Canon sold almost half all cameras made in 2023

[Kharan]

Sony is famous for hedging their numbers not to mention your data point "Sony says it achieved the number one market share based on internal data from the 2023 fiscal year."

snorts.

I wouldn't snort so much. The most likely explanation between both Canon and Sony claiming #1 is that they're basing the ranking off of different things. Canon sell more units, but Sony make more money. One of these approaches is more profitable than the other, I'll let you guess which.

The point still stands really - Sony had an overwhelming lead - what the market considered an unbeatable amount of momentum when Canon and Nikon pivoted. and all they got from it was 26% - a net change of 6% - mostly at the expense of Panasonic and olympus.

That's laughably untrue. Sony were far behind at #3 back then, still fighting to maintain the position they inherited from Konica-Minolta after their acquisition. Both Canon and Nikon were sitting on a mountain of technology already primed for mirrorless (especially DPAF and OSPDAF, respectively, the latter of which Nikon originally licensed to Sony), and their migration was considered inevitable by industry insiders. The only aspect which might have caused the impression of some sort of Sony lead was the big duo's extremely tardy launches of full frame mirrorless systems. This, combined with Nikon's crappy FF mirrorless pair (and Nikon 1, and KeyMission, and their abandonment of Coolpix) is what cost them their #2 spot. It wasn't so much Sony's lead but rather Nikon's own incompetence that caused this. Canon did have EOS M, after all, which quickly became one of the best-selling mirrorless systems, and after the M50's launch had a much tighter unit gap with Sony. There was no "overwhelming lead" except in Sony Alpha Rumor's head, perhaps. And yours, much to my surprise.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the claim of 5 years ahead in mirrorless is simply untrue, that´s all.

The statement quoted was, “…a commanding 5-year mirrorless lead,” what makes you think that statement means a 5-year period when Sony made MILCs and Canon did not? I highly doubt that was the meaning, rather it means a 5-year period during which Sony had the majority market share by a substantial margin. Canon has led the ILC market for over 20 years, but has had a ‘commanding lead’ of that market for about 10 years. For example, when Canon had 44% market share and Nikon had 41%, that was not a ‘commanding lead’.

To the point in question, you’re correct that Canon launched the M line in 2012. By 2018, the EOS M line was the global best-selling MILC line and Canon launched the EOS R, and by 2021, Canon was #1 in mirrorless globally. From 2012 to 2017, Sony had that commanding lead in the mirrorless market, which eroded away over the subsequent four years until Sony dropped to #2.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon sell more units, but Sony make more money. One of these approaches is more profitable than the other, I'll let you guess which.

Sony reports higher revenue from camera sales. If you mean to suggest that making more total revenue on a product category must be more profitable than selling more units of that product type, your business acumen is laughably deficient.

Then again, maybe you’d prefer to sell 100 units of a $10 item that costs $9 to produce and distribute than to sell 200 units of an $4 item that costs $2 to produce and distribute, because making more money is better than selling more units. Just in case your math skills are equivalent to your business knowledge, the first case means $1000 in revenue with a $100 profit, and the second case means $800 in revenue with a $400 profit.

Canon discloses the net profit of their camera sales in their financial presentations, Sony does not. I’ll let you guess what that implies.

That's laughably untrue. Sony were far behind at #3 back then … There was no "overwhelming lead" except in Sony Alpha Rumor's head, perhaps. And yours, much to my surprise.

Sony never had a commanding lead of the camera market, as Canon has had for a decade. But in 2015 (as an example) Sony sold nearly twice as many MILCs as the #2 (Olympus) and #3 (Canon) manufacturers combined. That’s more of a ‘commanding lead’ than Canon’s domination of the camera market today, where they sell about as many cameras as #2 (Sony) and #3 (Nikon) combined, but not anywhere near double that combined total.

 

[David - Sydney]

To the point in question, you’re correct that Canon launched the M line in 2012. By 2018, the EOS M line was the global best-selling MILC line and Canon launched the EOS R, and by 2021, Canon was #1 in mirrorless globally. From 2012 to 2017, Sony had that commanding lead in the mirrorless market, which eroded away over the subsequent four years until Sony dropped to #2.

With the demise of the eos m, what volume product has replaced it in canon’s unit sales?
Hard to believe it would be the R100 or even R50 (a much better body).

