Canon continues its dominant hold on global market share for digital cameras

[neuroanatomist]

People, especiall younger people coming in buying "new" cameras don't want to put an "old" lens on it with an adapter.

So on the one hand, your point is that camera manufacturers must sell more expensive gear because that's where the revenue is so that's why Sony is selling more (value) than Canon, and on the other hand your point is that younger people don't want to adapt lenses, so that's why Sony is more versatile than Canon.

Therefore, the audience best-satisfied by Sony are young people who can afford expensive cameras. Doesn't sound like a viable strategy to me. Perhaps it depends on your definition of 'younger people' but 35-65 year-olds are typically the high-earners. YouTube is considered a Gen Z thing, those folks on average make half of what the age 35-65 groups earn. That means many of the people responding to the survey you mentioned probably can't even afford the FF camera system with f/2.8 zooms that you think 'everybody' wants.

Sony does a great job with social media and influencer promotion, particularly by giving away a lot of gear to them.

 

[CJaurelius]

You haven't tried the RF 100-400 yet, haven't you?


The option I would consider by default is my walkaround lens, the 14-35.

I might also consider the TS/E 24, but focus stacking these days makes it less needed.

If I would really want something large-aperture, there are some EF-mount 24/1.4 lenses to choose from.


But f/2.8 is?

You seem to be missing the plot. In reality I think MOST people who were skilled in photography could take oustanding pictures will ALL camera brands today.

But like many things in this world this isn't just about the capability of something but also the marketability of it. Most people today buying these cameras aren't doing it for the love of photography. Again, video is what is driving the market. The want know they can grab a camera, use it in low light and blow out the background. These are the quickest, easiest way to make an image/video look better than their smartphone.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think you have to look at the world today and say WHY are people buying their first camera.

Do you just ignore the WHAT? If not, do you believe that those people would prefer to purchase a full frame mirrorless camera and a set of f/2.8 zoom lenses for their first camera?

Or are they more likely to buy an affordable a APS-C camera? And if a manufacturer offers the gear at price that they need when they buy their first camera, is it not likely that when they do eventually buy the full frame camera and f/2.8 zoom lenses, they will be the same brand as their first camera?

I wonder why Canon has the market share it does? No, I don’t…it’s pretty obvious.

 

[CJaurelius]

Nice answer. Relevant if 'people with Sony full frame cameras' are the main target market Sony is going after. The problem (for Sony) is that based on historical data, the installed base of Canon 5- and 6-series DSLR users is a larger market than people with Sony FF cameras. All of the former, when looking for a FF MILC, will have a set of lenses that all work seamlessly with a Canon adapter on their new Canon FF MILC. Time will tell, but I expect that means that Canon's FF MILC sales will increase in the next couple of years as those people with a 5DIII/IV, 6D/II or an original EOS R move to a new Canon FF MILC. If so, that means that Canon's lead in MILC and ILC units will increase, and likely they'll surpass Sony on value as well ("Improved mix of cameras," as the IR literature puts it).

So you think the future of the camera industry will be driven by the people who purchased camerea in the past? OK maybe canon gets a bump over the next couple of years. I'm talking about the direction the industry is moving to ultimately. Who cares if Sony sold more walkmans than Apple sold ipods 15 years ago. The ultimate result is that the industry moved past both products and is now replaced by smartphones.

It's fine that you don't think so. The question buyers need to answer for themselves is, is there sufficient versatility for me. For many buyers, that's going to be true with the current and growing RF lineup, and if you include adapted EF lenses it's probably true for almost all of them. Many people on this forum eschew adapters, but people on this forum are not representative of the broader market.

The broader market clearly doesn't want to use adapters.

Interesting. The RE photographers I know mostly use a Canon 11-24mm and TS-E 17, either on a DSLR or adapted to a Canon MILC. Those shooting with Nikon or Sony use a 12-xx zoom, but I do know some folks who switched to Canon years ago specifically for the TS-E 17. There was nothing wider than 14mm and no TS-E/PC-E lens on your list. I guess that shows the limited value of anecdotes.

