Why do Nikon and Canon dominate?

[Fund8329]

First I want to thank everyone who respondied to a earlier thread on picking a new DSLR body.
I have narrowed my choices to the following cameras in order:
1. Pentax K5IIs
2. Nikon D7100
3. Sony A77
4. Canon 70A ( The reason for putting Canon in 4th place, is the camera is not out yet, so data ihas been hard to find)
I have read magazines, talked to local camera shops, and read this forum. It appears that Nikon and Canon is dominating the DSLR market.
Is there a reason for this, and how much should that weight in on my final decsion?
From my research it appears that all 4 camera manufacture makes good cameras. Each manufacturer has its strong points and weak points.
Out of the 4 cameras listed, would you change the order that I have listed, and why?
I welcome any comment or suggestions you may have.
I am hoping to make my final decsion this week and buy a new DSLR.

Thank You All Again

 

[Overread]

Canon and Nikon both have very extensive ranges of modern lenses on offer which also cover a broad range of financing levels. Some of the other ranges have more limited modern lens ranges which might only have limited price range coverage.

In addition both are strong enough that they've got extensive 3rd party options on the market which further increases the variety of quality and budget matching options. They both also jumped onto the Digital market early enough that when it rose to take over the film market both companies were ready. Pentax took time moving in and loss momentum whilst Sony is very new to the game (although they did buy up the Minolta range).

Sony also has another weakness that most (all?) of their flash hotshoes are a propitiatory design as opposed to the standard that nearly everyone else uses which significantly limits their flash options for 3rd party support. (though I think there are some adaptors out there to fix this).

I think I've also read that sony has some odd choices in some areas with regard to their flash/electronic viewfinder brightness (studio appears to be a problem for some using sony).

Other brands can make some very good options and the best thing to do is to research your own requirements fully; understand what it is you want and can afford (or plan to afford) and then see what best fits your situation. Heck some of hte other parties can make some very unique setups - Pentax for example has a very very weather sealed camera and lens setup in their line up.

 

[Gavjenks]

One of the big differences is that Canon and Nikon both have HUGE other ranges of products and markets. They make medical imaging stuff, office equipment, heavy industrial equipment, telecommunications stuff, advanced electronics components in general of all kinds of applications, laser stuff, military contracting, etc.

Most other camera companies just make cameras.


Being huge and having fingers in all those pies confers a lot of advantages. For instance, if the government pays you a bunch of money to develop a laser drone module or whatever, you may be able to use what you learned to then go and use the same concept to patent a new autofocus system that might be way more advanced or way cheaper than a competitor, who never would have been able to afford to do that research. Making you one step ahead of the game in terms of innovation and happy customers.

 

[Trever1t]

Simple...they have the $ for RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT. Plus the have HUGE MARKETING campaigns.

 

[Fund8329]

Thanks to all who have responde so far.
All your answers have helped,but have created a new question for me.
In your opinion, if I buy the Pentax, will there be support on this purchase and new Research and Development for futuer cameras and lenses?
I know that Pentax have been making cameras for a long time, but our they a strong company at this time?
Thanks

 

[Buckster]

Overread covered it very well, but I'll add this: Marketing.

Nikon and Canon have dominated the camera marketing scene for many, many years now. Their commitment to marketing their cameras and lenses and associated gear is second to none in the industry. They put a LOT of money into very smart campaigns that run constantly, never letting up for an instant. I think it's because of that fact alone that their sales dominate, and that in turn is what drives 3rd party support, which Overread covered above.

Put that all together, and you have two powerhouses in the camera industry, both of which can be expected to last and continue to provide gear and support through their own companies, but also through those 3rd party vendors, well into the future.

And what of the other players in the industry? They go defunct, they get bought out by other companies looking to retool them or revitalize them or cash in on the name brand recognition, they even go bankrupt, as Kodak can attest to. As Overread mentioned, Sony bought the Minolta line and is building on that. Why? Minolta failed to gain enough market share to stay in business, and Sony's camera line wasn't going anywhere financially.

What's Sony's future in the camera industry? Well, for one thing, cameras are more of a side business for them. They don't need it to stay afloat. Sony's bread and butter is in all the rest of their consumer goods. They could shut down their camera manufacturing and support tomorrow, and it wouldn't mean a thing to them financially. Like Overread mentioned above, they're new in this DSLR game. To me, at this point, it looks more like an experiment than a commitment to the future. I guess I'm just not convinced yet that they're in it for the long haul, especially after abandoning their earlier camera lines when they purchased the Minolta line and retooled. If Nikon and Canon continue to dominate the industry, even if it's just because they have smart and steady marketing that's VERY effective, and not necessarily because they have the best products (not that they don't, but just "IF"), how long will Sony opt to play in that market? No telling, and that's my problem with them.

