Canon continues its dominant hold on global market share for digital cameras

[David - Sydney]

As was pointed out, it's biased information and utterly fails to support the point @CJaurelius was trying (and failing) to make. Look at the question posed by the poll:

"While I could buy Sigma and Tamron EF glass and adapt it to my Canon R system camera using Canons EF to RF adapter, I'm not willing to do this because:"

The very nature of the poll was intended to exclude those people who choose to use adapters, or use them with Canon EF glass. How is information on why people who don't want to use adapters with 3rd party EF-mount lenses feel that way relevant to the question of how many people use or don't use adapters? Rhetorical question, it's not.

Yes, we agree.... I wish that all surveys, polls etc were unbiased or compromised in some way - elections anyone?? "Do your own research!"
I wish that the survey included Samyang EF lenses then I could have answered it.

 

[CJaurelius]

Yet you persist in arguing that Sony is ‘popular with the young crowd’ and ‘more appealing’. Those concepts are about numbers, not currency spent. We don’t have access to the demographics, but the market share data indicate Nikon lost to Sony big time. It’s possible that Sony’s higher revenue is driven by disaffected, non-young Nikon FF users who were looking to switch to mirrorless. If true, that paints a very different future picture than the one you’re suggesting.

Sony is appealing the "creator" crowd which trends younger not because they are currently the largest but they spend MORE money on cameras. They already have $1,000 smartphones in their pocket. They aren't walking into Bestbuy/Target/Walmart to buy a budget apsc cameras. They are on Youtube looking for which camera is best for thair fake social media career.

Again, Canon has been focused on being market share leader but technically the could do that by selling millions of cameras for $10. To the other brands that is pointless if you only make $5 per camera.

Nikon has given up market share on the low end because they are abandoning the low end segment. They'd rather have a smaller market share of a segment that is more profitable. They are now starting to gain back market share back but doing so at the high end segment which puts them on a path toward more profit in the future.

Sony has steadily gained market share (by units sold, as the camera industry typically counts market share) over the past few years, as Nikon has lost it. But last year, Sony’s upward trend stopped, as did Nikon’s slide. We don’t know what this year’s numbers will show, but there comes a point when price increases don’t help if unit sales drop.

Again it's not that they are increasing prices that much. They are simply selling LESS cheaper cameras. If you sell 3 cameras at $500 and 1 camera at $2500 then the average price is $1,000. If you sell only one camera at $500 and 2 cameras at $2,500 then the average price is now $1,833 but you didn't raise prices. Futhermore if profit margin is 50% then in the first scenario you have $2,000 is net profit but in scenario 2 with less cameras sold you have more net profit at $2,750.

Sony has essentially walked away from their apsc line up and is focusing on high margin cameras. They took their old A6000 series and repackaged it with software updates as an entry level vlogging camerain in the AZ-E10 for $700. That is essentially their cheapest cameras. They pretty much stopped focusing on the RX100 line up which sells for $1,300. With its 1" sensor the writing is on the wall and cameras with size sensor will be obsolete in a year or two if they aren't already. But this is the type of camera that Canon would still push in the short term to claim market dominance.

You’re the one claiming (repeatedly) they they don’t. You can’t provide any evidence to support your claim, so now you’re suggesting it’s my responsibility to disprove it? Pass.

Incidentally, I personally like the adapter for use with lenses like the EF 11-24 and TS-E 17, where front filters are cumbersome. Not that I’m suggesting my personal preference is anything other than an anecdote. Sadly, too many people think anecdotes are data.

You can look at the market share for lenses and see what is more popular among consumers. If you look at all the lens makers the latest BCN rankings are:

https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20230402_322414.html

1. Canon: 17.1%
2. Sigma: 16%
3. Tamron: 15.1%
4. Sony: 14.2%
5. Nikon: 13.8%
6. OM Digital Solutions: 8.6%
7. Panasonic: 4.6%
8. Fujifilm: 4.2%

Very tight race in 1 - 4 but most of the Sigma and Tamron lenses being sold are for E-mount. So when they break it down by mount they get:

1. Sony: 32.6%
2. Canon EF: 11.4%
3. Nikon F: 9.3%
4. Fujifilm X: 8.8%
5. Nikon Z: 8.5%
6. Canon RF: 7.7%

So as you know Canon sells MORE cameras than Sony. But yet Sony's e mount market share is 70% larger than both Canon's RF and EF mount combined.

So Canon as a lens manufacturer has 17% market share by volume and Sony as a manufacturer has 14% by volume. That isn't drastically different. But Sony's e mount IS drastically different than BOTH Canon's main mount system. This shows that having an open mount system doen't hurt first party lens sales all that much but instead creates an environment when customers buy MORE lenses for that system. Hence they want an open mount system and not adapters. If the people on a Canon forum are happy using an adapter then I glad they have a product they like. But the majority of people seem to like something else.

Thom Hogan is normally fairly insightful. But claiming a company that had the Nikon 1 debacle then went from over 40% market share to barely over 10% in just a few years is consistently good at forecasting market direction is pretty silly. He bashed the M line as ‘d00med to fail’ but at one point ~17% of all ILCs sold globally had the M badge…of course, he doesn’t mention that particular aspect of its ‘failure’. Your characterization of his post as ‘great’ suggests you need to think more critically about what you read and choose to cite.

Forget the individual person and focus on the actual argument. The M line is doomed to fail. In fact the M line is probably what is holding Canon back right now. The argument was:

If Canon pursues the 50% overall market share strategy they've been on (forever), that means they'll likely produce nearly 1.5m low-end consumer cameras and perhaps fewer than 1m high-end, high margin cameras. Yes, they'd outsell Nikon [and Sony] overall in unit volume, but the low margins they'd get on all those true consumer cameras wouldn't make them much more profitable than Nikon, if at all. Or more profitable than Sony.

That was about a year ago. Fast forward to now and this is already happening.