Again, the point stands if you were buying a NEW camera today for either Sony and Canon and you wanted a current lens without the need to adapt old lenses you have more options at more price points with Sony.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So you think the future of the camera industry will be driven by the people who purchased camerea in the past? OK maybe canon gets a bump over the next couple of years. I'm talking about the direction the industry is moving to ultimately. Who cares if Sony sold more walkmans than Apple sold ipods 15 years ago. The ultimate result is that the industry moved past both products and is now replaced by smartphones.

We've already established that the industry has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Canon's strategies were very successful through that changing market – they continue to dominate it. Obviously past performance does not guarantee future success. But only a fool denies that there is a strong correlation between the two.

The broader market clearly doesn't want to use adapters.

Based on what data? Please note that anecdotes and an uncontrolled YouTube channel poll do not constitute data.

Again, the point stands if you were buying a NEW camera today for either Sony and Canon and you wanted a current lens without the need to adapt old lenses you have more options at more price points with Sony.

If that is the major driver, then why is Canon selling more cameras than Sony, including 20% more MILCs last year? (Hint: they know more about the market than you.)

 

[Kit.]

People, especiall younger people coming in buying "new" cameras don't want to put an "old" lens on it with an adapter. Here is a link to a Youtuber who shoots on Canon. He covers the news on all the major brands but personally shoots on Canon and therefore most of his videos are about Canon. So it's like he's biased agaisnt Canon as its what he prefers.

I don't recall ever seeing him before. How representative do you think his audience is, and why?

He ran a poll on his channel:

"While I could buy Sigma and Tamron EF glass and adapt it to my Canon R system camera using Canons EF to RF adapter, I'm not willing to do this because:

Isn't the question biased already?

I think you have to look at the world today and say WHY are people buying their first camera. Remember this is a world where most people already have a camera that does computation photography and can simulate the bokeh of an f1.4 lens already in their pocket. The first time buyer isn't looking for their first camera, they're looking for their first camera that isn't a smartphone. So they are looking to do something their smartphone cant.

Indeed. Your 24mm example is what a smartphone "can" do already.

RF 100-400 is what it cannot.

Look at polls and in todays world most kids are saying they want to be a Youtuber when they grow up. It consistently ranks number one. One poll found 75%!??! of kids 6 to 17 want to do this. It's insane.

As if it ever mattered what kids wanted to be when they were kids.

These kids have no money for a fullframe setup. And when they grow up, most of them will be interested in something else.

Be realistic, there's just no market for 75% of the population to make money by "influencing" using a fullframe setup.

You seem to be missing the plot. In reality I think MOST people who were skilled in photography could take oustanding pictures will ALL camera brands today.

But like many things in this world this isn't just about the capability of something but also the marketability of it. Most people today buying these cameras aren't doing it for the love of photography. Again, video is what is driving the market. The want know they can grab a camera, use it in low light and blow out the background. These are the quickest, easiest way to make an image/video look better than their smartphone.

I just don't think your plot has a happy ending. They are going to be disappointed. Their images/videos will look better when taken by their smartphones.

 

[CJaurelius]

So on the one hand, your point is that camera manufacturers must sell more expensive gear because that's where the revenue is so that's why Sony is selling more (value) than Canon, and on the other hand your point is that younger people don't want to adapt lenses, so that's why Sony is more versatile than Canon.

Yes, the cheaper gear is getting canibalized by smartphones. So if you are now selling people "newer" gear then it needs to be able to be marketed as "new". We are on a Canon forum. By definition the demographic of the people here is going to be older. Young people aren't going to photography forums and they have no clue what an EF to RF adapter is nor have any desire to use one. They want new. Why buy into a system where you need to buy an old EF lens and adapt it to your new RF mount camera. Even if the lens was just as good OR EVEN BETTER, they aren't going to care.

Therefore, the audience best-satisfied by Sony are young people who can afford expensive cameras. Doesn't sound like a viable strategy to me. Perhaps it depends on your definition of 'younger people' but 35-65 year-olds are typically the high-earners. YouTube is considered a Gen Z thing, those folks on average make half of what the age 35-65 groups earn. That means many of the people responding to the survey you mentioned probably can't even afford the FF camera system with f/2.8 zooms that you think 'everybody' wants.