 

[David - Sydney]

@CR Mod … problems with the discussion for the R6iii thread

 

[Anon]

The statement quoted was, “…a commanding 5-year mirrorless lead,” what makes you think that statement means a 5-year period when Sony made MILCs and Canon did not? I highly doubt that was the meaning, rather it means a 5-year period during which Sony had the majority market share by a substantial margin. Canon has led the ILC market for over 20 years, but has had a ‘commanding lead’ of that market for about 10 years. For example, when Canon had 44% market share and Nikon had 41%, that was not a ‘commanding lead’.

To the point in question, you’re correct that Canon launched the M line in 2012. By 2018, the EOS M line was the global best-selling MILC line and Canon launched the EOS R, and by 2021, Canon was #1 in mirrorless globally. From 2012 to 2017, Sony had that commanding lead in the mirrorless market, which eroded away over the subsequent four years until Sony dropped to #2.

Since the first a7 was released in Oct 2013 and the EOS R was released in Oct 2018 I assumed that the 5 year lead refers to this gap. But your explanation also makes sense. If Richard could kindly clarify what exactly he meant it would be very helpful.

Edit: to further clarify my point: I assume Richard meant that Sony had a five year headstart to selling mirrorless, which would be only true for FF MILC, and as such imho only FF MILC sales should be considered when talking about the 5 year lead.

If one looks at overall market share including APS-C then Sony only had a two year headstart (NEX vs EOS M) which is what I meant in my first post in this thread. I hope this clears things up.

 

[mpmark]

we have to pay the bills somehow my friend.

I understand that, but of all the sites I visit this one is by far the most difficult to navigate the wackamole ads that pop up and take over two thirds of my screen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Edit: to further clarify my point: I assume Richard meant that Sony had a five year headstart to selling mirrorless, which would be only true for FF MILC, and as such imho only FF MILC sales should be considered when talking about the 5 year lead.

If one looks at overall market share including APS-C then Sony only had a two year headstart (NEX vs EOS M) which is what I meant in my first post in this thread. I hope this clears things up.

You were clear, I just disagree. A ‘commanding lead’ is not the same thing as a ‘head start’.

 

[neuroanatomist]

With the demise of the eos m, what volume product has replaced it in canon’s unit sales?
Hard to believe it would be the R100 or even R50 (a much better body).

On BCN, the R50 took over the high-ranking spots formerly held by the M50 II. Granted, that’s only Japan but the overall market share numbers show that Canon did lose a small amount of ILC market share (~3%) between 2021 and 2022/23, which I suspect was due to the pruning and eventual discontinuation of the M line with lagging replacement by APS-C R bodies (the R50 came out in early 2023).

 

[David - Sydney]

On BCN, the R50 took over the high-ranking spots formerly held by the M50 II. Granted, that’s only Japan but the overall market share numbers show that Canon did lose a small amount of ILC market share (~3%) between 2021 and 2022/23, which I suspect was due to the pruning and eventual discontinuation of the M line with lagging replacement by APS-C R bodies (the R50 came out in early 2023).

That would mean a high volume are being sold though. I would have expected canon to mention that if it was. It would make more sense if more of the M lenses were repackaged as size /weight/cost seems to be higher with rf-s lenses

 

[John Wilde]

With the demise of the eos m, what volume product has replaced it in canon’s unit sales?
Hard to believe it would be the R100 or even R50 (a much better body).

The M50 was Canon's best selling mirrorless camera. That was replaced by the R50.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That would mean a high volume are being sold though. I would have expected canon to mention that if it was.

From the 1Q24 IR presentation: “In the first quarter, unit sales grew, mainly driven by mirrorless cameras like the EOS R50.”

 

[Dragon]

I understand that, but of all the sites I visit this one is by far the most difficult to navigate the wackamole ads that pop up and take over two thirds of my screen.

The site works fine on a computer (which most serious photographers have).

 

[Richard CN]

That's laughably untrue. Sony were far behind at #3 back then, still fighting to maintain the position they inherited from Konica-Minolta after their acquisition. Both Canon and Nikon were sitting on a mountain of technology already primed for mirrorless (especially DPAF and OSPDAF, respectively, the latter of which Nikon originally licensed to Sony), and their migration was considered inevitable by industry insiders. The only aspect which might have caused the impression of some sort of Sony lead was the big duo's extremely tardy launches of full frame mirrorless systems. This, combined with Nikon's crappy FF mirrorless pair (and Nikon 1, and KeyMission, and their abandonment of Coolpix) is what cost them their #2 spot. It wasn't so much Sony's lead but rather Nikon's own incompetence that caused this. Canon did have EOS M, after all, which quickly became one of the best-selling mirrorless systems, and after the M50's launch had a much tighter unit gap with Sony. There was no "overwhelming lead" except in Sony Alpha Rumor's head, perhaps. And yours, much to my surprise.

