Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2011, 10:45 AM   #1246
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
However, yes, it is the total profit of Canon for the whole year.
Source, please?

The figure I cited was from a source which made it clear the profit was from SLR business alone, maybe incl. lenses, maybe not. Here is more text from teh source:
Mirrors are still lucrative. Canon earned 114.8 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in profit by selling 5.9 million traditional SLRs last year, four times the profit it made from compact cameras, according to Nomura Holdings Inc. estimates last month. Nikon earned more from SLRs and lenses last fiscal year than with any other product, according to Nomura.
The source made clear it made a distinction to profit from the P&S business. The figure may be close to the overalll profit. But onyl because profit indeed mainly comes from the SLR division.

Please, check sources before making your claims. Thank You.

BTW, all engineering companies I know from the inside (German ones actually) never work with less than 50% profit margins in their strategic plannings. Sometimes they don't turn reality if business is slow. Sometimes they do. But never mind. You haven't seen margins in fashion and parfums ...

Also, the $250 doesn't say 50%. How big is Canon's SLR business?


Last edited by falconeye; 09-09-2011 at 10:54 AM.
09-09-2011, 10:48 AM   #1247
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
apple are the only people making money on iPods then dealer margins are about 15% on iPods (less on the imacs more like 6%, and phones the money comes from the kickbacks on the contract you sign the client to)
CE margins do get as high (or even Higher) on some accessories (like Monster Cable and other high end Interconnects for example, and closer to 70% on the crappy cheap Chinese interconnects made from Tin and selling for a couple of bucks) but hardware not a chance. Camera bodies around 15-18%, lenses more like 30-35% flashes like lenses. Bags would make 50 %
manufacturers rarely make the same margins as the retailers % wise but they make up on volume. I know on TV we were down to 10% margin by the time i left (at one point it was 25) the vendors were making about 18-20%
09-09-2011, 10:53 AM   #1248
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Source, please?

The figure I cited was from a source which made it clear the profit was from SLR business alone, maybe incl. lenses, maybe not. Here is more text from teh source:
Mirrors are still lucrative. Canon earned 114.8 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in profit by selling 5.9 million traditional SLRs last year, four times the profit it made from compact cameras, according to Nomura Holdings Inc. estimates last month. Nikon earned more from SLRs and lenses last fiscal year than with any other product, according to Nomura.
The source made clear it made a distinction to profit from the P&S business. The figure may be close to the overalll profit. But onyl because profit indeed mainly comes from the SLR division.

Please, check sources before making your claims. Thank You.
And in fact that number is 25% profit. however it doesn't state what kind of profit (Profit and Gross Margins are 2 very different lines. We ran with 22% Gross margin when i left retail, Our EBTDI (earning before Tax,Depreciation and Interest)was closer to 4%
I'm going to go out on a Sturdy limb and say it was Gross Margins. If they are making net profit in the division of 25% they are breaking all industry records
And you're right in saying SLR makes more profit than P/S which is pretty much a commodity item now with the exception of some higher end models like the G12
09-09-2011, 11:08 AM   #1249
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
From a WSJ article: Canon Profit Falls on Yen - WSJ.com

QuoteQuote:
For the whole of 2010, Canon's net profit jumped 87% to 246.60 billion yen from 131.65 billion yen in 2009, while operating profit rose 79% to 387.55 billion yen from 217.06 billion yen, thanks partly to brisk sales of highly profitable digital single lens reflex cameras.


09-09-2011, 11:09 AM   #1250
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
it doesn't state what kind of profit (Profit and Gross Margins are 2 very different lines. We ran with 22% Gross margin when i left retail, Our EBTDI (earning before Tax,Depreciation and Interest)was closer to 4%
The source says profit is four times the one of P&S, making for an overall 2010 profit of close to $2bn. We can look up Canon's public documents to find this figure and we'll know what it means.
-> http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2010/rslt2010e.pdf

2010 EBTI is 392 bn Yen or $ 5 bn. So, I guess a $ 2 bn profit from the camera business means EBTI, not gross margin.

Yes, it really pays off to make good cameras Why do you think Pentax survives despite being this much smaller?
09-09-2011, 11:24 AM   #1251
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Camera bodies around 15-18%, lenses more like 30-35% flashes like lenses. Bags would make 50 %
It's depending on the segment. entry-level bodies like K-x 1000D etc certainly have thin margins. Same for lenses. Kit lenses do not make much money. But I'm pretty sure lenses like the DA Ltd make more than 50% profit unless they are plated with gold. How come a Tamron 70-200mm can cost as much as a FA 77mm? Just compare the amount of glass used. Unless they use high cost coating on the prime, I would guess that the margin is much higher on the prime (and the volume probably much lower). Accessories (lenses, flash, etc) run probably on a very high margin too.
09-09-2011, 11:36 AM   #1252
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Nikon's pricing craziness

.

Not directly applicable, but Thom Hogan speculated in a very rough estimate that Nikon could be realizing as much as $5400 profit per D3x body.


.
09-09-2011, 02:35 PM   #1253
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,967
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Not directly applicable, but Thom Hogan speculated in a very rough estimate that Nikon could be realizing as much as $5400 profit per D3x body.
Considering it cost 6,400€ here, so around 8,000$ i really think they can really do 5,000$ of profit.

Ok, maybe a bit less than that because they produce less than other bodies.

09-09-2011, 07:08 PM   #1254
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

Not directly applicable, but Thom Hogan speculated in a very rough estimate that Nikon could be realizing as much as $5400 profit per D3x body.
.
Sure, but in any tech biz what really matters is retained earnings plowed back into new products, R&D, patents, etc.

