# Canon Sells More DSLRs Than Anyone Else in 2012



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-sells-more-dslrs-than-anyone/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-sells-more-dslrs-than-anyone/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Even at the high end


</strong>For all the flack Canon gets from us passionate pundits, they continue to sell more DSLR cameras than anyone else.</p>
<p><strong>Interchangeable Lens Camera Marketshare for 2012 (Japan)</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Canon 28.6%</li>
<li>Nikon 25%</li>
<li>Olympus 14.3%</li>
<li>Sony 13.3%</li>
<li>Panasonic 11.3%</li>
</ol>
<p>An interesting note about Canon, if you remove the lowend of the DSLR market (Rebels, D3xxx/D5xxx), Canon’s marketshare increases. I imagine the 5D Mark III plays a big part in that, as well as the EOS-1D X.</p>
<p>Canon’s performance in the mirrorless segment cannot be properly measured until the 2013 numbers come in. For 2012, they sat at 2.1% marketshare.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/bcns-preliminary-2012-numbe.html" target="_blank">TH</a>] via [<a href="http://bcnranking.jp/news/1210/121029_24049.html" target="_blank">BCN</a>]</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank"><em><strong>Canon EOS-1D X at B&H Photo for $6728</strong></em></p>
<p></a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## spam (Dec 30, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> An interesting note about Canon, if you remove the lowend of the DSLR market (Rebels, D3xxx/D5xxx), Canon’s marketshare increases. I imagine the 5D Mark III plays a big part in that, as well as the EOS-1D X.


These numbers are including mirrorless, so Canon's marketshare is bound to increase if you remove low end which means removing most of the mirrorless models.


----------



## dan (Dec 30, 2012)

awesome, i contributed to this sale figure. got my 5d mark iii after being fess up with nikon latest QA.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2012)

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


----------



## jondave (Dec 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2012)

jondave said:


> 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.....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

jondave said:


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



No. Just, no.


----------



## Bombsight (Dec 30, 2012)

The majority has spoken.

I'm a believer! ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 30, 2012)

There is nothing like canon primes. Fantastic.


----------



## jondave (Dec 30, 2012)

Bombsight said:


> The majority has spoken.
> 
> I'm a believer! ;D



Yes, this is a glorious day for Canonistas in this forum. Better make this post sticky for future references for those who dare bash Canon again...


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 30, 2012)

The high price of the 5D mark III at launch in combination with it's more massive appeal compared to it's direct competitors may have also helped =P


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jondave said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jondave said:
> ...



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?


----------



## dlleno (Dec 31, 2012)

An interesting implication to the data us that canons low end market share is not as high, maybe equal or that Nikon may lead in this segment


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 31, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



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.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

I totally get that. Do you think then, that Canon advertises better, influences the market more? You're right, as a pro I never really paid attention, but maybe this is the case?


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 31, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I totally get that. Do you think then, that Canon advertises better, influences the market more? You're right, as a pro I never really paid attention, but maybe this is the case?



Nikon 1 system is all but utterly marvellous, yet appartently it sells like hot cake. The same can be said about the iPhone series, and many other "trendy" things.

I think a lot of things are to be taken into account, but recently it seems to me that best selling products are those that look cute and have an almost non-existent learning curve. These features appear to be more important than the end result or the value for money.

So ultimately it might well just be that Canon cameras look more slick and are easier to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jondave said:
> ...



Quite an oversimplification, something children do frequently, although in that case it's usually not intentional obfuscation. Obviously, the market as a whole is segmented - a large customer base at the low end choosing between Canon xxxD vs. Nikon D3xx/D5xx, fewer choosing between Canon 5D-series vs. Nikon Dx00, Canon 1-series vs. Nikon Dx, etc., and in aggregate, more buyers preferred Canon.

You own choice may have landed you in the minority, that's perfectly fine. Denigrating others whose choice puts them in the majority...well, _that_ seems childish to me.


----------



## MaxPower (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> So ultimately it might well just be that Canon cameras look more slick and are easier to use.



For me this was true, I don't like the Nikon look and feel.
So I buyed two canon bodys this year, ignoring the D7000 and D600 totally as valid choices.


