Canon’s global mirrorless market share sits at 41%, with Sony as their “biggest competitor”

[BrightTiger]

Too late. Sony has been and will most likely always be perceived as "expensive". That's the bed they made for themselves long ago. Some consumer items deserve that "high end" sticker. But nearly everything Sony sells is considerably priced 10 - 20% higher than any other manufacturer. High end marketing on non high end products. Most everything they sell is absurdly 10% higher than anyone elses. And if they are not, the average consumer expects them to be. Electronic products now being manufactured out of Beijing have undermined the consumer magnet to the Sony brand.

What? Seriosuly, not even. The bodies are in line with the big four. As for lenses, Canon is way more expensive and locks users into a limited catalog. Sony is the ONLY one of the big three with a true open mount protocol, which provides users with the largest mirrorless catalog, with prices and features across the spectrum. Au contraire - they die hards are realizing the quality of Laowa, Viltrox, and other non-Chinese manufacturers like Tamron. These type of remarks pretty much smacks of ignorance and racism.

 

[John Wilde]

You ain’t seen nothing yet, behold!

Canon departure thoughts - Canon-mount SLRs - Photography - FM Forums

Join the Canon-mount SLRs photography discussion: As a long-time bird photographer and professional birding guide, I think the R1 announcement is likely to end my tenure as a Canon shooter (13 years). Sure, the

www.fredmiranda.com

From Canon's Q2 quarterly financial results, released today:

Camera "sales increased more than 50% compared to the first quarter and 9％ compared to the same period last year."

Bad news for the "Canon is doomed" crowd.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] Sony is the ONLY one of the big three with a true open mount protocol,[...]

So 3rd party lenses aren't capped to 10fps on Sony bodies?!?!?!

 

[P-visie]

So 3rd party lenses aren't capped to 10fps on Sony bodies?!?!?!

No, third party lenses are capped at 15 fps on Sony bodies. The lens mount and protocols may be open, but that does not mean full functionality. There might be a secret appendix to the specifications .

Edit: Sigma has made firmware updates to some of their lenses enabling 120fps, but not with continuous AF.
For details: https://petapixel.com/2024/07/26/sigma-sort-of-makes-more-lenses-work-with-the-a9-iiis-120fps-mode/

 

[Deleted member 386702]

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that there are 2 very different data here? i) TOTAL digital cameras market share; ii) ONLY MIRRORLESS digital cameras market

In TOTAL digital cameras market shares, Canon has been around 50% for years, Sony has been going up and took second place from Nikon. In this data, Canon is around 46% currently and Sony 26%.

In ONLY MIRRORLESS digital cameras market shares, Sony was leading for years due to early adoption, but recently Canon took first place and is now at 41% with Sony at 32%.
...

Or maybe you don't get the sad truth : some people wearing Sony (3D active ) glasses keep thinking that because

Sony ILC market shares = Sony mirrorless market shares,​

it's necessarily the same for all other brands, and no other truth can be said !
Kind of Flat Earther logic, but with 3D glasses ! Nice !!!!
Think of it : as I'm wearing Nikon glasses, I see that, between 2022 and 2023 numbers, Nikon has around 3,4% increase of their own ILC market shares while Canon has only about 1,5% ! Wow, Nikon did more than twice better than Canon
Easy !

 

[scyrene]

I doubt he misread it. He is just one of those people who can't admit when they're wrong, so when you start providing facts about apples, he shifts the discussion to oranges. If that doesn't provide sufficient tangentiality, he may try to discuss hammers or satellites.

Tangerine-ntiality?

 

[scyrene]

the new offering from those outshine Canon for pro sports

How so?

 

[scyrene]

I'm still a bit confused about the fate of the R3 line though.

Until and unless they release an R3II, there is no line.

 

[Quack]

As for lenses, Canon is way more expensive and locks users into a limited catalog.

The usual bullcrap.

The first 4 lenses I looked up - so did not pick and choose to make a point. Some of the most common lenses, as well. US Prices at B&H (Canon instant rebates ignored)

24-70mm f/2.8: Canon RF $2399, Sony $2298
70-200mm f/2.8: Sony $2798, Canon $2499
24-105mm f/4: Canon $1299, Sony $1298
70-200mm f/4 Sony $1698, Canon $1599

So, just my opinion, of course, but Canon lenses are not WAY MORE expensive. And that limited catalog, needless to say, just conveniently happens to ignore all the EF and EF-S mount lenses from numerous brands.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What? Seriosuly, not even. The bodies are in line with the big four. As for lenses, Canon is way more expensive and locks users into a limited catalog. Sony is the ONLY one of the big three with a true open mount protocol, which provides users with the largest mirrorless catalog, with prices and features across the spectrum. Au contraire - they die hards are realizing the quality of Laowa, Viltrox, and other non-Chinese manufacturers like Tamron. These type of remarks pretty much smacks of ignorance and racism.

I thought you switched to Sony five years ago. Why do you care?

 

[CJaurelius]

Killing what exactly?
They have been successful in moving the medium format price point down which is great but volume is low.
Their retro models are popular but is it innovation or nostalgia?

