Canon Sells More DSLRs Than Anyone Else in 2012

[Woody]

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 ipad. 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.

Well said. Canon do have some weaknesses (the most prominent being the ridiculous AF speed of the EOS-M), but as a whole, they are doing OK.

 

[elflord]

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.

I'm sorry, maybe there has been a miscommunication. I was referring to the poster ScottyP, who does not at any point state or argue that Canon produce an inferior product (or that their leadership in sales in any way implies that the product is inferior). From his posting history, I take it he is a 6D user, so not a Nikon camera "fan". I am a 5D Mark II user, though I do sometimes sin by using Sigma lenses and Panasonic mirrorless cameras.

Are you talking about another poster (in which case I misunderstood you), or are you just factually wrong about his post (in which case you misunderstood him) ?

Then, the "I don't know the proper term for that person" person then stated, as fact, that Canon has inferior product.

Perhaps I missed the part where that was stated. Would you quote the post where this was asserted ? And highlight the assertion itself, the part where he says "Canon make an inferior product to Nikon" ?

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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 ipad. 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.

Well said. Canon do have some weaknesses (the most prominent being the ridiculous AF speed of the EOS-M), but as a whole, they are doing OK.

I completely agree with that. I don't know enough to point to specifics really. Nobody's perfect. I am very happy with my 5D3. I am sure it could be better, i just don't know how.

 

[RVB]

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 ipad. 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.

Well said. Canon do have some weaknesses (the most prominent being the ridiculous AF speed of the EOS-M), but as a whole, they are doing OK.

I completely agree with that. I don't know enough to point to specifics really. Nobody's perfect. I am very happy with my 5D3. I am sure it could be better, i just don't know how.

It would be better of they added an extra two stops of dynamic range and cleaner shadow's..I can't think of much else except backlit buttons..

 

[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.

Until Canon delivered its most recent radio controlled flash system, the Nikon flash system was considered to be superior. It is highly likely that Nikon will update their system...

So, we agree that Canon innovated, and now Nikon has to innovate better, to catch up to Canon...

How many focus points on Canon's gear works at f/8? 11? No? Oh, that's right, none at launch of its most recent cameras and with the firmware hack 4 + 1 x-type. Yup, Canon truly showed how innovative it was there by removing a very well used feature. Aren't you happy at how Canon's R&D delivers such innovation with the launch of its new cameras by removing features?

How many people need AF with an f/8 combo, vs. how many people benefit from highly accurate AF with f/2.8 or faster lenses? What about all those f/4 crosses? There are a heck of a lot more people out there with f/4 and f/2.8 zooms than with supertele lenses. Even for me, probably 5% or less of my shots are with the 600 II, and only a subset of those is with the 2xIII. So while I'm happy about f/8 AF support being added, I personally derive a lot more benefit from the innovative and unmatched by the competition 20 f/4 cross-type points and 5 f/2.8 dual-crosses.

 

[elflord]

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.

Re the 600mm lens -- it doesn't really speak to my point for two reasons. One is that I do agree and state in my posts that Canon's lens system really is the industry leader, and they didn't lose ground this year (if anything they consolidated their position). However, I'd neither call the 600mm lens hand holdable nor would I consider it a novel technology. But again I agree that it is one (of a number of) release(s) that consolidates Canon's lead in developing glass.

To your other points -- by limiting the market to FF you are essentially defining the market place in Canon's terms (only Nikon and Canon make FF SLRs) Nikon, like Canon have had integrated off camera flash for years. If you're trying to argue that Radio control is new, Pocket Wizard and other third party providers have been doing that for years. Maybe the AF points would qualify.

However the kind of thing I'm thinking of are major technological steps -- things like Fuji's hybrid viewfinder, and their new sensor array design. Magic lantern like firmware features. Mirrorless cameras (something where Canon's entry is too little too late). Sony's SLT technology (which allows phase detect in video mode). Leica's technology which lets them use full frame wide angle lenses with a short flange distance. Usable AF in video mode.

I just don't see Canon's fingerprints on most of the new technology in the marketplace. Their entry into mirrorless far from being a class leader was not worth of a manufacturer of their stature.

 

[Loswr]

However, I'd neither call the 600mm lens hand holdable...

The 600 II is approximately the same weight as the 500/4 MkI, which is generally considered to be a handholdable lens. So, may I ask, on what experience are you basing that statement? FYI, when I stated, "Show me someone else's 600mm f/4 lens that I can handhold," I was not speaking in generic terms. I own a 600mm f/4L IS II, and I assure you that I can handhold it.

To your other points -- by limiting the market to FF you are essentially defining the market place in Canon's terms (only Nikon and Canon make FF SLRs) Nikon, like Canon have had integrated off camera flash for years. If you're trying to argue that Radio control is new, Pocket Wizard and other third party providers have been doing that for years. Maybe the AF points would qualify.

However the kind of thing I'm thinking of are major technological steps -- things like Fuji's hybrid viewfinder, and their new sensor array design. Magic lantern like firmware features. Mirrorless cameras (something where Canon's entry is too little too late). Sony's SLT technology (which allows phase detect in video mode). Leica's technology which lets them use full frame wide angle lenses with a short flange distance. Usable AF in video mode.

My point on the flash is that integrated radio control is new. Sure, it was possible with 3rd party products (but I'm still waiting for my PWs to be fully compatible with my 1D X, whereas I'd be fine with the Canon RF system out if the box).