"Comparing this with a 2022 sales report published by Digital Camera Life, it’s likely that Canon continues to rely heavily on its DSLR sales, at least in terms of volume. Canon’s mirrorless market share is still higher than Sony’s, but the race is much closer: 1.54 million units versus 1.25 million units.
Further, Sony is actually ahead of Canon when it comes to the value of those sold cameras. Canon’s higher number of camera bodies sold equated to 506.7 billion yen, while Sony sold fewer units for a sales value of 565 billion yen. Canon seems to be excelling when it comes to selling more affordable cameras, while the opposite is true for Sony. "

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sony is appealing the "creator" crowd which trends younger not because they are currently the largest but they spend MORE money on cameras. They already have $1,000 smartphones in their pocket. They aren't walking into Bestbuy/Target/Walmart to buy a budget apsc cameras. They are on Youtube looking for which camera is best for thair fake social media career.

Again, Canon has been focused on being market share leader but technically the could do that by selling millions of cameras for $10. To the other brands that is pointless if you only make $5 per camera.

Nikon has given up market share on the low end because they are abandoning the low end segment. They'd rather have a smaller market share of a segment that is more profitable. They are now starting to gain back market share back but doing so at the high end segment which puts them on a path toward more profit in the future.

Time will tell who has the more successful strategy. Nikon didn't lose market share because they abandoned the low end of the market, They lost market share and then decided to focus on the higher end of the market in an attempt to regain profitability.

So when they break it down by mount they get:

1. Sony: 32.6%
2. Canon EF: 11.4%
3. Nikon F: 9.3%
4. Fujifilm X: 8.8%
5. Nikon Z: 8.5%
6. Canon RF: 7.7%

So...more EF lenses are being sold than RF lenses, but at this point more R bodies are being sold than DSLRs. Same for Nikon F vs Z. What does that tell you about the use of adapters? If the logic is beyond you, the answer is that people with Canon (and Nikon) cameras are generally fine using adapters. Funny, you provided data that you think supports your point and ended up doing the opposite.

So as you know Canon sells MORE cameras than Sony. But yet Sony's e mount market share is 70% larger than both Canon's RF and EF mount combined.

No. BCN's lens rankings are for lenses sold a la carte, they don't include kit lenses bundled with cameras. There are far more Canon lenses out there than Sony lenses, because Canon sells far more bodies and most of them are bundled with one if not two lenses.

As I said earlier, the market typically uses units to determine market share, and by that measure Canon dominates. But for the companies themselves the most relevant number is not units or revenue, it is profit. Canon has seen double-digit growth in that for the camera line, Sony does not share data with that level of granularity but unless their camera line is strongly outperforming the other components of Sony's ET&S division, profit growth is less that Canon. Odds are that Canon will outpace Sony even on revenue in the coming couple of years, since like Sony they will begin to sell a higher-value mix of cameras as the upper tier of their massive DSLR user base switches over to mirrorless.
___________________________

More broadly, this discussion has become pointless. You make arguments that are not supported by data, or even contradicted even the data you are posting. I'm out.

 

[CJaurelius]

Most R mount adapter users are migrating from EF to RF lenses and have existing EF lenses. That user base certainly hasn't completely migrated yet - including the 1DX users. There is a good likelihood that they will continue with Canon whether due to support or existing lenses or familiarity. These are still "new" buyers and will use adapters.

I agree with this point. But I think this highlights where me and many people here see this differently. If you are a 1DX user then you more than likely weren't young when you bought it. As you mentioned when they upgrade they are likely doing so with Canon because they can use all the expensive glass they already own. Glass is more important than the body in most cases so the reality is that almost nothing would ever change this customer from Canon to another brand. However this customer is older and and moving toward the tail end of their purchasing stage.

I am less convinced about the trends for younger new buyers. Streaming/vlogging tends to be a younger market that starts from smartphones and then makes (significant) jump up for the next level of production with dedicated mics, lighting, lenses and mixing. They are learning from others doing the same thing. Canon is in that market but maybe not dominant. The question for Canon is whether that market will be significantly profitable enough to really dig into it today vs the higher profit segment at the mid-higher end targeting cashed-up older users (such as myself and others on this forum).

Canon doesn't have to win every segment to be successful overall.

This continues where we diverge. You are more focused on existing customers that are older. But these older people have a completely different worldview along with totaly different wants/needs. The issue I see is that BOTH Canon and Sony are appealing to these prosepective customers. If you are a professional that needs a high end camera both of them have options. Most high end Canon users will never switch to Sony because they are too invested and vice versa.

The key is what happens as these people are phased out? People may be brand loyal to the Sony Walkman/Discman and will never buy the Microsoft Zune media player. But then what happens to Sony when they younger people become comfortable not owning their own media and instead pay Spotify a monthly subscription to stream all their music?

Again, that's a bit of what is happening here. Older people such as you and me grew up in a world where smartphones didn't exist. We look at film and subsequently digital camers completly different.

So I agree that Canon doesn't have to win every segment. But the segment that they are focusing on is a segment that is becoming obsolete. They are on a path to own 73% of the low end segment.

The quality of that data is poor as you would know but I guess it is still a data point of some small value. Using it against overall camera sales volume is a different story though. Canon has nearly half of the overall market.
This is despite Sony's best efforts over a decade in the market and with ~6 years of being the only volume FF MILC seller. Sony can make good stuff but it seems to have affected Nikon more than Canon.
Canon wins some segments better than others and irrespective of individual quality/value/cost etc per item.

Again, the only reason they own nearly half the market is because they own almost 70% of the low end segment. The other companies are leaving this segment because its less profitable.

You can already see that with the Z9. By cutting a significant cost (shutter) Nikon has placed a flagship model well below the typical flagship model price. I expect Nikon to continue that trend down line, while raising the bottom end of the lineup they sell (done by eliminating the true consumer DX products). Nikon's pretty darned good at meeting clear targets, and it seems they have a clear target: sell as many units in four years as they do today (700K), with all of those being higher-margin, higher-end cameras.......Nikon already adjusted their overhead and manufacturing to allow them to keep unit sales flat, move all those units to the high end, and to retain clear, solid profit margins. Nikon is the lean player now, but powerfully lean. Think marathon runner, not football lineman.

