# The Canon EOS M50 leads mirrorless camera sales in Japan for March 2019



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 15, 2019)

> Japan is the only country in which we get pretty good data on sales figures in the camera industry. BCN has completed their mirrorless camera rankings for March of 2019, and the Canon EOS M50 leads the way with nearly 20% market share. Canon also had another camera in the top 10, the entry-level EOS M100.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 15, 2019)

A6400 is surprising as it was just launched.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Apr 15, 2019)

The A7III is also surprising. This is a $2500 pro/prosumer camera in a list of $500-$800 entry-level movers.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 15, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> The A7III is also surprising. This is a $2500 pro/prosumer camera in a list of $500-$800 entry-level movers.


It's not that surprising if you've used one


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 15, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> A6400 is surprising as it was just launched.



It wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't remain as high on the list, new products usually have a large amount of sales at launch. This camera was heavily marketed towards vloggers, but it's really not a good vlogging camera(lack of IBIS, even though the marketing videos used test footage on a gimbal to make it look silky smooth).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2019)

Seven years ago the EOS M launched, was blasted by critics and forum members as ‘unable to compete’. Today, the line is a smashing success. Last year, the EOS R launched, was blasted by critics and forum members as ‘unable to compete’. I wonder where we’ll be in a few years, and if Sony will still be making ILCs then.


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 15, 2019)

M50 is a year old now, and still #1. Interesting. 

I’m also impressed at the strong showing of the a73. I wonder what will happen with the RP. Will it cut in to its sales numbers for those who were looking for a FF mirrorless at half the price? Or will the RP take share from things like the m5, m50, A6400

Next months charts are going to be fun.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 15, 2019)

I’m surprised Olympus sell reasonably well. I’d have though with so many compact APS-C and Full Frame choices available they’d be fading faster. I see OMD 10 ii still on the list . It’s a rather good camera let down by an awful handling set up. I wise they’d bring out a firmware upgrade to get rid of 90% of the options.
I don’t understand the success of the M50 myself. It must meet the needs of a lot of ordinary Japanese casual photographers. It’s a very handy size but seems like a system without a future.


----------



## canonic (Apr 15, 2019)

wow ... Canon 1-st place! ... and?!
Lets see this in another way:
Canon has an amount of 650$ in that list. 
Sony has an amount of 4150$ and thats more than 6 times than Canon. But hey, Canon is first, is it?! 
For "real" photographers these lists must be *the* benchmark.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 15, 2019)

I see ...

Canon is *******.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Apr 15, 2019)

Actuarilly, my children, & grandchildren will use my 1DX, 5IV, and M6, plus a boatload of L lens as ballast to bury my ashes in the Hudson. In the meantime, Canon is Saturday Night live for me as my skills try to improve, eh?


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 15, 2019)

canonic said:


> wow ... Canon 1-st place! ... and?!
> Lets see this in another way:
> Canon has an amount of 650$ in that list.
> Sony has an amount of 4150$ and thats more than 6 times than Canon. But hey, Canon is first, is it?!
> For "real" photographers these lists must be *the* benchmark.



Yes, this is a great point. Sony has more profit on that list. Canon's profit margin can't be that much on the M50. 

But the M50 is selling well- must be that marketing promise of 4K that really pumped those sales through the roof, eh?


----------



## unfocused (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> ...Sony has more profit on that list. Canon's profit margin can't be that much on the M50....



You might think that, but you don't know. Higher price doesn't necessarily mean higher profit margin.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 16, 2019)

canonic said:


> wow ... Canon 1-st place! ... and?!
> Lets see this in another way:
> Canon has an amount of 650$ in that list.
> Sony has an amount of 4150$ and thats more than 6 times than Canon. But hey, Canon is first, is it?!
> For "real" photographers these lists must be *the* benchmark.


I don't know where your amount numbers are coming from and how relevant they are.
Canon has 2 cameras on this list (M50 and M100, with unit price of 629.00 and 449.00, respectively, for total of 1,078.00$).
Sony has 4 cameras on this list (A6400, A6000, A7III and A5100 with unit price of 898.00, 398.00, 1998.00 and 448.00, respectively, for total of 3,742.00$). Price quote from Adorama, as of today.
Canon's top 10 total share is 27% with 2 cameras vs. Sony's 25.3% with 4 cameras.
The data speaks for itself. From this data, one can only conclude that Canon's relatively less expensive cameras are selling better than the other brands.
The data does not indicate anything related to profit margin or total dollar value sold and any conclusion related to them will be purely speculative at best.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

canonic said:


> wow ... Canon 1-st place! ... and?!
> Lets see this in another way:
> Canon has an amount of 650$ in that list.
> Sony has an amount of 4150$ and thats more than 6 times than Canon. But hey, Canon is first, is it?!
> For "real" photographers these lists must be *the* benchmark.


