# Canon Destroys Nikon in DSLR Marketshare for 2010



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 21, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/canon-destroys-nikon-in-dslr-marketshare/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/canon-destroys-nikon-in-dslr-marketshare/"></a></div>
<strong>Oh Joy</strong>

The IDC reported yesterday on the marketshare of the camera makers for 2010.</p>
<p>Canon remains the #1 camera maker in the world if you included PowerShots. Sony is in 2nd place.</p>
<p>However, in DSLR marketshare for 2010. Canon kicked the butt of pretty much everyone out there.</p>
<p><strong>DSLR Global Marketshare 2010</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Canon 44.5%</li>
<li>Nikon 29.8%</li>
<li>Sony 11.9 %</li>
</ol>
<p>I always attach a grain of salt to marketshare research, everyone seems to come up with a different number. However, IDC is pretty well respected.</p>
<p>Source [<a href="http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2011/04/canon-destroyed-nikon-in-2010-dslr-market-share-yir-6.html">1001noisycameras</a>] via [<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models.html">Bloomberg</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## Kuscali (Apr 21, 2011)

Good job Canon, would anyone know why Canon does so much better.

Honestly does may sound a wee bit ridiculous but I believe it is because Canon entry level (and well all DSLR's) are manufactured in Japan, whereas Nikon crop sensor cameras a manufactured in Thailand (I know many people that got Canon over Nikon for this very reason).


----------



## caMARYnon (Apr 21, 2011)

Kuscali said:


> Honestly does may sound a wee bit ridiculous but I believe it is because Canon entry level (and well all DSLR's) are manufactured in Japan, whereas Nikon crop sensor cameras a manufactured in Thailand (I know many people that got Canon over Nikon for this very reason).


Agree, _Made in Japan_ is a terrific selling tool. But it is a very important parameter for determining the value of an object on the second hand market too so people are right to be attracted to this label.


----------



## Stuart (Apr 21, 2011)

If Nikon have good quality control then Thailand makes no difference. In fact it shoud get you more camera for your money as manufacturing is presumably cheaper.
I chose Canon over Nikon for its range of lenses, more professional looking website & Industry buzz. I continue to choose Canon for the fact that there seems to be only small amounts of difference between different bodies and my investment in Lenses and accessories stays with me. With infinite spare cash i'd have one from everybody but in the real world canon just seems to market its products better so i prefer them.
Thats not to say that Dynamic range and a few other niggles don't bug me - they can still improve the product.
I do though think that camera's are over priced and manufacture and design in other countries will help all photographers - Samsung i'm watching you!


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 21, 2011)

in my case, it's the video

and I know most people don't even use the video side of their canon DSLR, but people using canon DSLRs for TV and film are buying these cameras in big bunchs (well... they were: unless canon brings out something great real fast, the new big sensor videocameras will eat their lunch in no time)


----------



## S P (Apr 21, 2011)

I've done some research on this myself and posted it elsewhere. Here's a cut and paste of it.

===================

Hmmm...

Well digging around on Thom's site some more for old stats and predictions, I think I know what happened. First here's some old stats that I dug up on Google.

2006: Canon 46.7, Nikon 33
2007: Canon 42.7, Nikon 40

Couldn't find any for 2008 and 2009, but I know that Nikon was having good times here and was either dead even with Canon or ahead, hence being a little surprised at seeing them drop all the way to below 30% for 2010. buuuut....

from Thom's 2009 predictions:



> Since I'm a Nikon expert and follower, I guess I need to explain that last comment a bit more. Nikon hit a high of 40% DSLR market share sometime in early 2008, but by their own admission they haven't really tried to consolidate or expand on that. Their current projection for their fiscal year is that they'll finish with a 37% share. Nikon's core is in the very serious shooter market, and I think that long term they're willing to concede a bit of share at the low end to retain strength in the middle to top. Historically, Nikon's SLR or DSLR shares have mostly ranged from lows in the low to mid 20's up to high's in the 40's. A 30% share, while a drop from their best position in DSLRs, is okay for them as long as it is produced by a high percentage of high-margin DSLRs in the high-amateur to professional markets. Nikon is not a Sony, Canon, Panasonic, or Samsung: it just doesn't have the leverage that the wide range of consumer and industrial products that the others use to advantage. Indeed, more than half of Nikon's revenues come simply from cameras, which is why they have to protect the serious shooter market where the margins are higher. The danger for Nikon is to be Leica-ized: a producer of only high end, low volume, high quality products. There's not enough significant and sustainable growth, volume, or leverage in such a position should they be reduced to it.