LOL do you go on Youtube? The world is changing. Pretty much every major figure is on Youtube now. When Megan Kelly left Fox News, she didn't go to a competitor, she publishes her own show on Youtube. Joe Rogan is on Spotify. Tucker Carlson is on Twitter/X. Patrick Beth David has a network on Youtube called Valuetainment where they have 4.77 million subscribers. These are all people in the 50's. 75% of adults watch Youtube, they aren't all looking at Gen Z kids.

Sony does a great job with social media and influencer promotion, particularly by giving away a lot of gear to them.

And as a result they dominate among the group that will likely be the future of the market.

 

[EricN]

If these kids really think they need full frame and 4k video, they'll just have to work hard for it. If they are more interested in specs than actually using a camera, they'll probably lose interest before they earn enough and spend their money on videogames.

​

 

[CJaurelius]

I don't recall ever seeing him before. How representative do you think his audience is, and why?

I think his audience is representaive of people who are on Youtube looking up information about camera and therefore potential customers.

Indeed. Your 24mm example is what a smartphone "can" do already.

RF 100-400 is what it cannot.

There is a reason the iphone is 26mm and its because its what most people want to see. Can a MILC do 100- 400 better? Sure. But who cares if most people don't want that focal length. If you like bird and wildlife for example then great. This is a niche field. Most people need focal lenghts that are applicable to them. And again video is driving the growth of the market. So if video is driving the growth then these people clearly don't need 100 - 400mm's

As if it ever mattered what kids wanted to be when they were kids.

These kids have no money for a fullframe setup. And when they grow up, most of them will be interested in something else.

Be realistic, there's just no market for 75% of the population to make money by "influencing" using a fullframe setup.

Are you oblivious to the world around us. These kids don't have money for many things but these are the choices they are making. Instead of working hard and saving money to buy a house they would rather rent everything and blow their money on experiences. Have you hear of Peter Mckinnon? He's a populat Canon shooter on Youtube. He's got 5.88 million subscribers. The guy sells branded backpacks for $400 and specilzed ND filters for $250.

I just don't think your plot has a happy ending. They are going to be disappointed. Their images/videos will look better when taken by their smartphones.

I agree that most could produce a sufficient enough image/video with their smartphone. I've said that all along. This isn't about particular image quality. I get it that this is a Canon forum so everyone who bought a Canon here must convince themselves that they made the right decision. I'm talking about the marketability of a product and the direction the industry is headed in. Betamax had better quality than VHS but we know how that turned out.

 

[CJaurelius]

If these kids really think they need full frame and 4k video, they'll just have to work hard for it. If they are more interested in specs than actually using a camera, they'll probably lose interest before they earn enough and spend their money on videogames.

​

I suspect most of them will lose interest. This is partly why Sony is focusing on convincing people to spend more on a camera up front. They know they aren't going to get most of them to trade up or even buy lenses. The goal is to make all of the money up front on the initial sale. It's also whey they come out with so many models.

One of the hardest cameras to get is the Fuji X100V

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...0-series-camera-skyrocket-due-to-tiktok-craze

"Unless you’ve used TikTok before, you might not be aware of how powerful it is as a selling tool. From beauty products to cleaning supplies or quirky gadgets that make life that little bit easier, thousands of people have suffered from “TikTok made me buy it” syndrome. And while most products are relatively cheap, the latest TikTok trend has seen prices of the Fujifilm X-100 skyrocket."

The camera has an MSRP of $1,399 but if you actually want to buy it you'll have to shell out $2,300 to get it:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Fujifilm...ad_id=568844&campaign_id=9383&sharedid=dcw-us

I don't think 50 year old DSLR shooters are on TikTok getting convinced to pay $2400 for a $1400 point and shoot camera because its the new fad.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, the cheaper gear is getting canibalized by smartphones. So if you are now selling people "newer" gear then it needs to be able to be marketed as "new". We are on a Canon forum. By definition the demographic of the people here is going to be older. Young people aren't going to photography forums and they have no clue what an EF to RF adapter is nor have any desire to use one. They want new. Why buy into a system where you need to buy an old EF lens and adapt it to your new RF mount camera. Even if the lens was just as good OR EVEN BETTER, they aren't going to care.