What's a *real* photographer? Hmmmm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Yes, this is a great point. Sony has more profit on that list. Canon's profit margin can't be that much on the M50.


What are the profit margins? Specifically. You must know them, to make such a claim. Or is this merely more wisdom from your nether orifice?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

canonic said:


> For "real" photographers these lists must be *the* benchmark.


These lists are data. Only a fool scoffs at data. But then being foolish is, regrettably, all too common.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seven years ago the EOS M launched, was blasted by critics and forum members as ‘unable to compete’. Today, the line is a smashing success. Last year, the EOS R launched, was blasted by critics and forum members as ‘unable to compete’. I wonder where we’ll be in a few years, and if Sony will still be making ILCs then.



Wouldn't surprise me if Sony sells off their camera division. They have a habit of selling off divisions once they become profitable and no longer fit in the long term plan. Their camera division mainly served as a demonstration for their sensors, now that Sony Semiconductor has such a big foothold and so many devices(phones) to fuel their R&D, the camera division isn't needed.


----------



## Kharan (Apr 16, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> I don't know where your amount numbers are coming from and how relevant they are.
> Canon has 2 cameras on this list (M50 and M100, with unit price of 629.00 and 449.00, respectively, for total of 1,078.00$).
> Sony has 4 cameras on this list (A6400, A6000, A7III and A5100 with unit price of 898.00, 398.00, 1998.00 and 448.00, respectively, for total of 3,742.00$). Price quote from Adorama, as of today.
> Canon's top 10 total share is 27% with 2 cameras vs. Sony's 25.3% with 4 cameras.
> ...



Good analysis. Still, it's just basic math that a $1,998 has a better per-unit margin in dollars than a $629 one, since most manufacturers set margins to be a percentage rather than a number. Even if one averages prices in the roughest way possible, Canon's is $539, whereas Sony's is $935,50, which leads to a considerably higher revenue for the latter.
And then, there's the boatloads of money Sony save with their laser-focused advertising through YT, and body and part recycling - designs like the A6400 and A7M3 were paid off years ago with their predecessors.
If I worked in Canon HQ, I wouldn't be happy - Sony are obviously more competitive in mirrorless than they ever were in DSLRs, and as the global camera market shifts more and more towards the former, Sony will make big inroads in market share.


----------



## woodman411 (Apr 16, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if Sony sells off their camera division. They have a habit of selling off divisions once they become profitable and no longer fit in the long term plan. Their camera division mainly served as a demonstration for their sensors, now that Sony Semiconductor has such a big foothold and so many devices(phones) to fuel their R&D, the camera division isn't needed.



I think the bigger issue for Sony is their short sighted E mount - 5 years in and they are still just trying to match existing EF lenses. Canon, in just their first year of full frame mirrorless, is showing incredible lens innovation, and much more to come, made possible by their R mount. It is just a matter of time before Ibis and dual cards, then what does Sony have over Canon? Because of this, to me, it is already game over for Sony.


----------



## afolickman (Apr 16, 2019)

I don't see any Nikon in that group.


----------



## Photo Hack (Apr 16, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Good analysis. Still, it's just basic math that a $1,998 has a better per-unit margin in dollars than a $629 one, since most manufacturers set margins to be a percentage rather than a number. Even if one averages prices in the roughest way possible, Canon's is $539, whereas Sony's is $935,50, which leads to a considerably higher revenue for the latter.
> And then, there's the boatloads of money Sony save with their laser-focused advertising through YT, and body and part recycling - designs like the A6400 and A7M3 were paid off years ago with their predecessors.
> If I worked in Canon HQ, I wouldn't be happy - Sony are obviously more competitive in mirrorless than they ever were in DSLRs, and as the global camera market shifts more and more towards the former, Sony will make big inroads in market share.


Still all speculation. I can do that too, it’s not uncommon for a manufacturer to produce a product that loses money for the purpose of gaining market share, boosting their reputation, compete in other areas, R&D for other products, or loads of other reasons. It often requires sales over time to really see profit anyways. Just like launching any new product or business. 

I worked in automotive and other industrial markets and you would be surprised what big companies do to their profit margins.

You think a lot of the hybrids and electric cars were profitable? Supercars and sports cars? Business is a lot more complicated than most would think and individual product line profit margins don’t live in a vacuum or guarantee a return of profit at launch time or even the first year. There are way too many variables and metrics to make arbitrary assumptions based on the data shown.

