What if Canon were no longer #1?

[Mikehit]

Just supposin'....

Talking to a third party rep yesterday and he was saying that there are some new marketing figures coming out showing that Canon are no longer #1 for FF camera sales. Apparently this was sales based on profit, not shipping and Sony had taken #1. Though not sure if it was Japan, Asia or global.
The problem with marketing is that you can spin the numbers a lot of different ways but this really would mark a significant turnaround in the market, and the fact that (if true) Sony could get anywhere near this would be a surprise at this time. But it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days.

So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?

 

[BasXcanon]

Uhmmmm at that moment...... everyone's gonna sell it all..........
11-24mm L for 600$ listed on Ebay, 200-400mm F4 for 1000$ and many more for me.

Oh and metabones EF to E mount Version 6 will be 2k $ of course.....

 

[9VIII]

No-one cares.

Canon has the best glass and the most reliable system as a whole. That’s not changing.

 

[brad-man]

It wouldn't matter to me, but it would matter to Canon. Perhaps they would release some of that tech in the patents they're sitting on. Competition is always good.

 

[LDS]

So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?

I suppose Sony is reiterating its sales figures from NPD Group’s Retail Tracking Service, as it did in April, when it said it had overtaken Nikon.

So probably a US thing, and limited to the NPD survey capabilities - participating retailers.

Even so, would it matter to your photo? Will your gear suddenly stops working, or will deliver worse images? It doesn't look photos taken with Nikon gear got worse since Sony boasted it got before Nikon.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I Don't buy it. I work on a tourist Island that get anywhere from 500-2000 tourists a day(predominantly chinese but a mix of all nationalities). Sony A series cameras are the least common cameras I see. By a long margin. Maybe a half dozen a day compared to dozens of canon and Nikon full frames and scores of canon and Nikon entry levels. I am guessing if the figures are accurate they are very specific and limited.

 

[Mikehit]

Even so, would it matter to your photo? Will your gear suddenly stops working, or will deliver worse images? It doesn't look photos taken with Nikon gear got worse since Sony boasted it got before Nikon.

It doesn't matter to me at all - I buy gear to do what I want it to do. Why do you assume I am worried my gear is any good? This was a question about peoples' view of the market, not the worthiness of gear.
I find that when numbers come out there is all sort of criticism of the numbers and retrenchment of biases, so I thought is interesting to ask the question from a slightly different angle and have a look-see at what people think about the possibility, and if any numbers do suggest such a significant change.

 

[Hector1970]

I'm sure some day it will be true but not today.
Canon has been very successful with its incremental upgrade model and its excellent glass.
Sony are getting more serious about glass and have the full frame mirrorless cornered at the moment.

I think mirrorless is the future so Canon need to bring a good model to the market.
The M series might be good now but it didn't start well it put me off ever trying it.
It could also be the case that if the rest of Sony is not doing well their camera section could be squeezed. That's not the case today but you never know.
Canon is a more steady eddie.
They are a bit of a Nokia like company.

 

[PavelR]

I bought my brand new Canon camera several years ago 1DIV. Then 1DsIII [second hand] later and I've bought two Sony FF bodies this year. I do not think I'm the only one...

 

[Loswr]

I heard Fuji was #1 at the Best Buy store in Long Beach, CA during the month of October.

 

[3kramd5]

It wouldn't matter to me, but it would matter to Canon. Perhaps they would release some of that tech in the patents they're sitting on. Competition is always good.

This

 

[dak723]

Wouldn't matter to me one bit. Not sure why it matters to anyone - as long as Canon stays in business and does well enough to continue to put out products. And it f they didn't - then I will get a photo equipment camera from some other company if and when my stuff no longer works. Already have one Olympus to go along with my one Canon camera. The fact that people root for companies as if they were sports teams competing against one another is so ludicrous that I want to yell "Grow up" every time I see the various trolls and fanboy comments that dominate the internet.