And what of Pentax? They've got a great history, and a great product. But is that enough to secure their future in the industry? That alone has never been enough for any other company with a great history and a great product that went belly up. In recent years, they merged with Hoya, then Hoya sold them to Ricoh. How long will Ricoh keep trying to play in this market that is so totally dominated by Nikon and Canon? If Ricoh gives up on it, who will buy the Pentax brand name next, and what will they do with it? Again, the future is uncertain, and that's my problem with them.

Buying a DSLR isn't like buying a point and shoot. It's a lot more of a commitment, and not just because of the initial cost, but because of the ongoing costs DSLR users incur over time by buying more and more lenses, bodies, grips, flashes, triggers, etc., etc., etc. It adds up over time. Next thing you know, you've got $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or even more worth of gear you've bought, and you're expecting a long term commitment to supporting that gear from the company you've bought it from, and being able to continue to grow with it as your needs grow.\

You're basically married to it at some point. It can be very difficult to just sell it all off at a loss and start over with a whole new company and their gear. Because of that, the last thing you'll want after putting in that much commitment is for the company you've invested in to just stop supporting you because they can no longer compete with the powerhouses that dominate the industry, so they shut it down.

I think those are very real considerations when making the decision about which DSLR to buy, because it's also a decision about which company to buy into.

 

[Fund8329]

Thank You Buckster, you have gave me great deal to consider.
From all the responses, I am starting to lean towards the Nikon D7100 for lens choices, 3rd party equiptment, and Company ability to support future growth.

 

[Dao]

If I remember correctly, DSLR market shares dominant players are Canon and Nikon with Canon being the leader (based on the data I saw couple years ago, and I think it is still the same). But majority of the DSLR sales are from the entry level cameras in which is a consumer market. In the consumer market, I believe marketing plays an important role.

As long as the products are some what similar, then I think whoever has the great "Point and Shoot" market and "Professional gear" market has big advantage at the entry level DSLR market. Of course, a lot of money also dump to market the entry level DSLR segment as well.

What do you think a soccer mom will do when she want to upgrade her point and shoot camera to a DSLR camera when she need to shoot her son soccer games? She will go to a local bestbuy store and take a look at the Canon or Nikon camera. She may pick Canon because she noticed a lot of big white lenses at the Olympics. Even it she did not notice during the games (on TV), I am sure Canon or Nikon will somewhat letting her know their cameras were used by Professional.

3rd party support were not directly because of the brand, I think it is heavily based on market share. If you see Sigma release a consumer based lens that support Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras only, that means based on their own research, the target audience for that particular product are camera owners of Canon, Nikon Sony. If they release a lens only supports Canon and Nikon mount, that means based on their research the target audience for that product is camera owners of Canon and Nikon only. But that also act as a positive feedback since more 3rd parties support, the better the system for the consumers.

At the end, the best selling camera does not automatically equal to best camera in that segment. But that is not bad neither. To choose a camera, it really depends on what you like to do with the camera and what's around the system.

 

[KmH]

One of the big differences is that Canon and Nikon both have HUGE other ranges of products and markets. They make medical imaging stuff, office equipment, heavy industrial equipment, telecommunications stuff, advanced electronics components in general of all kinds of applications, laser stuff, military contracting, etc.

Here is what Nikon makes - Nikon | Home
Imaging products, sports optics, Precision equipment, Instruments Products.

Here is what Canon makes - Canon Global : Our Business
Imaging systems, Office equipment, other industrial products.

Canon is a much larger corporation than Nikon is. Both are mainly involved with making optics of various kinds.

 

[Derrel]

One of the big differences is that Canon and Nikon both have HUGE other ranges of products and markets. They make medical imaging stuff, office equipment, heavy industrial equipment, telecommunications stuff, advanced electronics components in general of all kinds of applications, laser stuff, military contracting, etc.

Most other camera companies just make cameras.


Being huge and having fingers in all those pies confers a lot of advantages. For instance, if the government pays you a bunch of money to develop a laser drone module or whatever, you may be able to use what you learned to then go and use the same concept to patent a new autofocus system that might be way more advanced or way cheaper than a competitor, who never would have been able to afford to do that research. Making you one step ahead of the game in terms of innovation and happy customers.

This is true of Canon, and totally wrong about Nikon. Nikon is first and foremost a camera-making company. Canon is the diversified corporate colossus, whereas Nikon is primarily an "imaging company". And recently, they made the majority of their money from d-slr cameras and lenses. Nikon is in fact, pretty much the last remaining old-line Japanese camera maker left on the market.