And from 2010 predictions



> Canon: they began losing significant market share in several areas (to be clear, not overall share, but share in several key segments), so they know they need to do something. But they're so Nikon focused (with a side of Sony) that they think that they have to use the old tactics to wrest it back (more megapixels, lower noise). Canon seems preoccupied with competing with the Nikon D3, D3x, and D300 at the moment. But I'm not sure that's the root of their loss of market share. Correct. They're being nibbled at the low end and middle according to market research; they've also already lost much of the high end as they have no real answer to the D3s or D3x.



So basically Nikon has attacked the high-end market with ferocity and done a pretty good job of it stealing market share from Canon in that segment, but at the expense of losing overall volume and market share in the other/lower segments. Higher margin on that stuff, so like Thom says, since the camera biz is the only business Nikon is making money in at the moment, it's been important to them to "own" the higher end of that market where all the margin is, and that they could do that with a lesser overall market share and still be happy.

Makes a lot of sense. Explains why pretty much ALL of the glass Nikon has come out with in the past year or so is _very high end_ and _very pricey_ glass for the professional shooters. Because that's the portion of the market they need to own to stay in business. 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 24-120/4VR, 85/1.4G, 28-300VR, etc. Almost all of that is priced in the four-figure range in USD.

What I've been wondering lately is if Nikon really was trying to position themselves as a very high end 'luxury' type of camera brand, with all of this super pricey and high-end gear. Because they've had the D40 style bodies out and that's pretty much their entire low-end range now, and I've been puzzled why they've come out with _virtually nothing_ as far as reasonably priced 'upgrade' lenses to support those cameras. The 35/1.8DX has pretty much been it. We know a 50/1.8G is coming now at hopefully a somewhat reasonable price, but yes, as of today you still can't even get an autofocusing 50mm lens for the D40/D5100 class bodies for less than $400 $500 now , which is pretty crazy considering that class of camera bodies has been around for 4 years now, and all you need is the $100 50/1.8II for any camera body in "C" land. It's as if Nikon just hasn't really cared, or hasn't been paying attention, or have been putting all of their efforts elsewhere for the past few years, which seems to be he case.

So will Nikon be "Leica-ized" as Thom feared they might? 

Unless they give some attention to the lower end of the market STAT, that could happen I think. Nikon is a really tough sell vs the Canon entry level products at the moment simply due to the huge lens compatibility issues and virtually zero attention from Nikon here for the past few years that's actually been aimed at this lower end segment. Maybe the new 50/1.8G is the first of things to come there?

=====================


So basically, at least in theory based on the evidence, Nikon has been trying to own as much of the high-end market as they can which is lower volume, but higher margin, and hence still decent financial results with a lower market share. Meanwhile they haven't followed up with enough lens support for their lower level offerings making them much less attractive. I know a guy who had a Nikon D3000, and when he saw how much he would have to pay for an autofocusing 50mm lens (the top-end 1.4G for $450+), he said to heck with that and switched to a Canon T1i where he wouldn't have to get ripped off like that and could just buy the 50/1.8 II for $100.


----------



## Justin (Apr 21, 2011)

S P said:


> So basically Nikon has attacked the high-end market with ferocity and done a pretty good job of it stealing market share from Canon in that segment, but at the expense of losing overall volume and market share in the other/lower segments. Higher margin on that stuff, so like Thom says, since the camera biz is the only business Nikon is making money in at the moment, it's been important to them to "own" the higher end of that market where all the margin is, and that they could do that with a lesser overall market share and still be happy.
> 
> Makes a lot of sense. Explains why pretty much ALL of the glass Nikon has come out with in the past year or so is _very high end_ and _very pricey_ glass for the professional shooters. Because that's the portion of the market they need to own to stay in business. 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 24-120/4VR, 85/1.4G, 28-300VR, etc. Almost all of that is priced in the four-figure range in USD.



