Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010

[Canon Rumors]

Share

Oh Joy The IDC reported yesterday on the marketshare of the camera makers for 2010.

Canon remains the #1 camera maker in the world if you included PowerShots. Sony is in 2nd place.

However, in DSLR marketshare for 2010. Canon kicked the butt of pretty much everyone out there.

DSLR Global Marketshare 2010

1. Canon 44.5%
2. Nikon 29.8%
3. Sony 11.9 %

I always attach a grain of salt to marketshare research, everyone seems to come up with a different number. However, IDC is pretty well respected.

Source [1001noisycameras] via [Bloomberg]

cr

[Kuscali]

Good job Canon, would anyone know why Canon does so much better.

Honestly does may sound a wee bit ridiculous but I believe it is because Canon entry level (and well all DSLR's) are manufactured in Japan, whereas Nikon crop sensor cameras a manufactured in Thailand (I know many people that got Canon over Nikon for this very reason).

[caMARYnon]

Honestly does may sound a wee bit ridiculous but I believe it is because Canon entry level (and well all DSLR's) are manufactured in Japan, whereas Nikon crop sensor cameras a manufactured in Thailand (I know many people that got Canon over Nikon for this very reason).

Agree, Made in Japan is a terrific selling tool. But it is a very important parameter for determining the value of an object on the second hand market too so people are right to be attracted to this label.

[dilbert]

mmm, Canon sold more DSLRs in 2010 than Sony and Nikon combined.

Tells you something, doesn't it?

[Stuart]

If Nikon have good quality control then Thailand makes no difference. In fact it shoud get you more camera for your money as manufacturing is presumably cheaper.
I chose Canon over Nikon for its range of lenses, more professional looking website & Industry buzz. I continue to choose Canon for the fact that there seems to be only small amounts of difference between different bodies and my investment in Lenses and accessories stays with me. With infinite spare cash i'd have one from everybody but in the real world canon just seems to market its products better so i prefer them.
Thats not to say that Dynamic range and a few other niggles don't bug me - they can still improve the product.
I do though think that camera's are over priced and manufacture and design in other countries will help all photographers - Samsung i'm watching you!

[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:

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.

And from 2010 predictions

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.

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]

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.

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.

[MK5GTI]

these statistics is obviously before the D7000 was widely available.

we come back next year same time, i bet you the situation will be different, also with the 60D disaapointment to a lot of existing Canon user.  you see rebates available for 60D not too long after release, infact they are price close to the 600D on street price.

D7000 in the other hand was out of stock for a while.....

I am not a Nikon user, i have a 5D in fact, i just think these Stats were done not in proper timing for Nikon & Sony.

also, be aware of Sony up coming A77

[simonfilm]

Canon has made several smart things, like the 5D2, and more important in the video side, has LISTENED to what filmmakers, mainly amateur ones, begged: 24p; and Canon answered with 24p, 25p, 50p, 60p.

Now if Canon follows that common sense attitude the next gen could have: non line skipping, but resizing or video RAW in order to resize it with the computer. Good HDMI (10 bit 1080p) out and even WIFI out (imagine monitoring with an Ipad or other wifi tablet). Of course there are more pending improvements like, cooling, rolling shutter, manual audio controls, video follow focus, etc.

Simon.

[traveller]

We all like to see the system that we have invested a wad of our cash in is doing well, but we should taper some of our wildest rejoicing with the understanding that this all boils down to long term profitablity.  Just because Nikon has a lower share of the overall market doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing badly.  I agree with a lot of the previous posters that point out Nikon's strength in the mid to high end of the market; I would be willing to bet that here the split is not nearly so great. 

Nikon have traditionally concentrated on the mid to high end over the entry level range, but Canon's 'entry level' market share is increasingly being targeted by them; the much improved specs of the D3100 and D5100 over their predecessors (albeit following Canon's lead) and the (mis-)announcement of the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G demonstrate this growing commitment. "Rebel" buyers are the mass market for DSLRs and success here is great for Canon, but profit margins are lower on these cameras.  On top of this, I speculate that a higher proportion of these users don't go on to buy a great deal of other camera kit, either because they're happy with what a basic camera kit provides, or because they don't take up photography as a pastime (or profession).  So aggressively marketing to the low end doesn't necessarily generate high profitability.   

Profitable companies have the resources to spend the large amounts of money on R&D that it takes to stay at the leading edge of the pack and just look at some of the companies that are struggling to see what happens if you don't (Olympus, Pentax, Fuji).  The danger for Canon in my mind is the lack of any kind of market leading innovation (you know, like the all electronic camera, EF mount, in-lens motors, USM motors, IS etc.) -and don't anyone mention video because Nikon got there first with the D90!

This is where the danger from Sony comes in; they are a much bigger company that Canon and can divert resources from elsewhere if they decide to invest in gaining camera market share.  Sony have the money to throw mud at the wall to see what sticks, Canon probably don't, but at the moment they seem incapable of taking any risks.  OK, you can argue that it is easier to take risks when you're behind rather than the market leader, but capitalist theory teaches us that profit is the reward for taking risks and holding back can lose you first mover advantage.   

