# Canon did everything it could in 5D3



## poias (Apr 30, 2012)

I sincerely believe that Canon did everything it could to 5D3. Its AF is dramatically improved, its body is improved, and its shooting is improved. There is no question that if Canon had improved sensor, they would have made it part of 5D3. So, if/when Canon has a modern sensor, it will make it part of 5D4 or 5D5.

Canon just does not have a modern sensor or technology for the price point, thus 5D3 had to be content with 5D2 sensor.

That above was our conclusion and the factor in not completely switching to Nikon. We will hang on to our Canon gears (lenses and flashes mostly) for a year or two.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 30, 2012)

I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.

I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand.

Later in the year, likely a studio camera will come out with high MP, lower frame rate, perhaps worse autofocus.

For those with less cash (enthusiasts and amateurs), there is the 5D mk 2.

Nikon is a smaller company who don't have the resources of Canon, which is why they have to buy in sensors. Canon have already proven in the 7D sensor that they can make high density excellent sensors, and even allowing for lower yield of the larger die (dye?) it is still feasible to produce circa 50MP sensors.

Canon produce cameras for markets, in order to make money.

Is this annoying to some? Sure, but don't mistake it for incompetence. Head over to bythom.com to read about how Nikon create great cameras, and then cannot make anywhere near enough lenses OR bodies to satisfy demand - now THAT my friend is incompetence...

"I've noted many times, supply is not meeting demand for many items, and that's a dangerous proposition as you always leak sales to competitors when that happens." - Tom Hogan...


----------



## poias (Apr 30, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.
> 
> I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand.
> 
> ...



So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.

But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

No one will know for sure where Canon stands in terms of sensor tech until the 1Dx goes on sale. It's possible that Canon may have gimped the 5DIII's sensor instead of it's other features (AF, sealing, burst rate, etc.). We'll see.


----------



## BillyBean (May 1, 2012)

poias said:


> So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.



No I don't. Sure, the megapixel is less than the D800 - but it's where it needs to be for the market in question.



poias said:


> But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.



The Nikon supply problems are not just following recent introductions - they date back years. I've never had any issue getting hold of Canon glass, except immediately after release. According to Tom Hogan, Nikon have a much deeper routed and long lasting problem.

The thing that really does annoy me about Canon is that their strategy - creating products tightly aligned to a specific market - means that they do the most annoying things to hobble a specific product and prevent it reaching it potential and competing with a product designed for a different market, so for example screwing up the 5D2 autofocus to prevent it competing with the 1D range, and so on. This I find intensely annoying. And now we have the whole pro video thing, which results in further compromises.

So I'm not saying I'm not annoyed - I'm as annoyed as you are. But you don't get to be as successful as Canon are in imaging and incompetent in sensor design - it just doesn't make sense.

Wait until the end of 2012. If they don't have a high MP sensor product out by then, maybe you will convince me...


----------



## Neeneko (May 1, 2012)

poias said:


> So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.



While I often criticize the 5D3 and some of Canon's moves, I do not believe they are 'behind' in sensor technology. They are not putting out wiz bang, innovative, or experimental stuff (which Sony is looking at) they are putting their R&D where it gives the best gains for their particular market focus. This might be 'indifference', but indifference from a perspective of it just not mattering to them or their primary markets.



> But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.



For small embedded companies this is always a delicate balancing act and has to take multiple years into account. Setting up additional manufacturing is costly and risky, it takes years or even decades for it to pay off, so they have to weigh the supply/demand problem of today against using that capability tomorrow. They probably ran the numbers and found that it was less risky to have supply issues then to overbuild.


----------



## tomscott (May 1, 2012)

> No I don't. Sure, the megapixel is less than the D800 - but it's where it needs to be for the market in question.



It might be where it needed to be, but cramming 18mp on the digic 4 was a bad idea, in fact it crippled a great camera same with the 550D, 600D and 60D because they just recycled technology. The IQ is worse than the older cameras such as the 40D. They did the same with the 50D and that turned out to have worse IQ than the 40D a third more pixels on the same sensor technology will lead to nothing but poor IQ. All for the MP race.

They arent struggling in the sensor category just not innovating as much as they could, im not really sure what they have been doing for the past 4 years, but sitting on the fence and seeing what the competition do is the wrong thing to do. Innovation is the way forward, otherwise you get left behind! I don't know whats happened, have they got a new CEO? The strategy has definitely changed.

For me the 5D MKIII is like the perfect camera so im not in the complaining crowd. But I wont buy until things simmer down and they sort the niggles out. Hopefully they are all just firmware problems.

