Canon Sells More DSLRs Than Anyone Else in 2012

[wellfedCanuck]

?

 

[RLPhoto]

There is nothing like canon primes. Fantastic.

Carl Zeiss, Nikon, Leitz, Sneider, some Sigma, Tamron
there are fantastic primes out there and the smallest problem I have is to argue for or against the Canon because I have several tools to choose.
Happy new year

I will admit, if zeiss made AF lenses for canon, I wouldn't own any canon lenses.

But since they don't, canon is my choice for uber primes.

 

[Albi86]

Example: Sony didn't lose the lead in the TV market over one day or one year. It happened little by little that the general opinion of who produced the best TVs was not Sony any more.

Actually, the Japanese companies (Sharp, Sony, Panasonic) lost the entire TV market almost instantly because Samsung offered better technology at a lower price almost 'instantly' (within ~ 2 years).

Partly touché

Please let's consider though that 2 years in the TV world are a much longer time than in the camera world (i.e. we don't consider a 2yo lens to be old).

Also, TVs are a much more fast-paced segment than cameras (i.e. we don't get a new tech generation every year or every 6 months).

But I agree with your explanation: offering more for less eventually let you conquer the market. For slower markets it just takes more time.

 

[Frage]

But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it? DxOMark says so, it must be true. What am I missing?!? Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

DxOMark is about sensors and the Sony sensors are the most sold.

 

[elflord]

In other words, it's more reason to pay attention to trends in sales figures and changes in the competitive landscape as opposed to the current market snapshot.

Makes sense. Outside of Japan, we don't have figures for 2012. From 2007 to 2011, the consistent trend was Canon gaining market share, and Nikon losing it (during the same period when 'Canon's sensor tech was stagnating,' although my 1D X sensor delivers much better performance than my 5DII sensor, so I don't buy 'stagnating' at all).

So, by your logic (which, as I stated, does make sense), if Nikon gained market share and Canon lost it in 2012, that tells us nothing, it's just a current market snapshot set against a multi-year trend of Canon gains. Or if Nikon shows a single year gain, do we throw logic out the window and cry doom for Canon?

Nikon don't have much cause for complacency either. They are dependent on Sony for sensors. Canon have a better selection of glass and kept delivering in 2012 (super teles, and the new IS primes). Like Canon, they completely botched their too-little-too-late entry into mirrorless. They are behind the curve on video. The other competitors in the market place are also not without their problems. Olympus, one of the top names on the list, had an accounting scandal that made Enron look like Eagle scouts. They are like Nikon dependent on Sony for sensors. Sony innovate like crazy but they lack the pedigree of Canon/Nikon and haven't developed decent glass for their mirrorless cameras. They also seem unwilling or unable to stay on task with the A-mount system (do they still have an SLR full frame camera ?)

A multi year trend of gains in market share is obviously a positive for Canon. However, it would be a huge mistake for them to become complacent or unconcerned about their decline as a leader in sensor technology or their general inability or unwillingness to innovate.

 

[David Hull]

I kind of hoped Canon would lose market share. That might actually motivate them to make something decent for a change.

Really...? The fact that they haven't lost market share would tend to indicate that an awful lot of buyers think they are making something decent. I just bought a 5DIII (replacing a 5DII) which I think is nothing short of phenomenal.
This would also seem to indicate that Canon knows something more about their market than the armchair pundits that hang out in these forums do – it would seem (to steal a line from Mark Twain) that the predictions of the imminent demise of Canon (promulgated by some) have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Loswr]

Ford Focus is top selling car globally

I do not drive Ford and If this were an argument for the best car I've missed something significant

Neither do I. The vehicle I'm buying in early 2013 needs space for three carseats, and I prefer 4-wheel drive for the New England winters, so a Ford Focus isn't the best car for me. Do you have the same needs as me? If not, the best car for you will likely be different than for me. So, who's 'best' is really the best? I trust you're intelligent enough to see the problem - 'best' is subjective. No one has yet proposed any objective measure of 'best' camera. Do you have one?