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



In fact I never denigrated anyone for choosing Canon. It would be quite peculiar, since I also did it.

I am stating that assuming who is better than who on the basis of sale figures is absolutely ridiculous, and that indeed _this_ is _oversimplifying_. I agree, something children do frequently.


----------



## jondave (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Wow, take it to the extremes would you. If you're going to compare sales, then at least do so within the same category. 'Cause by your same reasoning the best cars in the world are the Toyota Corollas and the Honda Civics - forget the Porsches, BMWs, Bentleys, and the like.

And if I recall, wasn't it just recently that someone posted Nikon sales figures besting Canon's to flout Nikon as being better?

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone here responded that Canon sales figures mean nothing. Well Nikonistas, if you can come up with hard, verifiable numbers to back up your claims that most people believe that your Nikons are better, I'm all ears. Until then, sales figures are king.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 31, 2012)

O no, the gap is getting smaller and smaller ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jondave said:
> ...



I agree, that is a childish way of reasoning, if that were the case. Did you read the entire post? Canon's marketshare increases when the lower end of sales including rebels are removed. Of course shop assistants aren't savvy enough! They're not supposed to be, they just need to know enough to do their job. Those who know more don't need that knowledge to sell. Sales are their priority, not photography. More lower end bodies only sell for one reason, price. That's why they're better for the "masses" because they're not all millionaires with big lens collections. You have to give people more credit than that when making purchase decisions, especially these days when they can just google information instead of going down to the store and talking to a "shop assistant". No one goes to DXO first to read dynamic range mumbo jumbo to buy their first camera. No, most people I know that shop for the camera have seen results from sites like flickR and places offline where Canon is dominant like event related activities. Heck, the internet is a false reality and Nikon is a better camera because of it. It's like saying "I should buy a Nikon just to look like I'm not part of the mass." Now THAT would be a childish way of reasoning.


----------



## scarbo (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I totally get that. Do you think then, that Canon advertises better, influences the market more? You're right, as a pro I never really paid attention, but maybe this is the case?
> ...



Yes, I think looks is a key factor with most consumer products. That's a big part of the reason why Apple does so well despite often selling less spec for more money.


----------



## scarbo (Dec 31, 2012)

Anyway, why do people care so much that the manufacturer of their camera is selling more merchandise than a rival manufacturer? I can understand being curious who sells more, but I would expect the interest to merely be academic and completely dispassionate.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ok, but WHY is Canon dominant on these websites and WHY is Canon dominant in the masses, and Nikon ISN'T? Why can Canon dominate the mass market and Nikon can't? Why?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

You're arguing that Canon isn't dominating the market because they are a better camera, with absolutely no data at all. Where is your data to support your claims? Do you KNOW that Canon isn't dominant because they have better DSLR's? Show us some statistical data, or heck, ANY data, that supports the claim that the reason Canon dominates the market ISN'T because they make a better camera. And no, I don't owe you any data because I'm not making any claims as to why and who has a better camera.


----------



## gngan (Dec 31, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I just bought a 5D III but i was tempt to buy a Nikon. I bought a Canon because I had a 550D and will be giving to my wife. So we can share our lenses. I do NOT believe Canon is a better DSLR because i think Canon/Nikon has its good/bad. So you need to take brand loyalty into consideration. Most people do not do their research when they buy cameras. They are usually affected by friends/family, advertisement (Canon has more).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> I am stating that assuming who is better than who on the basis of sale figures is absolutely ridiculous, and that indeed _this_ is _oversimplifying_. I agree, something children do frequently.



So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election? Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that candidate. But after the election, there's a winner and a loser. Which is the better camera? Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that camera. But like a tally of votes, a tally of sales separates the winner from the loser. Fortunately for everyone, those who chose the losing camera brand aren't required to live with the features of the winning camera brand. Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way. :-X


----------



## scarbo (Dec 31, 2012)

Someone on dpreview posted the figures for 2011 if anyone wants to compare.



> The final numbers for 2011 camera market shares in Japan have just been released today:
> http://bcnranking.jp/award/sokuhou/index.html
> 
> Compact camera:
> ...


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2012)

Let's not get too excited about all the numbers. It's only for the Japanese market. We'll have to wait a while for the world wide market shares to come in.

