Canon claims top share of press cameras used at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
313
688
The entry of Sony into the camera business has certainly been highly beneficial to all of us, as they've been very innovative and have pushed sensor technology forward. Sony definitely hastened the switchover to mirrorless too. They have been the catalyst that has forced Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Fujifilm and everyone else to entirely rethink their approach to cameras.

I'm not so sure that Nikon is turning a corner - they've always been at the forefront technologically - the D850 was a long way ahead of the 5DS and 5DMkiv, and is still IMO by far the best DSLR yet made. The Z9 looks very promising and could easily prove to be the "best" sports/reportage MILC, but unfortunately Nikon just doesn't have the marketing prowess of Canon or Sony. It's no use making the best camera, if you don't know how to promote it successfully.
Sony has brought us better sensor technology and made Canon raise their game. Aside from that, I'm not sure I would give Sony much credit on the positive side. What they also brought us - in my opinion - is an emphasis on spec sheets rather than the quality of those specs. Specs that can be raved about by the internet enthusiasts, but often fall short of expectations in actual use. Cameras that ignore ergonomics and usability. Perhaps indirectly (although that is not necessarily so) we can thank Sony for its troll network and biased reviews that promote the overall hostile atmosphere that had inundated the camera forums on the internet. We can thank Sony for making it OK to release "beta" versions of cameras and then expecting their loyal consumers to somehow believe that having to buy the new and improved Mark II version of the camera only 2 years later is a good thing. I briefly owned a Sony A7 II a few years back and it was the worst camera I ever owned. No doubt their cameras have improved, but I won't support a company that (I believe) is largely responsible for all the items I mention above. It's a real shame that Sony has taken so much of Nikon's market share. if you are considering a Sony or a Nikon, I would urge you to get a Nikon. I recently bought a Z5 and it is a fine camera. What's even better is the new Z lenses. I thought Canon made really fine lenses (at least at the level I can afford), but the 3 Nikon lenses that I have owned are better than any similar lenses by Canon, at least in my experience.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
"Sony has brought us better sensor technology and made Canon raise their game. Aside from that, I'm not sure I would give Sony much credit on the positive side. What they also brought us - in my opinion - is an emphasis on spec sheets rather than the quality of those specs. Specs that can be raved about by the internet enthusiasts, but often fall short of expectations in actual use. Cameras that ignore ergonomics and usability."
Yes, Sony have tended to emphasise specifications and features, while paying arguably less attention to ergonomics and usability, but the people who own them clearly prefer the Sony control system, and I know people who own both Canon and Sony systems, and have no problems switching back and forth between them. Personally I find Canon cameras far more usable and far more enjoyable, but there's plenty of room in the market for both brands, with their differing approaches.

"Perhaps indirectly (although that is not necessarily so) we can thank Sony for its troll network and biased reviews that promote the overall hostile atmosphere that had inundated the camera forums on the internet."

Yes, we all know that Sony has a "troll network" of fanatical, irritating and almost evangelical self-appointed influencers - and they do seem to be far more vociferous than even the most diehard M43 users. But love is blind.

"We can thank Sony for making it OK to release "beta" versions of cameras and then expecting their loyal consumers to somehow believe that having to buy the new and improved Mark II version of the camera only 2 years later is a good thing."

I don't accept this argument. Sony users are driven by technology and always want the "latest and greatest", and Sony meets that demand by producing new models with greater frequency than most other brands. Not a problem. No one is forced to upgrade, but it's nice to have the option. I also rather like Sony's policy of keeping the older models on the market, at a significantly lower price - giving their customers multiple choices of models and prices.

"I briefly owned a Sony A7 II a few years back and it was the worst camera I ever owned. No doubt their cameras have improved...."

I've also owned early Sony models - namely the a100 which is probably the worst camera ever designed, and the a700 which was a superb camera for its time. Sony "experimented" with their SLT cameras which were exceptionally good designs with pretty good ergonomics, but they proved unpopular on the market. Then came the horrendous a6000 APS cameras, and the novelty of the first a7, which you either loved or loathed. Although I still dislike Sony ergonomics, I can find nothing to criticise about the build quality or performance of later cameras such as the a7Riv and a9. And the A1 is without doubt a superb camera, albeit an expensive one.

