who are the best sellers?

[panocho]

I'm just curious. I have no information about which brands sell more. I think I've heard a few times that Canon is the best seller, and according to what I read here, it seems to be true. Most of you talk about Canon's! Specially on those threads from people planing to buy a new dSLR. Most of the time it's Canon. (Sometimes I feel as if this were a Canon-oriented forum )

I'm sure many of you have information about the market rates of each brand. I'm thinking of dSLR's, not p&s, and not film cameras either, which hardly sell new anymore.

Just for fun, this would be my guess:

1st Canon
2nd Nikon (followed by a not-so-small distance)
3rd Pentax (this one sensibly further distanced)
and then the rest, noticeably further away

This is just my ignorant guess. It will be fun seeing how far away I am from the actual facts!

 

[EOS_JD]

Not sure about No3, Fuji, pentax, sony, Olympus, Sigma all sell a lot of dSLRs but nowhere near the number of the top 2. Canon is WAY out in front.

 

[usayit]

I say Canon has a lead but not WAY out in front of Nikon if you consider the regular consumer market. Canon probably has a significant lead in the commercial and professional markets.

Not sure about no3 either. I have to say i've seen more Olympus DSLRs out in use than Pentax, Sony, and definitely more than Sigma.

 

[Don Simon]

From experience, I have never seen anyone using a Sigma dSLR, in fact I don't think I've ever seen one for sale in a shop. Fuji, I seem to remember someone using one at a wedding, but that's it - again have never seen them for sale in most photo stores (Fuji fixed-lens cameras are of course a different matter). Olympus and Pentax dSLRs I do see more of. The main electronics stores in addition to Canon and Nikon tend to sell Olympus and/or Pentax, and now Sony too. I'm just talking about the UK and about dSLRs here, but I'm thinking Canon, followed closely by Nikon, with Olympus/Pentax/Sony (not sure of order) well behind, and Fuji and Sigma a tiny speck very far in the distance... obviously could be wrong, I'm not following any graphs here.

 

[panocho]

I'm just talking about the UK and about dSLRs here.

That's a point I was also thinking about. I suspect there could be significant differences depending on where we talk about. My guess was of world sales. Now, if we went further and limited the guessing game to particular places, then I wouldn't be surprised to see big differences.

I did put Canon first, but if I had to guess over what I see on the streets alone (Galiza, Spain), I would put Nikon first. Around here, D80's and D70's are the most common sight on shoulders.

 

[cloose]

DSLR global market share:

Canon actually is quite a way in front of Nikon. The statement that no one else is even close to Nikon is glaringly correct.

Canon 46.7%
Nikon 33.0%
Sony 6.2%
Olympus 5.9%
Pentax 5.4%

Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070403.gtcamera0403/BNStory/Technology/home

 

[panocho]

thanks for the link!

it's quite impressive the difference between Canon/Nikon and the rest. I already expected an important one, but such!

Well, now I am beginning to understand the eternal (absurd) polemic Canon/Nikon. It's just a market competition!! And the superiority that some Nikon users seem to feel might simply be the compensation for the selling superiority of Canon

 

[Don Simon]

the superiority that some Nikon users seem to feel might simply be the compensation for the selling superiority of Canon

I don't know about that. I think you see that sense of 'superiority' with Canon users just as much. It's usually a case of "Canon is so much better", "Nikon is so much better", or "Canon or Nikon are both great but anything else is absolutely terrible and will cause you to be a terrible photographer, lose all your friends and become unattractive to the opposite sex"... well maybe a slight exaggeration but you get the idea. Of course you get some degree of fanaticism with any brand though; there's always someone convinced that Pentax multicoating has some magical properties, or that printing "G" on a Minolta lens and painting it white automatically makes it inherently better than any other tube of glass, just like some people think the same about the letter "L" and the same white paint with Canon.

 

[panocho]

and become unattractive to the opposite sex"

Well, you will surely become unattractive carrying some Minolta Dynax, not to mention the uglier Canon T's, for example, whereas everyone will definitely fall in love with you when with an elegant F series in your hands

now more seriously, I think you are right. You'll find people feeling superior at any brand. Only that Nikon users are the ones who have the name on that

 

[EOS_JD]

I say Canon has a lead but not WAY out in front of Nikon if you consider the regular consumer market. Canon probably has a significant lead in the commercial and professional markets.