You're on to some interesting speculation here, and I believe based on a range of experiences in the last year that Nikon has indeed captured the high end DSLR market. The D3s and D3x are dominant cameras and the D7000 is no slouch. These cameras made a lot of people switch. Canon made a mistake with the 1D4 not going full frame. And they have been lurking in the shadows for 2.5 years or more now with their best performing chip in the 5D2 (a crippled tool--some say extremely others are content enough--by anyone's account).

What bothers me as an investor in one line is simple: I want the line of tools I use to be leading the high end market, even if I'm not buying the highest end tool, because all that tech trickles down. Not only that, I can save for a long time and enter into the high end market by being thrifty if I desire, or buy used.

I think Canon still maintains an edge on glass. The tilt shift wide lenses are spectacular, the 70-200 2.8 II is a beast, and the super teles (I don't own any but shot them) are drool worthy. The new ones look to clobber the old if the MTF charts are to believed (clobber our accounts too as they are too expensive for mere mortals). But even then I could see myself saving up for a few years and getting a 200-400 1.4x or a new 500 L II. 

It's troubling that Canon relies so heavily on it's rebel lineup year after year for its sales. Mid market and up market sales are just as important if not more. Not only that, but the strategy to constantly upgrade the rebels runs into a tech wall after awhile: you can only improve a line so much before it overtakes the flagship). 

So, long way of saying Canon needs to impress. They need to innovate and do it soon. 5D3 or whatever the successor of the 5D2 is needs to be spectacular. The flagship needs to boggle the mind. It's been an eternity in technology terms since these were upgraded. I'm running out of patience and excuses and the D3x looks pretty freaking sweet even 2 years since release.


----------



## kubelik (Apr 21, 2011)

S P, great post and good points. it is interesting that while people normally think of Nikon and Canon as direct competitors in the market they are actually hugely different companies with very different business and operational concerns. I think that's why people keep mentioning that Canon is, in many ways, more concerned about Sony, because Sony is structured more like Canon and has the same production capabilities, and in the long run is more likely to toe the line with Canon as a camera giant.

we've talked about the marketing edge of this in the past, that Canon does a far, far better job than Nikon of marketing its cameras. it may be a result of Nikon deciding that the general consumer isn't their target market (see S P and Thom Mayne's comments above) and thus not necessary to market to. but Canon does a really great job of marketing its rebel line and its XXD line to the casual consumer/TV-watcher.

capability-wise, video is a big factor as well. being able to shoot 1080p at multiple framerates is something people want to have the option of doing, even if they don't really use it all the time. I bought my father a very nice Panasonic camcorder because he enjoys videotaping everything. he's not a gearhead, he knows nothing about specifications, he just likes videotaping random stuff. he looked at 5 minutes of footage shot from a DSLR and asked, why can't my camcorder make videos that look like that? I know all the diehard still shooters out there decry video, and even I strongly feel total convergence is NOT the way to go, but having a cool capability that you occasionally use on your camera ... well, everyone likes to feel they got more bang for the buck.

Canon sits at the top because, at the end of the day, they have some of the best photography equipment available at a consumer price range on the market. hardcore shootists moan and whine all the time about the 5D Mark II's shortcomings, but at the end of the day, there is no camera for its price that can sell like the 5D Mark II. three years later, Sony hasn't come out with anything better than the equally-aging A900/A-850. Nikon's D700 is better than the 5DII in some ways, but equally worse in some ways. sony's got other issues holding it back from competing with Canon, such as lens portfolio (and even more important, lens price). I am looking forward to Nikon dropping some new equipment sometime this year or next, which will prompt Canon to do the same


----------



## kubelik (Apr 21, 2011)

Justin, I think Canon is ready to impress, they're just waiting for the right time to do it. I highly doubt they've been sitting on their laurels for the last three years.

