When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch.
Ok, then...but what are Nikon and Sony's "Answers" to the 5DIII, which has outsold the D800 and will vastly outsell the a7R?
Why do people think Canon needs to play Nikon's game? The D800 was Nikon's attempt to play the game by Canon's rules (we'll see your 8-9 MP increase, and raise you by another 14 MP), and Nikon lost.
I agree. We need to look at more than 'numbers sold'. For example there are great movies that have not done super business at the box office. But they have been amazing.
To say Nikon 'lost' is perhaps harsh. As the IQ of the D800 is certainly better than 5d3. A photographer friend who switched from 5d2 to D800 showed me comparisons on his laptop and I cannot any longer defend the IQ of 5d3 vs D800. I do realize 'but but' of autofocus, responsiveness etc but am talking just about IQ.
And the companies that mad those great movies went out of business or had to sell to someone else who knew how to run a business.
The point is that in order to stay in business, you have to make a profit. You can't do that if your product does not sell. It really has nothing to do with how good the product might be. One example that us old people remember is the Sony Beta Video Tape Recorder, superior to VHS quality wise, but good marketing pushed it out of the market.
I bought a D800 after they first came out, and it is a nice camera body. It has buttons all over, and a poor menu system that makes it hard to find a function quickly, but that's a minor thing. I also purchased 10K of high end lenses. That's where I made the error, they were good, but the CA on the 24070 f/2.8G was so high that Lightroom could not remove it at the edges. Then, I read the reviews from testers and found that this was normal. Even though my Canon 24-105 has a lot of distortion, Lightroom quickly removes it.
The other issue was the amount of computing power it took to process the large files from high ISO shots, usually 50mb compressed and over 100MB when uncompressed. Running NR on those3 took forever, and, since I take up to 1500 shots at some low light events, it was a non starter to have to spend hundreds of hours editing them. I've tried again after replacing my computer last fall with the latest, and it cut the time down, but its no fun to sit there for 4 times as long.