# Canon celebrates 16th consecutive year of Number 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 27, 2019)

> *United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, 27 March 2019* – Canon Inc. today announces that the company’s interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and mirrorless cameras) have maintained the No. 1 share of the global market for 16 consecutive years from 2003 to 2018.
> Canon develops the key imaging system components featured in its EOS series of interchangeable-lens cameras – CMOS image sensors, image processors and interchangeable lenses – under the core concept of ‘Speed, Comfort and High Image Quality’. Incorporating a wide-ranging product lineup – from high-performance flagship models that are highly trusted by professionals to entry-level models that allow users to enjoy high image quality shooting with easy operation – Canon continues to support the diverse needs of customers.
> 
> In 2003, the dawn of digital SLR cameras, Canon introduced its breakthrough EOS 300D. This groundbreaking camera, which was competitively priced and featured a compact, lightweight design...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2019)

*******, I say. *******.


----------



## JoFT (Mar 27, 2019)

Congratulations Canon. For me still the no1. 

Even if the Sony IP portfolio is great, but a great sensor alone is not making great cameras automatically....


----------



## Click (Mar 27, 2019)

Congrats Canon!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 27, 2019)

I'm still waiting for the negative comments...some forum members are so inventive when it comes to interpreting positive news...


----------



## unfocused (Mar 27, 2019)

Very disappointed. The trolls seem to be sleeping in today.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Mar 27, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Very disappointed. The trolls seem to be sleeping in today.



Sony couldn't afford their retainers anymore.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 27, 2019)

But ...
But ...
But ...

... they said they are *******.
When - finally - will they? When?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 27, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Very disappointed. The trolls seem to be sleeping in today.


Canon may still be number one for market share, but their overall sales numbers are slipping. In the meantime, Olympus sales of FF cameras are holding steady. This proves that Canon is *******. *******! ******* I tells ya..... *******!


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 27, 2019)

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


TOKYO, Japan, March 27, 2014—Canon Inc. today announced that the Company's interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and compact-system cameras) have



www.canonrumors.com












Canon Celebrates 12th Straight Year of No.1 Share of Global ILC Market


TOKYO, March 26, 2015—Canon Inc. announced today that the Company's interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and compact-system cameras) have maintai



www.canonrumors.com












Canon Celebrates 13th Consecutive Year of No. 1 Share of Global Interchangeable-lens Digital Camera Market


TOKYO, March 29, 2016—Canon Inc. announced today that the Company’s interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and compact-system cameras) have maint



www.canonrumors.com












Canon Celebrates its 14th Consecutive Year of No. 1 Marketshare in Global Interchangeable-Lens Digital Cameras


MELVILLE, N.Y., March 29, 2017 – Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today that its parent company, Canon Inc., announced that



www.canonrumors.com












Canon celebrates 15th consecutive year of No. 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market


What more can be said about this? No great surprise really. This year they held nearly half of the entire market. It's basically a monopoly right now. TO



www.canonrumors.com












Canon celebrates 16th consecutive year of Number 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market


United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, 27 March 2019 - Canon Inc. today announces that the company’s interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and mirro



www.canonrumors.com





I mean, you'd think that _someone_ at Canon would've gotten the memo by now...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 28, 2019)

And the oblig


----------



## tmc784 (Mar 28, 2019)

If you need a working horse DSLR camera, go for Canon. 
You won't be regret.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 28, 2019)

It's been my doing, just bought a 5 d IV in order to save Canon from bankruptcy, (I didn't deserve the Wonderful DR Super 4 K Sony).


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Why is the first camera cited the 300D? I'm sure I got the EOS-1Ds that year and wasn't a bleeding-edge adopter...



Because it was the camera that made Canon number one in market share, which is what this press release is about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Curious, which product lines are most responsible? My understanding is that the FFSLRs have been slipping a bit due to apparent lack of innovation, esp. IBIS?
> 
> Also are your figures month by month or year by year? I feel that the announcement of the MILFFs is probably actually HURTING sales in the short-term as people suddenly wonder that the EF line may be short for the world, but also wonder if RF is a flash in the pan as EFM was.