"It's a real shame that Sony has taken so much of Nikon's market share...."

I'd phrase it differently. It's a great pity that Nikon have lost market share, as they make superb cameras and lenses, but Canon and Sony are simply better at marketing their products. To be honest, ALL modern cameras, particularly those from Canon, Nikon and Sony are far more capable than most of the people who own them. They are all very well specified, very well built, and perform superbly. The skill is with the photographer not the camera. I'd have no hesitation in recommending ANY of the current generation of cameras from these 3 brands. Instead I'd just advise prospective purchasers to check out whether each brand has the lenses they desire, and to visit a store and handle all the models to see which one feels "right" im their hands.
 

ConanRumours

I'm New Here
Aug 11, 2021
15
5
And since when has the entire internet been right about anything? :p We know the R3 was never designed to go up against Sony and Nikon's flagship cameras. Canon still has the upcoming R1.
True but by the time Canon releases the R1, Sony will almost be ready to release the A1 MarkII or another R-killer. More and more news agencies keep switching to Sony due to form factor, speed and reliability.
 

ConanRumours

I'm New Here
Aug 11, 2021
15
5
Sony has brought us better sensor technology and made Canon raise their game. Aside from that, I'm not sure I would give Sony much credit on the positive side. What they also brought us - in my opinion - is an emphasis on spec sheets rather than the quality of those specs. Specs that can be raved about by the internet enthusiasts, but often fall short of expectations in actual use. Cameras that ignore ergonomics and usability. Perhaps indirectly (although that is not necessarily so) we can thank Sony for its troll network and biased reviews that promote the overall hostile atmosphere that had inundated the camera forums on the internet. We can thank Sony for making it OK to release "beta" versions of cameras and then expecting their loyal consumers to somehow believe that having to buy the new and improved Mark II version of the camera only 2 years later is a good thing. I briefly owned a Sony A7 II a few years back and it was the worst camera I ever owned. No doubt their cameras have improved, but I won't support a company that (I believe) is largely responsible for all the items I mention above. It's a real shame that Sony has taken so much of Nikon's market share. if you are considering a Sony or a Nikon, I would urge you to get a Nikon. I recently bought a Z5 and it is a fine camera. What's even better is the new Z lenses. I thought Canon made really fine lenses (at least at the level I can afford), but the 3 Nikon lenses that I have owned are better than any similar lenses by Canon, at least in my experience.
I disagree, camera brand fandom existed long before Sony entered the photography game with their alpha brand. I used to own both Canon, Nikon and even Pentax. Nikon users always looked down on every other brand since they were slightly more expensive than their Canon counterparts and felt better built (and more elegant in design too). I now shoot both Canon and Sony and I am perfectly fine with the smaller ergonomics of my a7r3 (just add an L-bracket and you pretty much have a decent grip). Menus? call me crazy but I prefer Sony menus as you can customize them once and then forget about them. My only gripe with Sony regarding build quality is the LCD screen which is truly mediocre, even when compared to my old APSC Nikon D7000! Anyways I think competition is great, and we should all thank Sony for pushing the tech in cameras!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,767
4,145
More and more news agencies keep switching to Sony due to form factor, speed and reliability.
May I ask, what evidence do you have to support that claim? (Not only the switching, but the rationale…historically, Sony has been the antithesis of reliability.)

I don’t doubt agencies and individuals switch from Canon to Sony. They also switch from Sony to Canon. Nikon mixes in, of course. It’s the net movement that matters.

People on this forum have been making claims about an exodus from Canon to Sony for over a decade. If that were true, Canon would not have retained their position as ILC market leader for the past 18+ years.

When pressed for evidence, that usually comprises things like, ‘Well, high profile photographer X switched to Sony’ (ignoring the fact that X was likely compensated to do so, and that applies to Canon and Nikon as well, looking at you, Art Morris), or ‘Well, like half of my photo club just bought Sony cameras.’ Anecdotes data.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
May I ask, what evidence do you have to support that claim? (Not only the switching, but the rationale…historically, Sony has been the antithesis of reliability.)

