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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 27, 2014)

```
<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/?p=16174"></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/?p=16174">Tweet</a></div>
<p>TOKYO, Japan, March 27, 2014—Canon Inc. today announced that the Company’s interchangeable-lens digital cameras (digital SLR and compact-system cameras) have maintained the No. 1 share worldwide in terms of volume within the interchangeable-lens digital camera market for the 11-year period from 2003 to 2013.</p>
<p>In addition to the interchangeable lenses, Canon also develops the key components—the CMOS image sensors and image processors—employed in its interchangeable-lens cameras. The most advanced of these technologies are incorporated in the Company’s flagship EOS-1D series. By applying these technologies to other models as well, Canon has successfully created a powerful product lineup that effectively responds to the needs of a wide range of users, from professionals to entry-level users, which has enabled Canon to maintain the top global share.

<!--more-->In 2003, the dawn of digital SLR cameras, Canon introduced its breakthrough EOS Kiss Digital (EOS Digital Rebel or EOS 300D Digital in other regions). This compact and lightweight user-friendly camera set the stage for growth in the digital SLR market and captured the top share of the global market. Since that time, Canon, in its ongoing pursuit of high image quality, has launched a number of models for advanced-amateur users that offer among the highest levels of performance for their class, including the EOS 5D series, which paved the way for digital SLR video recording.</p>
<p>In 2013, targeting entry-level users, Canon launched the EOS Kiss X7 (EOS Rebel SL1 or EOS 100D), which combines the world’s smallest and lightest digital SLR camera body with exceptional basic performance, and the EOS M2 compact-system camera, featuring significantly enhanced autofocusing performance. Also, within the advanced-amateur user segment, the Company introduced the EOS 70D, equipped with innovative Dual Pixel CMOS AF autofocus technology, which has earned high praise from the market. These robust products provided the driving force enabling Canon to achieve its 11th straight year as the world’s market leader.</p>
<p>Additionally, in February 2014, Canon realized another industry milestone as cumulative production of EOS-series film and digital cameras surpassed the 70-million unit mark. Furthermore, during the first half of 2014, cumulative production of Canon EF-series interchangeable lenses for EOS cameras is on track to reach 100 million units. Underpinning these achievements is the high market share that Canon has maintained, made possible through the long-standing support dating back to the film camera era that the Company has received from its wide user base.</p>
<p>With a history of producing cameras that dates back to the Company’s founding in 1937, Canon will continue refining its diverse imaging technologies based on its core optical technologies, striving to produce exceptional and reliable lenses and cameras that cater to the varying needs of photographers—from first-time users to advanced amateurs and professionals—while contributing to expanding the photographic and video imaging culture.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Mar 27, 2014)

Maybe that's why they haven't introduced much exciting stuff in the past few years...


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 27, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> Maybe that's why they haven't introduced much exciting stuff in the past few years...



Yup. 1DX, 5D3, and 6D aren't much fun...  24-70 F2.8L II and 70-200 F2.8L II aren't much fun either...


----------



## RGF (Mar 27, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> tianxiaozhang said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe that's why they haven't introduced much exciting stuff in the past few years...
> ...



Don't forget the II version of the great whites. Real winners.

My wish list includes 14-24 as good as Nikon's (in fact it would be great if they would license the Nikon lens), 100-400 replacement, and something in the high MP range that is affordable. 

I think Nikon may have under priced their D800 in order to gain share from Canon and "gave the razor away in order to sell blades".


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 27, 2014)

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


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 27, 2014)

RGF said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > tianxiaozhang said:
> ...



I think the original response was sarcasm 

Everything listed so far is just evolution and incremental improvement, but what about the 70D and dual-pixel? That's exciting! The possibilities down the road as this matures are fantastic! Three guesses what will be in the 5D4 and the 6D2......


----------



## LarryC (Mar 27, 2014)

And Volkswagen and Miller Brewing topped the charts in 2013 for world wide sales of cars and beer. No one would argue that Volkswagen hasn't innovated or produced a product that is liked by it's customers, but most would not interpret car sales that to mean that Volkswagen makes the best cars. Sales volume does not inherently equate to quality, customer satisfaction or class leadership. It does reflect marketing, product placement, and market penetrance - kudos to Canon. What would be nice to see is a chart indicating average repair costs, customer satisfaction, use by professionals, units remaining in service over years, etc. Categories where Canon has probably done well, but who knows how well compared to other brand.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 27, 2014)

Way to go Canon ... now please share your success with us by putting out some good instant rebates please! ... I am happy that our American friends get mail-in-rebates, but please do announce some good instant rebates to match your awesome achievement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2014)

LarryC said:


> What would be nice to see is a chart indicating average repair costs, customer satisfaction, use by professionals, units remaining in service over years, etc. Categories where Canon has probably done well, but who knows how well compared to other brand.



Courtesy of Roger at lensrentals.com. This is data from 2012-2013, he has previous years available on his blog, too.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > What would be nice to see is a chart indicating average repair costs, customer satisfaction, use by professionals, units remaining in service over years, etc. Categories where Canon has probably done well, but who knows how well compared to other brand.
> ...


That's a very informative chart ... surprising that Nikon charges as much as Leica for repairs ... also Nikon's repair time is pretty pathetic only topped by the scandal hit Olympus.


----------



## dufflover (Mar 27, 2014)

meh, it's been obvious for years that "Canon" have had no issues selling masses of Rebel cameras. Just take a look at salesman and forums and it's always a newbie wanting a Canikon.