the 1Ds Mark III was treading water from the minute the 5D Mark II dropped, so the fact that Nikon gobbled up pros with the D3 and D3x series isn't altogether that surprising. if I were in Canon's seat, I'd make the choice to write off the 1DsIII as a loss, soak up sales of the 5D Mark II, and gun for gold with the 1DsIV / 1DV (whatever the next FF pro cam will be called) ...

other than the 1.3x crop, the 1DIV was actually very well received -- although supposedly Canon did research which told them that there were pros who wanted the 1.3x crop, whether that's true or marketing smoke I don't know. Canon's clearly capable of continuing to innovate, as demonstrated by the smorgasbord of intriguing glass that it's announced in the last year: fish-eye zoom, 200-400 w/ 1.4x built-in, great new extenders, etc. elsewhere, they are developing great cine lenses. I think Canon can bring that level of quality and innovation to their pro camera body lineup.


----------



## MK5GTI (Apr 21, 2011)

these statistics is obviously before the D7000 was widely available.

we come back next year same time, i bet you the situation will be different, also with the 60D disaapointment to a lot of existing Canon user. you see rebates available for 60D not too long after release, infact they are price close to the 600D on street price.

D7000 in the other hand was out of stock for a while..... 

I am not a Nikon user, i have a 5D in fact, i just think these Stats were done not in proper timing for Nikon & Sony.

also, be aware of Sony up coming A77


----------



## simonfilm (Apr 21, 2011)

Canon has made several smart things, like the 5D2, and more important in the video side, has LISTENED to what filmmakers, mainly amateur ones, begged: 24p; and Canon answered with 24p, 25p, 50p, 60p. 

Now if Canon follows that common sense attitude the next gen could have: non line skipping, but resizing or video RAW in order to resize it with the computer. Good HDMI (10 bit 1080p) out and even WIFI out (imagine monitoring with an Ipad or other wifi tablet). Of course there are more pending improvements like, cooling, rolling shutter, manual audio controls, video follow focus, etc.

Simon.


----------



## traveller (Apr 21, 2011)

We all like to see the system that we have invested a wad of our cash in is doing well, but we should taper some of our wildest rejoicing with the understanding that this all boils down to long term profitablity. Just because Nikon has a lower share of the overall market doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing badly. I agree with a lot of the previous posters that point out Nikon's strength in the mid to high end of the market; I would be willing to bet that here the split is not nearly so great. 

Nikon have traditionally concentrated on the mid to high end over the entry level range, but Canon's 'entry level' market share is increasingly being targeted by them; the much improved specs of the D3100 and D5100 over their predecessors (albeit following Canon's lead) and the (mis-)announcement of the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G demonstrate this growing commitment. "Rebel" buyers are the mass market for DSLRs and success here is great for Canon, but profit margins are lower on these cameras. On top of this, I speculate that a higher proportion of these users don't go on to buy a great deal of other camera kit, either because they're happy with what a basic camera kit provides, or because they don't take up photography as a pastime (or profession). So aggressively marketing to the low end doesn't necessarily generate high profitability. 

Profitable companies have the resources to spend the large amounts of money on R&D that it takes to stay at the leading edge of the pack and just look at some of the companies that are struggling to see what happens if you don't (Olympus, Pentax, Fuji). The danger for Canon in my mind is the lack of any kind of market leading innovation (you know, like the all electronic camera, EF mount, in-lens motors, USM motors, IS etc.) -and don't anyone mention video because Nikon got there first with the D90! 

This is where the danger from Sony comes in; they are a much bigger company that Canon and can divert resources from elsewhere if they decide to invest in gaining camera market share. Sony have the money to throw mud at the wall to see what sticks, Canon probably don't, but at the moment they seem incapable of taking any risks. OK, you can argue that it is easier to take risks when you're behind rather than the market leader, but capitalist theory teaches us that profit is the reward for taking risks and holding back can lose you first mover advantage. 

