Canon Rules the Camera Landscape

[Del Paso]

Same with Germany's once leading camera industry. Leitz (Leica) even developed together with Minolta the original phase detection AF system. But then Leitz's management decided to leave all patents to Minolta, because "real" photographers won't use AF. History proved that this was a completely wrong decision, and Leica lost nearly all of its once big share of the pro and enthusiasts market, and their otherwise so well made R system was banned into a niche.

Only a few pro photographers remained loyal to Leica btw. One example is the German wildlife photographer Norbert Rosing, who was famous in particular for his ice bear images he shot for the National Geographic magazine. He used (I think still uses) a Leica R system:
View attachment 225910

Yes, I remember well when Leica had developed the AF system they named Correfot.
But it must be said that, at that time, they simply lacked financial resources to replace the R lenses with AF variants. Cooperating with Minolta in the R3, R4 etc... development was no easy choice for them, and also their customers.
"Traditionalism" was, of course, also part of the equation. "Real" photographers often even rejected auto exposure. I must confess I still do...
Yet, you are absolutely right, not going the AF way was the worst possible decision. And so, a company known for mechanical and optical innovation turned itself into a conservative brand without any real appeal for pro users. The SL3, though a nice camera, is no match to the R5 II. OEM lens choice is still very limited. And its AF stands no chance against Canon's.
And the decision to "leicaize" more and more Sigma lenses could jeopardise furthermore their identity. Leica is (was?) lenses, period!

 

[EricN]

Yes, I remember well when Leica had developed the AF system they named Correfot.
But it must be said that, at that time, they simply lack financial resources to replace the R lenses with AF variants. Cooperating with Minolta in the R3, R4 etc... development was no easy choice for them, and also their customers.
"Traditionalism" was, of course, also part of the equation. "Real" photographers often even rejected auto exposure. I must confess I still do...
Yet, you are absolutely right, not going the AF way was the worst possible decision. And so, a company known for mechanical and optical innovation turned itself into a conservative brand without any real appeal for pro users. The SL3, though a nice camera, is no match to the R5 II. OEM lens choice is still very limited. And its AF stands no chance against Canon's.
And the decision to "leicaize" more and more Sigma lenses could jeopardise furthermore their identity. Leica is (was?) lenses, period!

How can Sigma lenses possibly jeopardize Lecia? Even when a Canon lens is "too heavy," a similar sigma lens can weigh more and through a kind of magic, it's not too heavy if it's a Sigma.

 

[Del Paso]

How can Sigma lenses possibly jeopardize Lecia? Even when a Canon lens is "too heavy," a similar sigma lens can weigh more and through a kind of magic, it's not too heavy if it's a Sigma.

A company like Leica, selling very expensive products, needs credibility.
This cannot be achieved by selling Sigma and Panasonic lenses rebranded as Leicas. Leica's main argument has always been developing and producing highest quality lenses.
Not by selling Sigmas or Panasonics, no matter how good they can be. This decision gets often criticised as a loss of identity, kind of cheating...
And luxury brands are sooo proud of their identity, what if Hermes had their bed linen made by "My Pillow" ?

 

[P-visie]

A company like Leica, selling very expensive products, needs credibility.
This cannot be achieved by selling Sigma and Panasonic lenses rebranded as Leicas. Leica's main argument has always been developing and producing highest quality lenses.
Not by selling Sigmas or Panasonics, no matter how good they can be. This decision gets often criticised as a loss of identity, kind of cheating...
And luxury brands are sooo proud of their identity, what if Hermes had their bed linen made by "My Pillow" ?

But does the average Leica buyer knows (and cares) that (s)he is buying a re-packaged Panasonic or Sigma lens? My guesstimate is that only camera enthusiasts know and care. It’s probably the same for the “Nikon” Z Tamron lenses.

 

[justaCanonuser]

And luxury brands are sooo proud of their identity, what if Hermes had their bed linen made by "My Pillow" ?

You nailed it: Leica today is a luxury brand. In Frankfurt, where I live, I quite frequently watch rich Chinese people carrying a freshly bought camera from the Leica Gallery here, with a nice lens, hanging like a Louis Vuitton handbag from their shoulders - and shooting & posing with their smartphones. Quite funny, but as long as it helps Leica, it's okay. But there are signs that business isn't running as smoothly as before for Leica, at least for their non M camera sections. A good friend told me, that his sister's spouse, an engineer who was involved in the development of Leica's mid format S series, was recently forced to retire before reaching his full retirement age.