I don’t doubt agencies and individuals switch from Canon to Sony. They also switch from Sony to Canon. Nikon mixes in, of course. It’s the net movement that matters.

People on this forum have been making claims about an exodus from Canon to Sony for over a decade. If that were true, Canon would not have retained their position as ILC market leader for the past 18+ years.
Indeed, the numbers actually show Sony have gained market share very much at the expense of Nikon not Canon.

Although the dedicated camera market has decreased in size dramatically over the last decade or so the interchangeable lens camera market hasn't (https://i.insider.com/5a95d329aae6051f008b45d9) and in that market Canon are doing extraordinarily well. They have increased market share (in Japan, a good weather vane) from 45.4% to 47.9%, or 2.5%. Sony have also increased market share in that same market but not as much, 2%, and it was all at the expense of Nikon who lost -4.9% (https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...annual-japanese-survey-good-financial-results).

No, the forum pundits who have been suggesting the demise of Canon here for over a decade fail to take the publicly available statistics into account, but why let facts get in the way of a good opinion? Of the big three Nikon are the ones hurting most and they are the ones Sony keeps taking market share from. Further, nobody actually knows how much money Sony make on their cameras as that sector of the company was rolled into a wide ranging division of the company that includes huge loss making ranges for Sony, phones, and huge profit generators, imaging chips.

Considering the very long and storied history with Canon and news agencies I suspect they are very cognizant of the value deals like that have. When it gets to the point of not being worth the investment Canon simply won't do it any longer, and at this point in time those decisions have not had a negative effect on their market share.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,305
3,838
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
More and more news agencies keep switching to Sony due to form factor, speed and reliability.

May I ask, what evidence do you have to support that claim?...

I'd like to know what "news agencies" these are. Once again, forum experts have an incredibly unrealistic concept of the photojournalism business, where layoffs and other cutbacks have reduced most news agencies to a shadow of their former selves and outside of the largest cities, news services like the Associated Press don't even have photographers any more in their bureaus. When the AP photographer here retired, he was never replaced and the AP now relies on the local newspaper to supply photos, which in turn has reduced its once flourishing staff to one person.

The remaining photo agencies increasingly rely on freelancers to supplement their shrinking staffs.

Even if every existing news agency did switch brands, it wouldn't even make a blip on the sales of Sony, Nikon or Canon.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,345
551
Even if every existing news agency did switch brands, it wouldn't even make a blip on the sales of Sony, Nikon or Canon.

Not in sales, but the long-term kudos is significant and when more and more salespeople can point to "Agency X has moved from Canon to Sony" it will have a drip effect. Of course, the salesperson will not say why they swapped but that will be irrelevant to the purchaser.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
Not in sales, but the long-term kudos is significant and when more and more salespeople can point to "Agency X has moved from Canon to Sony" it will have a drip effect. Of course, the salesperson will not say why they swapped but that will be irrelevant to the purchaser.
Whilst the connection does have some benefit it must make you wonder how much of an impact ‘x’ news agency using a camera has on sales when people are much more easily ‘influenced’ by ’influencers’ that are much cheaper to cultivate and target a more specific section of those target markets.

Basically for the same money Canon can send out dozens of ‘test’ cameras to influencers that talk person to person with millions of engaged and interested buyers and aspirational buyers or do a deal with a news agency that as has been pointed out is much smaller than it used to be and has a much lower level of engagement for potential camera buyers.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,305
3,838
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Not in sales, but the long-term kudos is significant and when more and more salespeople can point to "Agency X has moved from Canon to Sony" it will have a drip effect...

How many camera buyers ever even talk to a salesperson these days? How many camera buyers can even find a camera store today?

Whilst the connection does have some benefit it must make you wonder how much of an impact ‘x’ news agency using a camera has on sales when people are much more easily ‘influenced’ by ’influencers’ that are much cheaper to cultivate and target a more specific section of those target markets.

Basically for the same money Canon can send out dozens of ‘test’ cameras to influencers that talk person to person with millions of engaged and interested buyers and aspirational buyers or do a deal with a news agency that as has been pointed out is much smaller than it used to be and has a much lower level of engagement for potential camera buyers.