I believe that Canon (and Nikon) are in a dangerous position, they have products that are still attractive and a large installed user base, but this is a mature market and DSLR sales are now a cash cow. Things may be looking quite rosey at the moment, but I'm worried that they are not well placed psychologically for any disruptive technological breakthrough.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 22, 2011)

traveller said:


> Profitable companies have the resources to spend the large amounts of money on R&D that it takes to stay at the leading edge of the pack and just look at some of the companies that are struggling to see what happens if you don't (Olympus, Pentax, Fuji). The danger for Canon in my mind is the lack of any kind of market leading innovation (you know, like the all electronic camera, EF mount, in-lens motors, USM motors, IS etc.) -and don't anyone mention video because Nikon got there first with the D90!
> 
> This is where the danger from Sony comes in; they are a much bigger company that Canon and can divert resources from elsewhere if they decide to invest in gaining camera market share. Sony have the money to throw mud at the wall to see what sticks, Canon probably don't, but at the moment they seem incapable of taking any risks. OK, you can argue that it is easier to take risks when you're behind rather than the market leader, but capitalist theory teaches us that profit is the reward for taking risks and holding back can lose you first mover advantage.
> 
> I believe that Canon (and Nikon) are in a dangerous position, they have products that are still attractive and a large installed user base, but this is a mature market and DSLR sales are now a cash cow. Things may be looking quite rosey at the moment, but I'm worried that they are not well placed psychologically for any disruptive technological breakthrough.



I hear people talk a lot about wanting Canon to innovate. And maybe I should just ask them to clarify what they mean exactly. Would you like Canon to invent a new kind of camera? Because I seriously don't know what else you would like them to do with the DSLR. Sony got applauded for the A33 & 55 cameras because the "tried something new" When they really didn't. They took an old idea and made it work with a modern DSLR and ended up with a camera with a few pros and some serious cons.

They didn't really innovate. The DSLR is what it is. We have auto focus now, and IS and advanced metering systems. And we have more megapixels than we need in the entry level models. We have ISO ranges that go way beyond what was imaginable 10 years ago. The only thing left to do in my mind is simply make the DSLR better. And I'm really fine with that.

I mean we've already seen Canon struggle with this. Look at how close the 7D, 60D, 550D, and 600D are. At this point in the game it's just a matter of finding the right mix of technology that they have already developed and putting it in a camera that yields a good product for the market you are aiming for. What else should they do? The 600D already has more power than the average Joe needs to take good pictures.

I suppose you could make the argument about the EVIL market. In which case there is a reason for Canon to get involved in that. There is money to be made there.

And the same goes for Nikon. I don't expect anything more than a "better" camera than the last. Because like I said before, you can only "innovate" so much before you've created something that isn't a DSLR.


----------



## ISO100 (Apr 22, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I hear people talk a lot about wanting Canon to innovate. And maybe I should just ask them to clarify what they mean exactly. Would you like Canon to invent a new kind of camera? Because I seriously don't know what else you would like them to do with the DSLR ...
> ...
> They didn't really innovate. The DSLR is what it is. We have auto focus now, and IS and advanced metering systems. And we have more megapixels than we need in the entry level models. We have ISO ranges that go way beyond what was imaginable 10 years ago. The only thing left to do in my mind is simply make the DSLR better. And I'm really fine with that.
> ...
> ...



I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion! Right off the bat I can think of the following true innovations I would really like to see on any and all new Canon DSLRs:

1) twentyfirst century grade Eye Control Focusing! Selecting the active AF-point(s) with only the movement of your eye - autofocus will be exactly on the item in the frame viewed by the the user. Yes, Canon has invented this already many years ago (analogue Canon EOS 3 and others models) ... but it did not really work well for most users back then. A perfectly working ECF system in a DSLR would be the greatest innvovation in a long time!

2) built in wireless RC (!) master flash control - full ETTL II and III functionality with all new speedlites and via a small adaptor also with all current EX speedlites (580/II, 430/II, 270 II) would be another great and industry-first innovation!

3) wireless ETTL-III - very simple inmnovation for Canon: deliver exactly the same functionality Nikons CLS system is delivering for years by now. Specifically: FP ("Hi Speed sync") and flash on second curtain over wireless master-slave not in case of on-shoe or wired connection. Wouldn't this be a great innvoation for Canon?

4) Multi-touch LCD screen for operation in live view/video modes. Not an industry first (see Panasonic and others) - but from Canon I would like to see exactly the type of (capacitative) touch panel and intuitive user-interface as used in an Apple iPhone4. Would be industry first DSLR featuring this functionality. 