 

[justaCanonuser]

But does the average Leica buyer knows (and cares) that (s)he is buying a re-packaged Panasonic or Sigma lens? My guesstimate is that only camera enthusiasts know and care. It’s probably the same for the “Nikon” Z Tamron lenses.

I think that only camera enthusiasts know that there is a camera maker brand Leica existing.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Canon may not be content with the DSLRs disappearing, but that's happenign soon unless they decide to invest again in developing EF, which I think is an impossibility.

I doubt that Canon's management and engineers are sad about declining DSLR sales now. A DSLR with its mirror mechanics is a much more complex and therefore costly machine to produce and to adjust optically during a quality control cycle than a ML camera - former DSLR users remember vividly "AF microadjustment" (a typical procedure one had to start at least with every new 3rd party lens, I still have my LensCal tool). In particular if a ML body does not need any mechanical shutter anymore and may just have a much simpler sensor protection curtain as the last mechanical part, it is much simpler to produce. This was the charm of Sony's original A7: such a simple industrial design, very smart.

Canon and Nikon have kept up their DSLR lines because their users wanted it for many years, but that's changing now. I was conservative, too, because ML cameras weren't really useable for action for the first years of their existence, but today they even beat the best DSLRs with their AI trained subject detection in many settings.

 

[Del Paso]

You nailed it: Leica today is a luxury brand. In Frankfurt, where I live, I quite frequently watch rich Chinese people carrying a freshly bought camera from the Leica Gallery here, with a nice lens, hanging like a Louis Vuitton handbag from their shoulders - and shooting & posing with their smartphones. Quite funny, but as long as it helps Leica, it's okay. But there are signs that business isn't running as smoothly as before for Leica, at least for their non M camera sections. A good friend told me, that his sister's spouse, an engineer who was involved in the development of Leica's mid format S series, was recently forced to retire before reaching his full retirement age.

Leica S don't really sell, they are usually "rented", offen for free, by Leica subsidised professionals. S lenses are the best you can buy, but they don't sell, being, like the cameras, too expensive for those earning their income with a camera. And there's a lot of excellent, often far more advanced competition in the segment. Fujifilm, finally, was the nail in the Leica S' coffin...

 

[Del Paso]

I doubt that Canon's management and engineers are sad about declining DSLR sales now. A DSLR with its mirror mechanics is a much more complex and therefore costly machine to produce and to adjust optically during a quality control cycle than a ML camera - former DSLR users remember vividly "AF microadjustment" (a typical procedure one had to start at least with every new 3rd party lens, I still have my LensCal tool). In particular if a ML body does not need any mechanical shutter anymore and may just have a much simpler sensor protection curtain as the last mechanical part, it is much simpler to produce. This was the charm of Sony's original A7: such a simple industrial design, very smart.

Canon and Nikon have kept up their DSLR lines because their users wanted it for many years, but that's changing now. I was conservative, too, because ML cameras weren't really useable for action for the first years of their existence, but today they even beat the best DSLRs with their AI trained subject detection in many settings.

I had today a very frustrated experience with my beloved 5 D IV. I normally use MLs, set on manual exposure. And, thanks to mirrorless and EVF, I no longer use the exposure meter, since I can see the end-picture in the viewfinder.
But not in a DSLR.... which I often forgot.
50% of my pictures were horribly over/under exposed... My fault!
I owned (and quickly regretted it) an original A7*. It's shutter must have been designed by Alexander Kalashnikov, the shock and the noise were almost identical.
Than came the wonderful 5 D III and so much more.

 

[David - Sydney]

(CIPA) In Jan-July camera production 12,902,281 yen of DSLRs were produced, compared to 235,416,102 yen of mirrorless, so DSLRs are more an emaciated cow than a cash cow.

I fully expect that the only high end DLSRs available for sale (5Div and 1DXiii) would sell in low volumes vs the low end DLSRs. So your figures makes sense. The question is the profitability of that JPY12m. Mirrorless have a lot of R&D and marketing to amortise over their current lifespan whereas DLSRs have no R&D cost or limited marketing spend.
Canon will enjoy the cash until the volumes are no longer there and why wouldn't they??