I think that you are trying to make a longer term guess that Canon won't win because they aren't doing it now and yet they are now 5 years into the R mount with 12 R bodies. Their native lens range is profitable ie sustainable for future R&D. Sony didn't have a choice but to allow 3rd party lenses. Their initial switchers were adapting Canon lenses and they needed 3rd party native support Because Sony didn't (at the time) have the ability to release a wide range of native stuff.

I think we are all guessing here but YES, I'm guessing that Canon currently isn't making the right strategy for long term success. I agree Sony HAD to make that open mount move because they didn't have enough lenses but the reason why they had to do it is irrelevant if it becomes the long term winning strategy.

The problem today is that Canon can't afford to put any additional R&D money into M, as the overall trend for consumer cameras like that is down. Spending more money on low-margin products that are being squeezed out of the market is not shareholder-friendly. I expect Canon will try to milk the M for as long as they can, but that's going to look more and more problematic on their bottom line......If their volume becomes more than 50% low-end products like the M's and the chart I show above, it will just eat away at their bottom line as camera sales continue to decline. Meanwhile, Nikon and Sony will be posting higher profit margins.

Canon needs to ditch the old stuff and go all in on the RF mount today so that the RF mount becomes the most dominant has has the most brand recognition.

Look at it from this way. Canon has the largest market share by volume because they are the only camera company selling cheap cameras. But we know cheap cameras will become obsolete. So 15 years into the future when a current 25 year old is 40 years old and at peak purchasing power how will they view the camera brands?

Most people will have never heard of Canon. Canon essentially makes cameras and printers, two things that young people don't need. Meanwhile Sony sells a host of electronics like tv's, headphones and the best selling video game console of all time.

As an example a younger neighbor drives a Kia Telluride. It blew my mind when I found out he paid $55k for a Kia. But I remember when they first started selling crappy Kia's in the 90's. He had a whole different view of Kia as they had already started selling better cars by the time he was getting his drivers license.

Older people here continue to keep say "but Canon is the top brand". These young people don't care as much about legacy brands. Companies need to invent themselves for these newer generations.

For example Canon cameras are hands down more comfortable to hold than Sony cameras. But Sony cameras look like cooler pieces of tech. There is a reason Sony isn't improving the ergonomics. They've slowly added deeper grips but for the most part the want cameras to look cool. Meanwhile for as good as the Canon cameras feel in the hand the look like old DSLR's.

And to be clear I personally think the R8 is the best pound for pound entry level full frame mirrorless for the money if were talking about the body. I also think the R6MII was a great update and better than the A7IV which is the Sony equivalent. And I personally don't have enough lenses to care which brand becomes #1. I have no problem switching between them. I was a Nikon shooter in graduate school and then got Canon envy but due to work had to ignore the hobby for a while. I now dabble here and there. I currently own a Sony but that is primarily because most of the people I know in this space are content creators who have tons of Sony gear so its easy to borrow. My opinion is less about what I want and more about what I see as the future of the market, which admittedly is very different from this old guy actually wants.

 

[CJaurelius]

Time will tell who has the more successful strategy. Nikon didn't lose market share because they abandoned the low end of the market, They lost market share and then decided to focus on the higher end of the market in an attempt to regain profitability.

I agree time will tell. I'm not really interested in how people want to spin the focus. Whether they wanted to go high end or not the fact is they are.

So...more EF lenses are being sold than RF lenses, but at this point more R bodies are being sold than DSLRs. Same for Nikon F vs Z. What does that tell you about the use of adapters? If the logic is beyond you, the answer is that people with Canon (and Nikon) cameras are generally fine using adapters. Funny, you provided data that you think supports your point and ended up doing the opposite.

I don't disagree that people WITH EF glass are fine using adapters. But Canon should be selling more lenses since they sell more cameras and it appears that not having 3rd party options is reducing the amount of lenses that could be sold on the Canon moutns.

No. BCN's lens rankings are for lenses sold a la carte, they don't include kit lenses bundled with cameras. There are far more Canon lenses out there than Sony lenses, because Canon sells far more bodies and most of them are bundled with one if not two lenses.

Then you would need to look at the sale of bundles between the two companies, but once again Canon is the end all be all to you. I get it, you love Canon.

Also when you look at places that show sales by sku which break out bodies vs bundles the bodies usually sell better. Here is Yodobahsi top ten camera sales in June:

https://www.thecamerainsider.com/2023/06/25/nikon-z8-tops-japanese-camera-sales-at-yodobashi/

1. Nikon Z8
2. Sony A7 IV
3. Sony A7 IV
4. Sony A7R V
5. Nikon Zfc with the Z 16-50 VR SL
6. Canon EOS R50 Kit
7. Sony FX3
8. Canon EOS R10 with the RF-S18-150 IS STM Lens
9. Sony FX30
10. Sony A7S III

and here are the top ten sales in Septmeber:

1. Sony a7 IV
2. Fujifilm X-T5
3. Canon EOS R50 double zoom kit
4. Nikon Z fc with the 16-50 VR SL
5. Canon EOS R6 Mark II
6. Canon EOS R6 Mark II with the RF24-105 L IS USM
7. Nikon Z 50 Double Zoom Kit
8. Sony a6700 High-power Zoom Kit
9. Sony FX3
10. Sony a6700

The cheaper budget cameras seem to do a better job at selling kit lenses. This goes back to the low margin vs high margin cameras. Canon definitly seems to sell more bundled lenses but thats because they sell more budget cameras. These people aren't buying the R50 at $800 with a mediocre kit lens and then going out and buying an RF or even EF lens with adapter anytime soon.

As I said earlier, the market typically uses units to determine market share, and by that measure Canon dominates. But for the companies themselves the most relevant number is not units or revenue, it is profit. Canon has seen double-digit growth in that for the camera line, Sony does not share data with that level of granularity but unless their camera line is strongly outperforming the other components of Sony's ET&S division, profit growth is less that Canon. Odds are that Canon will outpace Sony even on revenue in the coming couple of years, since like Sony they will begin to sell a higher-value mix of cameras as the upper tier of their massive DSLR user base switches over to mirrorless.

