon change its strategy to satisfy its users or maintain the present status?" I would answer that Canon's present status has produced plenty of satisfied users--including me

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), March 05, 2002.


First of all, I agree with one of the postings, that Canon has the R&D costs and they can sell their equipment only to Canon users. Tamron and Sigma sell it to Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and other users. This might be an explanation from the cost-side. So far so good. But....what, if they price their products dependent on what the customers are willing to pay? Let it be quality, brand name or whatever, WE call this market economy. And a functioning market is just the opposite of a monopoly. Congratulations, Canon, there are only a few companies in the world, who can afford to ask the customers for a premium. Welcome to the Mercedes Benz, BMW and Coca- Cola Club! And this is OK!

-- Tom (brendan@abacho.de), March 18, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