Exactly. There is a reason why Canon's Explorers of Light program skews so heavily in favor of people like Lindsay Adler, Sue Bryce, Joel Grimes, Roberto Valenzuela, etc., all excellent photographers, but all also masters at promotion through their online presence.
 

HotPixels

EOS M50
Mar 6, 2014
45
169
Sony has brought us better sensor technology and made Canon raise their game. Aside from that, I'm not sure I would give Sony much credit on the positive side. What they also brought us - in my opinion - is an emphasis on spec sheets rather than the quality of those specs. Specs that can be raved about by the internet enthusiasts, but often fall short of expectations in actual use. Cameras that ignore ergonomics and usability. Perhaps indirectly (although that is not necessarily so) we can thank Sony for its troll network and biased reviews that promote the overall hostile atmosphere that had inundated the camera forums on the internet. We can thank Sony for making it OK to release "beta" versions of cameras and then expecting their loyal consumers to somehow believe that having to buy the new and improved Mark II version of the camera only 2 years later is a good thing. I briefly owned a Sony A7 II a few years back and it was the worst camera I ever owned. No doubt their cameras have improved, but I won't support a company that (I believe) is largely responsible for all the items I mention above. It's a real shame that Sony has taken so much of Nikon's market share. if you are considering a Sony or a Nikon, I would urge you to get a Nikon. I recently bought a Z5 and it is a fine camera. What's even better is the new Z lenses. I thought Canon made really fine lenses (at least at the level I can afford), but the 3 Nikon lenses that I have owned are better than any similar lenses by Canon, at least in my experience.
Amen, brother. I have felt the same way. There's always been the specs, but Sony marketing and social media has raised the emphasis on specs to a new level. There's nothing wrong with advancing technology but Sony has put that to the detriment of discussion about ergonomics and usability. I feel that because of Sony, there is not enough emphasis on usability and the user experience. You almost never read or hear about any Sony user really enjoying the experience of using Sony gear.

I also agree that for whatever reason, Sony trolls have waged a concerted campaign to not just build up Sony, which I would expect a fan of any brand to do, but to discredit competitor gear, which I find to be totally unacceptable. If you check sites like DPReview, you will see that whenever there's a featured article on new Canon gear, the Sony trolls rush in to try to find ways to criticize. They recently had a piece on the fantastic RF 28-70, and of course the usual Sony trolls were out in full force trying to actually discredit the lens. They have done this with every article on the R3. When the R3 is released, expect a flood of Sony trolls out to try to cast doubts on the camera. It's what they do.

But DPReview also had an article on those 3 new little Sony lenses, and the discussion is the exact opposite. It's a polite discussion of the pro's and con's, almost exclusively among Sony users. No flaming by fans of other brands.

Sony's emergence has had some value, but it also has narrowed the discourse on gear to be too heavy on specs, and unleashed the Sony troll army.
 
  • Like
Reactions: entoman

ConanRumours

I'm New Here
Aug 11, 2021
15
5
Indeed, the numbers actually show Sony have gained market share very much at the expense of Nikon not Canon.

Although the dedicated camera market has decreased in size dramatically over the last decade or so the interchangeable lens camera market hasn't (https://i.insider.com/5a95d329aae6051f008b45d9) and in that market Canon are doing extraordinarily well. They have increased market share (in Japan, a good weather vane) from 45.4% to 47.9%, or 2.5%. Sony have also increased market share in that same market but not as much, 2%, and it was all at the expense of Nikon who lost -4.9% (https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...annual-japanese-survey-good-financial-results).

No, the forum pundits who have been suggesting the demise of Canon here for over a decade fail to take the publicly available statistics into account, but why let facts get in the way of a good opinion? Of the big three Nikon are the ones hurting most and they are the ones Sony keeps taking market share from. Further, nobody actually knows how much money Sony make on their cameras as that sector of the company was rolled into a wide ranging division of the company that includes huge loss making ranges for Sony, phones, and huge profit generators, imaging chips.