This simply isn't true. Not only does Sony share that data every year its also up double digits. From their yearly financial statement the 565 billion Yen is clearly outlined and up 30% from the previous year. They clearly have the revenue from the ET&S broken out clearly for cameras as "Still and Video Cameras"

___________________________


More broadly, this discussion has become pointless. You make arguments that are not supported by data, or even contradicted even the data you are posting. I'm out.

I'm the only one between the two of us posting actual sales data, revenue, lens market share, etc.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But for the companies themselves the most relevant number is not units or revenue, it is profit. Canon has seen double-digit growth in that for the camera line, Sony does not share data with that level of granularity but unless their camera line is strongly outperforming the other components of Sony's ET&S division, profit growth is less that Canon.

This simply isn't true. Not only does Sony share that data every year its also up double digits. From their yearly financial statement the 565 billion Yen is clearly outlined and up 30% from the previous year. They clearly have the revenue from the ET&S broken out clearly for cameras as "Still and Video Cameras"

I'm the only one between the two of us posting actual sales data, revenue, lens market share, etc.

I really shouldn’t bother, but since you suggest that I am making incorrect statements, I will set the record straight.

I specifically mentioned profit —twice— and you replied with data on revenue. They’re not the same thing.

I could post data on mild precipitation in the Guadalquivir basin of Andalusia (rain in Spain falling gently on the plain, by any other name), and it would be only slightly less useful as a response.

Companies and shareholders care more about profits than about units or revenue. Canon includes their profit in their IR materials, and that is what I was referencing regarding double digit growth in cameras (~16% y/y for FY2022). Sony ET&S y/y profit growth was ~4%. Perhaps they break that down further as well, and I missed it. But the data you posted do not show profit. Profit is revenue minus expenses. Revenue is the ‘top line’, profit is the ‘bottom line’ (and its importance is why the phrase bottom line is used in common speech to mean the primary or most important consideration).

To put in terms that may seem more familiar to you, if Sony sells 100 $10 cameras that cost $8 to produce and market, and Canon sells 180 $5 cameras that cost $3 to produce and market, then Canon has higher unit sales (100 < 180), Sony has higher revenue ($1000 > $900), but Canon makes more profit ($200 < $360).

I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse, have poor reading comprehension skills, or simply lack a basic understanding of financial terms.

If you’re going to accuse me of making false statements, provide data that contradict what I stated and I’ll happily acknowledge my mistake. But if you can’t provide relevant data, don’t make the accusation in the first place.

 

[EricN]

I really shouldn’t bother

You shouldn't. S/he is not interested in having an open minded discussion about what *might happen* in the future.

 

[David - Sydney]

I agree with this point. But I think this highlights where me and many people here see this differently. If you are a 1DX user then you more than likely weren't young when you bought it. As you mentioned when they upgrade they are likely doing so with Canon because they can use all the expensive glass they already own. Glass is more important than the body in most cases so the reality is that almost nothing would ever change this customer from Canon to another brand. However this customer is older and and moving toward the tail end of their purchasing stage.

Weirdly enough, I think that older customers (and I am talking about 40-50+ old) have decades of buying left in them and more and more are in good financial places without costs supporting dependents. That is certainly the case for me as a single data point as my insurance policy with everything itemised proves every year.

This continues where we diverge. You are more focused on existing customers that are older. But these older people have a completely different worldview along with totaly different wants/needs. The issue I see is that BOTH Canon and Sony are appealing to these prosepective customers. If you are a professional that needs a high end camera both of them have options. Most high end Canon users will never switch to Sony because they are too invested and vice versa.

Certain high end users will buy into multiple systems just for a particular lens/body combination. examples have been mentioned on this forum before.
Sony's initial switchers were Canon users who had significant Canon glass and could adapt it to the better quality Sony sensor despite putting up with 3rd party dodgy adapters and poor body ergonomics.
My point is the significant double digit profit that Canon is making is consistently referred to for R mount bodies and RF lenses ie for users that can afford the good stuff (even if they complain about it).

The key is what happens as these people are phased out? People may be brand loyal to the Sony Walkman/Discman and will never buy the Microsoft Zune media player. But then what happens to Sony when they younger people become comfortable not owning their own media and instead pay Spotify a monthly subscription to stream all their music?

The "phased out" timeframe is much longer for the higher end gear than a $100 music player. I am sure that a lot of low end DLRS kits end up permanently on shelves.
I would contend that changing paradigm to subscription services from perpetual licenses (SW or music) is not quite equivalent for taking photos for the next 5 years or so (which is the longest that most companies forecast to). AI image generation has increased dramatically of course but the higher end users will still like the quality and realism (however you want to define it) and will pay for it (Canon profits). Again, the lower end has already gone for smartphones and filters.

Again, that's a bit of what is happening here. Older people such as you and me grew up in a world where smartphones didn't exist. We look at film and subsequently digital camers completly different.
So I agree that Canon doesn't have to win every segment. But the segment that they are focusing on is a segment that is becoming obsolete. They are on a path to own 73% of the low end segment.
Again, the only reason they own nearly half the market is because they own almost 70% of the low end segment. The other companies are leaving this segment because its less profitable.

Nikon are not focusing on the lower end of the market because they needed to be profitable and their R&D hit a great product with the Z9/Z8 at an aggressive price point. Let's hope that they can stay in the market for the longer term but their market share is becoming niche.
Canon are not focusing on the low end. Yes, the volume marketshare shows a lot of DLSRs being sold which is a great cash cow for them. Again, you are assuming that they have lower margins but you can't know this. The R&D costs are sunk so they could be very profitable in % terms and volume => big cash profits .... but the driver for increased profit is in the higher end and new glass and Canon is setup for the future there

I think we are all guessing here but YES, I'm guessing that Canon currently isn't making the right strategy for long term success. I agree Sony HAD to make that open mount move because they didn't have enough lenses but the reason why they had to do it is irrelevant if it becomes the long term winning strategy.
Canon needs to ditch the old stuff and go all in on the RF mount today so that the RF mount becomes the most dominant has has the most brand recognition.
Look at it from this way. Canon has the largest market share by volume because they are the only camera company selling cheap cameras. But we know cheap cameras will become obsolete. So 15 years into the future when a current 25 year old is 40 years old and at peak purchasing power how will they view the camera brands?

