Gear Talk > Canon General

Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010

<< < (2/7) > >>

NormanBates:
in my case, it's the video

and I know most people don't even use the video side of their canon DSLR, but people using canon DSLRs for TV and film are buying these cameras in big bunchs (well... they were: unless canon brings out something great real fast, the new big sensor videocameras will eat their lunch in no time)

S P:
I've done some research on this myself and posted it elsewhere.  Here's a cut and paste of it.

===================

Hmmm...

Well digging around on Thom's site some more for old stats and predictions, I think I know what happened.  First here's some old stats that I dug up on Google.

2006: Canon 46.7, Nikon 33
2007: Canon 42.7, Nikon 40

Couldn't find any for 2008 and 2009, but I know that Nikon was having good times here and was either dead even with Canon or ahead, hence being a little surprised at seeing them drop all the way to below 30% for 2010.  buuuut....

from Thom's 2009 predictions:


--- Quote ---Since I'm a Nikon expert and follower, I guess I need to explain that last comment a bit more. Nikon hit a high of 40% DSLR market share sometime in early 2008, but by their own admission they haven't really tried to consolidate or expand on that. Their current projection for their fiscal year is that they'll finish with a 37% share. Nikon's core is in the very serious shooter market, and I think that long term they're willing to concede a bit of share at the low end to retain strength in the middle to top. Historically, Nikon's SLR or DSLR shares have mostly ranged from lows in the low to mid 20's up to high's in the 40's. A 30% share, while a drop from their best position in DSLRs, is okay for them as long as it is produced by a high percentage of high-margin DSLRs in the high-amateur to professional markets. Nikon is not a Sony, Canon, Panasonic, or Samsung: it just doesn't have the leverage that the wide range of consumer and industrial products that the others use to advantage. Indeed, more than half of Nikon's revenues come simply from cameras, which is why they have to protect the serious shooter market where the margins are higher. The danger for Nikon is to be Leica-ized: a producer of only high end, low volume, high quality products. There's not enough significant and sustainable growth, volume, or leverage in such a position should they be reduced to it.
--- End quote ---


And from 2010 predictions


--- Quote ---Canon: they began losing significant market share in several areas (to be clear, not overall share, but share in several key segments), so they know they need to do something. But they're so Nikon focused (with a side of Sony) that they think that they have to use the old tactics to wrest it back (more megapixels, lower noise). Canon seems preoccupied with competing with the Nikon D3, D3x, and D300 at the moment. But I'm not sure that's the root of their loss of market share. Correct. They're being nibbled at the low end and middle according to market research; they've also already lost much of the high end as they have no real answer to the D3s or D3x.
--- End quote ---


So basically Nikon has attacked the high-end market with ferocity and done a pretty good job of it stealing market share from Canon in that segment, but at the expense of losing overall volume and market share in the other/lower segments.  Higher margin on that stuff, so like Thom says, since the camera biz is the only business Nikon is making money in at the moment, it's been important to them to "own" the higher end of that market where all the margin is, and that they could do that with a lesser overall market share and still be happy.

Makes a lot of sense.  Explains why pretty much ALL of the glass Nikon has come out with in the past year or so is very high end and very pricey glass for the professional shooters.  Because that's the portion of the market they need to own to stay in business.  24/1.4, 35/1.4, 24-120/4VR, 85/1.4G, 28-300VR, etc.  Almost all of that is priced in the four-figure range in USD.

What I've been wondering lately is if Nikon really was trying to position themselves as a very high end 'luxury' type of camera brand, with all of this super pricey and high-end gear.  Because they've had the D40 style bodies out and that's pretty much their entire low-end range now, and I've been puzzled why they've come out with virtually nothing as far as reasonably priced 'upgrade' lenses to support those cameras.  The 35/1.8DX has pretty much been it.  We know a 50/1.8G is coming now at hopefully a somewhat reasonable price, but yes, as of today you still can't even get an autofocusing 50mm lens for the D40/D5100 class bodies for less than $400 $500 now :eek:, which is pretty crazy considering that class of camera bodies has been around for 4 years now, and all you need is the $100 50/1.8II for any camera body in "C" land.  It's as if Nikon just hasn't really cared, or hasn't been paying attention, or have been putting all of their efforts elsewhere for the past few years, which seems to be he case.

So will Nikon be "Leica-ized" as Thom feared they might? :confused:

Unless they give some attention to the lower end of the market STAT, that could happen I think.  Nikon is a really tough sell vs the Canon entry level products at the moment simply due to the huge lens compatibility issues and virtually zero attention from Nikon here for the past few years that's actually been aimed at this lower end segment.  Maybe the new 50/1.8G is the first of things to come there?

=====================


So basically, at least in theory based on the evidence, Nikon has been trying to own as much of the high-end market as they can which is lower volume, but higher margin, and hence still decent financial results with a lower market share.  Meanwhile they haven't followed up with enough lens support for their lower level offerings making them much less attractive.  I know a guy who had a Nikon D3000, and when he saw how much he would have to pay for an autofocusing 50mm lens (the top-end 1.4G for $450+), he said to heck with that and switched to a Canon T1i where he wouldn't have to get ripped off like that and could just buy the 50/1.8 II for $100.

