But they aren't dominating. Sony has more revenue. Canon sells more units at a cheaper cost and Sony sells less units at a higher cost and has a higher revenue. We've discussed this.
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 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.
Show me where people data where people like adapters?
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.
Great article about the industry and the low and high margin strategies of the players in it:
“If Nikon's correct—and they've been consistently good forecasters in terms of market direction—“
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.