I'm not following you here... time will tell if Canon's long term strategy is good or not. We can only comment about the situation today and in the recent past and clearly Canon is winning in marketshare and profitability. This sets them up for the future.
Canon's brand is dominant today. Canon is all-in for their R mount bodies and RF lenses. They are selling excellent tech stuff for both lower end and high end lenses and 12 bodies. They are missing the mid market lenses currently and have a couple of gaps but let's chat again in 6 months for the status.
15 years in the future is a long time to make a call and frankly it isn't worth discussing for today's market strategy even if Japanese companies have longer strategies than most countries

There are only 3 things we know about forecasts... they are wrong, they are more wrong the further out they are and they are better than not having one!

Most people will have never heard of Canon. Canon essentially makes cameras and printers, two things that young people don't need. Meanwhile Sony sells a host of electronics like tv's, headphones and the best selling video game console of all time.
Older people here continue to keep say "but Canon is the top brand". These young people don't care as much about legacy brands. Companies need to invent themselves for these newer generations.

Leica doesn't need to have either volume or consumer brand acceptance to be both profitable and long term.
High end brands for quality like B&O, Harmen Kardon, Mark Levinson and others in the audio space are partnering with more lower end volume sellers to showcase technology at a different price point. Young people are introduced to these brands through a different channel.
Irrespective, to assume that Canon won't re-invent themselves for younger people in years to come is a strange forecast of yours

For example Canon cameras are hands down more comfortable to hold than Sony cameras. But Sony cameras look like cooler pieces of tech. There is a reason Sony isn't improving the ergonomics. They've slowly added deeper grips but for the most part the want cameras to look cool. Meanwhile for as good as the Canon cameras feel in the hand the look like old DSLR's.

How do you define looking "cool"?
There are retro designed bodies and they have a niche but good ergonomics are hard to define and easy to enjoy as a hygiene factor. I just got a Sigma 20/1.4 Art and the noisy AF motor is super annoying and couldn't be used for video... this coming from Canon L glass user. Thankfully I will only be using it in manual focus.
Getting something cool and regretting the purchase because it is hard to use is a learning experience.

 

[David - Sydney]

I currently own a Sony but that is primarily because most of the people I know in this space are content creators who have tons of Sony gear so its easy to borrow. My opinion is less about what I want and more about what I see as the future of the market, which admittedly is very different from this old guy actually wants.

I am not sure if this forum is for you.
A Sony user (because their friends use them) arguing that Canon doesn't have the right strategy for the (long term) future.
Using current data and strategy but extrapolating to a future scenario during a changing market assuming that Canon can't or won't change in the interim and hence Canon products and brand will be irrelevant in 15 years time.
Very strange!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am not sure if this forum is for you.
A Sony user (because their friends use them) arguing that Canon doesn't have the right strategy for the (long term) future.
Using current data and strategy but extrapolating to a future scenario during a changing market assuming that Canon can't or won't change in the interim and hence Canon products and brand will be irrelevant in 15 years time.
Very strange!

Sadly, trolls are far more the norm than strange these days.

Especially here, Sony trolls (paid shills or otherwise) have become downright trite.

 

[David - Sydney]

Companies and shareholders care more about profits than about units or revenue. Canon includes their profit in their IR materials, and that is what I was referencing regarding double digit growth in cameras (~16% y/y for FY2022). Sony ET&S y/y profit growth was ~4%. Perhaps they break that down further as well, and I missed it. But the data you posted do not show profit. Profit is revenue minus expenses. Revenue is the ‘top line’, profit is the ‘bottom line’ (and its importance is why the phrase bottom line is used in common speech to mean the primary or most important consideration).

Yeah, I concur in general but it does depend on the company/sector.... there is a social contract with their customers as well

The major banks in Australia (85% markshare in 4 companies) produced their biggest profits during the cost-of-living crunch doesn't "pass the pub test".

Qantas just reported their biggest profit ever but has come under enormous social and government pressure as:
- They illegally sacked heaps of workers during the covid shutdown and lost 3 layers of legal appeals even to the high court over 3 years with big payouts to the workers coming => front page news!
- They sold tickets for flights already cancelled and the competition watchdog will hand down fines
- They accepted heaps of government assistance during the pandemic through government support but has shown no "giving back" at any extent. The same support was not provided to the second carrier and they went into liquidation
- Massive profits despite the highest prices for air travel where Qatar airways was denied the right to add additional slots (more capacity and increased competition)
- Poor customer support for using credits for cancelled flights during the pandemic from non existent call center support and needing to continually extend the time to use them
- Gave out "chairman's lounge" (hardest club to get into within Australia) to both prime minister's son and members of the airspace regulatory board
=> CEO stood down earlier than expected although with a too-generous golden parachute
=> Calls from all sectors for the chairman to go as well

 

[EricN]

Yeah, I concur in general but it does depend on the company/sector.... there is a social contract with their customers as well

The major banks in Australia (85% markshare in 4 companies) produced their biggest profits during the cost-of-living crunch doesn't "pass the pub test".

Qantas just reported their biggest profit ever but has come under enormous social and government pressure as:
- They illegally sacked heaps of workers during the covid shutdown and lost 3 layers of legal appeals even to the high court over 3 years with big payouts to the workers coming => front page news!
- They sold tickets for flights already cancelled and the competition watchdog will hand down fines
- They accepted heaps of government assistance during the pandemic through government support but has shown no "giving back" at any extent. The same support was not provided to the second carrier and they went into liquidation
- Massive profits despite the highest prices for air travel where Qatar airways was denied the right to add additional slots (more capacity and increased competition)
- Poor customer support for using credits for cancelled flights during the pandemic from non existent call center support and needing to continually extend the time to use them
- Gave out "chairman's lounge" (hardest club to get into within Australia) to both prime minister's son and members of the airspace regulatory board
=> CEO stood down earlier than expected although with a too-generous golden parachute
=> Calls from all sectors for the chairman to go as well

This reminds me not long ago, someone was saying "Canon is not Ethical." We can all probably agree Canon UK pricing items higher isn't ethical, but I can't think of anything that compares to what you wrote about Qantas.