It applies to all brands really. Whichever brand is rated #1 just means they've sold the most of their consumer line which doesn't mean much for what they might bring to their high end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Whichever brand is rated #1 just means they've sold the most of their consumer line which doesn't mean much for what they might bring to their high end.



It means more revenue for the company, which _could_ mean more funding for R&D to develop technologies and products to bring out at the higher end. Meh, indeed... :


----------



## SoullessPolack (Mar 28, 2014)

dufflover said:


> It applies to all brands really. Whichever brand is rated #1 just means they've sold the most of their consumer line which doesn't mean much for what they might bring to their high end.



And this is the goal. The consumer line is their most important customer base. The Rebel line is the most important line in the Canon lineup. If they had to do away with the 1D line or the Rebel line, which do you think would go? Bye bye 1D! We can argue all we want about how just because they're #1 in sales doesn't mean they produce the best camera. But as a business owner, and especially as a corporation, your goal is to maximize sales/profit. Producing the best camera certainly can help, but there's a whole host of other factors that also go into that equation.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 28, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > It applies to all brands really. Whichever brand is rated #1 just means they've sold the most of their consumer line which doesn't mean much for what they might bring to their high end.
> ...



Definitely agree...

I live near a city of a million people and I can probably pick up a Rebel at 100 stores, yet there is not a single place that stocks the 1DX.... this should tell you where the sales are and which line is more important to Canon.

Think of Honda... they make consumer cars (Rebels) and they make race cars (1DX). The race cars are for bragging rights and they do learn important things from them... but it is the consumer cars that keep the lights on at the factory. Same thing for Canon.


----------



## 100 (Mar 28, 2014)

You will only sell luxury goods to the masses if the masses think your product is the best, the best value for money, or both. 
For that you need the visible pro’s (sports, wildlife, fashion, news, etc.) using your gear and you need good reviews by independent media that really matter. That won’t happen if the pro gear you sell is substandard. 

So I think there is a relationship between being market leader overall and the quality of both low end and high end gear. Not that you need to have the best performance in every measurable way, but overall the system needs to be on par or perform better than the competition. 

On internet fora I read a lot about dynamic range and how a 500 nanometer process like Canon is using for their sensors is something the dinosaurs used 65 million years ago on their T-Rexmor sensor in their Nikonosaurus D800(e) camera’s and even then it was old technology. You might get the impression Canon gear sucks and other brands outperform Canon gear by a substantial margin. But once you look at real world photo’s taken by real world photographers with Canon gear the “old” sensor tech doesn’t seem to matter much. 

You simply don’t stay market leader for 11 years in this business without quality products.


----------



## David Hull (Mar 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


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


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


----------



## David Hull (Mar 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > What would be nice to see is a chart indicating average repair costs, customer satisfaction, use by professionals, units remaining in service over years, etc. Categories where Canon has probably done well, but who knows how well compared to other brand.
> ...



The average repair cost is not surprising -- my 24-105 went belly up a while back and they charged me $408 to fix it. That was a bit of a surprise.

Interestingly enough, I had it back in roughly 5 days.


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 28, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> That's a very informative chart ... surprising that Nikon charges as much as Leica for repairs ... also Nikon's repair time is pretty pathetic only topped by the scandal hit Olympus.



It doesn't tell you what was repaired. For example both Canon and Nikon have quite high repair costs. Is their service generally more expensive then the other brands? Or do for example the (assumed) often rented out for comparable rough use superteles skew the result?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 28, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > That's a very informative chart ... surprising that Nikon charges as much as Leica for repairs ... also Nikon's repair time is pretty pathetic only topped by the scandal hit Olympus.
> ...


It is impractical to include what was repaired by 10 different manufacturers with hundreds of items, in a chart like this. I recently had a damaged filter thread (due to a fall) repaired at the local Canon service center ... the service center chap took less than 10 minutes to replace & return it to me, while I took 30 minutes to decide on buying the 100-400 L IS at the same time. The repair/replacement cost me $173


----------



## mustafa (Mar 28, 2014)

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

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


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 28, 2014)

David Hull said:


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



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


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 28, 2014)

mustafa said:


> Have I got this right? Canon have sold 70m EOS cameras and 100m lenses?
> 
> There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.



wrong conclusion. 

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

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

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


----------



## mustafa (Mar 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> mustafa said:
> 
> 
> > Have I got this right? Canon have sold 70m EOS cameras and 100m lenses?
> ...



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


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 29, 2014)

mustafa said:


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



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


----------



## mustafa (Mar 29, 2014)

Lawliet said:


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



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


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 29, 2014)

mustafa said:


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



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


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 29, 2014)

mustafa said:


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


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


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 29, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


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



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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > mustafa said:
> ...



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


----------



## mustafa (Mar 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



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


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 29, 2014)

mustafa said:


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



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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2014)

mustafa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



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


----------



## David Hull (Mar 29, 2014)

AmbientLight said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



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


----------



## mustafa (Mar 29, 2014)

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

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


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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


----------