And yeah it doesn’t escape me that this websites purpose is to speculate and report rumors haha.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Still, it's just basic math that a $1,998 has a better per-unit margin in dollars than a $629 one, since most manufacturers set margins to be a percentage rather than a number.


Ahh, so like @transpo1 you also know the exact margins for all of the relevant products. Perhaps you can share the values that underlie your 'basic math'. Is a 'loss leader' part of your basic math? How does ROI factor into margin setting? Economies of distribution channels? More basic math. No doubt you've accounted for all of those. 



Kharan said:


> If I worked in Canon HQ, I wouldn't be happy - Sony are obviously more competitive in mirrorless than they ever were in DSLRs, and as the global camera market shifts more and more towards the former, Sony will make big inroads in market share.


Sony abandoned DSLRs because they could not compete with Canon and Nikon. They shifted to a APS-C MILCS, a market segment where the two big players were not active, so of course they were 'more competitive' – that's easy when you're the only game in town. Then Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and Sony added FF MILCs, again an area where Canon was not active...and again Sony was more competitive than...well, Leica also made FF MILCs LOL. Now, Canon is #1 in APS-C MILCs and has launched two FF MILCs. Sony is running out of market segments.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ahh, so like @transpo1 you also know the exact margins for all of the relevant products. Perhaps you can share the values that underlie your 'basic math'. Is a 'loss leader' part of your basic math? How does ROI factor into margin setting? Economies of distribution channels? More basic math. No doubt you've accounted for all of those.
> 
> 
> Sony abandoned DSLRs because they could not compete with Canon and Nikon. They shifted to a APS-C MILCS, a market segment where the two big players were not active, so of course they were 'more competitive' – that's easy when you're the only game in town. Then Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and Sony added FF MILCs, again an area where Canon was not active...and again Sony was more competitive than...well, Leica also made FF MILCs LOL. Now, Canon is #1 in APS-C MILCs and has launched two FF MILCs. Sony is running out of market segments.


Yeah, but just wait until Sony launches cameraless lenses.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Yes, this is a great point. Sony has more profit on that list. Canon's profit margin can't be that much on the M50.


Interesting. So now the super pro movie producer for Netflix who is also a genius market analyst,
has revealed that he/she is an economist and data analytics expert, too, and his/her brilliant mind finds
facts about profitability from unit sales data!! Surely his/her next stop will be NASA or somewhere close by.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but just wait until Sony launches cameraless lenses.


They did...and they were a commercial flop.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sony is running out of market segments.



That'd be very sad. I'm happy, in general, that Canon performs well. But as a user, I don't really care if M50 is #1 as I'm not buying it. As a consumer, I want to see competition on the market. I don't want to see Sony falling off the market. I want Sony to produce a very successful A7rIV (sometime this year hopefully) so that Canon tries to match it in their 5DIV-5DSr-successor. And if they don't match it, at least I have a choice, so it's me who benefits from this competition.


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 16, 2019)

afolickman said:


> I don't see any Nikon in that group.



Well, the reason is obvious. Nikon doesn't _have _any MILCs that would make it to the top-10 on a list like this. That is to say, crop sensor ones.


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 16, 2019)

canonic said:


> wow ... Canon 1-st place! ... and?!
> Lets see this in another way:
> Canon has an amount of 650$ in that list.
> Sony has an amount of 4150$ and thats more than 6 times than Canon. But hey, Canon is first, is it?!
> For "real" photographers these lists must be *the* benchmark.



That math is ridiculous. Based on the numbers, Canon sells five M50's for every a73.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 16, 2019)

So Canon 27% of top 10 sales, Sony 25.3% and Olympus 19%. These are just one month figures but include some older cameras which is interesting as the Japanese used to like to purchase the latest hardware. 
I bet these three are not repeated in that order globally as Fuji seems to do better than Olympus in Europe as does Nikon. 
No doubt that the Canon RP will break into the top 10 but value zoom lenses are currently not in the RF lens series so adaptors are order of the day which is not ideal especially on a camera that has a small form factor.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 16, 2019)

Sold units per company:
Canon: 29.0 %
Sony: 25.3 %
Olympus: 19.1 %

About the hypothesis that Sony makes more money by selling pricier cameras: Maybe that's right but in the 1990 there was a tale that Canon's high end systems were sold by a 0% profit margin (e.g. 2.8 300 lenses in white) while they made a lot of money with point and shoot cameras. And the most important base for profit has bin the office sector.

I do not see any big difference in numbers of sold units nor net profit and the fact that Canon has only two different bodies in the race might be a hint that their profit per unit is good or very good: Scale of economics might work here excellently.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Apr 16, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> It's not that surprising if you've used one



I've not only used one, I have one in my kit complete with battle scars..