 

[vikingar]

Older people here continue to keep say "but Canon is the top brand". These young people don't care as much about legacy brands. Companies need to invent themselves for these newer generations.

For example Canon cameras are hands down more comfortable to hold than Sony cameras. But Sony cameras look like cooler pieces of tech. There is a reason Sony isn't improving the ergonomics. They've slowly added deeper grips but for the most part the want cameras to look cool. Meanwhile for as good as the Canon cameras feel in the hand the look like old DSLR's.

Sony tech is flashy, and always has been. Not just their cameras, but everything they make is shiny and has the latest technology and craziest features. New versions and models are released every year and each model number is crazier than the previous one. Sometimes their products don't go anywhere or remain one-off curiosities, sometimes they become a big hit. (side note: the Youtube channel "Techmoan" has great videos on obscure tech devices from the 70s/80s/90s, some interesting Sony ones as well).

When I was younger I used to buy a lot of Sony stuff like audio equipment, phones, cameras, gaming consoles, and even new exotic niche products. So I do understand where you're coming from in terms of "coolness", their stuff certainly fits the bill.

However as I got older I experienced many of my Sony products became rapidly outdated or obsolete, only to be immediately replaced by something shinier. Many (most?) of the cool bleeding-edge tech features turned out to be nothing more than lines on a spec sheet, gimmicks or not as useful in practice as I thought, and their stuff isn't cheap.

Long-term usefulness and reliability has also been an issue, with several of my Sony products having severe hardware issues leading to breakage that couldn't be repaired (buy the new version) or firmware bugs that were only ironed out in version N+1 of the product, but never in version N.

The point being that as I got even mildly older, I started gravitating more and more towards tech that is less flashy, less gimmicky, with longer and more predictable release cycles and better support. Not to mention ergonomics, I just physically cannot use unergonomic things anymore.

I'd rather have a more basic tool that would hold up to professional use instead of a flashy toy for enthusiasts. As consumers get older, I suspect many will come to feel the same.

In the past, Canon had the edge here. If they released a 1D or 5D you knew it would do the job, and you knew exactly how for how long and which model was better.

Sony not so much, with confusing line-ups, exotic but flawed technology (remember SLT?), etc. It seems to me that they have indeed worked to improve on this, but even today they have a dizzying list of camera releases with confusing names and conflicting feature sets, like e.g. newer lower-end cameras getting features the high-end A1 doesn't have, etc.

To me it remains to be seen if Sony can pull through and retain all their new camera users as they get older and less interested in spec sheets or "coolness". They may not be in the "most relevant to advertisers" 18-34 age group anymore, but they do have a lot more money to spend.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To me it remains to be seen if Sony can pull through and retain all their new camera users as they get older and less interested in spec sheets or "coolness". They may not be in the "most relevant to advertisers" 18-34 age group anymore, but they do have a lot more money to spend.

A quick google search (meaning questionable accuracy) suggests that only ~8% of YouTube channels make money and that the average income of a vlogger is ~$55K/yr. About what an elementary school teacher makes, and people earning that much probably aren’t going to frequently update their expensive Sony camera very often, if they ever even buy another one.

Maybe Sony is going after the amateur p0rn production market, having learned their lesson from when VHS beat out their Betamax format. I wonder if dynamic range is important in that context.

 

[EricN]

Sony tech is flashy, and always has been. Not just their cameras, but everything they make is shiny and has the latest technology and craziest features. New versions and models are released every year and each model number is crazier than the previous one. Sometimes their products don't go anywhere or remain one-off curiosities, sometimes they become a big hit. (side note: the Youtube channel "Techmoan" has great videos on obscure tech devices from the 70s/80s/90s, some interesting Sony ones as well).

When I was younger I used to buy a lot of Sony stuff like audio equipment, phones, cameras, gaming consoles, and even new exotic niche products. So I do understand where you're coming from in terms of "coolness", their stuff certainly fits the bill.

However as I got older I experienced many of my Sony products became rapidly outdated or obsolete, only to be immediately replaced by something shinier. Many (most?) of the cool bleeding-edge tech features turned out to be nothing more than lines on a spec sheet, gimmicks or not as useful in practice as I thought, and their stuff isn't cheap.

Long-term usefulness and reliability has also been an issue, with several of my Sony products having severe hardware issues leading to breakage that couldn't be repaired (buy the new version) or firmware bugs that were only ironed out in version N+1 of the product, but never in version N.

The point being that as I got even mildly older, I started gravitating more and more towards tech that is less flashy, less gimmicky, with longer and more predictable release cycles and better support. Not to mention ergonomics, I just physically cannot use unergonomic things anymore.

I'd rather have a more basic tool that would hold up to professional use instead of a flashy toy for enthusiasts. As consumers get older, I suspect many will come to feel the same.

In the past, Canon had the edge here. If they released a 1D or 5D you knew it would do the job, and you knew exactly how for how long and which model was better.

Sony not so much, with confusing line-ups, exotic but flawed technology (remember SLT?), etc. It seems to me that they have indeed worked to improve on this, but even today they have a dizzying list of camera releases with confusing names and conflicting feature sets, like e.g. newer lower-end cameras getting features the high-end A1 doesn't have, etc.

To me it remains to be seen if Sony can pull through and retain all their new camera users as they get older and less interested in spec sheets or "coolness". They may not be in the "most relevant to advertisers" 18-34 age group anymore, but they do have a lot more money to spend.

I remember I bought a Sony Mavica. It was a good concept, but flawed in that the disk drive failed after about two years

 

[David - Sydney]

A quick google search (meaning questionable accuracy) suggests that only ~8% of YouTube channels make money and that the average income of a vlogger is ~$55K/yr. About what an elementary school teacher makes, and people earning that much probably aren’t going to frequently update their expensive Sony camera very often, if they ever even buy another one.

I believe that the youtuber will naturally be biased by gear freebies... they want the most eyeballs and reviewing (favourably) on free gear is a plus not to mention clickbait when denigrating the market share leader which tends to be low hanging fruit irrespective of its accuracy.
I have no issues with professionals who also do gear reviews but those are a much smaller segment and certainly doesn't attract influencer-lead audiences on tiktok.
It is certainly a growing market but I am not sure that Canon wants to play there. Time will tell.

Maybe Sony is going after the amateur p0rn production market, having learned their lesson from when VHS beat out their Betamax format. I wonder if dynamic range is important in that context.

from producing tiktok videos phones to onlyfans (I haven't looked!) would be similar content with less clothes is probably mostly on phones with ring lights. There is a lot more short video content being generated from FB/Insta/tiktok and post processed from the younger crowd so definitely a market to capture when they upgrade over phone capability.
Dynamic range isn't an issue when they have decent lighting

 

[EricN]

A quick google search (meaning questionable accuracy) suggests that only ~8% of YouTube channels make money and that the average income of a vlogger is ~$55K/yr. About what an elementary school teacher makes, and people earning that much probably aren’t going to frequently update their expensive Sony camera very often, if they ever even buy another one.

Maybe Sony is going after the amateur p0rn production market, having learned their lesson from when VHS beat out their Betamax format. I wonder if dynamic range is important in that context.

When Canon released the RF 5.2mm f/2.8 L Dual Fisheye 3D VR, I thought it'll probably be popular for that market.

 

[EricN]

I believe that the youtuber will naturally be biased by gear freebies... they want the most eyeballs and reviewing (favourably) on free gear is a plus not to mention clickbait when denigrating the market share leader which tends to be low hanging fruit irrespective of its accuracy.
I have no issues with professionals who also do gear reviews but those are a much smaller segment and certainly doesn't attract influencer-lead audiences on tiktok.
It is certainly a growing market but I am not sure that Canon wants to play there. Time will tell.


from producing tiktok videos phones to onlyfans (I haven't looked!) would be similar content with less clothes is probably mostly on phones with ring lights. There is a lot more short video content being generated from FB/Insta/tiktok and post processed from the younger crowd so definitely a market to capture when they upgrade over phone capability.
Dynamic range isn't an issue when they have decent lighting

I think Canon's strategy with youtube and TikTok is to do more research and some lower priced products to test the waters (Powershot V10).

It would be interesting to know what lighting most of them use when they start out.

 

[CJaurelius]

Weirdly enough, I think that older customers (and I am talking about 40-50+ old) have decades of buying left in them and more and more are in good financial places without costs supporting dependents. That is certainly the case for me as a single data point as my insurance policy with everything itemised proves every year.

I think for many people in your position that is true. Again, I think if someone has already invested in the Canon ecosystem they are highly unlikely to switch.

Out of curiousity for someone, lets say 45, what do you think that looks like. For example how many new camera bodies would you expect that person would purchase over the remaining decades?

So i'm in agreement that Canon is going to have a steady base of people that will purchase new Canon products for the forseeable future. But as this group phases out what are they getting replaced with? 20 years from now when a 20 year old is turning 40 what you would need that 20 year old to have connected with Canon TODAY. And that is what I'm looking at. I think Canon is great for what older people (especially here) want. But what are they doing to attract younger people so they'll be customers of the future.

Here is a simple example of the differences. Video is currently driving the market right now. Again what most people are buying today are VIDEO CAMERAS that just happen to also take pictures. When you look at all the new e mount lenses they have dedicated aperture rings on them so you can focus pull manually. Sony is now selling power zoom lenses so you can zoom with a rocker on the lens or camera.

Certain high end users will buy into multiple systems just for a particular lens/body combination. examples have been mentioned on this forum before.
Sony's initial switchers were Canon users who had significant Canon glass and could adapt it to the better quality Sony sensor despite putting up with 3rd party dodgy adapters and poor body ergonomics.
My point is the significant double digit profit that Canon is making is consistently referred to for R mount bodies and RF lenses ie for users that can afford the good stuff (even if they complain about it).

I think we agree here. The problem is that Canon is moving toward a business model where the high end users are becoming a smaller portion of their customers. In their goal to claim high market share they are going after lower range customers. They should NOT be selling M mount cameras at this point for example. They have an RF mount camera that sells for $679. Ditch all the other stuff and force people to RF mount now and stop throwing money down the drain to claim you have the largest market shar.

The "phased out" timeframe is much longer for the higher end gear than a $100 music player. I am sure that a lot of low end DLRS kits end up permanently on shelves.
I would contend that changing paradigm to subscription services from perpetual licenses (SW or music) is not quite equivalent for taking photos for the next 5 years or so (which is the longest that most companies forecast to). AI image generation has increased dramatically of course but the higher end users will still like the quality and realism (however you want to define it) and will pay for it (Canon profits). Again, the lower end has already gone for smartphones and filters.

Agree here. I'm curious to where AI will go. I can see a future where as vapid as people are they would prefer AI generated wedding pictures. You have an average skill photographer take a few pictures at the wedding for reference. Feed thost pictures into the AI and then the AI generate the actual pictures where everyone is always in the perfect pose as though they are models.

Nikon are not focusing on the lower end of the market because they needed to be profitable and their R&D hit a great product with the Z9/Z8 at an aggressive price point. Let's hope that they can stay in the market for the longer term but their market share is becoming niche.
Canon are not focusing on the low end. Yes, the volume marketshare shows a lot of DLSRs being sold which is a great cash cow for them. Again, you are assuming that they have lower margins but you can't know this. The R&D costs are sunk so they could be very profitable in % terms and volume => big cash profits .... but the driver for increased profit is in the higher end and new glass and Canon is setup for the future there

Your lips to gods ears. But again even selling more cameras brough in less revenue for Canon. Keep in mind Canon only uses their image sensors for cameras unlinke sony. When you look at CMOS image sensors Sony dominates the market at 42% while Canon is at 1%. And Sony's market share is increasing.