If there was a prize for conveying the most misinformation in a succinct, well-written post, you’d win it. Not that that’s something of which you should be proud. 

Sales of all digital cameras are dropping, industry-wide. Compact cameras have seen a y/y drop of ~20%, ILCs have dropped in the high single-digit percentage. Canon’s unit sales match those drops. Overall, they have maintained their market share that approaches 50% for ILCs. 

Per BCN, Canon sold more FF ILCs in Japan last year (the only geographic market for which we have this sort of data) than any other manufacturer... so you’re ‘understanding’ regarding FF ILC’s is rather a lack thereof. 

The EF-M line ‘was a flash in the pan’? The EOS M line is the globally best selling MILC line, but the system lenses are ‘a flash in the pan’? Apparently we also need a prize for mind-boggling obtuseness.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Curious, which product lines are most responsible? My understanding is that the FFSLRs have been slipping a bit due to apparent lack of innovation, esp. IBIS?



DSLR sales may have declined, but there is no evidence it has anything to do with the "causes" you state (apparent lack of innovation, esp. IBIS)

DSLRs are now a mature market. All products see a sales decline as a market matures. This is a just a normal sales curve. The companies most at risk are those that jump into a market hoping to cash in on the rush to adopt a new technology and then find they don't have the resources to sustain the business as the market returns to more normal levels. Obviously Canon is not in that position. A highly niche feature like IBIS has nothing to do with it.

As Neuro often says, you are making the classic mistake of assuming that just because there is a feature you personally want that is not currently available, that doesn't mean others care or that it drives sales in any significant way.

As to the first part of your statement, of course the consumer oriented lines are most responsible. What is significant here is that while there has been an overall erosion of those lines with point-and-shoot cameras largely being replaced by cell phones, Canon has been able to maintain it's number one position in a very fluid market. That speaks to their overall ability to innovate and target the market with products consumers want, even as the market shifts under their feet.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> It's hardly niche here on Earth. 7 out of every 10 posts I see discussing system vs. system site it.



Internet message boards are not a representative sample of consumers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> How many lenses over the entire product line history for EF-M vs., say, for the just the first year of the RF mount or first year of the EF for that matter?
> 
> That said, I'll agree "flash in the pan" does the EF-M line a disservice. Given Canon's lack of even one really portable R lens announcement, the EF-M probably IS pencilled in to continue forward for a while. However successful small-sensor MILs have been, though, they're now being squeezed with advancing smartphones below and the MILFFs above. It may be that Canon's choice of a film-flange for the RF system that disallows EF-M lenses may be an attempt to keep the EF-M bodies selling.


How many lenses over the entire product line history for EF-S vs., say, for the EF line? The APS-C DSLRs are what made Canon #1, and they are still the biggest-selling segment of the ILC market. Since the launch of the EOS M, Canon has released more EF-M lenses than EF-S, EF-M has gotten duplicated lenses first (e.g. the 28mm Macro), and there's never been an EF-S lens to match the EF-M 32/1.4, a lens which approaches the L-series in image quality.

But clearly, RF is the place for higher-end lenses, since the EOS M line is targeted at consumer-level buyers.

I have to question the logic of your last statement – Canon wants to keep EOS M bodies from selling? As I stated, the EOS M is the best-selling MILC line globally. Suggesting that Canon is trying to keep them from selling is like saying you don't want your own left leg.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> So Canon's not down, percentage-wise, in FF SLRs, more than other brands? If that's what you're saying its good to hear. If that's not what what you're saying, then what is your explanation?


Let's try this again. *Canon sold more FF ILCs last year than any other manufacturer.* Say it with me: "Canon sold more FF ILCs last year than any other manufacturer." Got it, now?