Anyway, here are further details about the Japanese market shares.

MILC:
#1 Olympus: 29.8% (36.6% in 2011)
#2 Panasonic 23.6% (29.3% in 2011)
#3 Sony 20.0% (27.3% in 2011)
#4 Nikon 14.3%
#5 Pentax 9.4%
#6 Canon 2.1%

Looks like the top 3 in 2011 ceded market shares to Nikon and Pentax in 2012. Nikon J1 was wildy successful in the first half of 2012 due to heavy discounting. If Canon had decent AF performance, more lens choices and more camera choices with their MILC offerings, they would have done better.

DSLR:
#1 Canon 52.9% (46.3% in 2011)
#2 Nikon 34.8% (39.2% in 2011)
#3 Sony ?
#4 Pentax ? (7.5% in 2011)

Looks like Nikon's hard promotion and heavy discounting efforts for their DSLRs did not gain them very much in 2012 within Japan. As a matter of fact, they lost even more DSLR market shares to Canon in 2012 than 2011. Canon's 5D2 and 5D3 accounted for 3.9% market shares while Nikon's D800 and D600 merely earned 2.3%.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2012)

We can be as snobby and elitist as we want.... but don't forget it is the masses buying point/shoots and rebels that are the bulk on canon's sales, and that is what keeps Canon in business.

Most cameras are bought at the Best Buys and Walmarts of the world....The fact that they don't carry high end bodies and lenses should tell you where the money is.... the same money that pays for the R/D on high end bodies that eventually trickes it way down. I say thank you to all those Rebel buyers!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2012)

Also, this is not a choice of right and wrong.... it is a question of differing needs. Look at the big chunk taken by Olympus and Panasonic with micro four thirds cameras.... this is a market segment that Canon and Nikon have almost been shut out of.... is panasonic "slightly ahead of it's time"?????


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


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



True. Betamax delivered better quality as a video recording medium. Didn't help Sony much in the end, though, did it?


----------



## CDM (Dec 31, 2012)

Wow, CR really disappoints with this post. For one thing, the data are from sales in Japan only. But the real story here is the mirrorless category, which is taking almost HALF of all interchangeable lens sales according to the report.


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2012)

CDM said:


> Wow, CR really disappoints with this post. For one thing, the data are from sales in Japan only. But the real story here is the mirrorless category, which is taking almost HALF of all interchangeable lens sales according to the report.



Yes, this is what I wanted to point out indirectly above. 

In the worldwide market, I suspect Nikon managed to grab some market shares from Canon in 2012. How much? We'll have to wait for the details.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Fair enough. Betamax 'died' in 1998, and HD-DVD 'died' in 2008. Maybe 10 years from now, Nikon's sales will too Canon? Who knows.....


----------



## that1guyy (Dec 31, 2012)

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


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election? Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way. :-X


Please don't drag this in to a political argument(although that was my first thought,) It's way too easy to get people riled up already.

Honestly, I think both Canon and Nikon make excellent products. Some companies make features that appeal to some buyers, some others. I honestly don't think anyone can objectively choose which one is "better." Canon certainly has a better selection of lenses, however at launch their prices have been much higher than those of Nikon the last couple of years.

What I want to know is, what was the market share of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. On it's own, the market share of 2012 means a little, but if we compare it to the past few years, we may be able to spot some trends which will give us greater insight in to which manufacturer is gaining ground, or losing ground.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 31, 2012)

that1guyy said:


> 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?


----------



## jondave (Dec 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


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



Quality? You talk as if Nikon has quality and Canon is crap. Both have quality mind you. And contrary to what you think, sales figures ARE an indication of quality. Rarely would people buy crap products, especially when you can easily walk back into the store and get a refund.

Well, all this just as I predicted. Defeated nikonistas will never accept Canon being better regardless of the statistics. Yet if these same statistics showed Nikon sold more, they would use the same arguments us Canonistas are using.

So what are you Nikonistas banking on now? Segment the sales numbers until you find a category Nikon leads Canon? Make an argument that Nikon gained market share vs Canon? Plot a historical trend to show Nikon's yearly sales are increasing? Make a list of all the awards received by pro photogs shooting Nikon?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 31, 2012)

I am a Canonite... But one way of looking at these numbers is that Nikon is gaining market share...I had no idea they were points away from Canon...we can always dice and slice the numbers, but it is clear Nikon is not that small company with a significantly smaller share of the market from your father's time.


