Canon Sells More DSLRs Than Anyone Else in 2012

[elflord]

What would that be then to make you happy? You mean that the 650D, 5D3, 1Dx and the 6D are not up to standard products? Seriously?

They have barely advanced in sensor technology since about 2008. Sony have made 4 years worth of improvements while Canon stagnate.

They also seem to have been blindsided a bit by the innovations in mirrorless cameras. They finally got around to putting in their own contender but it is pretty weak (in particular the range of available glass for their system pales in comparison to micro 4/3 or even Sony NEX)

They do continue to develop top of the line lenses.

Hopefully they don't suffer from the kind of complacency and ignorance of the competitive landscape that seems to afflict the "camera fans".

[elflord]

But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

 

Actually, DxOMark says that Sony sensors are better. What you are missing is that sensor technology has progressed in the last 4 years whereas Canon's sensor technology has stagnated. There's only so many years they can fall behind the technology curve before it becomes a problem.

[Albi86]

The topic degenerated more than I was expecting.

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.

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.

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.

[elflord]

So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election?  Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that candidate.  But after the election, there's a winner and a loser. Which is the better camera?  Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that camera.  But like a tally of votes, a tally of sales separates the winner from the loser.  Fortunately for everyone, those who chose the losing camera brand aren't required to live with the features of the winning camera brand. Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way. 

Not at all analogous. It's neither the case that the company with the most sales is a "winner" nor are the others "losers" (is the porsche boxster a "loser" because it doesn't sell as well as the toyota camry ?). Where do you get this analogy from ? I read quite a bit of corporate finance and I haven't seen it elsewhere.

In terms of their current place in the industry -- sales performance and profitability, they are doing quite well. However, it's also important to analyze trends. I didn't see any of this in the referenced articles or this thread. The one trend that's a bit of a red flag is Canon's inability to advance in sensor technology. Because this moves relatively slowly, they can get away with it for a few years but a 10 or 20 year period of stagnation is going to hurt.

[jondave]

Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.

Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.

[Albi86]

Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.

Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.

I'm very sorry to see you continue to intend the statement "sale figures don't prove Canon cameras are better, and even less right now" as "Canon is crap".

[jondave]

Yep, I'm happy with my inferior Canon sensor because I actually shoot and make a living off my photos, and there are a lot of other things more important than sensor tech that make a big difference on my work and income.

So before you Nikon sensor experts make a comment about who I am and what I think, you better have a portfolio and credentials to match your inexperienced egos.

[Canon-F1]

So before you Nikon sensor experts make a comment about who I am and what I think, you better have a portfolio and credentials to match your inexperienced egos.

so who is yours?

[elflord]

Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.

"big name pro photogs" aren't in the business of complaining about equipment, so I don't understand what your point is.

How many years do you think they can afford to fall behind before it becomes a problem ? For example, if they are 20 years behind, will it hurt them ?

Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.

Well, what kind of inferior sensor ? If most of your photos are used for 4x6 prints, or for the web, do you need more than 2 megapixels ? How many camera bodies do you think someone would sell if they made 2 megapixel sensors ?

See the problem is your post sounds more like the battle cry of the faithful than it does a strategy for producing leading technology. While a rousing battle cry and a display of loyalty might be good enough for camera "fans", it's not good enough for a producer of modern photography equipment. They need to deliver cutting edge technology, not just pontificate about how legacy technology is adequate.

[elflord]

I suspect that the figures are more representative of vendor-lock-in through lenses than anything else (note that 3rd party lenses doesn't change this.) If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 per lens penalty, things would be different.

A lesser product doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."

Your 'vendor lock-in' applies to Nikon users as well. If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 lens penalty, things would be different - for sure Nikon users will be switching to Canon just as easily.

A lesser product, E.G. NIKON, doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."

So what's your point?

Vendor lock-in means that owners might be slower to switch brands, which introduces some status quo bias. For example, it's possible that Canon could continue to lead in sales even if they didn't introduce any new products over the next year but it would be disasterous in the long term.

In other words, it's more reason to pay attention to trends in sales figures and changes in the competitive landscape as opposed to the current market snapshot.

[Woody]

I would love to see a further breakdown on that, including a graph of 5D2/5D3 sales over the course of CY2012.

BCNRanking does not provide graph but says in the Japanese DSLR sector:

Canon 5D2 - Rank 12 - 2.1% market share
Canon 5D3 - Rank 15 - 1.8% market share
Nikon D800 - Rank 16 - 1.6% market share
Nikon D600 - Rank 20 - 0.7% market share

Canon 6D was available for sale only in December.

[Woody]

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.

Actually, the Japanese companies (Sharp, Sony, Panasonic) lost the entire TV market almost instantly because Samsung offered better technology at a lower price almost 'instantly' (within ~ 2 years).

[Woody]

In other words, it's more reason to pay attention to trends in sales figures and changes in the competitive landscape as opposed to the current market snapshot.

Up to end of 2011, Canon hardly lost any market shares worldwide.

2010: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models.html.
"In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent"

2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-canon-results-idUSTRE80T09Q20120130.
Thom Hogan (bythom.com) translated Nikon's sale of 4.7 million interchangeable lens cameras in 2011 as 31% market share. This means Canon's sale of 7.2 million interchangeable lens cameras has a market share of 47.5%. So, little changed from 2010 to 2011.

We'll see what happens in 2012.

We should keep in mind having the latest and best technology does not EQUATE to survival. Olympus, Panasonic and Sony are all bleeding very badly... not in the photographic business, but when overall financials are considered. Currently, Canon's only worthy competitor is Nikon.

[Woody]

Carl Zeiss, Nikon, Leitz, Sneider,   some Sigma, Tamron
there are fantastic primes out there.
Happy new year

I am longing for Nikon's f/1.8 trinity: 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8... awesome performance at affordable prices

[neuroanatomist]

In other words, it's more reason to pay attention to trends in sales figures and changes in the competitive landscape as opposed to the current market snapshot.

Makes sense.  Outside of Japan, we don't have figures for 2012.  From 2007 to 2011, the consistent trend was Canon gaining market share, and Nikon losing it (during the same period when 'Canon's sensor tech was stagnating,' although my 1D X sensor delivers much better performance than my 5DII sensor, so I don't buy 'stagnating' at all). 

So, by your logic (which, as I stated, does make sense), if Nikon gained market share and Canon lost it in 2012, that tells us nothing, it's just a current market snapshot set against a multi-year trend of Canon gains.  Or if Nikon shows a single year gain, do we throw logic out the window and cry doom for Canon?