I'm not following you here... time will tell if Canon's long term strategy is good or not. We can only comment about the situation today and in the recent past and clearly Canon is winning in marketshare and profitability. This sets them up for the future.
Canon's brand is dominant today. Canon is all-in for their R mount bodies and RF lenses. They are selling excellent tech stuff for both lower end and high end lenses and 12 bodies. They are missing the mid market lenses currently and have a couple of gaps but let's chat again in 6 months for the status.
15 years in the future is a long time to make a call and frankly it isn't worth discussing for today's market strategy even if Japanese companies have longer strategies than most countries

There are only 3 things we know about forecasts... they are wrong, they are more wrong the further out they are and they are better than not having one!

Agreed no one knows the future. Although Canon is not winning on the profitablity side they are only winning on the market share by volume side. I also don't agree they're all in for the RF mount system. From their sales it appears that these are the least amount of cameras they sell. The bulk are low end. Why even sell a Rebel SL3 today for $649, when you have the R50 for $679?

As for forecast look at it this way. What would most Canon fans been predicting 15 years ago. I don't any of them would've though Sony would be in the posi

Leica doesn't need to have either volume or consumer brand acceptance to be both profitable and long term.
High end brands for quality like B&O, Harmen Kardon, Mark Levinson and others in the audio space are partnering with more lower end volume sellers to showcase technology at a different price point. Young people are introduced to these brands through a different channel.
Irrespective, to assume that Canon won't re-invent themselves for younger people in years to come is a strange forecast of yours

All of that is entirely possible. But you have to start somewhere. I don't think Canon has gotten that message just yet. Here is a comment from a discussion I was having with other people on Youtube:

"I teach hundreds of young university photo students and I find this generation doesn't really care what brands are more established or legacy brands, they just want the best and most innovative and affordable choices. And Sony and Fuji are doing very well with that younger generation. Cheers and best to you."

I get it that is anecdotal. But again this is what I constantly see when I talk with young people. They don't care about legacy brands. They care which company is dropping in the coolest tech at the right price. I think Canon could have the opportunity on the pricing side. Again I think the R8 is clearly the best value proposition if you excluded lens selection. But these young people aren't starting out from a position that the traditional company is established and the best. This going back to my Kia example. I would've never though that Kia got to where they have but alas, I'm must cope with the fact that I'm no longer young.

How do you define looking "cool"?
There are retro designed bodies and they have a niche but good ergonomics are hard to define and easy to enjoy as a hygiene factor. I just got a Sigma 20/1.4 Art and the noisy AF motor is super annoying and couldn't be used for video... this coming from Canon L glass user. Thankfully I will only be using it in manual focus.
Getting something cool and regretting the purchase because it is hard to use is a learning experience.

Wait, do you have the old 20mm f1.4 DG HSM Art for DSLR or the newer 20mm f1.4 DG DN Art for mirrorless. I'm assuming the former as you're a Canon shooter and they don't make the new one for any Canon mounts.

And this highlights the difference. They updated the lense for mirroless and now for the same price you get a better lense that is SILENT for the same price. So if you use an EF adapter you only have the option of the older lens.

Here is a review of the newer version compared against the more expensive Sony and at the 7:25 mark he highlights that while the motor isn't as good as the Sony, "its silent, its fast, its accurate".

 

[CJaurelius]

A quick google search (meaning questionable accuracy) suggests that only ~8% of YouTube channels make money and that the average income of a vlogger is ~$55K/yr. About what an elementary school teacher makes, and people earning that much probably aren’t going to frequently update their expensive Sony camera very often, if they ever even buy another one.

Maybe Sony is going after the amateur p0rn production market, having learned their lesson from when VHS beat out their Betamax format. I wonder if dynamic range is important in that context.

There are over 114 MILLION active youtube channels. At 8% you're talking about over 9 million channels. Also I just think you are out of touch with the way young people want to live. And to be fair I was in shock for a long time as well. I have a 35 year old friend who quit his day job to be a full time content creator. He currently have 2 main clients that he shoorts vidoes for. His salary vastly changes. For example his main client pays him rough 60k per year. However he usually rotates another client or 2 for and additional $20 - $40K. Again this is highly volatile. So for 6 months he might be only making $60k per year but then he gain an extra client and that goes up $80k per year. Then for a month or two he picks up antoher client and is make $95k per year. Then he loses the main client and drops to $35k per year. He's only 2 years into this and seems to be able to keep his average abover $60k.

Now with a $60k avearge salary and 2 years into this he owns a Sony A7III ($2K), the Sigma 24 - 70mm ($1,100), Sigma 14 - 24mm ($1,300), sony 50mm 1.8 ($250, first lens), DJI Ronin RS3 ($550), Ninja V ($500), Apurature Amaran C60 ($200), along with stands, filters, action cameras, etc. And thats not to mention a $4000 macbook pro, $1500 apple retina display, multiple SSD hard drives, etc.

At this point he probably has over $15,000 worth of equipment. He is now looking to upgrade the A7III and is looking at the FX3 which is $4000 because he mainly shoots video at this point and wants something reliable that does 4k120.

Meanwhile he rents from me in my house in Miami and pays me $1500 rent. Doesn't even have healthcare, let alone a 401k plan. We talke a lot and I get to meet all of his friend (usually mid ot late 20's) that do similar lines of work. For example one of his friends runs an agency for OnlyFans and they shoot and manage their content for a fee. So there is a point to your comment about p0rn.

So considering I'm in 40's in an established career, owning mutliple homes, etc. I caution him and his friends to whether they are really pursing an actually career. They all believe this is only going to grow and while they might not have the financial freedom that I strive for they RATHER have the ability to essentially work from anywhere around their schedule. For example he's going to be going overseas to do a video shoot for a client and hes excited to be there for a couple of weeks. He will spend most of his time working for someone else. When I go on vacation I want to fully enjoy myself doing what I want. They are more about being able to say they had the expereince and put in on social media to compete with everyone else.

So I'm in my 40's making 5 times what he makes and yet I will never get close to spending what de does on camera gear. I'm very aware that I'm not Canon or Sony's main priority. Why on earth would I really need 4k120?