 

[Talys]

If we're just talking FF cameras, I'd be pretty surprised. I rarely see a Sony FF anywhere other than in a camera shop store, and most of them don't even present them out of the box, the way they do with every Canon and Nikon body.

For myself, it wouldn't matter. The usability of the Sony bodies would have to double and the price of top-end Sony glass would need to drop by half for me to seriously consider it to replace Canon. Since I don't think that's going to happen any time soon, Canon is pretty safe, for me.

There are some things that would preclude me from buying a current Sony $3000+ body -- some are features, like the lack of gaskets and any weather sealing beyond "tight fit". Now, I'm a fairweather guy, but I'm not going to buy a top shelf body without. And some are design: I'm not going to spend $10,000+ just to get started with a system that I really don't enjoy using.

If Nikon had a couple of missing/upgraded lenses, I'd think that I'd consider the D850 -- except in reality I wouldn't, because everything is backwards, and it's just too painful to make that switch again. I switched once from Nikon, and getting used to the backwards thing was not fun.

 

[docsmith]

"What if Canon were no longer #1" in sales????

I'd still be extremely happy with the pictures I am taking with my 5DIV, M3, G7XII, and ~$15,000 of glass and accessories I own.

 

[Ozarker]

Slim and none. The rep must have smuggled some "Grape Stomper" weed out of my state of Nevada.

 

[aceflibble]

Couldn't give a rat's arse. Are you under the impression that Nikon and Fuji users are walking around with glum expressions, not even bothering to take any photos because they're only #2?

 

[Mikehit]

Couldn't give a rat's arse. Are you under the impression that Nikon and Fuji users are walking around with glum expressions, not even bothering to take any photos because they're only #2?

Why would you even think I thought that? Is that fact that someone told me something you don't agree with so unsettling.
All I asked was what people thought of the possibility that the market leader has been usurped.

 

[unfocused]

It would make a big difference, but not in the way anyone here is thinking.

Until I started reading this forum, I didn't even know Canon was No. 1. I bought my first Canon back in the 1970s, when Nikon was No. 1 for pros and Pentax had the bulk of the amateur market. I bought Canon because I couldn't afford Nikon at the time and Canon was of near equal quality. I was surprised when I started following this forum and learned that Canon had overtaken Nikon and was even more surprised at how much that seemed to matter to so many people.

Anyway -- here is why it would matter. If Canon lost the top slot in sales it would mean they seriously misread the market. It would mean that mirrorless sales are far stronger than anyone predicted. That would indicate a failure on their part that would no doubt lead to some serious changes in the company management. It could mean that investors might sell off some of their Canon stock or at least buy less stock, which in turn could lower stock prices and reduce the amount of capital available to the company.

It would introduce a level of uncertainty that might prompt the company to cut expenses, scale back certain lines and concentrate on the portions of its business that are more predictable and profitable . So yes, it would matter.

But, of course, sales reps are notoriously uninformed and unreliable so I doubt if the source of this claim has any real knowledge of the market.

 

[Loswr]

Anyway -- here is why it would matter. If Canon lost the top slot in sales it would mean they seriously misread the market. It would mean that mirrorless sales are far stronger than anyone predicted.

Does that holds true, given that this bit of information (if correct) applies specifically to full frame ILCs?

 

[unfocused]

Anyway -- here is why it would matter. If Canon lost the top slot in sales it would mean they seriously misread the market. It would mean that mirrorless sales are far stronger than anyone predicted.

Does that holds true, given that this bit of information (if correct) applies specifically to full frame ILCs?

What do you think? Since we are dealing with purely speculative and no doubt false information, it's a little crazy to even speculate. In this theoretical example, which I don't believe for a minute is correct, I do think it would be an indication that Canon at a minimum underestimated the rate of adoption of mirrorless technology for full frame cameras.

Whether or not that would have a major impact on sales or profits, I don't know. But certainly, Canon's management would be asking how and why they had misread the market.