The topic degenerated more than I was expecting.You're drawing comparisons between Canon and Kodak. Talk about a degenerating subjet. Please explain how canon are doing the same mistakes as Kodak did. Don't come dragging with third party sensors that Nikon is buying.
Let me explain myself again: I never said that Canon sells more cameras and that for this reason Nikon (or whatever) is better.
I'm saying that sale figures mean nothing because a lot of things affect them - and few of them are related to quality and performance. Not least the reputation of a certain company, but this is something developed over years and thus not a measure of the situation in one single given moment. Canon has been leading for decades, and the situation is not going to change in a day or a year - in the same way as Kodak didn't go bankrupt over one night.
As for the quality itself, in every area I know the best manufacturers are niche manufacturers, and most people didn't even ever hear of them. We end users should care about the individual quality of the products we buy, not about how many of them are sold. The fact that your lens/camera is a best seller won't make your photos better.
Please read my post again.
I didn't say Canon is going the same way of Kodak. It was an example to explain how big companies require a long time-span to noticeably gain or lose market share or to improve/damage their reputation permanently. For this reason sale figures are not reliable data to describe the situation at one specific time.
In practical terms it means that Canon (and the likes) could screw up a whole generation of cameras and get away with that with little damage in sale figures. That wouldn't change the fact that those cameras are screwed.
Example: Sony didn't lose the lead in the TV market over one day or one year. It happened little by little that the general opinion of who produced the best TVs was not Sony any more.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand.