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

[CJaurelius]

None of the circlejerks realize the data includes DSLR. Data is inflated by cheap Canon & Nikon DSLR kits.

The ones buying APS-C DSLR with a variable aperture zoom lens kit has no relations with Canon blocking RF third-party lenses or exotic RF lens R&D.

Not only does the data include DSLRs, it also includes point and shoot cameras. When you look at just mirrorless cameras Sony holds the most market share. And mirrorless cameras are clearly the future.

Its pretty obvious that the built in lens camera market has dropped almost 90% from its peak. So the question is once that market is gone completely how will Canon stack up then.

Canon's model seems to be to sell cheaper mirrorless cameras and make money of lenses while Sony's strategy to be sell more expensive mirrorless cameras by having an open platform with more lenses.

 

[Del Paso]

It's funny because it's true!

What is also "funny", is the fact that, despite their extremely high prices, Leica is also extremely successful.
I wonder if they cost even more in Australia.

 

[Del Paso]

Not only does the data include DSLRs, it also includes point and shoot cameras. When you look at just mirrorless cameras Sony holds the most market share. And mirrorless cameras are clearly the future.

Its pretty obvious that the built in lens camera market has dropped almost 90% from its peak. So the question is once that market is gone completely how will Canon stack up then.

Canon's model seems to be to sell cheaper mirrorless cameras and make money of lenses while Sony's strategy to be sell more expensive mirrorless cameras by having an open platform with more lenses.

It seems to be a new phenomenon that those who lose don't accept defeat...

 

[EricN]

It seems to be a new phenomenon that those who lose don't accept defeat...

I don't even understand the importance of attempting to negate news about less than a percent.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not only does the data include DSLRs, it also includes point and shoot cameras. When you look at just mirrorless cameras Sony holds the most market share.

No. Well, maybe in your personal reality, but not out here in the real world. In 2022, Sony sold 1.25 million MILCs and Canon sold 1.54 million MILCs, 20% more than Sony. If you're going to make an argument, it is usually a poor idea to start off with misinformation.

Its pretty obvious that the built in lens camera market has dropped almost 90% from its peak. So the question is once that market is gone completely how will Canon stack up then.

In 2011 Canon had zero MILC market share. A few years ago, Canon was behind Sony in MILC market share. Last year, Canon led the global MILC market just as they have led the DSLR market and the overall ILC market for the past two decades and currently dominate the camera market.

When Sony failed to compete with Canon and Nikon in the DSLR market, they abandoned it and focused on mirrorless. When Canon launched the EOS M line, Sony moved into and prioritized full frame MILCs. Canon is now in that market segment as well, and they now lead mirrorless as they've done for DSLRs and the ILC market as a whole for the past two decades.

So the answer is that Canon is already stacking up just fine. The question is whether Sony will continue putting resources into cameras if they keep losing market share to Canon. They have quite a history of abandoning/divesting product lines. I really liked my little Vaio PC, too. Sony's sensor division could profitably continue supplying other camera makers even if Sony stops making cameras.

Canon's model seems to be to sell cheaper mirrorless cameras and make money of lenses while Sony's strategy to be sell more expensive mirrorless cameras by having an open platform with more lenses.

That's a good point, and while Canon leads in units sold, Sony leads in the value of those units. That's quite logical, since FF cameras are more expensive than APS-C cameras, and Sony has prioritized the former.

I believe a reasonable assumption for the useful life of a camera is 5 years, give or take. Canon is 5 years into FF MILCs. That means that there are many 5- and 6- series DSLR users out there who are only now beginning to switch to mirrorless. Based on market share over the last decade, something like 70-80% of all ILC users have a Canon camera. Only a minority are FF, but as those users start to move from Canon DSLRs to Canon MILCs, the unit value of Canon's market-leading MILC volume will also increase (as was the case for Sony starting 5-6 years ago).

 

[neuroanatomist]

It seems to be a new phenomenon that those who lose don't accept defeat...

Or make up facts to support their opinion. I seem to have run across that phenomenon in current events as well.

 

[AlanF]

What is also "funny", is the fact that, despite their extremely high prices, Leica is also extremely successful.
I wonder if they cost even more in Australia.

Actually, Leica is sometimes cited as an example of a Positional Good or Veblen Good - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/positional-goods.asp

"Positional goods are goods and services that people value because of their limited supply, and because they convey a high relative standing within society. Positional goods may include brand-name luxury handbags, a custom Feadship motor yacht, or front-row tickets to the Super Bowl."

 

[EricN]

Actually, Leica is sometimes cited as an example of a Positional Good or Veblen Good - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/positional-goods.asp

"Positional goods are goods and services that people value because of their limited supply, and because they convey a high relative standing within society. Positional goods may include brand-name luxury handbags, a custom Feadship motor yacht, or front-row tickets to the Super Bowl."

They are the only company still making professional quality 35mm film cameras, but they are rangefinders. I think most people agree that SLR was a step forward...

 

[Jethro]

I believe a reasonable assumption for the useful life of a camera is 5 years, give or take. Canon is 5 years into FF MILCs. That means that there are many 5- and 6- series DSLR users out there who are only now beginning to switch to mirrorless. Based on market share over the last decade, something like 70-80% of all ILC users have a Canon camera. Only a minority are FF, but as those users start to move from Canon DSLRs to Canon MILCs, the unit value of Canon's market-leading MILC volume will also increase (as was the case for Sony starting 5-6 years ago).

Interesting also in that the EOS R was released around this time in 2018 (I bought one a couple of months later) - which is 5 years. For those (like me) who haven't moved on yet, the range of new Canon FF (and more recently APS-C) bodies released in that time is now very large, and so Canon's market also includes those who haven't upgraded immediately when new bodies emerged, but whose bodies are at an age / usage where they need to be replaced.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not only does the data include DSLRs, it also includes point and shoot cameras. When you look at just mirrorless cameras Sony holds the most market share. And mirrorless cameras are clearly the future.

Its pretty obvious that the built in lens camera market has dropped almost 90% from its peak. So the question is once that market is gone completely how will Canon stack up then.

Canon's model seems to be to sell cheaper mirrorless cameras and make money of lenses while Sony's strategy to be sell more expensive mirrorless cameras by having an open platform with more lenses.

Can you share your data source?
Petapixel quotes "Digital Camera Life" with the following

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

 

[David - Sydney]

What is also "funny", is the fact that, despite their extremely high prices, Leica is also extremely successful.
I wonder if they cost even more in Australia.

Try to match pricing using
https://www.digidirect.com.au/
I don't imagine there would be much discounting so prices would be following the exchange rate which has been going down vs USD and EUR. Against EUR down ~13% over 1 year and 4% over 2 years

 

[Del Paso]

They are the only company still making professional quality 35mm film cameras, but they are rangefinders. I think most people agree that SLR was a step forward...

Depends. Once you get used to a rangefinder, you'll no longer want to miss it. Just compare an EOS 5 series with the 1,4/35 L and a Leica M with its tiny 1,4/35 Summilux. In cities, a very discrete combo (you can always put gaffer on the red dot...). Not to mention the fantastic quality of the lenses. Are they worth the price? Up to you to say, I think yes (mostly!).
On the other hand, if I was obliged to use only one system, I'd choose SLRs, of course, for wildlife, macros etc...

 

[Del Paso]

Actually, Leica is sometimes cited as an example of a Positional Good or Veblen Good - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/positional-goods.asp

"Positional goods are goods and services that people value because of their limited supply, and because they convey a high relative standing within society. Positional goods may include brand-name luxury handbags, a custom Feadship motor yacht, or front-row tickets to the Super Bowl."

It is certainly true that many Leica customers are "status buyers", like the ones, in the 70s, buying a Nikon F that never saw another lens than its original 50mm. There are also the collectors, who buy only to put on display a wonderful tool (sad).
But also users who appreciate the lenses and the cameras, maybe a minority ?
I do not know nor care, I'm using mine often and love them!

 

[AlanF]

It is certainly true that many Leica customers are "status buyers", like the ones, in the 70s, buying a Nikon F that never saw another lens than its original 50mm. There are also the collectors, who buy only to put on display a wonderful tool (sad).
But also users who appreciate the lenses and the cameras, maybe a minority ?
I do not know nor care, I'm using mine often and love them!

I know you do, as well as several others here who are real photographers! But for some, an increase in price actually increases the attraction, and the Leica is cited in some texts as an example of Veblen goods.

 

[Del Paso]

I know you do, as well as several others here who are real photographers! But for some, an increase in price actually increases the attraction, and the Leica is cited in some texts as an example of Veblen goods.

Unfortunately for us users, you are right!

 

[EricN]

Depends. Once you get used to a rangefinder, you'll no longer want to miss it. Just compare an EOS 5 series with the 1,4/35 L and a Leica M with its tiny 1,4/35 Summilux. In cities, a very discrete combo (you can always put gaffer on the red dot...). Not to mention the fantastic quality of the lenses. Are they worth the price? Up to you to say, I think yes (mostly!).
On the other hand, if I was obliged to use only one system, I'd choose SLRs, of course, for wildlife, macros etc...

I definitely agree those lenses are always said to be excellent. I just wish the cameras were SLR, but at least for now, it's still easy enough to find an SLR used in good condition for not much money if we want to use film. Maybe when they get difficult to find some company will license Canon's F-1 or 1N.

 

[HarryFilm]

Canon is a bit like Apple. No matter what they release, people still buy it. A little bit like cheesy pop stars

Interesting that you mention Apple! --- My electrical engineer rumour mill sources tell me that Apple is about to encroach into the cinema production/consumer video and still photo camera territories of Sony and Canon some time within two years! Evidently, Apple may be introducing THICKER smartphones with larger batteries and bigger image sensors in the 100 to 200 megapixel range with a sensor sized at 1.3 inches and larger attached to actual larger glass. The KEY ISSUE is that Apple may have SOLVED the focal plane problem of a large sensor mated to higher quality and larger glass lens by using IP licenced from Sony OR Canon that uses Aspherical microlenses that are put on top of each photosite so ensure all available light gets redirected properly to the proper individual photosites.

I have been told that the upcoming offering in Apple's newest super-smartphones line could very well be a 144 megapixel smartphone that has multiple smaller lenses and imagers surrounding a larger single image sensor used for computational algorithms that will enhance day and night photography and that the larger sensor will allow for 16-bits per colour channel (i.e. 48 bit colour!) rendition.

The newest line will be in addition to the normal iPhone but priced higher with larger screen sizes to "hide" the larger sensors and lenses needed! We might see an inkling of this at Apples upcoming event next week. I suspect that no actual device would be demonstrated in the weeks of mid to late Sept 2023 BUT that a software-centric announcement will be made that says Apple will be supporting very large pixel counts in the 100+ to 200+ megapixel range! If you see that then it means Spring 2024 they will make a hard announcement on a high megapixel super-smartphone!

This will FURTHER EAT into low to mid-range SLR style cameras!

V

 

[CJaurelius]

No. Well, maybe in your personal reality, but not out here in the real world. In 2022, Sony sold 1.25 million MILCs and Canon sold 1.54 million MILCs, 20% more than Sony. If you're going to make an argument, it is usually a poor idea to start off with misinformation.

Can you share your data source?
Petapixel quotes "Digital Camera Life" with the following

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

I guess technically we all could be right but you have the exact same info as me. In terms of sales value Sony has the largest market share. They sold less cameras at a higher value and therefore have a higher market share.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an... is usually calculated,for any given data set.

"Market share is usually calculated using total revenue, though non-financial metrics like units sold or the number of customers can also be used."

They both claim to be number 1 by saying which metric is higher for them:

https://petapixel.com/2022/02/28/so...-to-be-1-in-mirrorless-cameras-who-really-is/

"For all the smoke and mirrors, there are some concrete facts you can draw. Firstly, Sony and Canon seem to be neck-and-neck in North America, with Canon selling more mirrorless cameras, but Sony leading on total value."

As a fan I can understand why someone would point out that the brand they like sells more units of something. But the reality is that business care about money not bragging rights and Sony has a larger sales volume of mirorrless cameras. And Canon is selling more units of cheaper cameras that are essentially becoming exstinct.

So the answer is that Canon is already stacking up just fine. The question is whether Sony will continue putting resources into cameras if they keep losing market share to Canon. They have quite a history of abandoning/divesting product lines. I really liked my little Vaio PC, too. Sony's sensor division could profitably continue supplying other camera makers even if Sony stops making cameras.

Again, they aren't losing market share to Canon where it counts, sales volume. If they wanted more units sold they could just drop the price. Instead they are doing the opposite and they are increasing the pricing of their cameras. Take the Canon R8 at $1500. The most comparable camera to this on the Sony side is the A7CII and they are selling it for $2200. And the older version of this camera was $1800. They are making more sales from less units. Becuase they know the direction the market is headed for the entire industry. and it ain't a selling a huge amount of cheaper cameras.

Sony also makes camera sensors that are sold to phone companies like apple. So as the phone cameras chip away at the camera market Sony is still making money.

I believe a reasonable assumption for the useful life of a camera is 5 years, give or take. Canon is 5 years into FF MILCs. That means that there are many 5- and 6- series DSLR users out there who are only now beginning to switch to mirrorless. Based on market share over the last decade, something like 70-80% of all ILC users have a Canon camera. Only a minority are FF, but as those users start to move from Canon DSLRs to Canon MILCs, the unit value of Canon's market-leading MILC volume will also increase (as was the case for Sony starting 5-6 years ago).

I don't know the future but I think its clear the market is moving in the direction that bottom of the camera market is continually getting overtaken by the advancements in camera phones making MILC a niche product for professionals and advancced hobbyist.

Furthermore, when I look out to the landscape of Youtube, Instagram, and social media in general I see that Sony is a lot more popular among young people while Canon is more populare among older people who used DSLR. Maybe these older people will convert to mirrorless giving Canon a boost as you say. But Canon essentially makes more money from cheaper cameras and the people who buy their more expensive cameras are older people. That doesn't bode well for the future.

And I think this is the issue with their closed system. You can say all you want about adapters but young people don't want to spend $2k on a brand new camera, then get an adapter for what to them amounts to "old" lenses. Part of the reason they paying for a $2k camera when their iphone would probably suffice for their Youtube channel is because they want their equipment to be cool. Because lets be honest, for 99% of people the difference between the actual picture quality of all the camera brands is pretty insignificant when the vast majority of media today is consumed on tiny phone screens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If they wanted more units sold they could just drop the price. Instead they are doing the opposite and they are increasing the pricing of their cameras. Take the Canon R8 at $1500. The most comparable camera to this on the Sony side is the A7CII and they are selling it for $2200. And the older version of this camera was $1800. They are making more sales from less units.

The mean unit price of an ILC is trending up, but for 2022 it's ¥103,000 = $700. There are still a lot of relatively low-priced units being sold. It's also worth noting that the decline in DSLR sales appears to have leveled off at about 30%, and MILC unit sales remain stable. I wonder how long Sony can keep increasing their prices? That may not be sustainable.

The camera industry typically uses units sold to gauge market share. Sony may prefer to use revenue, for obvious reasons. What matters most to companies and their shareholders is not the top line, but the bottom line. Canon is transparent about those data for cameras, and they are showing double-digit growth (16% y/y for 2022 and forecasting 15% y/y for 2023).

Sony plays a long-running shell game with their cameras, which have been moved from one business unit to another several times, and are currently in the Entertainment, Technology & Services Segment (cameras used to be part of Imaging, but they were dragging down the aggregate numbers for their sensors). That segment as a whole grew by 4%, but ILCs don't figure largely. In fact, in their most recent segment strategy presentation, cameras were not mentioned at all as growth drivers, the focus there is on things like virtual production, software, and life sciences (side note: Sony makes very nice flow cytometers).

 

[CJaurelius]

The newest line will be in addition to the normal iPhone but priced higher with larger screen sizes to "hide" the larger sensors and lenses needed! We might see an inkling of this at Apples upcoming event next week. I suspect that no actual device would be demonstrated in the weeks of mid to late Sept 2023 BUT that a software-centric announcement will be made that says Apple will be supporting very large pixel counts in the 100+ to 200+ megapixel range! If you see that then it means Spring 2024 they will make a hard announcement on a high megapixel super-smartphone!

This will FURTHER EAT into low to mid-range SLR style cameras!

V

Agreed. Sony already dropped a larger sensor in one of their own smartphones as a sort of proof of concept and is now selling larger sensors to other camera makeres.

https://www.smartprix.com/bytes/best-sony-imx-989-sensor-phones/

"The Sony IMX 989 is indeed a cutting-edge 1-inch type sensor that boasts an impressive native resolution of 50.3 and a pixel size of 1.6µm. While it offers improved light-gathering capability and superior image quality compared to typical smartphone sensors, it’s still smaller than the APS-C sensor found in many entry-level and mid-range DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Therefore, while the Sony IMX 989 is the largest camera sensor currently available in a smartphone, professional cameras with even larger sensors still have the edge when it comes to overall image quality. Nevertheless, the Sony IMX 989 represents a significant leap forward in smartphone camera technology and enables users to capture stunning photos and videos with improved light sensitivity."

So take the entry level point and shoot cameras like the Sony ZV-1 and Canon G7XIII which both have 1" sensors. Both companies will lose the sale of these cameras as they become obsolete because most people will already have a more capable 1" sensor camera in their pocket that has a much better screen, operating system and the ability to easily edit, share and post the pictures directly from the phone. However Sony wont be losing sales completely as they will be selling 1" sensor to a larger phone market.

And this is the trend that is being missed. MILC's are increasingly becoming a niche product as most people will be able to get the functionality from devices they already have. In addition the market for consuming media content is increasingly becoming digital. Sony and Canon are both doing a terrible job at creating apps/operating systems that allow media to easily be edited and shared. Again this leans toward MILC being an niche product where the content is downloaded onto computers, edited and then shared.

Sony seems less concerned as they seem to be actively working with this trend. Pushing their MILC toward higher end niche products while making the sensors for smartphones to address these issues of how content is being created in the future. Look at their latest announcement of the ILX-LR1. They basically took their 61MP sensor from the $3900 A7RV and dropped it into a small, screenless body that can be used in industrial drones for $3k.

So fans arguing over which company sells more MILC's will seem to be pretty silly in the future when a lot of those units will be sold to industrial and commercial business and not traditional retail consumers.