Regardless of what you or I think is the best car or camera, a majority of car buyers in the world think the Ford Focus is the best for them, and a majority of dSLR buyers think Canon is the best for them. That's an objective, measurable fact. Obviously, everyone will determine 'best' for themselves, personally. But absent a bona fide definition of 'best' based on features/performance and applicable to everyone's needs, the aggregated buying decisions of the masses seem to be the only objective measure available.

 

[ScottyP]

Hmmm... I see a lot of complaicency here.

Would not want to see Canon sit back on its laurels from overconficence, nor steam full speed into the ice field (pick your own metaphor here).

First of all, McDonalds (I think) sells more hamburgers than any other hamburger-selling outfit, yet the quality is not generally considered to be that great.

Second, Canon's lead is narrowing and the others are gaining unless I am confused by some detail here, or by the definition of "camera" being used in this statistic or something. I recall market share numbers in the high 40% range a couple of years ago, not the high 20% range.

 

[bdunbar79]

Hmmm... I see a lot of complaicency here.

Would not want to see Canon sit back on its laurels from overconficence, nor steam full speed into the ice field (pick your own metaphor here).

First of all, McDonalds (I think) sells more hamburgers than any other hamburger-selling outfit, yet the quality is not generally considered to be that great.

Second, Canon's lead is narrowing and the others are gaining unless I am confused by some detail here, or by the definition of "camera" being used in this statistic or something. I recall market share numbers in the high 40% range a couple of years ago, not the high 20% range.

I think you are msising the point with your McDonald's analogy. Who says the food is not high quality? I agree it's not, but do you have objective data indicating that it is of lesser quality than Wendy's? No, but McDonald's continues (or has in the past at least) to sell more than Wendy's or BK let's say, so obviously there is SOMETHING about McDonald's that is driving the majority of fast food eaters there instead of the other places. You're absolutely right, higher sales doesn't mean better, but it also doesn't mean that it's NOT better either, without substantiated facts to support. The same thing with this silly Canon vs. Nikon. Everyone keeps saying that higher sales doesn't necessarily reflect higher quality. Fine. But can you show me data and statistics to support that Canon's higher sales AREN'T due to superior product? Nobody has done that yet. And they don't owe me that, or owe me anything for that matter. But there is certainly a reason WHY Canon is able to dominate advertising, dominate the web, etc., etc. while Nikon cannot and therefore cannot sell more than Canon.

I will not say Canon produces a better product because I don't know that. But I have never seen two photos and been able to go, "Oh wow! That one was shot with a D800E and the other was shot with a 5D Mark III!" If Nikon had the position Canon did in the sales department, everyone here arguing against Canon would then suddenly use that as a starting point for a claim that Nikon produces better product. It's already been done on here when Canon had an inferior quarter.

Canon makes just as good of cameras as Nikon. They just happen to sell more of them than Nikon.

 

[Albi86]

The same thing with this silly Canon vs. Nikon. Everyone keeps saying that higher sales doesn't necessarily reflect higher quality. Fine. But can you show me data and statistics to support that Canon's higher sales AREN'T due to superior product? Nobody has done that yet.

Though formally impeccable, this mentality may lead to very dangerous assumptions.

I might say that I'm using my paranormal powers to protect you from being attacked by tigers everyday. Now, while you can't prove that it's not true, I can point out the fact that indeed you've never been attacked by a tiger.

The point of the metaphore is: in absence of concrete evidence (either in one sense or the other), data cannot be held as reliable to make deductions.

Whenever a new theory is proposed, the author has to prove that it's true. Saying "prove it's not" generally speaking is never enough to hold something for true.

 

[Loswr]

Whenever a new theory is proposed, the author has to prove that it's true. Saying "prove it's not" generally speaking is never enough to hold something for true.

Sorry, but formally speaking, it's not possible to prove a theory, only to disprove one. In the absence of disproof, the theory stands. But at least now I know who to thank for not having been mauled.

 

[bdunbar79]

The same thing with this silly Canon vs. Nikon. Everyone keeps saying that higher sales doesn't necessarily reflect higher quality. Fine. But can you show me data and statistics to support that Canon's higher sales AREN'T due to superior product? Nobody has done that yet.