 

[David - Sydney]

I disagree that the cow will be milkable for years, unless we call milking it also selling 10's of thousands (i.e. almost nothing) per year. I think that is coming very soon.
Canon may not be content with the DSLRs disappearing, but that's happenign soon unless they decide to invest again in developing EF, which I think is an impossibility.

Canon is definitely milking their DLSRs with zero current R&D and marketing costs.
DLSRs are in maturity phase of their product lifecycle and the volumes will decrease but still remain for cost sensitive buyers/markets until mirrorless is cheaper. That hasn't happened yet but getting closer. A better body than the R100 could easily be made but Canon has decided what is their base model features for them.

The RP is still available and is the cheapest FF sensor body and also a cash cow product. All that cash goes directly to support R&D for mirrorless and dividends.
There will be end of life costs when they just want to clear the remaining stock before discontinuation but until then....

AI describes the scenario well:
"A cash cow is a mature, highly profitable product with a large market share but low growth potential. It is a product in the maturity stage of the standard product life cycle that generates more revenue than it consumes, allowing a company to "milk" its profits to fund other products, like "stars" or "question marks," which represent growth opportunities."

 

[David - Sydney]

I can still remember, when I was working in the auto industry, my warnings at engineering students making fun of Japanese, Korean, then Chinese cars.
They were so convinced nobody could ever attain the level of Glorious German Auto Industry. I recall telling them to go to a museum, to look at Chinese art and craft, so they'd understand which civilisation they were making fun of.
Then came the Lexus; the Nissan Z, all the Hyundais etc...
I guess they've understood now.

"Western" and Japanese manufacturers saw the market need for electric cars but were blown out of the water trying to compete on cost with the Chinese. They have basically all said that they will now focus on more efficient petrol engines. Toyota are pushing ahead with their hybrids as they can still be competitive with them but the rest??

China created a rod for their own back by allowing most provinces to start their own BEV companies. There are over 200 of them that all received subsidies. There will be massive losses as they are merged/go bankrupt over time and still trying to sell their remaining stock at a loss. Dumping them in other markets has resulted in tariffs to protect local manufacturing but Australia stopped their local manufacturing many years ago so no tariffs locally.

CATL is the biggest battery manufacturer with 38% in the world for BEVs supporting and will drive innovation through their scale.
BYD is the world's biggest BEV maker. They are also 17% of global market share for batteries with the Korean LG and Japanese Panasonic behind them. Telsa makes some but also relies on others as well.

Significant efficiencies in the future for petrol engines are unlikely. Only hybrids can give that extra efficiency boost but that means having both petrol and battery technology.

BEVs don't need maintenance costs, brakes last virtually indefinitely and I get 3 hours free electricity a day at home for any use because of our dominant home solar (over 30% of homes) giving rise to "duck's back" pricing curves. China makes >80% of the world's solar panels.
Different cost structure if you don't have your own home and need to use public chargers though.

 

[roby17269]

Canon is definitely milking their DLSRs with zero current R&D and marketing costs.
DLSRs are in maturity phase of their product lifecycle and the volumes will decrease but still remain for cost sensitive buyers/markets until mirrorless is cheaper. That hasn't happened yet but getting closer. A better body than the R100 could easily be made but Canon has decided what is their base model features for them.

The RP is still available and is the cheapest FF sensor body and also a cash cow product. All that cash goes directly to support R&D for mirrorless and dividends.
There will be end of life costs when they just want to clear the remaining stock before discontinuation but until then....

AI describes the scenario well:
"A cash cow is a mature, highly profitable product with a large market share but low growth potential. It is a product in the maturity stage of the standard product life cycle that generates more revenue than it consumes, allowing a company to "milk" its profits to fund other products, like "stars" or "question marks," which represent growth opportunities."

Not sure the AI definition applies then... "large market share" for DSLRs? nope. "Low growth potential"? nope again, the market for DSLRs is shrinking fast.

And while the money Canon makes from DSLRs sales is indeed free from R&D and marketing costs, it is not free from warranty / support costs and the longer Canon keeps selling EF cameras and lenses, the longer they will have to provide repairs, which is another cost. I am sure that Canon is indeed making money from those sales regardless.