Considering the very long and storied history with Canon and news agencies I suspect they are very cognizant of the value deals like that have. When it gets to the point of not being worth the investment Canon simply won't do it any longer, and at this point in time those decisions have not had a negative effect on their market share.
Agencies like AP News, PA Media Group in UK among others. Of course nobody is suggesting the demise of Canon but I believe they do see Sony as a threat especially when they dominate the sensor industry with over 40% market share.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
Agencies like AP News, PA Media Group in UK among others. Of course nobody is suggesting the demise of Canon but I believe they do see Sony as a threat especially when they dominate the sensor industry with over 40% market share.
I’ve been saying Canon consider Sony a threat for ten years, here. But I also think Canon believe as far as ILC’s go they are on the right track.

Why do I think Canon consider Sony a measured threat in the ILC market? Because Canon make solid business decisions based on profits whereas Sony seem happy to make non profit based business decisions and will prop up unprofitable areas of the company for no apparent reason. Just look at their phone sales and losses with no obvious end to the losses without yet another huge investment this time for 5G.

Sure Sony make a lot of sensors, they don’t make photolithography machines needed to make sensors, whereas Canon do. Sony don’t make medical imaging equipment Canon do. Nobody has a clue how much money Sony ILC’s make or lose each year nor how long they will be in the ILC game. For years Sony lost money across pretty much everything they touched apart from their insurance division, everything they sold was subsidized by that, now their fortunes rest on sensor manufacturing and the occasional blockbuster hit at the movies. Sony ILC’s are a stroke of the pen away from ceasing to exist, or having an un-returnable investment poured into them!
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
True but by the time Canon releases the R1, Sony will almost be ready to release the A1 MarkII or another R-killer. More and more news agencies keep switching to Sony due to form factor, speed and reliability.
To attract agencies, cameras obviously have to be reliable, the lens system has to be complete, and the service has to be top notch. But all of the big 3 - Canon, Sony and Nikon meet all of those requirements very well. The final choice of agency equipment is based on which camera company gives them the best deal financially, and which company is the cleverest at marketing. Nikon misses out on the latter, leaving Canon and Sony to choose from. I don't believe that agencies are switching to Sony on the basis of form factor, speed or reliability - Canon provides all of that. It just happens that Sony gave them a better deal.

I do agree that "by the time Canon releases the R1, Sony will almost be ready to release the A1 MarkII or another R-killer" - this is Canon's biggest challenge - to keep up with, or keep ahead of Sony technology. Equally, Sony's biggest challenge is to make their cameras more comfortable to hold and operate. Both companies are struggling to meet these challenges, and it will be interesting to see if Sony can bite further into the market currently dominated by Canon.

Ideally I'd like to see all 3 manufacturers with an equal share of the market, because all 3 produce fabulous gear, but that's unlikely to happen. The camera industry simply can't support as many manufacturers as, say the car industry. In a couple of years the position will be clearer, but I expect the relative positions to remain much the same: 1st Canon, 2nd Sony, 3rd Nikon, 4th Fujifilm. Although the percentages will clearly be different.
 
Last edited:

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
If you check sites like DPReview, you will see that whenever there's a featured article on new Canon gear, the Sony trolls rush in to try to find ways to criticize. They recently had a piece on the fantastic RF 28-70, and of course the usual Sony trolls were out in full force trying to actually discredit the lens. They have done this with every article on the R3. When the R3 is released, expect a flood of Sony trolls out to try to cast doubts on the camera. It's what they do.
This is one of the reasons why I no longer post on dpreview forums, they simply are not a pleasant place to be. I still visit the site regularly, as the reviews are useful and IMO unbiased. I also enjoy the lighthearted video reviews by Chris and Jordan, and the superb articles by Roger Cicala.

But the dpreview forums. -uggghhh! steer clear. CanonRumors posters generally have more intelligent discussions, and aren't hell bent on trying to ridicule or insult owners of "opposition" brands, or those with opposing opinions about other photographic subjects.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
Yikes! If that is true, I'd hate to see what is being posted on those sites.
It is true. There will always be the odd exception, but on CR most posters are polite and post rational and intelligent messages. Sadly, while there are a *few* intelligent posts on dpreview, I'd classify a high percentage of the forum content as fanboy, troll and hate.