As I've said in many posts on this forum, the DSLR is a sunk cost cash cow. It's solid old tech with known optical formulas and (mostly) patent-free technology. The SLR is the most versatile and proven camera system known (PDAF for example integrated into 40 year old tech).

APS-C in particular is a commodity product now, which is terrific value for consumers. When that happens, Nikon needs to charge what it does for the D3x to keep the development cycle humming. Nikon needs that profit, and, frankly so do Nikonians if they want the mothership to keep pumping out incrementally better Nikkors.
09-09-2011, 10:37 PM   #1255
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
apple are the only people making money on iPods then dealer margins are about 15% on iPods (less on the imacs more like 6%, and phones the money comes from the kickbacks on the contract you sign the client to)
CE margins do get as high (or even Higher) on some accessories (like Monster Cable and other high end Interconnects for example, and closer to 70% on the crappy cheap Chinese interconnects made from Tin and selling for a couple of bucks) but hardware not a chance. Camera bodies around 15-18%, lenses more like 30-35% flashes like lenses. Bags would make 50 %
manufacturers rarely make the same margins as the retailers % wise but they make up on volume. I know on TV we were down to 10% margin by the time i left (at one point it was 25) the vendors were making about 18-20%
OT but I think the iPhones are pretty high margin products. I have seen similar spec Android phones for about half the price of Apple's product. They must be making a pretty penny from those souped up iPod Touch's.
09-10-2011, 01:26 AM   #1256
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
I have seen similar spec Android phones for about half the price of Apple's product. They must be making a pretty penny from those souped up iPod Touch's.
It is a common myth that Apple products cost more.

If you make up the list of all things standard in an Apple product (be it Mac, MacBook, iPhone or iPad), you'll normally find competing products to cost the same. It is like comparing a K-5 to a NEX-5n just because they share the same sensor. Not serious. Or there are no competing products at a given price point at all, think about AppleTV or, for a long time, Mac Mini.

Why do you think Samsung Galaxies and iPhone/iPad cost the same (*)?
__
(*) (A Galaxy S2 16GB is only 15% less than an iPhone5 and a Galaxy Tab 10/Wifi 16GB is 7% more than an iPad2).

Considering that others are basically Apple rip offs (a German court yesterday stopped sale of the Galaxy pads because of this...), their profit margins should be even higher.
09-10-2011, 02:51 AM   #1257
Veteran Member
timh's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 445
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It is a common myth that Apple products cost more.
It's a common truth. The major exception is the iPad, because all the tablets are expensive. The cheaper more functional alternative is a netbook, which is half the price.

In the UK a high-end android phone, sim-free with a 32gb microsd, is about 350. The iPhone 4 32GB is 600+.

MacBook Pro, 2GHz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 3yr AppleCare: 2000
Dell Latitude E6520, 2.2Ghz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 3yr on-site: 1450

Totally off topic, sorry - frustrating that so many people falsely debunk that, that's all.
09-10-2011, 05:09 AM   #1258
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by timh Quote
MacBook Pro, 2GHz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 3yr AppleCare: 2000
Dell Latitude E6520, 2.2Ghz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 3yr on-site: 1450

Totally off topic, sorry - frustrating that so many people falsely debunk that, that's all.
A quick check revealed:

- MacBook Pro 15", 2.0GHz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 256MB graphics, 500GB@7200rpm (almost base config) is $1899 (*)
- Dell Latitude E6520 15", 2.2Ghz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 512MB graphics, 500GB@7200rpm is $1985 (*)
- MacBook Pro 15", 2.2GHz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 1GB gpahics, 500GB@7200rpm (2nd base config) is $2199 (*)

__
(*) dell.com; apple.com; to compare one by one, I had to add Windows 7 Ultimate (there are no crippled versions of MacOSX), Bluetooth, the webcam, the nVidia card, backlit kb and 9 cell battery to the Dell (and deselect the leather case Dell wanted to include). I skipped the $350 Apple care option as it doesn't pay off and I would have to tick two further Dell service options too (accidental damage and pro support, external monitor coverage not available anyway). So, I kept base configs here. The 128 SSD option would actually be cheaper for the Mac than the Dell. Same goes for the 8GB option.

The Dell should be better compared to the 2.0GHz MacBook because Apple's Radeon 6490 is still ranked higher (class 2) than the Dell's nVidia 4200M (class 3) at http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.130.0.html . The 2.2GHz Apple's graphics is a full class up. Didn't check for the motherboard chipsets. Another place where lesser makers typically hide their profit

And so while the Dell is not cheaper (almost same price), it lacks the engineering sophistication and beauty the Mac definitely has (CNC machined from a massive block etc.). Or like we say in this forum ... the build quality And MacOSX comes for free (I migrated from a Dell to a MacBook to run Windows (initially, at least...) it really can't compare to a MacBook). E.g., the Dell is a full cm thicker. And, the Dell may not feature dual link DVI which I consider vital ( http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/peripherals/f/3529/p/19377467/19869272.aspx ). As may become Thunderbolt if you ever plan to hook up an external raid array (for video editing etc.).

I could go on forever ...


Apple expensive is myth, not truth.
For what you get, it actually is rather cheap.

Last edited by falconeye; 09-10-2011 at 06:09 AM.
09-10-2011, 06:00 AM   #1259
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
The little Q is tiny, but it is very well made. You have to hold one to see how good this little thing feels in hand:





09-10-2011, 06:43 AM   #1260
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by frank Quote
The little Q is tiny, but it is very well made. You have to hold one to see how good this little thing feels in hand:
No fair, Frank!

.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh! pickles Pentax Film SLR Discussion 8 08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay dantuyhoa Post Your Photos! 9 11-11-2008 11:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top