----------



## jayphotoworks (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> They did...and they were a commercial flop.



Sony has had a track record of flops/failures in the past. Look at memory sticks, betamax, aibo, minidisc, sony ericsson and mobile in general, DAT, ATRAC.. I think Blu-Ray was the only format that stuck (and Toshiba lost). Sony seems to enjoy pushing consumer electronics in uncharted territory and trying new things. But to give them credit at the very least, the creation of their semiconductor division has really advanced mobile imaging and sensors in the last few years and their persistent efforts amidst interim failures/confusion (A mount, E mount, FE mount confusion) in their camera division has been quite the media darling and either intentionally or unintentionally helped shape some of the way the industry moves. I, for one never expected Sony ever to have an AF system on par or possibly excel some of its peers.


----------



## fentiger (Apr 16, 2019)

Boyer U. Klum-Cey said:


> Actuarilly, my children, & grandchildren will use my 1DX, 5IV, and M6, plus a boatload of L lens as ballast to bury my ashes in the Hudson. In the meantime, Canon is Saturday Night live for me as my skills try to improve, eh?


why? do they all use sony?


----------



## PerKr (Apr 16, 2019)

fentiger said:


> why? do they all use sony?



they're probably just super annoyed he's constantly taking their picture ;-)


----------



## Kit. (Apr 16, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> I, for one never expected Sony ever to have an AF system on par or possibly excel some of its peers.


Why? Was Minolta that bad in AF?


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 16, 2019)

unfocused said:


> You might think that, but you don't know. Higher price doesn't necessarily mean higher profit margin.



it could also be a loss leader.
The M series are very likely high in margin and % means nothing vs units sold.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Good analysis. Still, it's just basic math that a $1,998 has a better per-unit margin in dollars than a $629 one, since most manufacturers set margins to be a percentage rather than a number.



hard to say actually considering I do believe that Canon has more factory automation, and a huge economies of scale with the parts in the M50.

so it's not basic math because you're not comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I DID find this--weekly rankings of top 50, though this counts kits and bodies as separate items. Without the sales numbers it's hard to judge but there a lot of Canons on this list.... https://www.bcnretail.com/research/ranking/list/contents_type=41


There’s a monthly tab as well.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 16, 2019)

It speaks well of how solid the Sony A7III is that it's still on the top 10 list this long after it was released. The Canon R is not on the list, although it looks like the RP will be by next month. I suspect Sony has had a bit of a bump with all of the coverage of the (now released, but as of last month promised) firmware release of their improved eye tracking software. By all accounts it's a remarkable piece of software, and with the newer versions of the metabones adapter it makes Canon adapted lenses work with very few caveats.

The newer G series lenses are catching up with canon's ef lenses in quality in some of the lenses released within the last 6 months. I suspect the R lens quality will be another step ahead, as far as autofocus and speed are concerned. 

Still, Canon has every reason to be concerned. Canon has a long tail with the amount of ef lenses and momentum in the market. But if they can't deliver more influencers will move to Sony or Nikon, which will start a slow slide. I suspect if that happens it will help Nikon way more than sony (and possibly the L mount alliance cameras). I am 90% sure canon will be able to deliver, but I'm not 100% any longer.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 16, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Still, Canon has every reason to be concerned. Canon has a long tail with the amount of ef lenses and momentum in the market. But if they can't deliver more influencers will move to Sony or Nikon, which will start a slow slide. I suspect if that happens it will help Nikon way more than sony (and possibly the L mount alliance cameras). I am 90% sure canon will be able to deliver, but I'm not 100% any longer.



By "influencers" do you mean "Youtube personalities"? If so, I think you (and they) vastly overestimate their importance. Youtubers and other social media "influencers" have heavy influence on a tiny slice of the population, which causes those in that bubble to extrapolate wildly. Pro sports shooters aren't going to switch systems because a teenager on Youtube said 4k is critical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> By "influencers" do you mean "Youtube personalities"? If so, I think you (and they) vastly overestimate their importance. Youtubers and other social media "influencers" have heavy influence on a tiny slice of the population, which causes those in that bubble to extrapolate wildly. Pro sports shooters aren't going to switch systems because a teenager on Youtube said 4k is critical.


Yeah, the ‘influencers’ at DPR have been beating the anti-Canon DRum for years. Only Rishi and a few forumites seem to care.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Good analysis. Still, it's just basic math that a $1,998 has a better per-unit margin in dollars than a $629 one, since most manufacturers set margins to be a percentage rather than a number. Even if one averages prices in the roughest way possible, Canon's is $539, whereas Sony's is $935,50, which leads to a considerably higher revenue for the latter.
> And then, there's the boatloads of money Sony save with their laser-focused advertising through YT, and body and part recycling - designs like the A6400 and A7M3 were paid off years ago with their predecessors.
> If I worked in Canon HQ, I wouldn't be happy - Sony are obviously more competitive in mirrorless than they ever were in DSLRs, and as the global camera market shifts more and more towards the former, Sony will make big inroads in market share.