Note that Canon's FF ILC sales may still have dropped (likely did) as part of the overall market contraction. But, once last time, Canon sold more FF ILCs last year than any other manufacturer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> [IBIS is] hardly niche here on Earth. 7 out of every 10 posts I see discussing system vs. system site it.


Fine, people on the Internet are discussing it. Canon ILCs don't have IBIS. Canon sells more ILCs than any other manufacturer, and has done so for 16 years and counting. Half of all ILCs sold are made by Canon, and none have IBIS. Another quarter of ILCs sold are made by Nikon, and only two of them have IBIS, and that's only been true for the past 6 months. 

So, to sum up. 7 out of every 10 posts you see discussing system vs. system cite IBIS. Over 7 out of 10 ILCs sold don't have IBIS. Therefore, IBIS is not important for the vast majority of consumers. Period.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fine, people on the Internet are discussing it. Canon ILCs don't have IBIS. Canon sells more ILCs than any other manufacturer, and has done so for 16 years and counting. Half of all ILCs sold are made by Canon, and none have IBIS. Another quarter of ILCs sold are made by Nikon, and only two of them have IBIS, and that's only been true for the past 6 months.
> 
> So, to sum up. 7 out of every 10 posts you see discussing system vs. system cite IBIS. Over 7 out of 10 ILCs sold don't have IBIS. Therefore, IBIS is not important for the vast majority of consumers. Period.


This is all opinion and speculation, but I think that for the vast majority of people that IS is important, it’s just that most don’t care if it is optical (in lens) or if it is IBIS. 

Personally, I think that the best solution is a hybrid system that uses both and I expect to see that hybrid system in higher level Mirrorless cameras. Since the R and it’s younger brother are both low end cameras, I am not surprised in the least that they do not have IBIS.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 28, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I think that the best solution is a hybrid system that uses both and I expect to see that hybrid system in higher level Mirrorless cameras. Since the R and it’s younger brother are both low end cameras, I am not surprised in the least that they do not have IBIS.



It is interesting to note that Sony GM and Nikon S series lenses for the ultrawide and normal zooms don't have IS. Bodies are introduced more often than lenses. It would be ironic if in a couple years Canon has better IS because of IBIS + IS because they thought of it on the lens side first.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 28, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> It is interesting to note that Sony GM and Nikon S series lenses for the ultrawide and normal zooms don't have IS. Bodies are introduced more often than lenses. It would be ironic if in a couple years Canon has better IS because of IBIS + IS because they thought of it on the lens side first.


I am not surprised. IS is supposed to work better on longer lenses, IBIS best on shorter lenses....


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm just asking questions, and I'm not sure how a question conveys misinformation.
> 
> Given Canon's lack of even one really portable RF announcement...


 https://www.adorama.com/car3518.html Looks pretty portable to me.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 29, 2019)

And the 24-240! If that isn’t a single lens solution for someone going walkabout, what is?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Not sure how you got that, my point was the opposite.


I got that by totally misreading what you wrote. Apologies!



SwissFrank said:


> I can't think of why Canon made the film/flange distance of the R too long to take compact lenses designed for the EF-M. At first glance, that'd be a great source of small lenses for people who want to use the R both for "serious glass" projects as well as for just normal tourism and birthday parties etc.
> 
> The only reason I can think of--and I realize this could be weak so am asking your opinion--is that maybe they want people like me to go into the R but ALSO keep an EF-M body and keep buying more EF-M bodies going forward as our "little camera." I'm a case in point: I sold my EF-M to roll into RF, but knowing I wouldn't be able to use the little EF-M lenses did make this a hard decision and I'm sure for many it's too hard, in other words, they don't give up the EF-M. Had there been an EF-M-lens-to-RF-body adapter possibility, it'd be a lot easier for pros and serious amateurs to use an R as their "little" body with a tiny EF-M lens, and just never buy an EF-M body again.
> 
> I realize RF and EF buyers (whom I think will mostly come to RF in 1-4 years) may be fewer than EF-M buyers, but still, even if it's 20%, you don't want to lose 20% of EF-M body sales.