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 31, 2012)

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.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## jondave (Dec 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I suspect that the figures are more representative of vendor-lock-in through lenses than anything else (note that 3rd party lenses doesn't change this.) If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 per lens penalty, things would be different.
> 
> A lesser product doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."



Your 'vendor lock-in' applies to Nikon users as well. If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 lens penalty, things would be different - for sure Nikon users will be switching to Canon just as easily.

A lesser product, E.G. NIKON, doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."

So what's your point?


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

Hobby Shooter said:


> 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?



They have barely advanced in sensor technology since about 2008. Sony have made 4 years worth of improvements while Canon stagnate.

They also seem to have been blindsided a bit by the innovations in mirrorless cameras. They finally got around to putting in their own contender but it is pretty weak (in particular the range of available glass for their system pales in comparison to micro 4/3 or even Sony NEX) 

They do continue to develop top of the line lenses. 

Hopefully they don't suffer from the kind of complacency and ignorance of the competitive landscape that seems to afflict the "camera fans".


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Actually, DxOMark says that _Sony_ sensors are better. What you are missing is that sensor technology has progressed in the last 4 years whereas Canon's sensor technology has stagnated. There's only so many years they can fall behind the technology curve before it becomes a problem.


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 31, 2012)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > The topic degenerated more than I was expecting.
> ...



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.


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election? Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that candidate. But after the election, there's a winner and a loser. Which is the better camera? Depends on who you ask, what their needs are, and how well those needs are likely to be met by that camera. But like a tally of votes, a tally of sales separates the winner from the loser. Fortunately for everyone, those who chose the losing camera brand aren't required to live with the features of the winning camera brand. Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way. :-X



Not at all analogous. It's neither the case that the company with the most sales is a "winner" nor are the others "losers" (is the porsche boxster a "loser" because it doesn't sell as well as the toyota camry ?). Where do you get this analogy from ? I read quite a bit of corporate finance and I haven't seen it elsewhere. 

In terms of their current place in the industry -- sales performance and profitability, they are doing quite well. However, it's also important to analyze trends. I didn't see any of this in the referenced articles or this thread. The one trend that's a bit of a red flag is Canon's inability to advance in sensor technology. Because this moves relatively slowly, they can get away with it for a few years but a 10 or 20 year period of stagnation is going to hurt.


----------



## jondave (Dec 31, 2012)

Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.

Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 31, 2012)

jondave said:


> Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.
> 
> Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.



I'm very sorry to see you continue to intend the statement "sale figures don't prove Canon cameras are better, and even less right now" as "Canon is crap".


----------



## jondave (Dec 31, 2012)

Yep, I'm happy with my inferior Canon sensor because I actually shoot and make a living off my photos, and there are a lot of other things more important than sensor tech that make a big difference on my work and income. 

So before you Nikon sensor experts make a comment about who I am and what I think, you better have a portfolio and credentials to match your inexperienced egos.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 31, 2012)

jondave said:


> So before you Nikon sensor experts make a comment about who I am and what I think, you better have a portfolio and credentials to match your inexperienced egos.



so who is yours?


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

jondave said:


> Oh yeah, the sensor thing. When was the last time big name pro photogs complained about Canon's sensor tech? Wait, I think it's because Canon actually listens to what most people want in their cameras, not just the pixel-peeping minority who have nothing better to do than read DxO charts and zoom in 100% crops instead of actually shooting photos.



"big name pro photogs" aren't in the business of complaining about equipment, so I don't understand what your point is. 

How many years do you think they can afford to fall behind before it becomes a problem ? For example, if they are 20 years behind, will it hurt them ?



> Until some printer manufacturer creates a printer that can output 16 billion colors and a paper manufacturer creates media that can display 14 stops of DR on print, I'm perfectly happy with my inferior Canon sensor.



Well, what kind of inferior sensor ? If most of your photos are used for 4x6 prints, or for the web, do you need more than 2 megapixels ? How many camera bodies do you think someone would sell if they made 2 megapixel sensors ?