I Got bored so i decided to go back and do some REAL MATH on this.

let's assume every % point is 1 unit for the sake of this illustration. Going by amazon japan current yen prices and we will assume that both units get 10% margins (which was your supposition)

M50 - 64,050 Yen x 18.2 units = 1,165,710 and profit: 116,571
A7 III - 221,000 Yen x 3.5 units = 773,500 and profit 77,350

So going by some basic math seems like Canon's making more profit on the M50's than Sony is on the A7 III's at least in Japan.

Both the M50 and the A7 III's are sold with different kit options,etc as well, for the sake of this I just cancelled all that out as equal.


----------



## Dantana (Apr 16, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> I Got bored so i decided to go back and do some REAL MATH on this.
> 
> let's assume every % point is 1 unit for the sake of this illustration. Going by amazon japan current yen prices and we will assume that both units get 10% margins (which was your supposition)
> 
> ...


Seems like you are assuming an awful lot.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, the ‘influencers’ at DPR have been beating the anti-Canon DRum for years. Only Rishi and a few forumites seem to care.


At some point the amount of youtubers, instagramers and the like may be enough to tip the system for sub-$1000 kits, but that would take some serious pushes by Sony to push into that market with many more places than just Best Buy. Best Buy is about the only place I've ever seen Sony in any of the big box stores, and I believe the reason why is that returns are taken back by Canon and Nikon, refurbished and sold on their sites or elsewhere. Sony handles it the same way any other Sony product return is handled, at the store level. Which is part of the reason why Sony isn't seen sitting on the shelves of Walmart.

But more importantly is influencers on the professional side. There are a few pros out there using Sonys but not many. All things more or less equal a pro will choose the tool that works more reliably for their needs, and ignore the one that may be slightly better in some category. But if one of those tools is *SIGNIFICANTLY *better, they will switch in a heartbeat. Eye focus might just be a gimmick that works better under ideal conditions but it's not that far off from working under extreme conditions as the sony native glass and software improve. What if they took the lessons learned from eye focus and adapted it to other objects? What if they had an option to recognize a football/soccer ball/basketball sailing through the air and had the ability to set focus and focus depth on the ball and the nearest player automatically? That's something that takes a lot of computational horsepower, but it's not out of the range of possibilities. 5 years ago I would have guessed the current level of eye focus a lot further off than it is now.

If the infuencer that is a competitor starts getting better shots quicker and more reliably, people will switch really really fast.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> What if they took the lessons learned from eye focus and adapted it to other objects? What if they had an option to recognize a football/soccer ball/basketball sailing through the air and had the ability to set focus and focus depth on the ball and the nearest player automatically? That's something that takes a lot of computational horsepower, but it's not out of the range of possibilities. 5 years ago I would have guessed the current level of eye focus a lot further off than it is now.
> 
> If the infuencer that is a competitor starts getting better shots quicker and more reliably, people will switch really really fast.


Actually, it simply takes setting the depth of field correctly and being in the right place at the right time. Now I'm an influencer. (Why is it I get the feeling that some hope the mode dial is eliminated and "Pro" cameras just do it all in green mode (including mind reading)? Wanna be "Pros" that need a camera to compensate for their incompetence?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 16, 2019)

Dantana said:


> Seems like you are assuming an awful lot.



Feel free to correct those assumptions and post your own calculations. If you have more information on how much profit Canon makes on an M50 and Sony makes on an A7iii, cite it. Otherwise, you're just complaining about assumptions you don't like (which are really just assuming a flat margin for everything, and showing that Canon moves more currency than Sony on this table).


----------



## Dantana (Apr 16, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Feel free to correct those assumptions and post your own calculations. If you have more information on how much profit Canon makes on an M50 and Sony makes on an A7iii, cite it. Otherwise, you're just complaining about assumptions you don't like (which are really just assuming a flat margin for everything, and showing that Canon moves more currency than Sony on this table).


I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pointing out that there are a lot of assumptions in that statement. Without them, there is not much of a statement at all. We don't know the margin of profit on any of these cameras. They could be selling them at a loss to make it up on lenses. There could be a huge profit on one of them and a very small one on the others. There could be any number of factors involved. If you have actual data for that, great.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 16, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Interesting. So now the super pro movie producer for Netflix who is also a genius market analyst,
> has revealed that he/she is an economist and data analytics expert, too, and his/her brilliant mind finds
> facts about profitability from unit sales data!! Surely his/her next stop will be NASA or somewhere close by.