5) Built in WIFI in any in every single new Canon DSLR ... at little extra cost and with smart battery saving firmware. Another industry first innovation for Canon to bring to us ... 

and and and ... innovations waiting to happen GALORE!!!


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 22, 2011)

ISO100 said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I hear people talk a lot about wanting Canon to innovate. And maybe I should just ask them to clarify what they mean exactly. Would you like Canon to invent a new kind of camera? Because I seriously don't know what else you would like them to do with the DSLR ...
> ...



You didn't list a single innovation. It's all the same stuff. Could Canon put a wifi transmitter into a body? Absolutely. They just haven't wanted to yet. Or they like the money they make from the attachment. This is not an innovation.

Neither is a touch screen (which is the worst idea ever, btw).

Actually you're #1 was a great example of my point. Canon has already done eye control AF. They would simply need to take it off the shelf and use it.

I'm not sure what your #2 is about. The 7D has wireless flash control. Am I missing it?


----------



## traveller (Apr 22, 2011)

I like to think that innovation has two 'axes', technological and market. Technological innovation is all about creating new features to differentiate your product (e.g. developing a new AF system) and market innovation is about carving out a niche for your product to fit into (e.g. the original Digital Rebel/300D). Generally most new products/features have a measure of both of these aspects. For example, developing a new AF system is about how much capability you can put into it without increasing cost beyond what the camera's intended market will bear. Developing a cheaper DSLR like the 300D, was also about technological innovation in developing new lower cost components. 

It worries me that even in the traditional DSLR market, which Canon should be well versed in, they seem to be allowing Nikon to get the jump on them in both areas of innovation. Canon definitely seem to have become followers rather than leaders, it's Nikon that are taking the lead introducing new features into cameras with Canon seeming to follow somewhat reluctantly. There even seem to have been some reversals: Canon stated their aim was to introduce some form of USM motors to all their lenses, now they seem to have gone back to dc motors at the lower end. 

More worryingly, Canon seem to be myopically following Nikon's market segmentation, a strategy that is ensuring that they are always one step behind. Nikon pioneered the high-spec APS-C camera with the D300 (which nicely pulled away from the 40D to establish a new premium price point), two years later Canon followed suit with the 7D. Last year, Canon brought out a great D90 killer in the form of the 60D, and Nikon responded a month later by again moving the goalposts with the D7000 (classic Nikon: "for $200 more, look what more you can have"). 

Canon's greatest triumph was when they had the balls to dump their well established FD mount system to step into the unknown with EOS. But it wasn't just this move that put them in the market leading position where they are today, they built up the reputation of EOS by continuous development. This applied to new technologies that made their cameras and lenses industry leading, as well as those that reduced production costs and brought these products to the mass market. My point is that Canon needs to return to this mindset and stop just following the pack.


----------



## S P (Apr 22, 2011)

As far innovation goes, or at least adding new features that are actually useful, I would LOVE built-in WiFi and the ability to upload photos directly from my camera to Facebook, or photo hosting sites like Zenfolio, SmugMug, flickr, etc. That would be killer. My iPhone can do it, so why not DSLRs?


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 22, 2011)

Just out of curiosity: did anyone actually read the underlying article and the data that goes with it? I'm not so sure that the news is "oh joy" for Canon. The Bloomberg headline reads: _Sony, Nikon Narrow Gap to Canon With New Digital Camera Models_

Not quite the same. Let's not forget that SLRs are not the big money maker. The game is about who sells the most P&S cameras - and all the stuff that comes with it.

Vendor 2010 2009
----------------------------------------------------
Canon 19 19
Sony 17.9 16.9
Nikon 12.6 11.1
Samsung 11.1 10.9
Kodak 7.4 8.8
Panasonic 7.6 7.6
Olympus 6.1 6.2
Fuji 4.9 5.4

By looking at that, both Canon and Nikon have to be concerned. And, unfortunately, the earthquake will make this worse. This is even more remarkable, given that Sony's core business is not as tightly connected to cameras than Canon's or Nikon's - and they just have a lot more money to throw at this if they want to.