I believe that Canon (and Nikon) are in a dangerous position, they have products that are still attractive and a large installed user base, but this is a mature market and DSLR sales are now a cash cow.  Things may be looking quite rosey at the moment, but I'm worried that they are not well placed psychologically for any disruptive technological breakthrough. 

[EYEONE]

Profitable companies have the resources to spend the large amounts of money on R&D that it takes to stay at the leading edge of the pack and just look at some of the companies that are struggling to see what happens if you don't (Olympus, Pentax, Fuji).  The danger for Canon in my mind is the lack of any kind of market leading innovation (you know, like the all electronic camera, EF mount, in-lens motors, USM motors, IS etc.) -and don't anyone mention video because Nikon got there first with the D90!

This is where the danger from Sony comes in; they are a much bigger company that Canon and can divert resources from elsewhere if they decide to invest in gaining camera market share.  Sony have the money to throw mud at the wall to see what sticks, Canon probably don't, but at the moment they seem incapable of taking any risks.  OK, you can argue that it is easier to take risks when you're behind rather than the market leader, but capitalist theory teaches us that profit is the reward for taking risks and holding back can lose you first mover advantage.   

I believe that Canon (and Nikon) are in a dangerous position, they have products that are still attractive and a large installed user base, but this is a mature market and DSLR sales are now a cash cow.  Things may be looking quite rosey at the moment, but I'm worried that they are not well placed psychologically for any disruptive technological breakthrough.

I hear people talk a lot about wanting Canon to innovate. And maybe I should just ask them to clarify what they mean exactly. Would you like Canon to invent a new kind of camera? Because I seriously don't know what else you would like them to do with the DSLR. Sony got applauded for the A33 & 55 cameras because the "tried something new" When they really didn't. They took an old idea and made it work with a modern DSLR and ended up with a camera with a few pros and some serious cons.

They didn't really innovate. The DSLR is what it is. We have auto focus now, and IS and advanced metering systems. And we have more megapixels than we need in the entry level models. We have ISO ranges that go way beyond what was imaginable 10 years ago. The only thing left to do in my mind is simply make the DSLR better. And I'm really fine with that.

I mean we've already seen Canon struggle with this. Look at how close the 7D, 60D, 550D, and 600D are. At this point in the game it's just a matter of finding the right mix of technology that they have already developed and putting it in a camera that yields a good product for the market you are aiming for. What else should they do? The 600D already has more power than the average Joe needs to take good pictures.

I suppose you could make the argument about the EVIL market. In which case there is a reason for Canon to get involved in that. There is money to be made there.

And the same goes for Nikon. I don't expect anything more than a "better" camera than the last. Because like I said before, you can only "innovate" so much before you've created something that isn't a DSLR.

[ISO100]

I hear people talk a lot about wanting Canon to innovate. And maybe I should just ask them to clarify what they mean exactly. Would you like Canon to invent a new kind of camera? Because I seriously don't know what else you would like them to do with the DSLR ...
...
They didn't really innovate. The DSLR is what it is. We have auto focus now, and IS and advanced metering systems. And we have more megapixels than we need in the entry level models. We have ISO ranges that go way beyond what was imaginable 10 years ago. The only thing left to do in my mind is simply make the DSLR better. And I'm really fine with that.
...
At this point in the game it's just a matter of finding the right mix of technology that they have already developed and putting it in a camera that yields a good product for the market you are aiming for. What else should they do?
 ...
And the same goes for Nikon. I don't expect anything more than a "better" camera than the last. Because like I said before, you can only "innovate" so much before you've created something that isn't a DSLR.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion! Right off the bat I can think of the following true innovations I would really like to see on any and all new Canon DSLRs:

1) twentyfirst century grade Eye Control Focusing! Selecting the active AF-point(s) with only the movement of your eye - autofocus will be exactly on the item in the frame viewed by the the user. Yes, Canon has invented this already many years ago (analogue Canon EOS 3 and others models) ... but it did not really work well for most users back then. A perfectly working ECF system in a DSLR would be the greatest innvovation in a long time!

2) built in wireless RC (!) master flash control - full  ETTL II and III functionality with all new speedlites and via a small adaptor also with all current EX speedlites  (580/II, 430/II, 270 II) would be another great and industry-first innovation!

3) wireless ETTL-III - very simple inmnovation for Canon: deliver exactly the same functionality Nikons CLS system is delivering for years by now. Specifically: FP ("Hi Speed sync") and flash on second curtain over wireless master-slave not in case of on-shoe or wired connection. Wouldn't this be a great innvoation for Canon?

4) Multi-touch LCD screen for operation in live view/video modes. Not an industry first (see Panasonic and others) - but from Canon I would like to see exactly the type of (capacitative) touch panel and intuitive user-interface as used in an Apple iPhone4. Would be industry first DSLR featuring this functionality.

5) Built in WIFI in any in every single new Canon DSLR ... at little extra cost and with smart battery saving firmware. Another industry first innovation for Canon to bring to us ...

and and and ... innovations waiting to happen GALORE!!!