First person to Mars? After they help Space-X get around the final hurdles to get there of course... (this is all very tongue-in-cheek, or, "good-fun" as some might say)


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 16, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> So Canon 27% of top 10 sales, Sony 25.3% and Olympus 19%. These are just one month figures but include some older cameras which is interesting as the Japanese used to like to purchase the latest hardware.
> I bet these three are not repeated in that order globally as Fuji seems to do better than Olympus in Europe as does Nikon.
> No doubt that the Canon RP will break into the top 10 but value zoom lenses are currently not in the RF lens series so adaptors are order of the day which is not ideal especially on a camera that has a small form factor.


That may be, but at least some retailers are still selling the RP as a bundle with the basic Canon EF adapter... But your point about size/form-factor is spot-on. I wonder if Canon will make a smallish RF "affordable" zoom, something like the EF-M 11-22mm???


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 16, 2019)

The next list I want to see is... Which cameras/camera systems are used/preferred in SPACE? I think, don't quote me, that many of the Apollo missi

Likeons used Hasselblads. I think they were shooting for optimum image quality combined with a system with a reputation for robustness. However, it may have been manufacturers vi-eying to supply "cameras in space". 
Let me correct/add-to my own post - "in the 60's NASA was looking for a more compact system to replace the bulkier Hasselblad systems..." (paraphrasing) looks like Nikon is the clear and undisputed winner here - including one of the first digital cameras a converted Nikon F4. There is a pretty cool image from the ISS embedded in the following webpage:








From Apollo to the ISS: A Short History of Nikon’s NASA Cameras


NASA and Nikon—a decade-old relationship.




www.reviewed.com







https://reviewed-com-res.cloudinary.com/image/fetch/s--8JpARIOL--/b_white,c_limit,cs_srgb,f_auto,fl_progressive.strip_profile,g_center,q_auto,w_642/https://reviewed-production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachment/2e2a614a35e0121fbac461598296089c4b3e0f8f/iss031e112469.jpg


----------



## Dantana (Apr 16, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> The next list I want to see is... Which cameras/camera systems are used/preferred in SPACE? I think, don't quote me, that many of the Apollo missi
> View attachment 183911
> Likeons used Hasselblads. I think they were shooting for optimum image quality combined with a system with a reputation for robustness. However, it may have been manufacturers vi-eying to supply "cameras in space".
> Let me correct/add-to my own post - "in the 60's NASA was looking for a more compact system to replace the bulkier Hasselblad systems..." (paraphrasing) looks like Nikon is the clear and undisputed winner here - including one of the first digital cameras a converted Nikon F4. There is a pretty cool image from the ISS embedded in the following webpage:
> ...


But you were right about the Hasselblads on the Apollo missions:
https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html


----------



## BillB (Apr 16, 2019)

Dantana said:


> But you were right about the Hasselblads on the Apollo missions:
> https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html


I think the removable backs had something to do with the Hasselblad decision, along with film size.


----------



## BillB (Apr 16, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> That may be, but at least some retailers are still selling the RP as a bundle with the basic Canon EF adapter... But your point about size/form-factor is spot-on. I wonder if Canon will make a smallish RF "affordable" zoom, something like the EF-M 11-22mm???


Canon may think there will be a lot of demand for the RF 24-105 zoom. They have sure sold a lot of the EF 24-105 zooms over the years.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 17, 2019)

I’m reminded of the car dealership ad that said, “We lose money on every sale, but we make up for it with volume.”

I sometimes tell that to describe my singing.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

Dantana said:


> Seems like you are assuming an awful lot.



didn't assume anything. chose 10% because the original post assumed the margins were the same. and for simplicity used 1 unit = 1%


----------



## scyrene (Apr 17, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It’s a very handy size but seems like a system without a future.



I'd guess that the vast majority of customers don't care about the future of the system, they just pick the camera that appears to suit their needs at the right price.


----------



## lightthief (Apr 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but just wait until Sony launches cameraless lenses.



Too late:








Linsen mit Spätzle – Wikipedia







de.wikipedia.org





Okay, the joke works only in german language :-(


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 17, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pointing out that there are a lot of assumptions in that statement. Without them, there is not much of a statement at all. We don't know the margin of profit on any of these cameras. They could be selling them at a loss to make it up on lenses. There could be a huge profit on one of them and a very small one on the others. There could be any number of factors involved. If you have actual data for that, great.



There's less assumption in that than in the raw addition of the price of the cameras with no weighting for sales volume, but you aren't arguing with that post. I wonder why.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> There's less assumption in that than in the raw addition of the price of the cameras with no weighting for sales volume, but you aren't arguing with that post. I wonder why.