Thom Hogan mentions this month after month. Nikon is, primarily, a company built on imaging products. As in just this month, he wrote: The DSLR Duel | byThom | Thom Hogan

"Overall, net sales for cameras were down 2.6b yen, and operating income was down 5.1b yen. Net profit margin therefore shrank by about 25%. Nikon did not match last year's quarterly volume in DSLRs, lenses, or compact cameras. Overall, though, the camera business is now an astonishing 78.5% of Nikon's sales, though the full-year estimate predicts 71%."

and

"One other point: plugging Nikon's new numbers into my analysis spreadsheet, I come up with another astonishing figure: it's likely that 80% of the Imaging group's sales numbers came from DSLRs and lenses (a bit less than Canon's). Why is that astonishing? Do the math: in the quarter that means that over 60% of Nikon's revenue company-wide came from interchangeable lens cameras and lenses. Nikon is not only mostly a camera company, they are mostly a DSLR company."

Canon is "the photocopier company"...you're confusing Canon's business model with that of Nikon. Both companies have good ranges of lenses and d-slr bodies. Flashes, and accessories too.

 

[amolitor]

Interesting. Years ago, Nikon made some giant whack of its revenue from selling imaging gear to chipmakers. I guess things change!

 

[raventepes]

Realistically, if I were to start over from scratch, I'd seriously look into the Olympus OM-D line, or just add them to my current workflow. They already have a pretty extensive lens selection, and the micro 4/3's systems lenses are interchangeable, meaning you can have an Olympus body with a Panasonic lens with no need for an adapter. Also, 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tamron are already on the M 4/3 bandwagon. As much as many of us probably don't want to admit it, CSC's are the future of photography.

Just my two cents...

 

[Solarflare]

Because Canikon are, quite frankly, the oldest, the most experienced, and the best ... and thats not going to change any soon. Their cameras have the best automatics, the best autofocus systems, the best metering systems, and so on. They have a huge large second hand market. They have a lot of companies that produce stuff for them (lenses, flashes). For example, the Nikon F mount is an industry standard, thanks to the fact that it has existed for so long.

Pentax (actually Ricoh now, Pentax only exist as a name for DSLRs now) has good offers, too. I love the ergonomics I've seen on Pentax cameras. But they are a small company. They will always be a bit more expensive, unless some day they manage to cross the frontier into a bigger market share that allows to make more investments - more investments into development of new cameras, as well as more investments into mass production which brings prices down.

Sony is a huge company, but its a new company in this field, and it keeps changing what its doing. Cameras are immensely complex tools that have a lot of aspects to them. Sony just doesnt attend to detail as much as the other companies, and are too eager for the next revolution. Of course its good for us that Sony is there, since they keep introducing new good stuff that other companies dont, and thus put pressure on the other companies.

I have read magazines, talked to local camera shops, and read this forum.

Reading photography magazines = complete waste of time. Read serious sites like dpreview. They are EXTREMELY much better (i.e. much more throughout and much more reliable and competent) than photo magazines which quite frankly are utter crap, at least every single one I ever tried.

Local shops = those are often just merchants. In the end, they want to sell you the most expensive stuff. The stuff with the most megapixels or whatever(*). They arent really neutral. Of course there are excellent photography shops out there. But in general, beware.

This forum = much better, but its a rather small forum with not that many users. You can also visit other forums (there are many), ask actual photographers (if you can find a local photography club, that would be ideal), and read photographer blogs and sites.


(*): If you need a lot of Megapixels - just make a panorama shot.

[...] As much as many of us probably don't want to admit it, CSC's are the future of photography. [...]

Um ? I dont know anybody who wouldnt want to admit that. However, right now, they are only an option if you dont need to have a first class autofocus as well. And if you want full frame or higher sensors, you need to even give up autofocus (Leica M) or even additionally switch to film (Mamiya medium format cameras, of which even Mamiya themselves do not produce digital versions, so far).

And Olympus OM-D is a trade. You trade a small camera and lenses for high prices (because despite the small sensor and the small size of the glas, good glas does NOT get much cheaper with smaller sensor size), rather not that good low light performance, and an extremely quick AF-S but rather weak (well, tolerable) AF-C.

Personally, the most interesting MILC to me is the Fuji X System. But I dont see me switching to that any time soon.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Get a Pentax










if you want people to pick on you.

 

[Juga]

Get a Pentax










if you want people to pick on you.

What? This isn't high school where one might get picked on for wearing Wal-mart clothes.

OP, given that you are considering the 70D you might want to wait and read a few reviews before making a decision.