Canon Cuts Full-Year Forecast as Camera Users Switch to Phones

[Chuck Alaimo]

it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all.

Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX).

And today, CaNikon are missing the boat again, because they have no mirrorless FF MILCs ready now and it looks they will not even have one ready within the year.

These days, only a few budget-restricted, conservative die-hards insisting on OVF are willing to swallow marketing-crippled FF DSLRs (6D, D610) still priced at more than 1500. All others are buying Fuji APS-C instead and/or are will be buying innovative and more affordable FF-mirrorless cams.

CaNikon are in for a lot of punishment. Well deserved.

?????? i think your asking for a miracle here and I think your wrong on a bunch of levels --- innovating the $1000 level bodies I think at this point is a death wish - the $1000 body segment of the market is exactly the folks saying why spend money when my phone can do the trick. You can't draw blood from a stone - and i said this before - even cell phone makes will suffer from this too because what else can you do at this stage that's revolutionary???? DR, it's been done, it's been argued, it's been the dead horse beaten and you know what.. an increase in DR may be a major improvement for the pro/ serious enthusiast crowd ....

But, the $1000 body crowd is gonna be falling in line with that cell phone crowd...and they don't need DR, they don't need mp's...they need that easy way to facebook it.. Many of these users will love that wifi, they may even shoot in raw, but, right after shooting use the picture viewer on the phone, then use some phone based editing software, then instagram and faebook it. Pros and entusiasts are looking for different things (i have to wonder at some here, the whole lack of gps in a 5d3 crowd, that i think is not the norm - but hey, a sale is a sale, for every person buying the 6d for the gps wifi, there is another person buying it for the good FF sensor and basic interface).

And then there's the whole mirrorless thing? Mirrorless is a new market finding its way, it may become a dominant format, or, it may go the way of betamax ---- and, let me get this right, you want revolutionary DSLR's and Revolutionary mirrorless - i say pick one or the other and put your resources there...

ohhh and sorry, maybe some casual users/ entusiasts/ people looking for a decent camera to bring on vacation are going for the Fuji APS-C and or olympus models --- but, I have not seen one pro/semipro/emerging pro show up to any kind of event with one of those.

In summation, I just don't understand where your coming from...

 

[justsomedude]

Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.

yep.. a decade ago most people could only dream to have a digital SLR (i was one of them).
today most who are interested in a DSLR have one .. or two..or three.. or..

and as you wrote, 10x15cm prints from a 8 year old camera don´t look much different then from a 1D X.

and that´s what most people do... 10x15 or 13x18 prints. if they print out photos at all.
that´s why my uncle is still happy with his D90.

this market can´t grow forever.

im also not really interested in a mirrorless DSLR.
not yet... i have seen all the latest EVF and im still not 100% happy with them.

the size advantages of a mirroless is not that important for me.
the current canon DSLR´s have the right size for my hands.
handling feels natural. i don´t want a tiny camera body.

So, your argument is what, then... there's no innovation left? dSLRs are dead? That sounds like what you're saying since you're not offering any alternatives.

And do you really want to argue that some markets can't grow forever?

You might want to talk to Apple about that. There has been no major change in their phones in ages, yet they crank them out at top tier prices and continuously break sales records. If they start stealing dSLR market share with a handheld 1/8" sensor mirrorless "camera" that's built into a mobile phone device, you'll be darn tootin' that Canon will be right there with a new product to compete.

I think there is plenty of innovation left, Canon just chooses to rest on its laurels.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

ohhh and sorry, maybe some casual users/ entusiasts/ people looking for a decent camera to bring on vacation are going for the Fuji APS-C and or olympus models --- but, I have not seen one pro/semipro/emerging pro show up to any kind of event with one of those.

zack arias maybe.. he seems to love the fuji.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

So, your argument is what, then... there's no innovation left? dSLRs are dead?

not for us enthusiast and pros.
but there will be diminishing returns we will have to face.
who really needs 80MP cameras? only a very small percentage.
and of course there will be some pixelpeeper who even buy a gigapixel camera.