Justin:

--- Quote from: S P on April 21, 2011, 08:41:55 AM ---
So basically Nikon has attacked the high-end market with ferocity and done a pretty good job of it stealing market share from Canon in that segment, but at the expense of losing overall volume and market share in the other/lower segments.  Higher margin on that stuff, so like Thom says, since the camera biz is the only business Nikon is making money in at the moment, it's been important to them to "own" the higher end of that market where all the margin is, and that they could do that with a lesser overall market share and still be happy.

Makes a lot of sense.  Explains why pretty much ALL of the glass Nikon has come out with in the past year or so is very high end and very pricey glass for the professional shooters.  Because that's the portion of the market they need to own to stay in business.  24/1.4, 35/1.4, 24-120/4VR, 85/1.4G, 28-300VR, etc.  Almost all of that is priced in the four-figure range in USD.



--- End quote ---

You're on to some interesting speculation here, and I believe based on a range of experiences in the last year that Nikon has indeed captured the high end DSLR market. The D3s and D3x are dominant cameras and the D7000 is no slouch. These cameras made a lot of people switch. Canon made a mistake with the 1D4 not going full frame. And they have been lurking in the shadows for 2.5 years or more now with their best performing chip in the 5D2 (a crippled tool--some say extremely others are content enough--by anyone's account).

What bothers me as an investor in one line is simple: I want the line of tools I use to be leading the high end market, even if I'm not buying the highest end tool, because all that tech trickles down. Not only that, I can save for a long time and enter into the high end market by being thrifty if I desire, or buy used.

I think Canon still maintains an edge on glass. The tilt shift wide lenses are spectacular, the 70-200 2.8 II is a beast, and the super teles (I don't own any but shot them) are drool worthy. The new ones look to clobber the old if the MTF charts are to believed (clobber our accounts too as they are too expensive for mere mortals). But even then I could see myself saving up for a few years and getting a 200-400 1.4x or a new 500 L II.

It's troubling that Canon relies so heavily on it's rebel lineup year after year for its sales. Mid market and up market sales are just as important if not more. Not only that, but the strategy to constantly upgrade the rebels runs into a tech wall after awhile: you can only improve a line so much before it overtakes the flagship).

So, long way of saying Canon needs to impress. They need to innovate and do it soon. 5D3 or whatever the successor of the 5D2 is needs to be spectacular. The flagship needs to boggle the mind. It's been an eternity in technology terms since these were upgraded. I'm running out of patience and excuses and the D3x looks pretty freaking sweet even 2 years since release.   

kubelik:
S P, great post and good points.  it is interesting that while people normally think of Nikon and Canon as direct competitors in the market they are actually hugely different companies with very different business and operational concerns.  I think that's why people keep mentioning that Canon is, in many ways, more concerned about Sony, because Sony is structured more like Canon and has the same production capabilities, and in the long run is more likely to toe the line with Canon as a camera giant.

we've talked about the marketing edge of this in the past, that Canon does a far, far better job than Nikon of marketing its cameras.  it may be a result of Nikon deciding that the general consumer isn't their target market (see S P and Thom Mayne's comments above) and thus not necessary to market to.  but Canon does a really great job of marketing its rebel line and its XXD line to the casual consumer/TV-watcher.

capability-wise, video is a big factor as well.  being able to shoot 1080p at multiple framerates is something people want to have the option of doing, even if they don't really use it all the time.  I bought my father a very nice Panasonic camcorder because he enjoys videotaping everything.  he's not a gearhead, he knows nothing about specifications, he just likes videotaping random stuff.  he looked at 5 minutes of footage shot from a DSLR and asked, why can't my camcorder make videos that look like that?  I know all the diehard still shooters out there decry video, and even I strongly feel total convergence is NOT the way to go, but having a cool capability that you occasionally use on your camera ... well, everyone likes to feel they got more bang for the buck.

Canon sits at the top because, at the end of the day, they have some of the best photography equipment available at a consumer price range on the market.  hardcore shootists moan and whine all the time about the 5D Mark II's shortcomings, but at the end of the day, there is no camera for its price that can sell like the 5D Mark II.  three years later, Sony hasn't come out with anything better than the equally-aging A900/A-850.  Nikon's D700 is better than the 5DII in some ways, but equally worse in some ways.  sony's got other issues holding it back from competing with Canon, such as lens portfolio (and even more important, lens price).  I am looking forward to Nikon dropping some new equipment sometime this year or next, which will prompt Canon to do the same

kubelik:
Justin, I think Canon is ready to impress, they're just waiting for the right time to do it.  I highly doubt they've been sitting on their laurels for the last three years.

the 1Ds Mark III was treading water from the minute the 5D Mark II dropped, so the fact that Nikon gobbled up pros with the D3 and D3x series isn't altogether that surprising.  if I were in Canon's seat, I'd make the choice to write off the 1DsIII as a loss, soak up sales of the 5D Mark II, and gun for gold with the 1DsIV / 1DV (whatever the next FF pro cam will be called) ...

other than the 1.3x crop, the 1DIV was actually very well received -- although supposedly Canon did research which told them that there were pros who wanted the 1.3x crop, whether that's true or marketing smoke I don't know.  Canon's clearly capable of continuing to innovate, as demonstrated by the smorgasbord of intriguing glass that it's announced in the last year: fish-eye zoom, 200-400 w/ 1.4x built-in, great new extenders, etc.  elsewhere, they are developing great cine lenses.  I think Canon can bring that level of quality and innovation to their pro camera body lineup.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page