Not sure about no3 either. I have to say i've seen more Olympus DSLRs out in use than Pentax, Sony, and definitely more than Sigma.

http://news.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/0,39029664,49288958,00.htm

"Canon, however, remains king of the SLR heapby a wide margin. Its 31 per cent growth -a 578,000 camera increase to 2.46 million in 2006 -added more new cameras than all three newcomers combined.

No 2 Nikon cut into Canon's SLR lead, with 36 per cent growth to 1.74 million shipments in 2006.

The overall SLR market grew 39 per cent from 3.8 million shipments to 5.27 million in 2006, IDC said."

I knew Canon had a large lead but was surprised at how big a lead it has!! The rest share 20% between them....

 

[Seefutlung]

... now more seriously, I think you are right. You'll find people feeling superior at any brand. Only that Nikon users are the ones who have the name on that

Pancho - Photography is not about equipment ... it is all about images.

People who would rather discuss hardware over images probably have crappy images.

With dSLRs I found that similar level equipment will deliver similar level results. Put a top level Nikon and a top level Canon in the hands of a professional and he/she will capture images which are indistinguishable when compared side by side. Same thing with prosumer equipment and consumer equipment ... they will all deliver a similar performance and product.

There are some differences. Nikon makes a better looking camera ... Canon's are just plain ugly ... once again the images they produce are similar. Many argue that Nikon controls are easier to use ... and that may be true but Canon's layout works well ... the difference is not significant. Canon does seem to have a leg up on Nikon (all Sony based sensors actually) with better noise control at higher ISOs. I know of a wedding photog who just switched from Nikon and Fuji to Canon because of this and a Pentax K10D owner who won't shoot higher than ISO 800 because the noise will render the image as unacceptable. Canon has more lenses dedicated to digital cameras and smaller digital sensors ... but how many lenses do you need? Nikon has a leg up with better flash systems/controls. Canon has digital cameras with full sized 35mm frame, Nikon has none. Et cetera.

For most of us hobbyists ... there really isn't a difference between Canon or Nikon ... because it's all about the image and there is not a significant difference between a Nikon image and a Canon image.

Gary

 

[table1349]

Pancho - Photography is not about equipment ... it is all about images.

People who would rather discuss hardware over images probably have crappy images.

With dSLRs I found that similar level equipment will deliver similar level results. Put a top level Nikon and a top level Canon in the hands of a professional and he/she will capture images which are indistinguishable when compared side by side. Same thing with prosumer equipment and consumer equipment ... they will all deliver a similar performance and product.

There are some differences. Nikon makes a better looking camera ... Canon's are just plain ugly ... once again the images they produce are similar. Many argue that Nikon controls are easier to use ... and that may be true but Canon's layout works well ... the difference is not significant. Canon does seem to have a leg up on Nikon (all Sony based sensors actually) with better noise control at higher ISOs. I know of a wedding photog who just switched from Nikon and Fuji to Canon because of this and a Pentax K10D owner who won't shoot higher than ISO 800 because the noise will render the image as unacceptable. Canon has more lenses dedicated to digital cameras and smaller digital sensors ... but how many lenses do you need? Nikon has a leg up with better flash systems/controls. Canon has digital cameras with full sized 35mm frame, Nikon has none. Et cetera.

For most of us hobbyists ... there really isn't a difference between Canon or Nikon ... because it's all about the image and there is not a significant difference between a Nikon image and a Canon image.

Gary

Ok, I have to take a little issue here with your comments. "Nikon makes a better looking camera." "Nikon makes a better looking camera."

I'll bet you were one of those "photographers" that drooled over the F3 when it came out, with it's "European, Sports Car Styling" if I remember the ads correctly. Never mind the fact that if the battery died you had only ONE shutter speed. You probably threw your old, dependable, trustworthy and hardworking F2 in the corner and took off with that tramp of an F3. When you got tired of her, you ditched her for a newer, younger F4 I'll bet.

I prefer my cameras to have a B.O.B. (big ole batterypack). My Canon may be a little wide in the bottom, but by heaven's I like her. She will shoot and shoot and shoot all day. She doesn't need no sissy red stripe to make her beautiful. No siree.

