Canon Tops in the ILC/DSLR Market for the 11th Straight Year

[AmbientLight]

Rather than disseminating useless marketing fluff, Canon should give us the raw data, so we can see whether their claim is substantiated or not.

They could publish a costed BOM for each of their cameras too, that would be nice.

The average repair cost is at least partially providing information regarding costs for parts replacement. This is of course not the same as a BOM, but should imply that vendors like Nikon or Leica do provide rather expensive parts. Once you apply factors like production costs depending on production volume the difference to Canon becomes smaller, as both Nikon and Leica don't produce the same quantities Canon does. Of course quantities produced at Nikon are still far more than at Leica.

 

[AvTvM]

Have I got this right? Canon have sold 70m EOS cameras and 100m lenses?

There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.

wrong conclusion.

There are an awful lot of low-end Rebel DSLR buyers, who expect "better image quality than from compacts and smartphones" but will never buy another lens other than the kit lens supplied. Even if they do buy a double-zoom kit, most of them loathe taking along a second lens or changing lenses.

Obviously, they'd be much better served by a very compact, non-mirrorslapping, noise- and vibration-free, sturdy APS-C sensored camera. Something like a G1X II but with a 3:2 sensor, reasonably fast dual-pixel hybrid AF (70D). Fully retractable zoom lens, no need for f/1.8 or so, but rather a bit more tele ... say 18-80mm/3.5-5.6 IS STM. The whole thing priced at a reasonable USD 299. It would sell liek hotcakes.

Instead, Canon believes they can sell the weirdo G1X II for 799,- : ... that's why folks still buy DSLRs like Canon Rebels and Nikon D3xxx/5xxx. Each time with a "brand new" 18-55 kit zoom.

 

[mustafa]

Have I got this right? Canon have sold 70m EOS cameras and 100m lenses?

There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.

wrong conclusion.

There are an awful lot of low-end Rebel DSLR buyers, who expect "better image quality than from compacts and smartphones" but will never buy another lens other than the kit lens supplied. Even if they do buy a double-zoom kit, most of them loathe taking along a second lens or changing lenses.

Obviously, they'd be much better served by a very compact, non-mirrorslapping, noise- and vibration-free, sturdy APS-C sensored camera. Something like a G1X II but with a 3:2 sensor, reasonably fast dual-pixel hybrid AF (70D). Fully retractable zoom lens, no need for f/1.8 or so, but rather a bit more tele ... say 18-80mm/3.5-5.6 IS STM. The whole thing priced at a reasonable USD 299. It would sell liek hotcakes.

Instead, Canon believes they can sell the weirdo G1X II for 799,- : ... that's why folks still buy DSLRs like Canon Rebels and Nikon D3xxx/5xxx. Each time with a "brand new" 18-55 kit zoom.

So it was the right conclusion then. Or does mean you're writing the opposite of what you mean?

 

[Lawliet]

There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.

At least a minority doesn't get a new kit lens with every body. A 24-70/105, 70-200, the odd prime paired with successively a 5D, 5D2, 5D3 and you're about to end up in the 1.5 lenses/body-group quite fast. And then you have 3rd party lenses, Canon wouldn't include those in the announcement.

 

[mustafa]

There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.

At least a minority doesn't get a new kit lens with every body. A 24-70/105, 70-200, the odd prime paired with successively a 5D, 5D2, 5D3 and you're about to end up in the 1.5 lenses/body-group quite fast. And then you have 3rd party lenses, Canon wouldn't include those in the announcement.

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

 

[Random Orbits]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

 

[Lawliet]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

Depends on the timeframe - That "100-400 still MK I" I had served together with about 5 generations of bodies, the same with the 17-50/24-70/70-200 and some of the primes. Thats less then one lens sold for each body. To get a decent ratio of bought first hand/owned and not just currently used equipment most people would have to keep tons of never used lenses around - if only because they have vastly different service durations.

 

[Don Haines]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

DARN! I have 2 bodies and 9 lenses.... I have to sell one off to be "normal"....

 

[neuroanatomist]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

DARN! I have 2 bodies and 9 lenses.... I have to sell one off to be "normal"....

I have 2 bodies and 14 lenses... I'm ok being abnormal.

 

[mustafa]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

DARN! I have 2 bodies and 9 lenses.... I have to sell one off to be "normal"....

I have 2 bodies and 14 lenses... I'm ok being abnormal.

The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more. This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

 

[AvTvM]

The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more. This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

I guess Canon's preferred solution would be to sell no more zoom lenses. ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

DARN! I have 2 bodies and 9 lenses.... I have to sell one off to be "normal"....

I have 2 bodies and 14 lenses... I'm ok being abnormal.

The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more. This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

I think the vast majority of dSLR owners simply don't see the need/utility. Honestly, I think a Speedlite with bounce capability would do more to improve the 'typical' entry level dSLR user's shots than another lens, but, "I don't need to buy a flash, my camera already has one!"

 

[David Hull]

Rather than disseminating useless marketing fluff, Canon should give us the raw data, so we can see whether their claim is substantiated or not.

They could publish a costed BOM for each of their cameras too, that would be nice.

The average repair cost is at least partially providing information regarding costs for parts replacement. This is of course not the same as a BOM, but should imply that vendors like Nikon or Leica do provide rather expensive parts. Once you apply factors like production costs depending on production volume the difference to Canon becomes smaller, as both Nikon and Leica don't produce the same quantities Canon does. Of course quantities produced at Nikon are still far more than at Leica.

I think that part of Canon's higher repair cost is related to the speed with which they are able to turn the repairs around. This is even more impressive when you realize the amount of gear out there compared to the others. Roger needs to put up a third chart (maybe he has it) which compares the amounts of stuff that he has sent back among the manufacturers. I bet that Canon wind that one as well. To me the higher price for Canon reflects the concept of you get what you pay for. Quick turns on a high volume means multiple repair centers, a larger staff, etc. All this costs money.

 

[mustafa]

I think the vast majority of dSLR owners simply don't see the need/utility.
[/quote]

Which is why I'm suggesting better promotion. A campaign to show the benefits of owning even one extra lens would be an easier sell than upgrading a body.

 

[AmbientLight]

But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not! Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

DARN! I have 2 bodies and 9 lenses.... I have to sell one off to be "normal"....

I have 2 bodies and 14 lenses... I'm ok being abnormal.

The point I'm labouring to make is that if the average EOS owner owns only 1.4 Canon lenses, then the opportunity for Canon is surely to sell them more. This may require better promotion and/or more aggressive pricing.

I think the vast majority of dSLR owners simply don't see the need/utility. Honestly, I think a Speedlite with bounce capability would do more to improve the 'typical' entry level dSLR user's shots than another lens, but, "I don't need to buy a flash, my camera already has one!"

The root cause for the problem you address I suspect is no more than people trying to avoid having to learn additional techniques to get better results instead of just purchasing some piece of technology, that wondrously provides improved results once the user simply clicks a single button. Using a Speedlite with bounce flash is far beyond what many consumers may want to do with their cameras. I have too often seen people just point and shoot without any kind of preparation. This is exactly why internal flash is so much wanted in entry-level DSLRs.