 Confirmation bias?


----------



## Dantana (Apr 17, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> There's less assumption in that than in the raw addition of the price of the cameras with no weighting for sales volume, but you aren't arguing with that post. I wonder why.


Well, I apologize if I was pointing to the wrong post doing the assuming. There seemed to be an awful lot of it going around.


----------



## Uneternal (Apr 18, 2019)

Sales aren't made by the best cameras but actually the best you can get for cheap.
I've got my M50 yesterday and must say I'm not really impressed. Its plastic fantastic, even my G7X feels a lot more expensive and precious holding it.
It does take good pictures tho.


----------



## Kharan (Apr 19, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> I Got bored so i decided to go back and do some REAL MATH on this.
> 
> let's assume every % point is 1 unit for the sake of this illustration. Going by amazon japan current yen prices and we will assume that both units get 10% margins (which was your supposition)
> 
> ...



Absolutely. It'd be frankly appalling if Canon weren't making more money off a camera that costs almost a fourth of a competitor's high-end offering. But this will change, sooner rather than later, and Sony (and Nikon, and Fujifilm, and now Olympus and Panasonic and Pentax) are banking on keeping their slice of the sweet high-end camera pie.

Basically, what Canon are doing is good business today, and maybe tomorrow, but not necessarily next week (figuratively).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 23, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Absolutely. It'd be frankly appalling if Canon weren't making more money off a camera that costs almost a fourth of a competitor's high-end offering. But this will change, sooner rather than later, and Sony (and Nikon, and Fujifilm, and now Olympus and Panasonic and Pentax) are banking on keeping their slice of the sweet high-end camera pie.
> 
> Basically, what Canon are doing is good business today, and maybe tomorrow, but not necessarily next week (figuratively).


Canon are the Houdini of camera world. They may not be the first to market with some technologies but they know how to catch-up fast. The EOS R has its faults but for its first full-frame mirrorless camera is pretty good, the RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM lens is way better than its EF cousins so we know Canon has the technology to make great lenses. Don't write them off too quickly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Basically, what Canon are doing is good business today, and maybe tomorrow, but not necessarily next week (figuratively).


Yes, no doubt it’s that sane short-sightedness that has led Canon to dominate the ILC market for 16 years and counting.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 23, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Basically, what Canon are doing is good business today, and maybe tomorrow, but not necessarily next week (figuratively).


Isn't that what every mature business should be doing?


----------



## Kharan (Apr 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Isn't that what every mature business should be doing?



Nope, that’s how Kodak went under. They need to be at the top of new developments, and aggressively push to open new markets. But Canon got late to medical imaging, third-party sensor sales, mirrorless cameras... They seem to entering new fields at a glacial pace these last few years.


----------



## Kharan (Apr 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, no doubt it’s that sane short-sightedness that has led Canon to dominate the ILC market for 16 years and counting.



Sure, because the transition to EF from FD was “shortsighted”. The creation of their own sensor fabs was “shortsighted”. The strong focus on unified controls and design language was “shortsighted”. Their huge investment into optronics and robot-assisted manufacture was “shortsighted”. Their relentless push to move features downstream into cheaper cameras was “shortsighted”.

No, what really IS shortsighted is the crap they’re putting out today. The glorious Canon from ten years ago is no more - it has been replaced by a committee-driven Titanic that will sink at this rate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2019)

Kharan said:


> No, what really IS shortsighted is the crap they’re putting out today. The glorious Canon from ten years ago is no more - it has been replaced by a committee-driven Titanic that will sink at this rate.


You mean the last ten years where they maintained close to 50% of the ILC market share? Come back and say you told us so after they hit the iceberg. Until then, your claims are empty.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 24, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Nope, that’s how Kodak went under. They need to be at the top of new developments, and aggressively push to open new markets.


Nope, that's how Kodak went under. They were at the top of new developments and aggressively pushed to open the digital camera market when it wasn't yet ready, and got burned.

Canon wasn't in hurry, and went there right in time to become the leader.



Kharan said:


> Sure, because the transition to EF from FD was “shortsighted”.


It wasn't shortsighted, but it was not in hurry either. Minolta (now Sony) pushed its A-mount to the market a couple of years earlier.


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seven years ago the EOS M launched, was blasted by critics and forum members as ‘unable to compete’.



true. And correctly so. Not only blasted by forum members and critics, but "by the market" and potnetial buyers. That's why Canon had to firesell it. Had they launched the darn thing at 499 MSRP, they would probably have sold a load of them and never had to go down to 299. But, SMART Canon and their INFALLIBLE market research. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Today, the line is a smashing success.