Nothing says "killing it" quite like mediocre autofocus.

DPR on Fujifilm X-S20: "Autofocus trails competitors"

DPR on Fujifilm X100VI: "the X100VI's heavy, unit-focus lens can't move quickly enough to sensibly maintain focus on moving targets."

How "innovative".

https://petapixel.com/2024/05/09/fu...nancial report,the continued growth of Instax.

Combined, Fujifilm’s Imaging division saw its revenue jump up 14.5% in the period between April 2023 and March 2024 and its operating income jumped up in kind 39.9%. Impressively, both Consumer and Professional Imaging saw notable increases that carried the entire division up.

Of note, while Instax makes up a majority of the income for Fujifilm’s imaging division, its revenue was up 11.5% year over year. That is very impressive, but it’s dwarfed by the growth of the Professional Imaging division which saw a huge 20% revenue jump year over year. Instax is still king, but Fujifilm’s high-end cameras are growing faster.

 

[CJaurelius]

24-70mm f/2.8: Canon RF $2399, Sony $2298, Sigma $1,199
70-200mm f/2.8: Sony $2798, Canon $2499, Sigma $1,499
24-105mm f/4: Canon $1299, Sony $1298,
70-200mm f/4 Sony $1698, Canon $1599

So, just my opinion, of course, but Canon lenses are not WAY MORE expensive. And that limited catalog, needless to say, just conveniently happens to ignore all the EF and EF-S mount lenses from numerous brands.

This really ignores all the glass from third parties that you don't have to adapt. And keep in mind that Sigma has 2 24-70 F2.8. An older one for $899 and a newer one that adds more buttons and an aperture ring which the Sony has but the Canon doesn't. So if you are a Sony shooter you have the option of a native 24-70 f/2.8 with more programable buttons and and aperture ring for HALF the price. Same thing for the 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[CJaurelius]

What? Seriosuly, not even. The bodies are in line with the big four. As for lenses, Canon is way more expensive and locks users into a limited catalog. Sony is the ONLY one of the big three with a true open mount protocol, which provides users with the largest mirrorless catalog, with prices and features across the spectrum. Au contraire - they die hards are realizing the quality of Laowa, Viltrox, and other non-Chinese manufacturers like Tamron. These type of remarks pretty much smacks of ignorance and racism.

Agree here. Below is a link to a Jared Polin review of the Viltrox 35mm f/1.8. He's a Canon shooter and shoots with camereas loaned to him from Canon. So he has no reason to be biased against them. He points out the flaws of the lens where he sees them. But overall its a solid lens. He also has a similar review on the 85mm f/1.8II. Both of these lenses are under $400. And similar to Sigma and Sony they are puting aperture rings on these lenses for video shooters and compact cameras without 3 dials.

Then you have the Laowa 10mm. The Sony E-mount version has auto focus and is $800. On the Canon RF side you'd have to drop $2,300 to get the 10-20mm f/4.

Optically the Canon and Sony glass is still better but from a customers' perspective I'd rather have the choice. And from the looks of things in a few years the Laowa's and Viltroxes will be caught up with Sigma and Tamron soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ASv-_F_SU

 

[Anon]

The usual bullcrap.

The first 4 lenses I looked up - so did not pick and choose to make a point. Some of the most common lenses, as well. US Prices at B&H (Canon instant rebates ignored)

24-70mm f/2.8: Canon RF $2399, Sony $2298
70-200mm f/2.8: Sony $2798, Canon $2499
24-105mm f/4: Canon $1299, Sony $1298
70-200mm f/4 Sony $1698, Canon $1599

So, just my opinion, of course, but Canon lenses are not WAY MORE expensive. And that limited catalog, needless to say, just conveniently happens to ignore all the EF and EF-S mount lenses from numerous brands.

Oh wow, prices here in Germany are kinda different:

24-70: Canon 2750 vs Sony 2400
24-105: Canon 1450 vs Sony 950
70-200/2.8: Canon 3050 vs Sony 3000
70-200/4: Canon 1750 vs Sony 1750 (but there is the older version still sold for approx 1000)

All prices in EUR with tax, no cashback or rebates applied.

 

[CJaurelius]

Canon's strategy is to attract new customers with cheaper cameras at the low end.
They have no competition there.

While Canon is the best at this market, the rest of the players have abandoned it. If it was worth fighting for they would continue to fight. No one is abandoning the mid to high end market. The low end market will be gone soon so no reason to fight over it.

They are not just relying on existing customers.
Neither is Sony.
Canon gained the most market share but Sony also gained a little.
Nikon gained some as well.
Everyone else is in trouble.

As I highlighted before Fujifilm is also crushing it. Fujifilms revenue is lower than Canon but their profit is higher. Let that sink in. One of the smallest players has the highest profit.

As true as that is, Sony has been pretty successful at getting their user base to upgrade.
The a7 IV was pretty meh on balance but sold like crazy.

Agreed. The A7IV is one of their best selling cameras and Sony is pushing off the A75 to 2025 since it is still selling so well. They are also selling a decent amount of the A7CII which is essentially a mini version of the A7IV

Sony gave up the very bottom of the market because they could not profitably compete with Canon.
So has everyone.