DR can be improved and that´s something i like to see.
but most consumers don´t care much about DR.
it´s again the enthusiast and pros who are interested in better DR.

but i guess the low end is pretty much dead in a few years, yes.

And do you really want to argue that some markets can't grow forever?

yes. history proves me right.
smartphones are pretty new... they will see their decline too.
at some point there will be a new technology replacing traditional smartphones.

and i think you can not really compare communication technology to cameras.
we all have an urge and need to communicate.. but not everyone is a photographer.

ps:
and apple is a status symbol for some.. as crazy as that sounds.
it´s not rational. they feel bad when they don´t have the latest and their colleagues have.

it reminds me a bit on the 80s when i was in school.. some kids where "hip" because of their trainers.... :

 

[Lichtgestalt]

barely outresolves? Strong words.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings, there are no Canon lenses in the top

It is hard to get a real comparison when Canon has no high end resolution camera

ah... a glimpse of understanding.

the results are not lens results.. they are LENS + SENSOR results.

to have lens results you best have an infinite resolving sensor.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

So, your argument is what, then... there's no innovation left? dSLRs are dead?

not for us enthusiast and pros.
but there will be diminishing returns we will have to face.
who really needs 80MP cameras? only a very small percentage.
and of course there will be some pixelpeeper who even buy a gigapixel camera.

DR can be improved and that´s something i like to see.
but most consumers don´t care much about DR.
it´s again the enthusiast and pros who are interested in better DR.

but i guess the low end is pretty much dead in a few years, yes.

And do you really want to argue that some markets can't grow forever?

yes. history proves me right.
smartphones are pretty new... they will see their decline too.
at some point there will be a new technology replacing traditional smartphones.

and i think you can not really compare communication technology to cameras.
we all have an urge and need to communicate.. but not everyone is a photographer.

ps:
and apple is a status symbol for some.. as crazy as that sounds.
it´s not rational. they feel bad when they don´t have the latest and their colleagues have.

it reminds me a bit on the 80s when i was in school.. some kids where "hip" because of their trainers.... :

wow...so the automobile must be dead too because there have been no earth shattering upgrades in decades!!!!

just because we've hit diminishing returns that doesn't mean people won't buy, it's just buying on a different schedule. I mean, is there anything reallly oh god ground breaking between that 2002 toyota corrola and the 20010 toyota corrolla you just bought? A few bells and whisltles, but, its the same size, handles the same, ohh..the old one was blue tand this one is green...did you trade in that 2002 corrolla because oh my, i need that reverse camera? or, was it because the 2002 needed a new exhaust system, and the suspension was shot, and the check engine light was on, and it was topping 175,000 miles....

When tech is in a growth mode, yes, we see lots more sales because each new product cycle does have a more tangible benefit ---but, what's more to do other than marginal upgrades? Hell, I'd even take that ...screw sensor design, lets find a way to increase the sync speed for FF shutters....I'd love that, it would rock, but is it revolutionary? No, it's a marginal upgrade.

the car example is just one of what we see and use and buy regularly ---- LOL --- by the logic of it must revolutionize or the market dies...it's true, yeah (sarcasm), this is why hammer sales are down, I mean, when was the last revolutionary upgrade to the hammer!

As another poster stated --- the dslr market has matured, and that means we are now gonna be buying stuff because we need it more than because oh my it's got all these bells and whistles...AKA, my body is hitting the edge the shutter's lifespan, gee, maybe it's now worth it to just have a new shutter installed????? Is that really such a bad thing that maybe we can find ourselves with less disposable tech????????