Interesting idea. It could be as simple as them choosing to make the RF mount the best possible from a lens design standpoint, without regard for potentially using EF-M lenses. They certainly have ample data on APS-C owners’ purchases of FF bodies and lenses. But it may have been an attempt to get people to maintain both systems. 

I would have thought the opposite was the bigger problem for them – they didn’t allow RF lenses to mount on the M bodies, unlike EF mounting directly on APS-C DSLRs. But as I said, they have the data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Hasty assumption to make. It'd be plausible that people want IBIS but buy Canon/Nikon anyway for other reasons, for instance, ranging from advertising to pricing, system depth, professional services, etc. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's silly to say that Canon leads sales therefore IBIS absolutely couldn't possibly be important to buyers.


I should have phrased it as, IBIS is not critical for most users, as it hasn’t significantly affected buying decisions in aggregate. Sort of like DR. Even if the feature is important, it’s not important _enough_. Particularly since IS is available in many lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Not sure how you got that, my point was the opposite.
> 
> I can't think of why Canon made the film/flange distance of the R too long to take compact lenses designed for the EF-M. At first glance, that'd be a great source of small lenses for people who want to use the R both for "serious glass" projects as well as for just normal tourism and birthday parties etc.
> 
> ...


The image circle of the M lenses is not enough to cover a FF sensor, so you end up having to electronically crop a R photo to the middle 40% of the picture.... it's kind of like having to pay twice the price to get a 10Mpixel M.... the market just isn't there!

We are very early into the R series, and there will be lots of lenses coming. I am sure that some of them will be slower (and smaller) lenses to take advantage of the size of the R cameras. They have already told us that a non-L 24-240 lens is coming. This lens goes to F6.3 on the long end..... This is a lot more important than a lot of people realize.... first of all, it means that there will be non L lenses in the RF mount. Second, it means that the F5.6 barrier no longer exists and slower lenses will be offered. This means cheaper, slower, and SMALLER lenses are a very real expectation for the future. If I want a decent quality, yet affordable, camera with a single (and versatile) lens as a walkabout camera, the RP and 24-240 combination can not be beaten by anything else. This is going to be a combo that is going to sell in numbers like we are used to see with the rebels and kit lenses.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> If there was a prize for conveying the most misinformation in a succinct, well-written post, you’d win it. Not that that’s something of which you should be proud.



I suspect that the cause of this kind of misinformation is articles like the following:









Fujifilm Scoffs at Canon's Claim That The Camera Market is Shrinking


Fujfilm's outlook in regards to the camera market, and smartphone camera competition is much brighter than Canon's.They believe that innovation is the key.




www.thephoblographer.com


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> https://www.adorama.com/car3518.html Looks pretty portable to me.



I can confirm. EOS RP + this 35mm is a very portable combination


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I see you shoot an M6 and an R? Is there any R lens or lenses that would make the R compact enough you'd get rid of the M6, or is the body still too big?


Still too big, for me. As it is now, the R + RF24-105 pretty much fills mt Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 25 (there's space behind the body for a 77mm filter in its pouch). In that same bag, I can fit the M6, three EF-M lenses (4 if one is the 22/2) and a 270 flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If the choice comes down to using the center of your R's sensor, or not using the R at all, surely using the center would be preferable, no? They've allowed it to work with EF-S lenses, and 4k shooters are only using the center zone as well.


If the EF-M 15-45 mounted directly on the R, that would give 24-72mm in a very compact package with good IQ that would deliver 12 MP images. The M22/2 would be a nice 35mm fixed walkaround. That's not bad!


----------



## stevelee (Mar 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I should have phrased it as, IBIS is not critical for most users, as it hasn’t significantly affected buying decisions in aggregate. Sort of like DR. Even if the feature is important, it’s not important _enough_. Particularly since IS is available in many lenses.


I don't think it is elitist to suggest that for very many buyers, IBIS is no more on wish lists than TERN or HERON.


----------

