DSLR Market Share ... in case you care ...

leinsterman

For those that are interested (and by career necessity I am) ...

I just got the latest global market share information for DSLR's -

Globally in 2008:
1. Canon 38.4%, 3.73Million Units (Mu), Growth 17.3%
2. Nikon 37.3%, 3.62Mu, Growth 21.6%
3. Sony 13.5%, 1.31Mu, Growth 172.8%
4. Olympus 5.1%, 0.40Mu, Growth 18.9%
5. Pentax 3.8%, 0.37Mu, Growth 36.8%

... marginally more Americans prefer Nikon over Canon (40.3% v 39.6%) ... but they all voted for McCain and Sarah Palin apparently ...

... a good few more Europeans buy Canon over Nikon (39.5% v 36%) ... signs of a good education system here in Europe ...

... there is a Japanese dark horse creeping up fast along the rails from behind on the two leaders ... Sony is its name, and it is growing fast in all market especially Asia and Europe ...


Anyways ... lies, damn lies and statistics is what I say!

Zillah

Don't think I didn't notice your subtle pro-canon propaganda there laddie!

(Incidentally, a friend of mine recently decided that she is gonna upgrade from her Canon to a Nikon D90...even though she has two canon lenses Even I think that's crazy. She says she just prefers the Nikon bodies)

leinsterman

Zillah wrote: »

Don't think I didn't notice your subtle pro-canon propaganda there laddie!

Caught bang to rights!


To be honest if I would seriously consider upgrading Nikon if I were in a position with just two lenses ... assuming of course the were kit lenses and not the 800mm F5.6L and 600mm F4L ...

The D700 v 5D mkII is very close ... and I kind of like the ergonomics of the Nikon's now that I have used a few ... albeit the D40, D200 and D70 ... which we use for customer demos ...

DaireQuinlan

Its kinda bizarre that Sony are doing so well given that they don't even have a pro-body. I wonder if they can sustain it, or if its just the fickle consumer crowd has boosted their numbers. I'd honestly never even associate "Sony" with photography. I know they own the konica-minolta tech but they don't go out of their way to advertise that or anything, or try and build on the association.

Sleepy

Why? Pro sales would be a fairly niche market compared to the prosumer market...

leinsterman

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Its kinda bizarre that Sony are doing so well given that they don't even have a pro-body. I wonder if they can sustain it, or if its just the fickle consumer crowd has boosted their numbers. I'd honestly never even associate "Sony" with photography. I know they own the konica-minolta tech but they don't go out of their way to advertise that or anything, or try and build on the association.

They make a big fuss at all the trade fairs ... I was told their next step is to get into the pros ... Nikon is a small vendor in the big scheme of things ... this means it is always a struggle for them to keep up with Canon in terms of R&D capability ... thought they are masters at it ...

Sony on the other hand is every bit as resourceful as Canon ... so watch this space if what I say..

EDIT - Remember many of use amateurs are heavily influenced by the pros ... so it is an attractive market from a lead product perspective.

DaireQuinlan

Sleepy wrote: »

Why? Pro sales would be a fairly niche market compared to the prosumer market...

Yeah, but haveing top of the range well regarded Pro bodies that are seen in all the right places (so and so shoots Canon, blah de blah is a fan of Nikon, if you want to shoot sports you have to buy Canon, see those big white lenses along the sideline etc etc etc etc) has a trickle down effect. There's some term for it. I forget what exactly, but basically, if Nikon and Canon had to sell their pro bodies as loss leaders or at cost price they probably would because that perception that they're the best drives sales all the way down to their cheapest P&S cameras.

Stephen

I wonder if they get a lot of people upgrading from their Cybershot point 'n shoots who just pick the Alphas cos they're Sony too?

leinsterman

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah, but haveing top of the range well regarded Pro bodies that are seen in all the right places (so and so shoots Canon, blah de blah is a fan of Nikon, if you want to shoot sports you have to buy Canon, see those big white lenses along the sideline etc etc etc etc)

I had great fun totally by accident at PMA last year when I innocently asked the Sony guy why they were showing Canon big boy lenses on their stand ... the look of horror and disgust on this face was priceless ...

It started when I saw a big white lens from a distance at the Sony stand and jumped to the wrong conclusion ...