See the problem is your post sounds more like the battle cry of the faithful than it does a strategy for producing leading technology. While a rousing battle cry and a display of loyalty might be good enough for camera "fans", it's not good enough for a producer of modern photography equipment. They need to deliver cutting edge technology, not just pontificate about how legacy technology is adequate.


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

jondave said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that the figures are more representative of vendor-lock-in through lenses than anything else (note that 3rd party lenses doesn't change this.) If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 per lens penalty, things would be different.
> ...



Vendor lock-in means that owners might be slower to switch brands, which introduces some status quo bias. For example, it's possible that Canon could continue to lead in sales even if they didn't introduce any new products over the next year but it would be disasterous in the long term. 

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.


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I would love to see a further breakdown on that, including a graph of 5D2/5D3 sales over the course of CY2012.



BCNRanking does not provide graph but says in the Japanese DSLR sector:

Canon 5D2 - Rank 12 - 2.1% market share
Canon 5D3 - Rank 15 - 1.8% market share
Nikon D800 - Rank 16 - 1.6% market share
Nikon D600 - Rank 20 - 0.7% market share

Canon 6D was available for sale only in December.


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> 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).


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2012)

elflord said:


> 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.



Up to end of 2011, Canon hardly lost any market shares worldwide. 

2010: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models.html.
"In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent"

2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-canon-results-idUSTRE80T09Q20120130.
Thom Hogan (bythom.com) translated Nikon's sale of 4.7 million interchangeable lens cameras in 2011 as 31% market share. This means Canon's sale of 7.2 million interchangeable lens cameras has a market share of 47.5%. So, little changed from 2010 to 2011.

We'll see what happens in 2012.

We should keep in mind having the latest and best technology does not EQUATE to survival. Olympus, Panasonic and Sony are all bleeding very badly... not in the photographic business, but when overall financials are considered. Currently, Canon's only worthy competitor is Nikon.


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Carl Zeiss, Nikon, Leitz, Sneider, some Sigma, Tamron
> there are fantastic primes out there.
> Happy new year



I am longing for Nikon's f/1.8 trinity: 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8... awesome performance at affordable prices


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

elflord said:


> 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?


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 31, 2012)

?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 31, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing like canon primes. Fantastic.
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2012)

Woody said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Dec 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2012)

that1guyy said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *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 (Dec 31, 2012)

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 (Dec 31, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> 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 (Dec 31, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2012)

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 (Dec 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> 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.



Sporgon said:


> 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.


neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Hence the null hypothesis .


----------



## that1guyy (Dec 31, 2012)

Hobby Shooter said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of hoped Canon would lose market share. That might actually motivate them to make something decent for a change.
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2012)

elflord said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2013)

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 (Jan 1, 2013)

elflord said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Woody (Jan 1, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2013)

Woody said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Jan 1, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...



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..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > elflord said:
> ...



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



dilbert said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2013)

elflord said:


> 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. 



elflord said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> 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*).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Catch up? No. *Surpass*.


----------



## sanj (Jan 3, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 3, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Agree


----------



## ddashti (Jan 6, 2013)

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


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 7, 2013)

sanj said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 7, 2013)

Razor2012 said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Exactly, couldn't agree more.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > However, I'd neither call the 600mm lens hand holdable...
> ...



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!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Jan 8, 2013)

sanj said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Graphs don't take great pictures.


----------



## sanj (Jan 8, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



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


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 8, 2013)

sanj,

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean YOUR post was against what I was arguing. I was simply using your post because it contained material that I could use from other comments. I knew you agreed and I was not disagreeing with you! .


----------



## sanj (Jan 8, 2013)

Yes Bdundar. No confusion.


----------



## Botts (Jan 10, 2013)

Razor2012 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



As does service centre quality, and ubiquity.
If you're a pro journalist, and the equipment locker at the office is all white lenses, having a Canon body is likely going to be your choice. Similarly, if you're the owner of the same pro equipment that you need to photograph events, knowing that if it goes down, you'll have it back in a matter of days, is crucially important.

Finally, Canon selling the most DSLRs is a good benefit to us Canon shooters, as it enables Canon to put more money in to R&D, giving us better lenses and bodies.


----------

