If I'm interpreting the data correctly, it reflects units sold/shipped, and not revenue? If so, who gives a hoot? Companies exist to make money, and if you have to sell more units to make the same, or even less, money than the competition, why is that a good thing? Percentage of market share is somewhat revealing, but it's not nearly as important as how much money a company earns through its DSLR manufacturing efforts.
Everyone complained that the 5D3 was too expensive when it was released. Almost three years later, 5D3 prices have held steady, despite millions of posts claiming that Canon would drop prices significantly once the initial wave of stupid "first adopters" ceased. On the other hand, Nikon has released the D800, D810, and soon the D750 to fill essentially the same market segment as Canon does with the 5D3.
IMHO, the Nikon's are loaded with some very impressive technology at a lower price point. For tech-obsessed Canon shooters, the envy is understandable. That said, it's reasonable to presume that Nikon is operating on slimmer profit margins per unit than Canon, compounded with the tremendous costs associated with releasing three bodies (D800/D810/D750) in a relatively short amount of time to fill the same slot in the market filled by the 5D3. Oh yeah, I bet all the quality control issues hurt Nikon's profit margin quite a bit, requiring them to sell even more units to make up for the lost revenue.
If Yoda was a DSLR tech junkie he'd say: "Sales volume numbers tell whole story they do not