We all know your type of photographer. You give the rest of us a bad name with your sleek bodied camera you cad, you scoundrel. So go, go on back to you Nikon with your candy apple gear red bag with quick open top. There are still those in this world that think that the real beauty is not in the body, but in the sensor, the shutter and a good mirror.

The proceeding disertation was brought to you by the LIfetime Photograpy Channel. We will now return you to your regularly scheduled forum. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

 

[table1349]

For those of you that do not have cable or live outside the United States, Lifetime is a television channel about and for women. It is commonly called the Wifetime channel or the Estrogen TV.

 

[Seefutlung]

Ok, I have to take a little issue here with your comments. "Nikon makes a better looking camera." "Nikon makes a better looking camera."
...
We all know your type of photographer. You give the rest of us a bad name with your sleek bodied camera you cad, you scoundrel. So go, go on back to you Nikon with your candy apple gear red bag with quick open top. There are still those in this world that think that the real beauty is not in the body, but in the sensor, the shutter and a good mirror.

The proceeding disertation was brought to you by the LIfetime Photograpy Channel. We will now return you to your regularly scheduled forum. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Dude I sport a 5D and a 20D ... ugly, Crisco (fat-in-the-can) Canons.

I went digital with Canon after using Nikons everyday for a decade ana half as a photo journalist (back in the film only days ... when the only true professional 35mm press SLR was Nikon ... back when Nikon only made one level of camera and lens ... and that was the best camera and lens they could (the Nikkormat notwithstanding).

My Nikons never failed me from the Arctic to jungles to deserts (unless you consider succumbing to the odd piece of shrapnel as failing.) And yet, when I went digital ... I choose Canon ... because she has heart and a great sensor (and because the D200 hadn't been released - lol). Gotta tell ya it takes a lot to walk away from 15 years of inseparable companionship, a pretty face and one helluva body (I like bold Red Stripes.)

Gary

PS- BTW- Pretty good stuff, if I was a Nikonian I would have felt guilty and ashamed. Your day job is a divorce attorney, right?
G

 

[table1349]

Dude I sport a 5D and a 20D ... ugly, Crisco (fat-in-the-can) Canons.

I went digital with Canon after using Nikons everyday for a decade ana half as a photo journalist (back in the film only days ... when the only true professional 35mm press SLR was Nikon ... back when Nikon only made one level of camera and lens ... and that was the best camera and lens they could (the Nikkormat notwithstanding).

My Nikons never failed me from the Arctic to jungles to deserts (unless you consider succumbing to the odd piece of shrapnel as failing.) And yet, when I went digital ... I choose Canon ... because she has heart and a great sensor (and because the D200 hadn't been released - lol). Gotta tell ya it takes a lot to walk away from 15 years of inseparable companionship, a pretty face and one helluva body (I like bold Red Stripes.)

Gary

PS- BTW- Pretty good stuff, if I was a Nikonian I would have felt guilty and ashamed. Your day job is a divorce attorney, right?
G

Na, I'm a cop. After the Attorney crack you best not be showing up in my jurisdiction and time soon.

As for walking away, I have to agree, but I have a few years on you. My first Nikon was an F2, bought in 1972. It was the origional F2 not the photomic or the F2A series. My second Nikon was an F2. Get the picture, I kinda like :heart: the F2. The motordrives were as dependable as they come and I felt guilty getting the first one, as it made me fell like I was being lazy. :blushing:

I just switched a year ago from film to digital and went with Canon as it suits my needs the best. The D200 was out, but since I shoot a lot of sports the Canon suited me better. It is my new love, but I will never forget or give up my first love.

My F2's and all my Nikkor lenses are safely and lovingly packed put away. I watched the F3, F4 :thumbdown: etc come and go and never once had any regrets about my F2's and not upgrading. I still don't. I just picked up a hardly used F2AS Photomic at a great price from my local camera store last week. Works perfectly. I hadn't planed on buying it but I always kinda wanted one of them and never got around to getting one. I even have a motor drive coming.

Now you want to talk about an ugly camera, my Pentax 67 is one ugly beast. Looks like a 35mm with a thyroid problem. But I love her for medium format use. Only thing that could make her any uglier would have been if Pentax had put on a RED STRIPE.:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Take Care.