There are many types of innovation. By your definition of 'transformative' innovation, Nikon isn't innovating, either. That's not unexpected - very few large corporations at the top of their field (or near the top, in Nikon's case) do much innovation, the risk:reward ratio is high, and they don't need to take the risk. Rather, they allow others to shoulder that risk, then in-license from or outright acquire the smaller, more innovative company.

 

[Loswr]

Let me get this straight. You're questioning the need of AF at f/8 because so few use it but on the other hand, you're using a lens that costs $13,000 as an example of innovation that benefits everyone?

I listed the 28% lighter 600 II as an example of innovation, I never said it benefitted everyone (but it does benefit me).

 

[Loswr]

...
So, we agree that Canon innovated, and now Nikon has to innovate better, to catch up to Canon...

Rather Nikon innovated, Canon had to innovate to catch up (and has), now it is back to Nikon...

Catch up? No. Surpass.

 

[sanj]

Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?

Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.

Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.

On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.

Seems logical to me. Many inferior cars sell more than better cars....

Not saying Canon or Nikon is better. But volume of sales does not seem to indicate quality of product.

 

[sanj]

Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?

Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.

Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.

On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.

Agree

 

[ddashti]

I'd say Canon had so much to offer in 2012, especially the highly anticipated 5D Mark III.

 

[bdunbar79]

Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?

Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.

Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.

On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.

Seems logical to me. Many inferior cars sell more than better cars....

Not saying Canon or Nikon is better. But volume of sales does not seem to indicate quality of product.

Of course volume of sales doesn't indicate better or worse quality. I would have been fine if some of the more ignorant posters had left it at that. I'm ok with: "Just because Canon sold more, doesn't mean they sell better products." Are you with me? That's not what the people against Canon argued. They argued, rather, that, "Higher sales couldn't possibly mean better product, because Canon has an inferior product."

Do you understand?

 

[Razor2012]

Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?

Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.

Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.

On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.

Seems logical to me. Many inferior cars sell more than better cars....

Not saying Canon or Nikon is better. But volume of sales does not seem to indicate quality of product.

Of course volume of sales doesn't indicate better or worse quality. I would have been fine if some of the more ignorant posters had left it at that. I'm ok with: "Just because Canon sold more, doesn't mean they sell better products." Are you with me? That's not what the people against Canon argued. They argued, rather, that, "Higher sales couldn't possibly mean better product, because Canon has an inferior product."

Do you understand?

Just to add to that, didn't the sales indicate that both the lower end (Rebel) and high-end (5dIII & 1DX) categories both belong to Canon? I would think that photogs in the 'pro' class would of done their homework, not just go out and blindly purchase.

 

[Don Haines]

Just to add to that, didn't the sales indicate that both the lower end (Rebel) and high-end (5dIII & 1DX) categories both belong to Canon? I would think that photogs in the 'pro' class would of done their homework, not just go out and blindly purchase.

Actually, In the pro market I would expect them to look at the combination of camera and lens..... and I think we all have to admit that Canon's selection of high end L glass makes it onto our "if I won the lottery " list.. This has to be a big factor for a pro deciding which way to lean.

 

[Razor2012]

Just to add to that, didn't the sales indicate that both the lower end (Rebel) and high-end (5dIII & 1DX) categories both belong to Canon? I would think that photogs in the 'pro' class would of done their homework, not just go out and blindly purchase.

Actually, In the pro market I would expect them to look at the combination of camera and lens..... and I think we all have to admit that Canon's selection of high end L glass makes it onto our "if I won the lottery " list.. This has to be a big factor for a pro deciding which way to lean.

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

 

[Don Haines]

However, I'd neither call the 600mm lens hand holdable...

The 600 II is approximately the same weight as the 500/4 MkI, which is generally considered to be a handholdable lens. So, may I ask, on what experience are you basing that statement? FYI, when I stated, "Show me someone else's 600mm f/4 lens that I can handhold," I was not speaking in generic terms. I own a 600mm f/4L IS II, and I assure you that I can handhold it.

Handholding a lens is more about technique than the size of the lens. How many people do you see snapping pictures with thier elbows way up in the air? I have no doubt that if Neuro says he can hand-hold a 600 II, that he can. I can handhold a 400/5.6 with a 1.4 teleconverter and it has no image stabilization, yet I see people getting blurry pictures from an image-stabilized 200mm... Technique and practice are indespensable!

 

[Loswr]

I have no doubt that if Neuro says he can hand-hold a 600 II, that he can.

Americal Bittern in flight, handheld, 1D X, 600 II with 2xIII: 1200mm, 1/1600 s, f/8, ISO 3200. 1/1600 s, f/6.3 (or 8, since that was max with the 2x) are my BIF settings, I've handheld at shutter speeds down to 1/125 with the bare lens, and could likely go slower.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?

Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.

Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.

On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.

Agree

Graphs don't take great pictures.

 

[sanj]

Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.

Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....

No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.

By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.

In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.

Quite a childish way of reasoning.

What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?

Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.

Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.

On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.

Seems logical to me. Many inferior cars sell more than better cars....

Not saying Canon or Nikon is better. But volume of sales does not seem to indicate quality of product.

Of course volume of sales doesn't indicate better or worse quality. I would have been fine if some of the more ignorant posters had left it at that. I'm ok with: "Just because Canon sold more, doesn't mean they sell better products." Are you with me? That's not what the people against Canon argued. They argued, rather, that, "Higher sales couldn't possibly mean better product, because Canon has an inferior product."

Do you understand?

Yes do. Not only understand, but agree. Totally agree.