In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?


----------



## RunAndGun (May 1, 2012)

tomscott said:


> In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?



I'm not sure I would consider a COMPLETELY new AF system that's only on TWO cameras "used parts", especially when it beat the camera it was "taken" from to market. How many people would have loved to have had the "used" AF system out of the 1DsMKIII in the 5DMKII? Hell, I know I would have. Almost EVERY manufacturer shares parts across products. Go look at almost any brand of vehicle in different models and you'll see things like steering wheels, control knobs, door handles and engines being used across multiple platforms.


----------



## Orion (May 1, 2012)

RunAndGun said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?
> ...



I just want to add that, the AF on the 1Dx is revolutionary for Canon, and to expect a better AF than 1Dx on a mkIII is ludicrous for the money. . . . Nikon has been spoling thier customers with adequate to good AF for years, and Canon has taken a BIG jump in ISO, AF, and with an ALL AROUND amazing WOREKHORSE of a camera, which is the 5DmkIII guys and gals! We have to look at things in context of Canon's past, v. NOW, instewad of comparing NOW to Now, you know. We have a baby 1Dx . . .. goo goo gaah gaah!

It will only get better! I just came back from shooting a wedding, btw! The mkIII is anything BUT soft! The only time it is soft is when you fail to properly expose and use your AF. WHich is why knowing this I took several images of the same scene to prove it to myself and to make sure I get the shot I want (almost like bracketing for AF  ) The camera is amazing! I kid you not. It was my first wedding . . and my first pro camera SINCE the 30D. It is tack sharp camera/AF.


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.
> 
> I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand... Canon produce(s) cameras for markets, in order to make money.



Exactly. I started a thread with a similar thought a few weeks back. I absolutely agree that Canon very shrewdly analyzed the market, figured out what event and wedding photographers needed and calculated a price point that would maximize both profits and sales to this market. And, frankly, wedding and event photography is about the only remaining large professional market in photography.

When Canon was just an upstart going against Nikon 40 years ago, they targeted the sports and wildlife markets and rode that to dominance in the industry. Now, they have focused on the wedding and event market and it's clear that they intend to make Canon the tool of choice for these photographers. 

Nikon may have produced a very nice camera, but high test scores don't guarantee a market.


----------



## jouster (May 1, 2012)

poias said:


> So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.



It's hard to take anything you say seriously if you believe that about the 7D


----------



## moreorless (May 1, 2012)

My guess is that the truth maybe a bit of both.

The 7D sensor does seem to suggest that Canon have the technical know how to produce a 40+ MP camera but DR does seem to be a problem(and its I'd guess a greater issue for the landscape market that high MP's caters to) so perhaps they desided to delay such a camera until they could overcome this issue?

To me the 5D mk3's resolution seems likely not to be the product of Canon's inability to up MP's anymore but rather than belief that 22 allows them to also increase FPS and offer superior video performance. The end result seems to be a camera thats targeted specifically to certain pros(I'd guess one of the largest areas of pros aswell) given that many event photographers are becoming videographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

Two years ago, Canon _had_ the technology to make a 52 MP sensor that could still achieve 8 fps. Unfortunately, the technician who developed the plans accidentally dropped them on the floor of his Area 51 workroom, and the US Government locked him out, not to hurt to the photography industry, but rather as part of a broader effort to restrict technology to promote the military-industrial complex - in particular, "they" don't want us to have gasoline-powered 150 mpg cars, the iPhone 7, etc. Canon was just caught in the fray, and as a result, they had to spend two years coming up with what has now been released as the 5DIII. It's not the best they can do, it's just the best they will do without Area 51 research.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.


----------



## prestonpalmer (May 1, 2012)

Canon held back significantly.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 1, 2012)

poias said:


> for a year or two.



So you'll switch to Nikon then? What is the point of your thread?



EDIT: Typo.


----------



## pete vella (May 2, 2012)

I think canon did the best they could. the big debate over the sensor tech is not the mp but the way it handles shadows. sony sensor had to be designed to give great shadow detail becuase of the loss of light from the fixed mirror in the slt cameras. no other dslr ever had to deal with that kinda light loss. that why the sony sensor handles light the way it does. its a good thing for us because now canon has to improve to compete. I have a strange feeling thats why the 1dx was delayed. a top of the line camera has to be just that. and at the 1000 premuim over the d4 a frame or two per second over low iso dr lower read noise issue is not gunna cut it. the 1dx should been in the hand of the pros that are going to use it in the olypics by now. thats why the af manuals are already printed. 
BTW
Area 51 is closed
all engineers have been moved to an undisclosed location.


