Nikon lowering their marketshare is deliberate and well documented. You can’t have a high percentage of you are no longer competing in the low end. Though Canon will likely follow, there is to much competition with phones on the low end.
Canon is #1 in global market share for digital cameras in 2020, and their share grew
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Nikon lowering their marketshare is deliberate and well documented. You can’t have a high percentage of you are no longer competing in the low end. Though Canon will likely follow, there is to much competition with phones on the low end.
Really? Didn't Nikon just announce the Nikon Z fc mirrorless camera with APS-C sensor on Jun 29, 2021? A company that is giving up competing in the low end should not have bothered with APS-C cameras.
The fc isn’t a low end camera. Yes it’ll sell more quantity than something like the Z9, but it is still up market. There are a lot of sub $500 bodies that just don’t shift like they used too and Nikon have been shifting everything to the upmarket bodies with higher profits (as evidenced by their latest financial reports). Indeed the fc takes their current cheapest Z body and adds $100 more to the cost for a retro design. Crop bodies are still cheeper to produce, but maybe they should just go all in on full frame like Canon seem to be doing.
I hope they keep the Powershot range. I would really like to see a G7 with some of the new advancements with autofocus and include some computational photography updates.
Shame that people like you don't understand that the M series of cameras and lenses is designed for extreme small size and portability. It has all the lenses that the target market needs, from wide angle to moderate telephoto. It has the M6 II as the latest camera - with the most advanced APS-C 32 MP sensor, as well as the M50 II - the more affordable, simpler option. It's really not that hard to understand if you actually try.
Or like Sony? Does Sony make an ILC ASP-C camera anymore? I don't think they do... yet their market share surpassed Nikon. I don't believe Sony has made a single ASP-C ILC in years and years.
Sony has the a6xxx series and last week released the ZV-E10, all APS-C (M)ILCs.
The 3rd generation a7 cameras are so much better than the 2nd.
The A1 is a new thing entirely.
I am interested to see what the 4th generation will be.
If I had to get a Sony right now it would be the A7R IV
What makes you so sure about that?
The R5 and R6 are selling extremely well.
Canon even points that out.
The R an RP have been selling pretty well since Canon has lowered the price.
Last time there was a chart on full-frame mirrorless Canon was catching up to Sony.
Sony's grip on full-frame mirrorless sees them hold 42.6% market share in Japan - DIY Photography
Despite the new models from Canon and Nikon over the last few months, Sony’s release of the A7C, A7S III and now the A1 have seen Sony take a massive lead in market share amongst full-frame mirrorless cameras in Japan. In stark contrast to the mere 25% share they held in April 2020, below both […]
www.diyphotography.net
Why is so hard to understand that some people want a decent quality 4K in a camera costing less than $2500 (R6). Not 1.7x crop with hunting contrast detect AF.
That would have been a decent update to the M50. The M6 has no crop but has the worst quality 4K of any APS-C camera on the market and it's quite expensive.
True! With whom is the Sony A6600 competing with? $1,498 USD sure is not competing at the low end. That is not low end by any means. Then, why would I spend about $900(?) for the a6400? Especially when FF is available. For some reason I thought Sony was out of the ASP-C game. I guess not. Anyway, I'd still like to know who Sony is competing with at the low end. The 90D maybe?
No IBIS, but many more mp.
Yeah I’ve always seen it as people generally go from an M body to a FF one or if it’s used as a casual camera, only upgraded after a very long time (like my M5 to M50 Mark II).
Who knows if there will be another M series camera released but I for one would love to see Canon continue the line. I think if they keep selling then Canon would keep making them but who knows. The M50 II certain does have great AF, I would say my R6 is still better but I don’t see a big difference like I did with the M5.
The AF of M50 m ii is very good and a little bit more responsive compared to the M50 - bought a 2nd body and was torn between 2nd M50 or 2nd RP.