Though formally impeccable, this mentality may lead to very dangerous assumptions.

I might say that I'm using my paranormal powers to protect you from being attacked by tigers everyday. Now, while you can't prove that it's not true, I can point out the fact that indeed you've never been attacked by a tiger.

The point of the metaphore is: in absence of concrete evidence (either in one sense or the other), data cannot be held as reliable to make deductions.

Whenever a new theory is proposed, the author has to prove that it's true. Saying "prove it's not" generally speaking is never enough to hold something for true.

It has to go both ways. I'm not really asking for proof that it is NOT. I am pointing out how silly the commenter (not you by the way) held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product. He held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product, as fact. With, mind you, no proof. And then I made the point that that is silly, and just so as I can ask for proof that it is NOT a superior product. He had none either way.

 

[Sporgon]

Actually I'm quite surprised that Canon out sold Nikon in the prosumer end of the market as Nikon had clearly aimed the D800 at the (FF) consumer market, and Canon aimed the 5D at discerning photographers.

Looks like there are more discerning photographers out there than Nikon's marketing people thought

 

[Kernuak]

Ok, so you don't understand why it is useful to have 14 stops of DR recorded by the sensor. Please refrain from requiring others to agree with your ignorance.

Useful, but not vital and not the prime consideration for many photographers. Not requiring others to agree with a statement works both ways.

Actually I'm quite surprised that Canon out sold Nikon in the prosumer end of the market as Nikon had clearly aimed the D800 at the (FF) consumer market, and Canon aimed the 5D at discerning photographers.

Looks like there are more discerning photographers out there than Nikon's marketing people thought

That's probably what the sales figures say more thasn anything else. Canon's marketing department knows what they are doing, they certainly made a big issue out of the fact they consulted users for both the 7D and the 5D MkIII.

Whenever a new theory is proposed, the author has to prove that it's true. Saying "prove it's not" generally speaking is never enough to hold something for true.

Sorry, but formally speaking, it's not possible to prove a theory, only to disprove one. In the absence of disproof, the theory stands. But at least now I know who to thank for not having been mauled.

Hence the null hypothesis .

 

[that1guyy]

I kind of hoped Canon would lose market share. That might actually motivate them to make something decent for a change.

What would that be then to make you happy? You mean that the 650D, 5D3, 1Dx and the 6D are not up to standard products? Seriously?

No, but if that provoked them to make a truly game-changing product, that would make me happy. Also, up to standard products? I don't understand your wording. I do think the products you listed (save the 1dx) were underwhelming, incremental improvements and grossly overpriced. As this is a Canon forum, I am probably in the minority.

 

[elflord]

It has to go both ways. I'm not really asking for proof that it is NOT. I am pointing out how silly the commenter (not you by the way) held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product. He held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product, as fact. With, mind you, no proof. And then I made the point that that is silly, and just so as I can ask for proof that it is NOT a superior product. He had none either way.

I think you missed his point which wasn't "silly" at all. His point was that if Canon have grown anywhere near as complacent and arrogant as the Canon camera "fans", they are in serious trouble. He didn't state or imply that higher sales meant that their product was inferior, he was only pointing out that it wasn't in itself reason for celebration.

What is far more important, are whether or not they continue (or begin perhaps ?) to innovate, and consolidate/maintain their lead in developing top quality lenses (this they did pretty well this year).

Quite frankly, maintaining a pre-existing lead in sales numbers isn't anything to celebrate. It might perhaps give the Canon camera "fans" some ammunitation to poke a stick in the eye of "fans" of other cameras but outside these petty camera "fan" wars, it's not terribly important.

 

[Loswr]

What is far more important, are whether or not they continue (or begin perhaps ?) to innovate...