Yes. But only since they launched almost competitive M5/M6 and even more so, the "more than fully competitive" M50. Had Canon been SMART enough to spare us and themselves a marginally iterated EOS M2 and a disappointing M3 and launched the M5/M6 pair plus M50 and M100 about 2 years earlier, they'd have made a LOT MORE MONEY. And had they spared us some of the wekaer EF-S lenses and instead launched EF-M 32/1.4, 50/1.8 IS and 85/2.4 IS earlier or at all, they'd have made EVEN MORE MONEY. 

But, SMART Canon. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Last year, the EOS R launched, was blasted by critics and forum members as ‘unable to compete’.



It was and still is not fully competitive. Price too high and/or sensor+performance too weak. Had Canon launched a stronger R last year [=fully 5D V equivalent, slightly better than Z7 and A7 III] at a sensible price, it would have been A SMASHING SUCCESS already last year. 

But, SMART Canon.

Had Canon on June 29, 2017 announced and launched their EOS RP [specs as is] instead of the 6D II, they would still have missed been 5 years late to the FF MILC party and missed lots of sales, but the RP would still have been a SMASHING SUCCESS and had HIT Sony nicely and squarely smack in the face already 2 years ago. 

Instead, Canon marginal-iterated DSLRs and let Sony build their mirrorfree FF system and market share totally unfettered and unbothered by them. For more than 5 years (A7: 2013/10). 

Really SMART, Canon! 

Always good fun to see such SMART companies deploying extremely SMART product and business strategies.


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 25, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> I think the bigger issue for Sony is their short sighted E mount



yes! Physical E-mount dimensions and optical limitations coming from it will cost Sony dearly and will help to save Canon's rearside. But maybe not Nikon's.


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but just wait until Sony launches cameraless lenses.



they'd better launch "lens-less" cameras!  

Looking forward to computational cameras along those lines: 





That may well be the DOOM of Canon's imaging business [consumer products, not cine & broadcast]. Unless they soon launch a computational camera with 99 optical "*L*-modules".


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 25, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EOS R has its faults but for its first full-frame mirrorless camera is pretty good, the RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM lens is way better than its EF cousins so we know Canon has the technology to make great lenses. Don't write them off too quickly.



One of the things Canon gets REALLY RIGHT every time are lens mount parameters. FD was "gold" in 1971, EF was gold in 1987 and RF is gold again now. Simply the best possible parameter combo for mirrorfree 36x24mm imagine area plus the smartest/most versatile lens communications design (hardware, contacts, protocol, ]. It gives Canon the largest possible set of options / most degrees of freedom for lens designs across the entire range of focal lengths and from low-cost/low-end lenses all the way to ultra-high-end "L+". Plus potential for best-in-class AF, IS, flash operation and all other lens-related functionalities beyond "raw IQ".

Nikon Z is a bit "wider" and a bit shorter "than necessary" [ that's also why they are stuck bewteen a rocjk and a hard place for a mirrorfree APS-C system ] and although hotly denied by most of their fans, Sony E-mount is "a good deal narrower than desirable" for FF image circle [but perfectly fine for APS-C, just like Canon EF-M is]. Canon was very SMART not to use EF-M mount for their FF system. It would have limited them to the same narrow design space as Sony.

Those decisions will come to full fruition only over the years, as lens lineups are expanded, but they will have major impact. Unless existing or new players enter the market with stunning computational cameras sooner than expected.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2019)

xeppelin said:


> true. And correctly so. Not only blasted by forum members and critics, but "by the market" and potnetial buyers. That's why Canon had to firesell it. Had they launched the darn thing at 499 MSRP, they would probably have sold a load of them and never had to go down to 299. But, SMART Canon and their INFALLIBLE market research.


The original EOS M was the #2 best-selling MILC in Japan, behind only a two generation old, deeply discounted Sony NEX model...and the M was not discounted in Japan (at least until the M2 was launched), and Japan was a far larger MILC market than North America where the M didn’t sell well because no MILCs sold well (Japan is still a larger MILC market, but the differential is less now than it was at that time).

So yes, SMART Canon leveraging accurate market research to design and launch a very popular camera selling at full price and high profit in the largest global market for the segment.

I won’t bother responding to the rest of your post, as it is equally replete with a poor grasp of the facts and the global market.


----------



## Rocky (Apr 29, 2019)

I cannot understand why people spend so much time "discussing" who is sell the most DSLR, ILC etc. If you like that particular camera, just go ahead and buy it. Sales leader does not guarantee the best performance, reliability or ease of use.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 30, 2019)

Is xep the new AvTvM/ proutprout/ whatever?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Is xep the new AvTvM/ proutprout/ whatever?


Yes.


----------