So again I ask…why are more people buying Canon cameras than Sony cameras, including MILCs (where Canon outsold Sony by 20% last year)?

And as a result they dominate among the group that will likely be the future of the market.

Do they? Again…based on what data?

Incidentally, with efforts like the PowerShot V series, Canon is evidently trying to appeal to a broader, primarily smartphone content-focused market. It remains to be seen if those efforts will be successful, but it’s clear they know the market…past and future.

As I’ve said, they know it far better than we do. I and others keep asking you for data to support your assertions. We know you don’t have them, you’re just stating opinions. The thing is, Canon does have those data. So does Sony. And Canon is appealing to more buyers. Many more buyers. As they have for 20 years.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One of the hardest cameras to get is the Fuji X100V

Remember that there are two variables involved…demand and supply. Just because the former exceeds the latter doesn’t mean the latter is not simply very small.

 

[CJaurelius]

We've already established that the industry has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Canon's strategies were very successful through that changing market – they continue to dominate it. Obviously past performance does not guarantee future success. But only a fool denies that there is a strong correlation between the two.

But they aren't dominating. Sony has more revenue. Canon sells more units at a cheaper cost and Sony sells less units at a higher cost and has a higher revenue. We've discussed this.

Based on what data? Please note that anecdotes and an uncontrolled YouTube channel poll do not constitute data.

Show me where people data where people like adapters?

If that is the major driver, then why is Canon selling more cameras than Sony, including 20% more MILCs last year? (Hint: they know more about the market than you.)

Again, they are selling more CHEAPER cameras. Sony made more revenue from less cameras:

"Comparing this with a 2022 sales report published by Digital Camera Life, it’s likely that Canon continues to rely heavily on its DSLR sales, at least in terms of volume. Canon’s mirrorless market share is still higher than Sony’s, but the race is much closer: 1.54 million units versus 1.25 million units.
Further, Sony is actually ahead of Canon when it comes to the value of those sold cameras. Canon’s higher number of camera bodies sold equated to 506.7 billion yen, while Sony sold fewer units for a sales value of 565 billion yen. Canon seems to be excelling when it comes to selling more affordable cameras, while the opposite is true for Sony. "

The more expensive cameras have a higher margin. Sony is getting a higher margin of 565 billion yen while Canon is getting a lower margin on 506.7 billion yen.

Great article about the industry and the low and high margin strategies of the players in it:
https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/low-margin-versus-high.html

So let's look at Canon first. With the current market between 5-6m units, Canon still retains half. At 6m units, that's 3m cameras sold. But at least half of those are entry-level models. If Nikon's correct—and they've been consistently good forecasters in terms of market direction—then four years from now Canon will be selling 2.2m cameras, and if Canon continues to pursue market share, half of those are going to be entry-level models. Canon would likely lose market share in the mid- and high-end model lines. Indeed, both Nikon and Sony need to succeed at mid- and high-end in order to stay in the camera business under Nikon's forecast. Thus, Nikon and Sony are going to be aggressive in the high-margin products.

Here's an approximation of what the low-end/high-end share splits might look like four years out if Nikon is right and Canon pursues their current strategy:

Canon is clearly the only brand focusing on the low end market. And I think its clear that the low end market is the portion that will shrink the most.

If Canon pursues the 50% overall market share strategy they've been on (forever), that means they'll likely produce nearly 1.5m low-end consumer cameras and perhaps fewer than 1m high-end, high margin cameras. Yes, they'd outsell Nikon overall in unit volume, but the low margins they'd get on all those true consumer cameras wouldn't make them much more profitable than Nikon, if at all. Or more profitable than Sony. Canon hasn't really written off production capacity, and it's currently spreading R&D over three mounts and four lines of products in pursuit of their "dominate via market share" strategy. Because Canon uses only their own image sensors for interchangeable lens cameras, they're also constrained by what they can do at their own semiconductor fab. All the new fabs coming on line don't help them.