Begin to innovate? Show me someone else's 600mm f/4 lens that I can handhold. Show me someone else with even one, let alone five, high-precision AF points with the greater accuracy of an f/2.8 baseline. Show me 12 fps with a FF sensor/mirror. Who else has an integrated radio-controlled flash system? Maybe these innovations are irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

 

[Kernuak]

Also, how many innovations have been a complete failure? While change is needed for progression, innovation isn't always the answer, although the right innovations will of course be welcomed.

 

[bdunbar79]

It has to go both ways. I'm not really asking for proof that it is NOT. I am pointing out how silly the commenter (not you by the way) held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product. He held that Canon did NOT hold a superior product, as fact. With, mind you, no proof. And then I made the point that that is silly, and just so as I can ask for proof that it is NOT a superior product. He had none either way.

I think you missed his point which wasn't "silly" at all. His point was that if Canon have grown anywhere near as complacent and arrogant as the Canon camera "fans", they are in serious trouble. He didn't state or imply that higher sales meant that their product was inferior, he was only pointing out that it wasn't in itself reason for celebration.

What is far more important, are whether or not they continue (or begin perhaps ?) to innovate, and consolidate/maintain their lead in developing top quality lenses (this they did pretty well this year).

Quite frankly, maintaining a pre-existing lead in sales numbers isn't anything to celebrate. It might perhaps give the Canon camera "fans" some ammunitation to poke a stick in the eye of "fans" of other cameras but outside these petty camera "fan" wars, it's not terribly important.

Classic ignorance. This is why I get on this board sometimes; it makes for a tremendous laugh. And you're right. His point isn't silly. It's REALLY silly. Canon leads in sales and that somehow equates to Canon producing an inferior product to Nikon. Too bad the market doesn't feel that way. Right or wrong, the market doesn't feel that way.

What is amazing to me, and partially why I even participate in these stupid, childish threads, is that right away, when it was announced that Canon leads in sales over Nikon, the "I don't know the proper term for these people" people piped up right away that that doesn't necessarily mean that Canon has a superior product. Which I agreed with. Then, the "I don't know the proper term for that person" person then stated, as fact, that Canon has inferior product.

See? REALLY silly.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

The topic degenerated more than I was expecting.

Let me explain myself again: I never said that Canon sells more cameras and that for this reason Nikon (or whatever) is better.

I'm saying that sale figures mean nothing because a lot of things affect them - and few of them are related to quality and performance. Not least the reputation of a certain company, but this is something developed over years and thus not a measure of the situation in one single given moment. Canon has been leading for decades, and the situation is not going to change in a day or a year - in the same way as Kodak didn't go bankrupt over one night.

As for the quality itself, in every area I know the best manufacturers are niche manufacturers, and most people didn't even ever hear of them. We end users should care about the individual quality of the products we buy, not about how many of them are sold. The fact that your lens/camera is a best seller won't make your photos better.

You're drawing comparisons between Canon and Kodak. Talk about a degenerating subjet. Please explain how canon are doing the same mistakes as Kodak did. Don't come dragging with third party sensors that Nikon is buying.

Please read my post again.

I didn't say Canon is going the same way of Kodak. It was an example to explain how big companies require a long time-span to noticeably gain or lose market share or to improve/damage their reputation permanently. For this reason sale figures are not reliable data to describe the situation at one specific time.

In practical terms it means that Canon (and the likes) could screw up a whole generation of cameras and get away with that with little damage in sale figures. That wouldn't change the fact that those cameras are screwed.

Example: Sony didn't lose the lead in the TV market over one day or one year. It happened little by little that the general opinion of who produced the best TVs was not Sony any more.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand.

I understood your point but don't agree, for the simple reason that Canon hasn't screwed up anything. There is no reason for youvto claim that.

Sidenote, Kodak operated in a market that went through disruptive change and they weren't able to follow/lead in that environment. A better example of a company that has or is about to lose touch with its market is Apple. They are trying to lock in their customers into proprietary solutions in a market that demands open and compatible solutions. Secondly, they have. already started to follow their competition with launching the mini ipa. Hence lost initiative.

Canon is not there and I can't see them going there either. Their dSLR lineup is the strongest ever and they're offering a very strong feature set in those products that helps the serious photographer in their daily business.