Nikon wisely avoided making their big boys white ... sticking with black instead ...

stcstc

sony are huge in the pro imaging markets


they are leaders in pro video formats, monitoring etc

my understanding is they are huge in medical imaging too

the pro video cameras used in a large number of productions come from sony

I wouldnt be suprised if they started making bigger in roads in the stills dslr market

jaqian

Stephen wrote: »

I wonder if they get a lot of people upgrading from their Cybershot point 'n shoots who just pick the Alphas cos they're Sony too?

Speaking for myself I upgraded from a Fuji S9000 to a Sony A100. Was torn between Olympus and Sony but got a good deal on the Sony, basically cost me nothing as sold S9000 for €200 and bought the A100 for the same

Crispin

I think sony are aiming at the enthusiast market and don't think they will (in the near future) be able to get close to the pro end canikons (esp for sport/wildlife), although I have read a few pro landscape photographers using the A900. Is there ever much to choose between the big 2? It seems a bit cyclical to me, canon up then nikon up ...etc etc. i think they will go on for ever trying to one up each other with new equipment and add campaigns: it just feeds research & development of new camera/concepts, which can only be a good thing. Sony just adds to the competition driving down prices for consumers. I for one am glad that sony is establishing itself. I bought an alpha because they were significantly cheaper than canikon when i bought mine. And now i have spent money on lenses i am glad that sony is sticking around for when i trade up the body.

DaireQuinlan

stcstc wrote: »

sony are huge in the pro imaging markets

they are leaders in pro video formats, monitoring etc
my understanding is they are huge in medical imaging too
the pro video cameras used in a large number of productions come from sony
I wouldnt be suprised if they started making bigger in roads in the stills dslr market

Yeah thats true I suppose, never really thought of that. I wonder what the overlap between the (say) video market and the pro-DSLR market would be though. I still reckon they've a lot of inertia to overcome if they want good penetration in the pro-space.

Sleepy

I'd wager it'll take them years to crack the pro market... What pro hasn't got a few grand worth of glass (never mind manufacturer specific flash setups / accessories etc.)? Unless they offer some 'trade-in' to lure in Canon/Nikon users they'd need to be offering a *very* big technological leap to get most pros to change...

Hugh_C

leinsterman wrote: »

... a good few more Europeans buy Canon over Nikon (39.5% v 36%) ... signs of a good education system here in Europe ...

Shame it didn't rub off on you ...

leinsterman

Hugh_C wrote: »

Shame it didn't rub off on you ...

Being educated is overrated ... give me blissful ignorance any time ...:P

Calina

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd wager it'll take them years to crack the pro market... What pro hasn't got a few grand worth of glass (never mind manufacturer specific flash setups / accessories etc.)? Unless they offer some 'trade-in' to lure in Canon/Nikon users they'd need to be offering a *very* big technological leap to get most pros to change...

Depends on the level of pro. I think if the serious guys think they will get better pictures with a Sony camera and lens system they will do it.

leinsterman

Calina wrote: »

Depends on the level of pro. I think if the serious guys think they will get better pictures with a Sony camera and lens system they will do it.

Sport shooters are renowned for their fickleness ... not least because many of them do not pay for their own gear ... after the EOS 1D MKIII first arrived on the market I remember talking to a pro in the press room at Croker ... he had recently gotten the MkIII ... I asked him what he thought of it and he replied ... "well I've had mostly Nikon bodies up to now ... but this one shoots 10 frames a second so I switched" ...

Calina

In film times, a lot of the watersports guys were Nikon users. They are now - frequently 20/30/40D users with a few of the high end guys on 1Ds and less frequently Nikon users.

I looked at switching to Olympus for their weather proofing but the cost in lenses was far too much to swallow.

Mycroft H

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Its kinda bizarre that Sony are doing so well given that they don't even have a pro-body. I wonder if they can sustain it, or if its just the fickle consumer crowd has boosted their numbers. I'd honestly never even associate "Sony" with photography. I know they own the konica-minolta tech but they don't go out of their way to advertise that or anything, or try and build on the association.

Since when is the a900 not a pro body?? A >2000 grand body, the best viewfinder on a dslr and the highest resuloution in a ff slr..... Its a bit beyond amature stuff isn't it?Add the zeiss 24-70 and you have one of the best landscape cameras out there. Or add the 85 f1.8g or the 135f1.8 zeiss and then theres a great portraiture camera.