----------



## peederj (May 2, 2012)

They gave it good AF and other decent stills things, but they purposefully crippled the video and there's no getting around that fact. This could have been the definitive 1080p cine camera, but they felt their oats and launched a whole cine division of underpowered, overpriced beauty queens instead. Over the next year they will have their heads handed to them and no one in film will even think about them anymore. This is the punishment for having low IQ managers lording over high IQ staff, soon to depart.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (May 2, 2012)

I do not think so. I am sick and tired of seeing incremental upgrades... they like to milk as much as possible!


----------



## Radiating (May 2, 2012)

poias said:


> I sincerely believe that Canon did everything it could to 5D3. Its AF is dramatically improved, its body is improved, and its shooting is improved. There is no question that if Canon had improved sensor, they would have made it part of 5D3. So, if/when Canon has a modern sensor, it will make it part of 5D4 or 5D5.
> 
> Canon just does not have a modern sensor or technology for the price point, thus 5D3 had to be content with 5D2 sensor.
> 
> That above was our conclusion and the factor in not completely switching to Nikon. We will hang on to our Canon gears (lenses and flashes mostly) for a year or two.



After talking to a lot of Canon insiders I have to disagree with your statement. 

The 5D Mark III was in development and ready for a long time. They delayed the release for a long time to make sure 5D Mark II stocks were really low so they didn't have to lower the price. They also didn't put their best pixels in the camera. The G1X is about a quarter stop better in ISO and has an even better AA filter. The camera also received virtually unchanged video which is pretty much the same as the 5D2 so they could start selling their 16k video cameras and 1Dc at a huge mark up. The camera was easily capable of twice the video throughput and even more with simple upgrades. 

Canon built the camera for profit. Nikon built their camera to capture market share.

In the end Canon ended up with a camera that has better iso and similar or equal resolution (lens limited in most cases, according to both Canon's tech guys and many tests), and Nikon ended up with a camera that has better DR and can sometimes acheive 27% more resolution with the best primes between f/4.0-f/8.0. 

If Canon built a camera to truely acheive epic performance and value it would have a third of a stop better ISO and much better video.


----------



## GL (May 2, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> I do not think so. I am sick and tired of seeing incremental upgrades... they like to milk as much as possible!



Easy - just skip generations if you want bigger jumps. FWIW I think the 5D3 is anything but incremental - the sensor maybe, but the rest of te camera is like a 1-series at half the price. Nothing incremental about that.


----------



## GND (May 2, 2012)

Supposed dDLR megapixel roadmap: 
36MP: Sonikon, 02.2012 <CR3>
40Mp: Canon, 09.2012 (EOS-5Dx) <CR2>
50Mp: Canon, 2014 (EOS-3D) 
60Mp: Sonikon, 2014 
60Mp: Canon, 2016 (Olympic year)
100Mp: Sonikon, 2019 (D-1000, solar powered)
120Mp: Canon, 2020 (cost GBP2020, green body), iPhone 14 released 22Mp with panoramic function 
End of dSLR as we know it. 

So, the sensor story has roughly 8 more years life. Meanwhile, people realize nearly everything has been photographed so they switch to iPhone.


----------



## Woody (May 2, 2012)

Just a note about the 7D sensor. 

When the 7D was first announced in 2009, its main competition was the D300. If we compare the sensors in both cameras, the 7D simply blew the D300 away. DPReview described the sensor as 'class leading' and this is supported by DXOMark test results (ignore their silly overall scores).

Fast-forward to 2012: we now have the 5D3 vs D800 sensors. I expected 5D3 to make huge strides in terms of low ISO dynamic range, but Canon made no improvement whatsoever. I don't think many people are too bothered by its lower pixel count vs D800, but the lack of progress in the dynamic range department is rather disappointing, to say the least. Now, if the DPReview early preview test shots for Olympus E-M5 are any indication, it looks like Olympus has achieved the kind of progress one expects from modern sensors these days. I guess this is why many people feel let down by current Canon sensors.

Having said all that, when I needed a FF camera recently, I looked for a few things: optical viewfinder quality, excellent high ISO performance, reliable AF in low light. So, in my book, the 5D3 delivered.

Addendum:
Just some evidence of Canon's successful sales and marketing departments in China, the world's largest market for high-end cameras. From http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-04/22/c_131543148.htm

"Although professional cameras are more expensive in China than in other countries, China has a faster growth rate compared with developed economies such as the United States and Japan.