But that brings me back to product margins. There's simply not a lot of margin in a US$500 camera. Dealers take 15-20%. Wholesale takes 25-30%. Sales and marketing take at least another 10%. So you have to make a profit by producing that US$500 camera for an out-of-the-factory cost of US$225. Things look so much better for a US$2000 camera, even though some of your parts costs will be higher (but not high enough so that you can't get far better profit margins). Which is why Nikon and Sony are targeting cameras at that level, mostly. And why Canon and Fujifilm will likely eventually have to do the same.

No, Nikon has made the right call. Sony seems to be making the right call. Fujifilm's mostly been adding higher-end gear to their lineup (GFX models, upcoming X-H2 models), so I think they've figured it out, too. The only Japanese camera company still racing down the wrong track is Canon. My advice to them? Bite the bullet and quickly amputate their market share strategy. Yeah, that'll end up with a big, one-time write down, but Canon really needs to go all in with RF (both stills and cinema), and they need to concentrate 100% of their energy in US$1000+ cameras now. Anything else simply dilutes their earnings, which will eventually generate the usual shareholder revolt that forces them to do what I suggest, anyway.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But they aren't dominating. Sony has more revenue. Canon sells more units at a cheaper cost and Sony sells less units at a higher cost and has a higher revenue. We've discussed this.

Yet you persist in arguing that Sony is ‘popular with the young crowd’ and ‘more appealing’. Those concepts are about numbers, not currency spent. We don’t have access to the demographics, but the market share data indicate Nikon lost to Sony big time. It’s possible that Sony’s higher revenue is driven by disaffected, non-young Nikon FF users who were looking to switch to mirrorless. If true, that paints a very different future picture than the one you’re suggesting.

Sony has steadily gained market share (by units sold, as the camera industry typically counts market share) over the past few years, as Nikon has lost it. But last year, Sony’s upward trend stopped, as did Nikon’s slide. We don’t know what this year’s numbers will show, but there comes a point when price increases don’t help if unit sales drop.

Show me where people data where people like adapters?

You’re the one claiming (repeatedly) they they don’t. You can’t provide any evidence to support your claim, so now you’re suggesting it’s my responsibility to disprove it? Pass.

Incidentally, I personally like the adapter for use with lenses like the EF 11-24 and TS-E 17, where front filters are cumbersome. Not that I’m suggesting my personal preference is anything other than an anecdote. Sadly, too many people think anecdotes are data.

Great article about the industry and the low and high margin strategies of the players in it:
“If Nikon's correct—and they've been consistently good forecasters in terms of market direction—“

Thom Hogan is normally fairly insightful. But claiming a company that had the Nikon 1 debacle then went from over 40% market share to barely over 10% in just a few years is consistently good at forecasting market direction is pretty silly. He bashed the M line as ‘d00med to fail’ but at one point ~17% of all ILCs sold globally had the M badge…of course, he doesn’t mention that particular aspect of its ‘failure’. Your characterization of his post as ‘great’ suggests you need to think more critically about what you read and choose to cite.

 

[Kit.]

I think his audience is representaive of people who are on Youtube looking up information about camera and therefore potential customers.

I think that people that have money and a desire to buy some kind of gear don't subscribe to a gear review channel and don't participate in its polls. They just review the information that is there in the Internet at the moment of their desire to make a purchase, then buy what they find suitable.

People who subscribe to such channels are those who prefer to fantasize about buying, so, not really paying customers.

There is a reason the iphone is 26mm and its because its what most people want to see. Can a MILC do 100- 400 better? Sure. But who cares if most people don't want that focal length. If you like bird and wildlife for example then great. This is a niche field.

If you want to stand out from the phone crowd and want to achieve that by buying some piece of equipment, you need a niche field, period.