And here it comes: if the two companies weren't so tied up in their traditions and the what results out of the longstanding rivalry they would be reaching the point where in other industries people would be starting to look at a merger...

Since that is not really an option given their unique situations we'll be seeing Canon and Nikon buying up some of the smaller ones, both camera related and otherwise. Something like Kodak or Fuji may actually be an option.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 22, 2011)

ISO100 said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I hear people talk a lot about wanting Canon to innovate. And maybe I should just ask them to clarify what they mean exactly. Would you like Canon to invent a new kind of camera? Because I seriously don't know what else you would like them to do with the DSLR ...
> ...




Follow the money. Why would they want to do this? The camera business is about selling lots and lots of P&S cameras (and what ever else the two big ones do that is not camera related at all, like office supplies, medical technology, other high tech sensors for industrial applications, etc). They maintain their high end DSLR stuff as a marketing tool. So it's most important that stuff is perceived as high end and that pros are using it along the sidelines of sporting events and at press confrences (again, to sell more P&S thingies).

So the question is not what some geeky DSLR hobbyist (like you or me) want but what works out in the field. Eye-control AF? Wasn't a big hit. And even I wouldn't want this. Built-in radio controls? Not possible due to legal limitations in international markets. Won't happen. Touch screens? For what? People already have iPhones (no idea why, I refuse to buy anything with a friggin touch screen on it). Wifi? That may eventually happen though I'm not fully clear what it's good for. A CDMA/GSM or similar attachment may be something that press people may like. Or at least an option to hook up cell phones as modems so that journalists could send out photos to their desk right away. My BlackBerry can do that. And the frequency and legal issues in that area are not as problematic.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 22, 2011)

I am pretty hesitant to make any great claims based on 2 years worth of data other than, I like where Canon is sitting. I did try to find more data and, interestingly, in 2006 it was predicted that Nikon was going to overtake Canon's dSLR market share by 2008 and in 2007, IDC had Canon with 42% of the DSLR market and Nikon with 40%. So, if anything, adding data from 2007 is telling me Canon is holding strong and Nikon's market share is dwindling. But that is still only 3 data points. If anyone has the longer term trends, I'd be interested. I'd also be interested in any data on how the size of the pie is growing over time.

Regarding the overall digicam market share, 2007 IDC had Canon at 18.8%, Sony at 16%, Kodak at 9.6%, Samsung at 9%, Nikon at 8.4% and Olympus at 8.3%. 

All I really see there is classic market maturation. We are seeing the weaker competitors fall by the wayside and the "winners" gaining market share. Again, this is only based on 3 data points.

BTW--I'd rather be able to afford to purchase the next generation of camera, which I hope has better dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO, than have something with every bell and whistle on it. Everything costs money and cameras are plenty expensive right now.


----------



## Justin (Apr 22, 2011)

Advances I am looking for in Canon's slr lineup (not necessarily in every body). 

Great advances in dynamic range. 
Advances in resolving power.
Weaker AA filters. 
Dynamic in-body crop. 
100% viewfinders.
I'd love to see Canon invest in hybrid viewfinder tech. Digital overlay of key info over the viewfinder would be incredibly useful.


----------



## abs014000 (Apr 22, 2011)

Good job, Canon!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 22, 2011)

Canon made a big leap over Nikon (in the pro market) with the EOS system. Nikon was slow to respond, but recently they have taken the lead in pro cameras. 

I bought a 40D and as soon as the D300 came along I knew I had made a mistake staying with Canon. The D300 was better, but not enough better to make me switch ... then. When Canon came out with the EOS 7D and the POS 60D that clinched it. 

Now I have both Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses (no kit lenses for either). My next lens purchase will be another Nikon prime. Will I buy more Canon in the future ? Hard to say, but I see nothing that has been announced/rumored that I'm interested in buying. But Nikon has several things coming I'm waiting to buy.

Nikon's Professional Mirrorless system sounds interesting (and innovative). If it is as good as I hope, I'll order a body and some lenses the day it is announced.

Try to remember that cameras are just tools. Way too many people base their self worth on the kind of camera they have, the make of car they own and the brand of beer they drink.