China has already become the largest market for selling our latest high-end camera 5D Mark III, which started to sell last month and has almost sold out now...

High-end digital single lens reflex cameras account for about 50 percent of the total sales of all Canon cameras in China, which is much bigger than other countries..."

Canon clearly knows what they're doing.


----------



## AvTvM (May 2, 2012)

Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are costing them market share. 

In addition Canon has a very real and serious problem in their CMOS sensor development as far as dark noise is concerned. Their apparent incompetence in this area significantly degrades DR performance of all their cameras compared to recent Nikon/Sony sensor technology, who have been achieving breakthrough after breakthrough since the D3 and D3s. 

5D3 is exactly what the 5D2 should have been from the start. Not less, but certainly not more. 5D3 pricing is way to high, even though initial demand is reasonably strong, driven by many upgrade-happy users pissed off with the 5D2's totally inadequate AF-system and helped by Nikon's inability to properly supply the market with product.


----------



## tomscott (May 2, 2012)

RunAndGun said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?
> ...



You misinterpret what I mean, I meant that the AF wasn't designed specifically for the 5D MKIII it was designed for the 1DX and it has borrowed it. Which is fine. What I was meaning was the R&D isnt extreme because they have recycled tech, the AF is amazing and I welcome it but the overall point being the tech already existed yet we pay an extra £1000 premium over the 5D MKII. There is a lot of profit in this camera for Canon because it is not unique tech.


----------



## LifeAfter (May 2, 2012)

Maybe they did what they could technically, 
BUt NOT financially- THE PRICE, they could/can do a loooot better


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are *costing them market share*.



Why do people make statements like this? What makes you think it is costing them market share, and more importantly, do you have any data to back that up? The availbale data show that Canon's market share for dSLRs has been increasing for the past several years. So by the relevant objective measure, Canon is doing things right, not 'dead wrong'.


----------



## peederj (May 2, 2012)

What generally happens with companies employing crippleware strategies is the competition catches up without crippling. And all the opinion leaders who learned enough about the systems to identify the crippling loudly proclaim the competitive entrant and make a lot of noise in that direction. The lumbering giant then finally decripples (usually doesn't price slash, that would humiliate the faithful) thinking it was time to play the ace they had been holding back. At that point, we enter a world like that of cars: the giant may still have a few advantages left from economies of scale and depth of staff, but the upstarts are all established and legit and the choice becomes a matter of politics, style, and price. The giant slowly erodes in stature as they are too slow to respond to the fickleness of an open market.

And it all could have been avoided with the tolerance of a little cannibalism. The giant could have completely prevented the establishment of competition and maintained an effective monopoly indefinitely. Which may have been worse for the customer in the long run. Indeed, the staff themselves may be crippling their own employer, knowing that creating an opening for competitors to flourish will provide for their own job security and negotiation power.


----------



## Neeneko (May 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why do people make statements like this? What makes you think it is costing them market share, and moreimportantly, do you have any data to back that up? The availbale data show that Canon's market share for dSLRs has been increasing for the past several years. So by the relevant objective measure, Canon is doing things right, not 'dead wrong'.



That was my thought....
I agreed with the first part, and am often annoyed by Canon's approach to the market. However I full admit that it has been very profitable for them. The segment I am part of is an edge case, I get grumpy that only niche players with small capacity and high prices cater to it, and I wish companies with the volume to bring prices down would pay more attention to us.... so I am often frustrated that companies like Canon will not even try..... but I acknowledge that their groove has worked for them.

Though there is probably market that they COULD exploit that they currently are not. They have been heavily focusing on a few areas and, if not for glass investment and brand loyalty they probably would be loosing a lot more people. That will probably be the real risk to them from the mirrorless segment... once it gets fleshed out better and has a wider range of bodies including high end ones, the ability to put any glass on them could really start hurting Canon.


----------



## AvTvM (May 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are *costing them market share*.
> ...



market share data I know, shows the opposite. Nikon and SOny have taken a lot of DSLR-market away from Canon over the past 6-7 years.

Why is Canon dead wrong? They could have built on their early DSLR-dominance. You may remember, that once upon a time their CMOS sensors were way better, especially at hi-ISO than anything else on the market! They totally squandered that and are WORSE today than competitors. 

Had they focused on selling the very best cameras in every market segment - best sensor and all the best photographic features, no holds barred ... they would completely OWN the entire DSLR market by now and Nikon would be in bankrupcy by now! 