 

[Lichtgestalt]

understanding or not, there is no Canon lenses in the top along with 5dmk3

well... but if you look at what the 5D MK3 actually can achive with it´s 22 MP... it doesn´t look that bad uh?


http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-500mm-and-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR-lens-reviews-legendary-performers-in-the-range/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-500mm-f-4G-ED-VR-fights-off-both-Canon-and-Sony

 

[Lichtgestalt]

wow...so the automobile must be dead too because there have been no earth shattering upgrades in decades!!!!

apples and oranges as usual when someone brings a car analogy.

the car example is just one of what we see and use and buy regularly ---- LOL --- by the logic of it must revolutionize or the market dies...

i guess you quoted my post but the argumention is aimed at justsomedude?
because i fully agree here.

stop growing does not mean dying.

but cars are a status symbol. more then rebel DSLR´s.
it doesn´t look good when you drive a rusty 2002 corrolla.

and are their new alternatives to cars?
has the car market seen a competition like cameras have with smartphones?
notice i wrote cameras not DSLR´s.

i don´t see how the camera market can grow when the wide base (low end DSLR and P&S) is breaking away.

as i wrote i don´t think DSLR´s will be dead.
even with smaller technological steps there will always be people who want a DSLR (or fullframe interchangeable lens system).
it´s just that i think low end DSLR will get less attractive.

As another poster stated --- the dslr market has matured, and that means we are now gonna be buying stuff because we need it more than because oh my it's got all these bells and whistles...AKA, my body is hitting the edge the shutter's lifespan, gee, maybe it's now worth it to just have a new shutter installed?? Is that really such a bad thing that maybe we can find ourselves with less disposable tech??

it´s sure not a bad thing.
and a reason you can not expect the 10% increase per year to go on forever.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

wow...so the automobile must be dead too because there have been no earth shattering upgrades in decades!!!!

apples and oranges as usual when someone brings a car analogy.

the car example is just one of what we see and use and buy regularly ---- LOL --- by the logic of it must revolutionize or the market dies...

stop growing does not mean dying.

and again, cars are a status symbol. more then rebel DSLR´s.
it doesn´t look good when you drive a rusty 2002 corrolla.

and are their new alternatives to cars?
has the car market seen a competition like cameras have with smartphones?
notice i wrote cameras not DSLR´s.

i don´t see how the camera market can grow when the wide base (low end DSLR and P&S) is breaking away.

As another poster stated --- the dslr market has matured, and that means we are now gonna be buying stuff because we need it more than because oh my it's got all these bells and whistles...AKA, my body is hitting the edge the shutter's lifespan, gee, maybe it's now worth it to just have a new shutter installed?? Is that really such a bad thing that maybe we can find ourselves with less disposable tech??

it´s sure not a bad thing.
and a reason you can not expect the 10% increase per year to go on forever.

Realize that your end statement only proves not only my point, the point of a few others here ---

There was a big balloon in digital imaging, that balloon has pretty much hit it's apex, now the balloon is settling into a more natural state... which means sales are slowing....as you said..."10% or more growth can't go on forever." The market will contract, and or, is contracting. We saw it with computers too, tech goes in waves, new tech hits, new things get the bubble effect until you hit a point where the upgrades are marginal.

You say my car anaology doesn't rwork...apples and oranges...most car analogies here are trying to say this model is like a toyota and this is like a BMW ---all i am saying is this isn't a matter of product a being better than the other product:

As many have said - camera bodies are tools to get a job done. We've been in the ballon, now the ballon is contracting...so the updates will not be revolutionary, they will be marginal --- the decision to buy a new camera body won't be because my business will be harmed because the other guy has better tech, but like any other tool - you replace it when needed...that's the car analogy too, your not buying the same model car but a newer version for the feature set, your buying it because the old one was worn out!

with that said, even though the bubble is contracting, I am betting we will see improvements that are slightly more than evolutionary, but nothing earth shattering.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

There was a big balloon in digital imaging, that balloon has pretty much hit it's apex, now the balloon is settling into a more natural state... which means sales are slowing....as you said..."10% or more growth can't go on forever." The market will contract, and or, is contracting. We saw it with computers too, tech goes in waves, new tech hits, new things get the bubble effect until you hit a point where the upgrades are marginal.

well that´s exactly what i wrote before, yes.

it´s just that cars have a different "dynamic" then cameras.
thats why you still see the market grow after all the years.
and new envolving markets like china help.

a car is not only a object of utility, it´s a social status symbol.
and cars have not seen a real competition since they exist.
subways, airplanes, trains don´t count. they are not made as individual driving vehicles.

that´s why i think it´s apples and oranges.
even when i agree with the points made about cameras.