BTW P&S cameras are quickly being replaced by camera phones. What will be the camera makes response ?

I use both Canon and Nikon, do you have a problem with that ???


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 22, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> Not quite the same. Let's not forget that SLRs are not the big money maker.



Where do you get your information?

According to the Canon end of 2010 financial report, 22% of the uniit sales were DSLR's, but that translates to 65% of camera sales income from DSLR related equipment!

I'd call DSLR's the big money maker!

http://www.canon.com/ir/conf2010/conf2010e.pdf


----------



## dnhjr (Apr 22, 2011)

Man I never worry about these kind of reports. I use both Nikon and Canon and both are good.


----------



## goodmane (Apr 23, 2011)

Regarding 'innovation.'

Canon has the ability to invest in R&D. Canon's DSLR and lens lineup will stay competitive with Sony and Nikon in the long term. 

Where Canon appears to have some strategic management blindness is in the fast-growing area of large-sensor compacts that compete with Micro Four Thirds and now Sony NEX.

This territory could and should become larger than DSLR and other digital compacts combined in the long term. I say should because I think large APS-C+ sized sensor compacts provide the quality the typical mass market household want from a camera / video capture device. 

If Canon misses the boat, and the others lock people in with system compacts, long term market share positions may be entrenched and resilient within 10-15 years. Why they cannot see that I don't know.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 24, 2011)

totally agree on the big-sensor compacts blindness

I see the market for small-sensor compacts becoming much smaller in a couple of years, as people come to realize the camera in their new phone is just good enough in most occasions
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/17/iphone-4-camera/

so you'll only want to take an additional gadget with you if it really offers something more

but many people don't want to carry a big camera such as a dslr, and that's where big-sensor compacts will fill in, eating a big chunk of the market for high-end small-sensor compacts and low-end DSLRs

what amazes me is that the companies that are making big-sensor compacts (panasonic, sony, samsung) are also making phones, while the camera makers that don't make phones (canon, nikon) don't seem to be interested in big-sensor compacts either

wake up, someone's going to eat your lunch!!


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 24, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite the same. Let's not forget that SLRs are not the big money maker.
> ...



Good question. I was actually basing my assumption on that same financial statement and those from previous years. They say its 22% DSLR of _sales_ of their what they call "consumer segment" (which is all cameras as opposed to their industry supplies). And that's not the same as profit. I would think that it's pretty expensive to develop and manufacture the pro line of cameras and that their margin is likely very slim. Probably a different story for Rebels and related items. Would be interesting to know how much of that business is in the 22%.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 24, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> totally agree on the big-sensor compacts blindness



That's photo enthusiast think. Average people don't care about sensor size. What they want is something to post on the web easily (cell phones with cameras) and something that will make good 8x10/12x18 prints. A Canon 20D was good enough to do this. A Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 is good enough to do this.

Nikon and Sony APS-C cameras are 1.5x, Canon APS-C are 1.6x, m4/3 are 2x and the new Nikon should be 2.5x (rumors based on patents). Compare the lens size between Sony's E-mount lenses, m4/3 lenses and what should be the even smaller Nikon 2.5x lenses. For many people smaller is better based on ease of carry.  

You can't put a 1Ds III with a 70-200 f2.8 into even a very large pocket.  But why would you want to, if it is in your pocket no-one would see your awesome camera


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 25, 2011)

I don't think you got what I wanted to say

I think canon's blindness towards the big-sensor compact market is a bad thing for canon

phones are quickly going to eat most of the point-and-shoot market; people will only buy a camera if it offers more than what they already have in their phones, and that means either superzoom (an already mature market) or big-sensor compacts

and on the other side big-sensor compacts will eat a chunk of the low-end DSLR market, as they offer similar image quality in a smaller package


----------



## Alwyn (Apr 13, 2012)

Market share is a cold comfort when you've just spent thousands on a new camera and it all goes South. Then to top it all instead of assistance you get arrogance. This made me take my money to Nikon. Now I am by no means a Canon hater. I just refuse to support people who have no time for me when I have issues with a product which they manufactured.


----------