 

[MikeGalos]

Not sure the AI definition applies then... "large market share" for DSLRs? nope. "Low growth potential"? nope again, the market for DSLRs is shrinking fast.

Canon's DSLRs do have a large market share of the DSLR market. Growing each year as everyone else abandons the dying segment.

Here's that massive growth in share and that massive drop in sales.

Year	Canon's Share of the DSLR Market	Annual Sales of Canon DSLRs
2021	77.72%	1,570,000
2022	86.27%	1,320,000
2023	86.79%	920,000
2024	90.80%	790,000

And, yes, even if we assume the R&D was done long ago and the marketing is long done and assume, as people don't tend to realize, that camera bodies are built in batches and not as an ongoing production line there are the expenses you mentioned as well as cost of the money invested and warehousing and insurance costs for that warehoused inventory.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not sure the AI definition applies then... "large market share" for DSLRs? nope. "Low growth potential"? nope again, the market for DSLRs is shrinking fast.

Large market share = ~90%. Low growth potential is negative but corporate spin would be "low growth potential"

And while the money Canon makes from DSLRs sales is indeed free from R&D and marketing costs, it is not free from warranty / support costs and the longer Canon keeps selling EF cameras and lenses, the longer they will have to provide repairs, which is another cost. I am sure that Canon is indeed making money from those sales regardless.

Canon have been making these models for a long, long time and know exactly what the support costs would be. There are no firmware support updates so that leaves the physical costs like warehousing/shipping of final inventory. As @MikeGalos says, manufacturing would be done in batches and there may have been one large final run to support spares and repairs.

Tooling and last purchase price for obsolete items can make the final run more expensive but I don't think that Canon is at that point yet... I mean even with decreasing volumes, they still sold nearly 800k of them!

The T7/2000D/X90 single lens kit is the cheapest and smallest DLSR shipping box is about 5l in volume so 790k would equal ~1.5x olympic swimming pools or whatever US weird volumetric measure you would use

Only Canon will know if they are making money from them but clearly they are. They might not be making money from 5Div/1DXiii but they haven't been substantially discounted vs R5 at times either.

Clearly Nikon wasn't making money from them and exited the market. That only helps Canon though for the short term.

EF lenses is a different story and will have a longer lifespan until end-of-sale and even longer for end-of-support dates.

 

[roby17269]

Large market share = ~90%. Low growth potential is negative but corporate spin would be "low growth potential"

Big fish in a small pond then? they can spin all they want, but the DSLR portion of the market is shrinking and based on those numbers it will disappear in 4-5 years... and become irrelevant before that

Canon have been making these models for a long, long time and know exactly what the support costs would be. There are no firmware support updates so that leaves the physical costs like warehousing/shipping of final inventory. As @MikeGalos says, manufacturing would be done in batches and there may have been one large final run to support spares and repairs.

Tooling and last purchase price for obsolete items can make the final run more expensive but I don't think that Canon is at that point yet... I mean even with decreasing volumes, they still sold nearly 800k of them!

But that number is not going to hold. And there is a cost in maintaining people and processes and tools to service EF gear. In most countries they will have to provide such service for 7 years after the retirement of each item, which is why both Nikon and Canon are aggressively retiring lenses.

The T7/2000D/X90 single lens kit is the cheapest and smallest DLSR shipping box is about 5l in volume so 790k would equal ~1.5x olympic swimming pools or whatever US weird volumetric measure you would use

It's a fun fact but not sure of its relevance?

Only Canon will know if they are making money from them but clearly they are. They might not be making money from 5Div/1DXiii but they haven't been substantially discounted vs R5 at times either.

Clearly Nikon wasn't making money from them and exited the market. That only helps Canon though for the short term.

EF lenses is a different story and will have a longer lifespan until end-of-sale and even longer for end-of-support dates.

No one is saying Canon is not making money on EF gear sold now (at least I am not).
It is pretty normal for discontinued (explicitly or de facto) items to not be discounted since the majority buyers become current users that want to duplicate their bodies / lenses as insurance.