 

[Loswr]

Given that the entire article points to consumers using $600 iPhones in place of $600 entry-level dSLRs, I think it's an incredibly valid point.

Well, that was the point of the first paragraph, anyway.

That's all fine and dandy, but the 5D3 still can't hold a candle to the dynamic range of the D800. Sure, when you throw in DUAL-ISO hacks you can get there, but out of the box shadow performance is far from equal.

Oh, ok. Has that helped the D800 outsell the 5DIII? No. While it's true there is a small group of vocal forum posters DRone incessantly about DR, having more DR hasn't helped Nikon outsell Canon in any dSLR market segment. Clearly, you're in the minority. Or maybe not...I believe you said you're a Canon user, if so, why haven't you switched to Nikon for the better DR?

That's fine, I just don't think ignoring those who are not 100% satisfied by Canon is a logical approach. And telling them to go to another forum seems downright condescending and rude. I think the best use of forums is to discuss opposing viewpoints, not banish them.

Condescending and rude to call someone on blatant misrepresentation of facts, repeatedly and in several threads? I'm not going to apologize for that. Maybe I should apologize to DPR forums, though...

It would behoove you to understand the mentality of the dissatisfied user base. For there are many of us who still continue to use Canon loyally, on a daily basis as part of our business. We just find their approach to their product line "evolution" to be somewhat, how shall I say this, disingenuous with respect to the advanced shooter.

Constructive criticism is fine. Unfortunately, much of the microcosm of the Canon user base represented on this forum is under the mistaken impression that Canon must respond to their individual, disparate needs. Canon's goal is to sell cameras and lenses. The fact that they are selling more cameras than their competition, and even still able to sell to apparently disaffected people such as yourself, suggests that they're doing a pretty good job at achieving their goal.

 

[Loswr]

barely outresolves? Strong words.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings

Thanks for sharing that useful information. Useful, that is, to anyone who shoots only in lighting like that found in a dimly lit warehouse. Maybe you didn't realize that their Scores have little to do with overall optical performance, but rather are based on performance at 150 lux? Or that my statement was based, in part, on data and an article from DxOMark (but not the Biased Scores - abbreviated BS - which you highlighted). It's unfortunate that so few people bother to actually read and comprehend what a 'Score' actually means (at least to the extent possible, since some aspects are often undisclosed by the testing organization).

 

[Ruined]

it´s just that i think low end DSLR will get less attractive.

If people don't buy a DSLR, they generally will use their phone... And there isn't much that Canon can do about that, because an extra device is always going to be less convenient than 2 devices. No matter how small your camera is, a cameraphone + camera + lens is always going to be more bulky than a cameraphone alone.

As for mirrorless, companies are now disguising them in DSLR bodies because they sell better that way!
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxycamera/nx/

My thought?

Consumers will continue to shift to cameraphones as they get better, if they want something more serious they will buy DSLR because that is what they know.

Pros will continue to buy no-compromise DSLRs simply because they are the best overall, no sacrifices made for small size. Not to mention a tiny body can be a big disadvantage with a big full frame lens due to lack of control.

Mirrorless may end up disguised as DSLR like we see with the Galaxy NX or take some other hybrid form factor. But that is about as much as we can hope IMO... They simply aren't catching on in general - people are ambivalent to them.