Are you oblivious to the world around us. These kids don't have money for many things but these are the choices they are making. Instead of working hard and saving money to buy a house they would rather rent everything and blow their money on experiences. Have you hear of Peter Mckinnon? He's a populat Canon shooter on Youtube. He's got 5.88 million subscribers. The guy sells branded backpacks for $400 and specilzed ND filters for $250.

I don't know of such a billionaire. Which likely means that the vast majority of his subscribers have bought exactly nothing from him.

I agree that most could produce a sufficient enough image/video with their smartphone. I've said that all along. This isn't about particular image quality. I get it that this is a Canon forum so everyone who bought a Canon here must convince themselves

First of all, this is a rumors forum. Which means that whoever comes here with their ideas about the future needs to be aware that these ideas will be critically assessed.

 

[EricN]

I'm happy using the adapter as well. Looks like so far it's 2:1 in favor. Does it mean anything?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯​

Can't say I care a whole lot...

 

[Old Sarge]

I'm happy using the adapter as well. Looks like so far it's 2:1 in favor. Does it mean anything?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯​

Can't say I care a whole lot...

A year ago I would have said "I hate adapters." But I really hadn't used one. Got the R7 eight months ago inspite of needing an adapter for my EF lenses. The adapter works so well that I can say, "I don't love adapters but they sure work well." Put me in the in favor group....but I am old...really old...so I probably don't count.

 

[EricN]

I get it that this is a Canon forum so everyone who bought a Canon here must convince themselves that they made the right decision.

I don't believe there is any right camera or best company. I saw great photos in the 80's shot with various cameras and never thought there was any real superiority beyond preference. When I was about 9, I made a pinhole camera from cardboard, black tape and a little piece of copper. I was lucky enough to have access to a darkroom, so I could expose my one photo, then run to develop it (maybe it was early chimping?). It was limited, but I really loved it. It was certainly more fun than the Kodak point and shoot I used before, although a pinhole camera has less technology and was very cheap. What does that tell you?

 

[EricN]

A year ago I would have said "I hate adapters." But I really hadn't used one. Got the R7 eight months ago inspite of needing an adapter for my EF lenses. The adapter works so well that I can say, "I don't love adapters but they sure work well." Put me in the in favor group....but I am old...really old...so I probably don't count.

3:1
(⊙_⊙)

 

[HarryFilm]

I guess that you subscribe to the view that
“What’s the best way to make money as a photographer? And as most veterans in the industry know, the best way to make money in photography is by selling your equipment,”

True Pros need even HIGHER END GEAR such as 200+ Megapixel DSLR-style cameras with much larger 70 mm sensors, 64-bit RGBA colour and higher-end lenses. at $3000 to $10,000+ USD only the TRUE PROS will get that gear! Anything less than $3000 will be taken over by Supersmartphones with 1.3 inch and even larger APS-C sensors for high-end computational photography-based imaging. I recently witnessed a 120+ person wedding shot on multiple iPhone Max'es mounted to stabilization gear and some attached lens accessory kits which turned out FANTASTIC in terms of looks and overall image quality.

The video looked cinematic and the still photos looked as good as anything shot on a Canon 5D or 1D series! It truly is all about the PHOTOGRAPHER, their visual style, their taste in cropping and image/video post-production skills! I asked WHY he shot everything on the iPhones and the photographer replied he wanted lightweight gear that can go anywhere and that the software was sooooooo much superior on iPhone versus his older Canon 5D Mk3 cameras. He was so fast on his phones and laptop that he was having the wedding ceremony still photo images and multiple short 10 second Tik-Tok-style wedding ceremony clips fully cropped, colour-corrected, edited and then shown at the reception on a large projector that was only a few hours afterwards! THAT was a superb example of IMMEDIACY where sometimes the RIGHT-NOW FACTOR is more important than the imagery itself! The bride and groom were utterly astonished and readily congratulated him on having that sort of ability!

I have also seen entire BROADCAST TELEVISION commercials being shot on iPhone! So long you have good lighting and good cinematography and post producting imaging skills, ANY CAMERA can be used to make spectacular still photo and video images!

V