Sepcifically, Canon fucked up when they 

* brought the measly 50D instead of the 7D ... that would have killed Nikon's immense success with the D300 
* brought the 5D2 with 1Ds III AF-system - that would have killed Nikons D700 immediately
* brought the 1D IV instead of the ill-fated 1D III ... that would have stopped the D3/s in its tracks
* sold the 1Ds III for a reasonable 4k ... that would have killed the D3x
* stuck their video crap into video cams ... Cxxx cameras from 1k to 20 k ... all available with EF-mount. Those Video types did not buy the 5D2 and 7D BECAUSE of their love for vpoorly video-suited DSLRs. They bought them solely for one reason: because no similarly decent videcam [e.g. a C100 or whatever] @ 1k and 2.5 k USD was available on the market! 

BUT ... what did Canon do? Eyery step of the way only the BARE MINIMUM, always TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. Always obsessed with "cannibalization" ... and ALWAYS full-bore marketing-differentiation, criplling "lowly" camera bodies and denying them readily available useful photographic features - irrespective of whether this would have helped them to capture market share from competitors. Always nickling and diming clients. Making them upgarde to a same-sensor camera just to get a decent AF-system. Or charging them extra for hard to get lens shades instead of throwing those 1$ production cost items into the box like all reasonable competitors do! 

All of this is why Nikon is back stronger than ever and why Canon has been losing market share all along. 
All of this is why I more and more had it with Canon and will likely switch to Nikon once I move to FF.


----------



## peederj (May 2, 2012)

Preach.


----------



## Louis (May 2, 2012)

AvTvM said:


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




so good, and so agree


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Nikon and SOny have taken a lot of DSLR-market away from Canon over the past 6-7 years.
> 
> Sepcifically, Canon F_____ up when they...
> 
> All of this is why Nikon is back stronger than ever and why Canon has been losing market share all along.



WTF? Show me the data, please? What, cat got your keyboard? Let me help.

*2007* IDC Worldwide Digital Camera Market Share Review, cited here: _Canon was again number 1 with share of 43 percent...Nikon was second with share of 40 percent...Sony again placed third, with a share of 6 percent, unchanged from 2005._ 

*2010* IDC Worldwide Digital Camera Market Share Review, cited here: _In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data._

Sorry, but your 'facts' are bull$h!t. As some simple math shows, Canon has not been 'losing market share all along' in fact, they've gained market share, going from 43% to 44.5%. Nikon is the one that's been losing market share - they lost more than *10%* and that's a pretty siginificant loss - and they lost much of it to Sony.

So, what did Canon really do? Sell more dSLRs than any other manufacturer, year over year. If that sounds like they're f__king up to you...well, you need to learn to interpert actual facts a bit more carefully.



AvTvM said:


> All of this is why I more and more had it with Canon and will likely switch to Nikon once I move to FF.



Canon, I'm sure, is quaking in their financial boots at your threat. Or not. Either way, don't tell us, we don't care. Just go buy a D800 and be happy...


----------



## Woody (May 2, 2012)

Yup, Neuroanatomist is absolutely right here. 

Canon has been growing from strength to strength in terms of worldwide market shares, contrary to fallacies propagated on the web. Canon's market shares may have eroded in developed countries like Japan and USA, but these are developed markets with little potential for growth. So, losing their market shares in these countries does not mean much. On the other hand, Canon's sales and marketing department has very shrewdly placed their bet on China, a developing country where the number of middle-income families is growing at a very rapid pace. In fact, as pointed in the linked article I provided, the Chinese market for high-end cameras is now larger than that in USA and Japan. If Canon manages to get a foothold in this market, they've made it big, really big. Why should they bother with small groups of whiners from stagnant developed markets?  

The fact that Canon's 2012 Q1 results for DLSR sales is phenomenal bears testament to the effectiveness of their sales and marketing department. From http://seekingalpha.com/article/538551-canon-s-management-discusses-q1-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?source=marketwatch

"Among this market environment, we achieved a nearly 30% increase in unit sales of SLR cameras reflecting strong sales of our entry level models, and strong demand for recently launched camera targeting advanced, amateur users. We also continue to see the best sales for interchangeable lenses."


----------



## awinphoto (May 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon and SOny have taken a lot of DSLR-market away from Canon over the past 6-7 years.
> ...



Bravo... good thing i wasn't drinking coffee when i read your post. =)


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are *costing them market share*.
> ...



"Canon is losing market share" claims usually boil down to a bunch of internet fanatics who think their opinions are more important than they really are, just because like-minded internet fanatics give them e-high-fives and virtual pats on the back. Gee, my online buddies agree with me, so it must be true.


----------