Sony was #3 because, during that time, mirrorless wasn't 90% of the market. and the massive installed bases of EF and F mount kept people were they were. We would see that in smaller more isolated markets such as Japan Sony could claim to be the top brand in terms of cameras - so it wasn't a stretch to think that Sony could extend that over the globe. They also had significant leads in USA as well, especially up to the R5 / R6 on full frame. It even took a while for the EOS-M's M50 to start selling well (which sold at far greater numbers then the R/RP).

The pivot to mirrorless freed people out of the EF and F mount dominance - if Sony had done a better job of it, they could have taken more of the transition. EF and F mount lenses could then arguably work anywhere and not just on Canon and Nikon cameras. However, to be honest, while I appreciate Sony working through mirrorless systems so that Canon and Nikon knew what they had to do better, their ergonomics were absolutely foreign to me. I have never held a more uncomfortable camera than some of the earlier generations of A7.

Sony had a significant lead in autofocus (eye AF, generally mirrorless AF systems in general) - it wasn't until the M5/M6 that Canon got its act together and you could see the birthing of credible AF on mirrorless for Canon, 4 years after the original M. But at that time, the EOS department had already given up on the EOS-M. Sony's sensors during this time were at least 2 to 3 generations ahead of Canon's, up to the M6 Mark II and the R5/R6 in the EOS-R mount. Even then while the M6 Mark II had excellent AF, it still wasn't up to its Sony peers. Let's not forget that EOS R and RP were flops. they were simply placeholder cameras.

and I agree with Nikon, they made some disastrous flubs.

 

[Richard CN]

I understand that, but of all the sites I visit this one is by far the most difficult to navigate the wackamole ads that pop up and take over two thirds of my screen.

what device do you have? We'll check it out. Send me a PM on it and also if you can a screen shot.

 

[Richard CN]

With the demise of the eos m, what volume product has replaced it in canon’s unit sales?
Hard to believe it would be the R100 or even R50 (a much better body).

for the most part, the R50 has done the job it was meant to in this regard.

you can see that coming out of the Japan numbers we share that the R50 generally is Canon's best selling camera.

 

[David - Sydney]

The pivot to mirrorless freed people out of the EF and F mount dominance - if Sony had done a better job of it, they could have taken more of the transition. EF and F mount lenses could then arguably work anywhere and not just on Canon and Nikon cameras.

I think that Canon were secretly happy that Sony's FF MILCs needed EF lenses at the beginning. Basically a new revenue stream ie not just for switchers with existing EF lenses. No downside for them at the time as higher profits from lenses than bodies.
Canon's engineers must have been taking apart A7/R bodies for years to see how they ticked but Canon either couldn't compete or wasn't prepared to invest the R&D yen to compete for some time until the dropped the mic with the R5/R6

Let's not forget that EOS R and RP were flops. they were simply placeholder cameras.

I still support the RP in the sense that it is still a benchmark FF MILC with virtually no competition. Canon are happy to leave it in the mix even with the superior R8 seen as the base FF MILC. The RP does everything I need from a backup body at a great price.
The R is definitely gone though although I wish there was an updated astro body. They seemed to be well regarded and should have been a simple new product given the minimum physical change. New documentation/packaging etc was needed for a new model.

 

[Anon]

You were clear, I just disagree. A ‘commanding lead’ is not the same thing as a ‘head start’.

Fair enough. Reading through Richard`s latest comments in this thread I think that your assumption was correct and I was wrong.


@Richard: I have corrected my comments in the thread. Cheers

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

Back in the EF days, it made sense to stay in the EF lens system even when using Panasonic, Sony, etc. I went for three years shooting non-Canon bodies with primarily EF lenses. Moving back to Canon, or do a different system, was cheap for me. In the years where Canon was balky with sensor upgrades and FPS performance relative to competitors, I really took advantage of that. I wonder if the RF system not being compatible with the other mirrorless bodies is at all a significant loss for Canon in terms of lens sales. I doubt it, as I don't think this was a common strategy for photographers.

Just want to point out that Canon uniquely benefited from its monster market share a few years ago, being a default mount standard of sorts. Going to a closed RF mount system will give it a lens profit margin boost now, but will also cause some additional friction over time. I don't think it's a big factor, and would only be relevant to the higher end of the market.

 

[David - Sydney]

From the 1Q24 IR presentation: “In the first quarter, unit sales grew, mainly driven by mirrorless cameras like the EOS R50.”

Imagine the unit sales possibilities if Canon got a replacement R100 that hit the mark!