The EF-M 32 1.4 which I really love finalized the decision to choose M50 m ii as 2nd body for e.g. a EF 100 macro or the EF 70-200 4.0 lens which work flawlessly with these M50 cameras.
What I really like better in the M50 m ii is:
- Volume level display during video (RP has it)
- small AF point WITH servo (RP has it)
- choosing between small/large AF point is now reachable with Q button (RP has it)
Would be great if Canon will give us a firmware update for sth. like 50 USD/EUR to bring these features including
Eye AF into older M50 bodies - I would pay that without hesitation to make both cameras identical.
True! With whom is the Sony A6600 competing with? $1,498 USD sure is not competing at the low end. That is not low end by any means. Then, why would I spend about $900(?) for the a6400? Especially when FF is available. For some reason I thought Sony was out of the ASP-C game. I guess not. Anyway, I'd still like to know who Sony is competing with at the low end. The 90D maybe?
The APS-C range is for those who care more about everything else rather than just sensor size. Now that the sensor size does not dictate the size of the viewfinder, FF is an extremely niche requirement but one that manufacturers cater to simply because people are dense. If you compare similarly priced APS-C and FF cameras, you will find that you get a far more capable camera going with the APS-C option whereas the FF option gets you something that's one or two generations behind.
the $1500-$2000 bracket is where you will find top-of-the-line APS-C (and other crop format) cameras and bottom-of-the-barrel FF. The real question is why so many are so fixated on FF when it's also very detrimental to another thing that so many rave about; the supposedly smaller size of mirrorless.
The direct competition to Sony's APS-C range would be mainly Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm. I guess for a short while EOS M was in the running but I don't see why canon would keep that mount. Any upcoming crop-sensor bodies from Canon and Nikon (who already have the Z fc) will also be competing with these.
The difference between ff and APS is the same or more than the difference between a 300mm f4 and a 300mm f2.8. Last time I checked the price difference between those two lenses was over $3,500.
Now many people value that stop or more difference, some don’t need or want it, but to proclaim all ff buyers are dense is, well, dense.
Don't say that. I jused to work for a company called Olicom*, which sold Token Ring** network adapters, hubs and switches. Their sales went UP, both in market share and in real volume, while the Token Ring market collapsed - simply because they were the last guys to run for the door (ie: switch to Ethernet LAN products).***
To put it into perspective of the camera business: As far as I understand (I don't read CIPA reports as goodnight literature) the PS market is tanking specifically due to the cellphones. DSLR and MILC holds out, but it's going to be shrinking as I see it. Personally, I either grab the cellphone (for 95+% of the time) or I grab the big bad white zoom and the 1DX for racing or wildlife. But I don't lug the DSLR around "for fun" as I already have a camera on me (read: smartphone). I'm going to go out on the limb that @neuroanatomist beats everyone up over and claim that this is a likely scenarios for "most" people (with exactly zero evidence for the claim).
*) Nope, surely you've never heard of them. Just another victim
**) Again, you are going to be middle aged or older to even have heard about this technology
***) Olicom did try to switch to Ethernet, but too late. Eventually they were forced to sell off their entire R&D staff and related IP for a single USD (this was in 1999, during the dot-com bubble where the 'warm body theory' prevailed: more R&D employees = more stockprice value).
That's exactly why I love the M line so much. I can put it with some lenses in my handbag and take good quality photos anywhere. I can't think of any reason to switch to FF.
You take good wildlife photos with your M and those small lenses in your handbag?
The APS-C range is for those who care more about the cost of a camera system rather than image quality.
Yes, it’s just unthinkably dense to believe that photographers wouldn’t care about image quality.
FF is ‘niche’ because of the higher cost. Manufacturers cater to it because there are people who prioritize image quality and can afford to pay for it, and because those ‘niche’ products have higher profit margins.
I think I still have a few high speed Token Ring cards in the archive box here. No computers with the right bus or a proper CAU to plug them in, though.
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