 

[sdsr]

I agree with you on many of your points, Lichtgestalt, but the problem is one of Canon (and the entire dSLR industry's) own making. Cranking out an "updated" camera every three years at an exorbitant price-premium with minimal, if any, feature changes, is not a way to run a business or get brand loyalty. Yes, it's worked for Apple, but they are the lone wolf in this regard and can run their business that way due to their rabid fanbase. dSLR users by nature, are a much more finicky bunch that won't be duped by minor spec improvements. The "check out our new dual-pixel AF!! Now give us 1,200 of your hard earned dollars!!" marketing approach just doesn't work on the majority of us. We're simply not that impressed by the cost per feature. And as you stated, many of us already have dSLRs and the image quality is fine, so getting us to shell out $3,200 for the next FF consumer model is a tough sell. Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.

That said, I still think massive innovations can be made. I, for one, am still clamoring for a sensor that mimic's the dynamic range of film. I don't need 40+ MP, but having better shadow performance would be something I would gladly pay for. (and something I am still envious of regarding the D800)

But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory. Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share.

A few posts back you were complaining that Canon etc. weren't listening to consumers, but here you're telling us that "many of us" are satisfied with the cameras we have and that you recommend an old model to novices. What does *that* tell Canon etc.?

(And if better shadow performance is something you would "gladly pay for", and since you're envious of the D800 (and presumably D600/610, whose DR is about the same), why don't you gladly jump over to Nikon? It's not difficult to switch, and except for camera bodies bought new there's little loss involved.)

For all we know, Canon *does* listen to customers - it could be that, notwithstanding the complaining here, most customers just don't care about DR (if they really did care, wouldn't they have jumped to Nikon by now?) and, to the extent they want to buy dslrs, are quite happy with what Canon provides (its sales may be down, but its market share isn't, is it?). What are the demands of camera customers that you and that other chap think the companies are ignoring? Are there marketing surveys we can read or is this all just empty speculation? (We do seem to know that lots of people are quite happy to use smartphones exclusively; what that tells Canon and Nikon etc. isn't so much that they have dslr demands that aren't being met but that they have no interest in dslrs - maybe Canon and Nikon should start making phones....)

And just how important is "listening to customers" anyway? Is that what drives innovation? Or is it more a case of supply creating demand?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

There was a big balloon in digital imaging, that balloon has pretty much hit it's apex, now the balloon is settling into a more natural state... which means sales are slowing....as you said..."10% or more growth can't go on forever." The market will contract, and or, is contracting. We saw it with computers too, tech goes in waves, new tech hits, new things get the bubble effect until you hit a point where the upgrades are marginal.

well that´s exactly what i wrote before, yes.

it´s just that cars have a different "dynamic" then cameras.
thats why you still see the market grow after all the years.
and new envolving markets like china help.

a car is not only a object of utility, it´s a social status symbol.
and cars have not seen a real competition since they exist.
subways, airplanes, trains don´t count. they are not made as individual driving vehicles.

that´s why i think it´s apples and oranges.
even when i agree with the points made about cameras.

the car is just one example. the bicycle is another...the stove, the fridge, the sink, plumbing.. or go the other way, power drills, circular saws. Or we could take it even in another direction, musical instruments. I guess no one plays the violin any more because what there have been no revolutionary changes in the design.

Markets will continue when there is a NEED for a product - and back to the car thing - a car is not a status symbol in all cases. Yes, certain cars are - but unless your rich, its a utility, it gets you to work in the morning and home at night - and once it stops serving that need as well, it gets replaced. The boom in the digital world that we've seen over the last decade is because we went from 2 MP camera's that did not stand up to the original film camera's in any way. We've gone from that to what we have now in a short time. And until the next big tech shift comes, we're gonna be dealing with a more stabilized market --- which isn't necessarily a bad thing...

 

[Lichtgestalt]

(And if better shadow performance is something you would "gladly pay for", and since you're envious of the D800 (and presumably D600/610, whose DR is about the same), why don't you gladly jump over to Nikon? It's not difficult to switch, and except for camera bodies bought new there's little loss involved.)

as i wrote before... i don´t see the D800 numbers translate into better image quality.
i have looked at many D800 images but i just don´t see the additional 14MP making a big difference.

thought... what i do see is the cleaner results when pushing shadows.
that´s one thing i like to be improved on canon sensors, besides better DR.
i mean... when i buy the 5D MK4 i like to see some improvements or i could stick to my 5D MK3... right?
and those are the improvements i would like to see.

when i can expose for the highlights and then be able to push the shadows that´s often worth a lot. the cleaner the results the better. and i have to say the D800 has the edge here.

does it make me lose sleep... sure not.