Same from earlier. No need to fight over a dying business. Again Sony has higher revenue selling cameras with a higher margin.

Even though Sony's entry level is higher than Canon's but it is still low enough to bring in new customers, see ZV-1 and ZV-10.

The new ZV-E10II is now $1000 for the body only. They'll probably keep the older models as low budget options and slowly phase them out. By the time they're ready for the ZV-E10III or whatever their lowest budget "creator" camera is they'll probably increase the price to $1,200 setting a new floor.

In 2023 the best selling mirrorless camera in Japan was the ZV-E10, followed by the A6400 in second and the Canon R50 in third place. So Sony's mass market appeal is about $800 and Canon's is about $600. But as mentioned Sony replaced their best selling camera with a new model that is 25% more expensive. Every chance they get the move the market upward.

 

[David - Sydney]

These type of remarks pretty much smacks of ignorance and racism.

Having worked in China for a couple of years, I can suggest that there is a strong insular mindset there (I don't like the R word)... Their country name fits perfectly with this impression ie Zhonghua = middle kingdom.
With ~91% of Han ethnicity, it is close to being the highest ethnically "pure" countries surpassed by Japan at ~98% local nationals.

Post WWII, Japan had a big manufacturing industry based on low labour cost and quality but has because synonomous with high quality now. South Korea and China have now followed this low from low cost/low quality to medium cost/higher quality products and now dominate renewables (solar panel, batteries, wind turbines and cars). Not to mention rare earth minerals due to lower labour but also working standards.

It appears that my Tesla made in Shanghai has higher manufacturing quality that the equivalent one made in the US. This could be just anecdotal as I haven't seen official stats but seems to be the general impression.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While Canon is the best at this market, the rest of the players have abandoned it. If it was worth fighting for they would continue to fight.

Just like Sony fought for the DSLR market?

 

[David - Sydney]

https://petapixel.com/2024/05/09/fujifilms-camera-profits-soar-on-the-backs-of-instax-and-the-x100-series/#:~:text=Fujifilm published its financial report,the continued growth of Instax.

Fujifilm have had some good numbers... "killing it" is still a bit extreme though given their market share is ~%6.
Great to be profitable with good growth and it will be interesting to see if that continues.
Even with 20% annual increase in market share, they would take ~8 years to get to ~25% ie #2 or #3 in the market.
It would take more than Instax and the Z100vi to get them there.

Canon's financials also looking good although not as impressive as Fujifilm but more common for market leaders. Fujifilm will only improve market share if they take it from others ie by them having poorer performance and this isn't the case for Canon currently.
Market share and profitability aren't necessarily correlated especially as Fuji are 4/3 and medium format vs Canon's APSC/FF.

I am sure that Leica is still profitable even with a tiny market share but they don't threaten the larger players.

 

[CJaurelius]

Fujifilm have had some good numbers... "killing it" is still a bit extreme though given their market share is ~%6.
Great to be profitable with good growth and it will be interesting to see if that continues.
Even with 20% annual increase in market share, they would take ~8 years to get to ~25% ie #2 or #3 in the market.
It would take more than Instax and the Z100vi to get them there.

Again most people here keep thinking about who's #1 or #2 in terms of market share. Companies are here to make a profit not have bragging rights on a forum. Fujifilm ALREADY makes MORE money than Canon when it comes to cameras.

Canon's fiancials show $544.6B in sales with an operating profit % in the division of 16.9% which puts operating profit at $92B


Fujifilm's financials show $469.7B in sales with an operating profit % of 21.7% for an operating profit of $101.9B.


So Fujifilm made MORE money than the market leader Canon. Now to be fair, Fujifilm is killing it with those INSTAX cameras and all the insanely overpriced film that goes along with it. But people here have no issues with Canon leaning on their cheap cameras for market share.

Canon's financials also looking good although not as impressive as Fujifilm but more common for market leaders. Fujifilm will only improve market share if they take it from others ie by them having poorer performance and this isn't the case for Canon currently.

And this is where I think the people here miss it. The constant attention is on market share. Fujifilm actually DROPPED in the mirrorless market share from 9% to 8%. However this is because their best selling camera X100VI has a fixed lens and doesn't count as an ILC and they are focuses on high margin cameras.

All the players seem to realize that there aren't going to be a ton of traditional camera sales in the future. So most of them are focused on carving out a niche of high margin cameras so that they can still be profitable when that time comes. Fujifilm and Sony made MORE revenue than Canon selling LESS cameras.

Market share and profitability aren't necessarily correlated especially as Fuji are 4/3 and medium format vs Canon's APSC/FF.

The cameras that are boosing their revenue are the X100IV and the X-20S both of which are apsc.

 

[frankchn]

So Fujifilm made MORE money than the market leader Canon.

I suspect a lot of that is driven by Instax -- the margins on film is probably wild. Helps that consumers are paying per photo -- Canikony will kill to have that kind of pricing model. Imagine if cameras only took write-once media, and you have to buy the media from the OEM.