 

[CJaurelius]

I think it's more the case that the DRLS market is disappearing fast and Canon is the last manufacturer that still sells a significant number of DSLRs, so their growth in mirrorless is countered by their decreasing DSLR sales. I assume that they will reverse the trend once DSLRs will disappear

The relevant graph -- the only one which can be relevant for your points about RF mount -- is the "Mirrorless Shipments" one. Here, obviously, the gap between Canon and Sony is smaller, because Canon's DSLR shipments are not included (but still remarkable considering that Canon started from zero FF mirrorless shipments in 2018), But, contrary to your point the gap increased between 2022 and 2023 and the difference appears pretty much unchanged since then. In fact, since 2023 the four leading shippers, Canon, Sony, Nikon and Fujifilm all seem to have increased their shipments "in parallel", whereas the others listed, Panasonic and Olympus/OM seem to be flatlining.

I don't see any evidence to support your point, so Canon seems to be "managing" despite your recommendation to others to avoid your "mistake" and buy other brands. Personally, I think such a recommendation may be very short-sighted and not in the longer term interests of new photographers.

When you look at just the mirrorless market and say that their is growth among most the manufacturers that misses point that some brands are growing their mirrorless faster than others.

Mirroless market only:

1. Canon: 2.05 million units 39.3% - 5% Growth
2. Sony: 1.63 million units 31.2% - 7% Growth
3. Nikon: 760,000 units 14.6% - 21% Growth
4. Fujifilm: 490,000 units 9.4% - 29% Growth
5. Panasonic: 160,000 units 3.1% - 14% Growth
6. OM Digital: 130,000 units 2.5% - 8% Growth

Canon's growth this year was the least of ALL of them. So once DSLR's are gone if there are more years like 2024 then Canon's market share would continue to go lower as pretty much everyone grew faster than Canon. And were not talking about by a little. Nikon and Fujifilm grew by 3 - 4 times the rate of Canon.

And this isn't just a one year trend. Canon has grown their mirrorless sales 46% over the last 3 years years meanwhile Fujifilm has grown 69% and Nikon has grown 90%. One of Nikon's best sellers will probably be the Z5II just release in 2025 at an affordadable price so I don't imagine they'll slow down and they haven't even capitalized off of the RED purchase. Meanwhile Fujifilm can't keep the X100VI in stock which release a year and half ago and they just released the X-E5 which is basically the mirrorless ILC version of that.

Heck even Panasonic grew at almost 3 times the rate of Canon in 2024 and they just released their most popular cameras in 2025 so I imagine they'll grow a bit more in 2025.

Canon will clearly remain the market share leader but they way things look they'll probably continue to erode that lead into the future.

 

[scyrene]

Canon's growth this year was the least of ALL of them.[...]Nikon and Fujifilm grew by 3 - 4 times the rate of Canon.

It's easier to grow a smaller number by a bigger percentage. Nikon had almost nowhere to go but up, given how much they had declined.

 

[scyrene]

'Twas ever thus - but still rather sad and laughable - when some people hitch their personal hobby horses to broad trends. The presence or absence of third party FF lenses in Canon's lineup (for instance) may rile some people but it is entirely irrelevant to the broad trends of eg the final death of DSLRs or the rise of China (or India or Africa). Canon may have vanished in a few decades, but it won't be because of anything any we forum dwellers care about. And every year Canon continues to manage their position within the market, a new doom-mongering mole pops up to be whacked.

 

[Del Paso]

But does the average Leica buyer knows (and cares) that (s)he is buying a re-packaged Panasonic or Sigma lens? My guesstimate is that only camera enthusiasts know and care. It’s probably the same for the “Nikon” Z Tamron lenses.

Warning: This will be an over-simplification! I take no responsibility whatsoever for my subjective opinion!
I see basically 3 types of customers.
1) I buy Leica for prestige reasons, and because I can easily afford buying expensive items. Quite common type in Leica world nowadays. The higher the price, the prouder the customer.
2) I buy everything Leica produce, because I am a collector. (No lack of money, obviously). This group is passionate.
3) I buy Leica to take pictures with, because I'm convinced it precisely meets my needs.. Mostly "M" buyers. This group is getting rare. Exaggerated pricing is a strong deterrent. In cases of acute lack of money, they might be tempted by a rebadged Panasigma...
Conclusion: Groups "2" and "3" precisely know what they are buying. And dislike getting Pana or Sigma. They want the real thing.
Group"1" clients don't care, as long as their friends see the red dot on the camera.