 

[Loswr]

For all we know, Canon *does* listen to customers - it could be that, notwithstanding the complaining here, most customers just don't care about DR (if they really did care, wouldn't they have jumped to Nikon by now?)...

Indeed. The aforementioned minority of DRones notwithstanding, almost no one complained about the 5DII's sensor IQ. Canon's 'budget' FF customers complained about the AF, the responsiveness, the lack of dual card slots, etc. Canon addressed those complaints quite effectively with the 5DIII, and anticipated the concerns of the reasonably-sized group of customers who would want an updated FF body at a cost lower than the 5DIII, and launched the 6D soon thereafter, to address those concerns.

That's the kind of listening that has kept Canon in their market-leading position.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

so yes times are changing.. but the problem is... the innovations you guys want will not solve the problem.

I agree with you on many of your points, Lichtgestalt, but the problem is one of Canon (and the entire dSLR industry's) own making. Cranking out an "updated" camera every three years at an exorbitant price-premium with minimal, if any, feature changes, is not a way to run a business or get brand loyalty. Yes, it's worked for Apple, but they are the lone wolf in this regard and can run their business that way due to their rabid fanbase. dSLR users by nature, are a much more finicky bunch that won't be duped by minor spec improvements. The "check out our new dual-pixel AF!! Now give us 1,200 of your hard earned dollars!!" marketing approach just doesn't work on the majority of us. We're simply not that impressed by the cost per feature. And as you stated, many of us already have dSLRs and the image quality is fine, so getting us to shell out $3,200 for the next FF consumer model is a tough sell. Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.

That said, I still think massive innovations can be made. I, for one, am still clamoring for a sensor that mimic's the dynamic range of film. I don't need 40+ MP, but having better shadow performance would be something I would gladly pay for. (and something I am still envious of regarding the D800)

But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory. Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share.

What feature would be so dazzling then? ISO's have been pushed from a usable 1600 to a usable 12,800 or higher....not dazzling. Pixel peepers here will always site the Exmor DR, but in all the ad's I see for nikon, the selling factor is more like "look, ashton kutcher uses a nikon - he's cool, you want to be cool, buy nikon." I don't see many ads saying...14 stops of DR.... dual pixel AF...a nice development - but again, mind blowing it isn't.

If this is true - "Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters," then isn't it safe to say we don't even need the marginal updates. the 8 year old 40d is enough, so why bother putting all that R&D money into developing anything?

Also, if this 8 year old tech is still more than plenty for most then how can you say this - "But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory. Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share." Time will tell, if i am right then this is just a market correction, we've had the bubble now things can level out. Or, is the threat f the cell phone so big that it will cause the whole damn market to crumble? I highly doubt it, but realize this ---if my theory is right then don't expect mind blowing changes....

 

[Woody]

Although most folks attribute this lowering of profit margins to users switching from cameras to to camera phones, the reality is that Canon market shares for DSLRs (STILL outselling mirrorless cameras by a ratio of 4:1) has dropped in the USA. According to Thom Hogan, Nikon has nearly caught up with Canon DSLR market shares in USA. Not a good sign for Canon if this is true.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Although most folks attribute this lowering of profit margins to users switching from cameras to to camera phones, the reality is that Canon market shares for DSLRs (STILL outselling mirrorless cameras by a ratio of 4:1) has dropped in the USA.

Some folks have already noted other reasons for that, some of which are not Canon's (or any other manufacturer's) fault, e.g. economy in large, and cameras becoming sufficiently mature for the market to pay for lot less upgrades.

According to Thom Hogan, Nikon has nearly caught up with Canon DSLR market shares in USA. Not a good sign for Canon if this is true.

Indeed.