Its not a pro sport body so dont expect d3 high iso performance, the difference between the d3x (using the same sensor as the a900) is not that different, the d3x has a more agressive noise reduction imo.

Many photogs are set in there ways, so i dont think they will gain many pros from there but it will be the new generation of photogs that will buy into the sony system.


They give a large 'bang for buck' more so then any other brand. Eg. A200, a d60 specced camera for d40 money. This is why there so popular. A bit of competion in the market is no bad thing.

DaireQuinlan

landyman wrote: »

Since when is the a900 not a pro body?? A >2000 grand body, the best viewfinder on a dslr and the highest resuloution in a ff slr..... Its a bit beyond amature stuff isn't it?Add the zeiss 24-70 and you have one of the best landscape cameras out there. Or add the 85 f1.8g or the 135f1.8 zeiss and then theres a great portraiture camera.

Even sony describe it as a camera for (ahem) "serious photo enthusiasts". The build quality and reliability just aren't there. Its more equivalent to the top end pro-sumer models from nikon and canon (the d700 in nikon's case).

Fionn

i would have been a Sony user, if they had an entry level SLR available when i was returning to photography.
i had considered long and hard over the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 with its APS-C sized sensor!! - really liked the look of that camera
I had used some of the Cybershot range and was used to them so this would have been a step up, however i wanted an SLR which Sony had not marketed then.
In the end I opted for a Canon EOS 350D and then became locked into the Canon system, the more i use and acquire Canon stuff, the more i'm locked in. The potential cost of me changing systems is prohibitive at this stage, so i dont really bother much looking at features on other systems because I know i'll hardly change at this stage!

I guess the likes of pro sports shooters who can get different systems bought for them, will obviously have less Brand Loyalty than a lot of consumers and opt for the system offering better features as they appear!

Still waiting for someone to invent something that would make lens interoperatability from different systems a reality.

Mycroft H

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

The build quality and reliability just aren't there

Back that up with some figure please or else its just your own opinion. Have you access to a900 vs d700 reliabilty figures?

ThOnda

Realising that all those brands are from Japan and all the product share ratios are based purely on marketing and building up the customer loyalty, it is quite impressive.
Numbers are not important, the development and availability of the technologies allowing us being even more creative is what counts. And I think that the Sony brand name is still very valuable and not using it would be just a shame. Sony brought modern technology to common people, so why not to allow them to make photography just a pure fun for everybody? Go on, brands, give us more. More!

duffarama

Calina wrote: »

In film times, a lot of the watersports guys were Nikon users. They are now - frequently 20/30/40D users with a few of the high end guys on 1Ds and less frequently Nikon users.

I looked at switching to Olympus for their weather proofing but the cost in lenses was far too much to swallow.

May I ask what lenses you were looking at that the cost was too much??

As far as I know you can get the 14-54 and the 50-200 (both fully weather and dust sealed) for roughly €500 and €1200 online giving you 28m to 400mm and both with a max aperture of 2.8 to 3.5 from short to the long end.

Some uk prices here http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/c-olympus-lenses.htm

As to the Sony debate, if I ever was to step up to a 135 size sensor I think it'd be the sony a900 and the G class (they are labelled G, right?) Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon.

Calina

Duffarama,

I needed to look at matching what I already had Canon wise before making the decision. That was:

1) 50mm prime
2) 17-85mm zoom
3) 10-20mm zoom
4) 50-500mm zoom
5) 70-300mm zoom

all with a 1.6 crop factor bringing my reach from 16mm to around 800mm.

A new Canon 40D set me back 700E. I threw 400E at a 100mm 2.8 macro at the time.

To come close to covering what I have utility wise on an Olympus I would have had to spend at least 4000E which I don't have and I wouldn't have covered the far end of the zoom range or the short end wide angle, although to be fair I'd be a bit closer at the wide end. But that's not where I need it most.

This is the price of lock in.

duffarama

Fair enough!

The Olympus advantage is the weather sealed lenses and in telephoto reach. Although there are realy good wide angle lenses too. However there currently no Olympus lenses that go past 600mm equiv. unless you get the Sigma bigma!!

Cheers for replying, since you mentioned that you were interesed in the E3 I saw nothing and then you had another 40D. Enjoy tonight BTW