Why has Canon the biggest share in DSLR market?

[griddi]

Seriously this time, we do buy emotionally so we don't always know the reason why we buy a particular product and not another.

A couple of examples.

In a forum dealing with a totally different hobby , a guy was asking about a product he had fallen in love with.

I tried to explain that it was too small for his size and anyway not matching all that closely the other features he was after.

Still , asking about it, he also posted photos of the rest of is gear.

At that point I realised that the item in question matched exactly the colour (something like the Sony Alpha logo and not a common colour at all for those items) of a couple of other items he already had.

Well, he got upset with me about my "stupid comment" and he bought that item.

A few months later it was for sale. " Brand new, never used, too small for me "



Now, for a totally different item but just as silly, most supermarkets sell peppers (capsicum) in individual colour or a set of three, one red, one green and one yellow.

Check the price per kilo...

Red, yellow and green $3-4 per kg when in season.

The pack of three is $ 3.99 ( at about $7-8 per kg)

So why do people pay twice as much for the same thing ?

Because the price looks the same and is conveniently packaged.

Capsicum which are sold loose individual are mostly are always displayed to their colour on a supermarket or greengrocer shelf, but one of course has to pay extra for any package , in this instance the prepacked three different colours of the capsicums .....should be easy to understand........

Griddi.......

 

[George1958]

It’s not just about cameras , however saying that, the Rebel cameras of today are better that the flagship cameras a decade ago. When you see what have been achieved with the old flagship gear it’s hard to dismiss the possibility that the SL2 is any other than very capable.

The problem is that camera assessments that are based on spec sheet and metric evaluations by the likes of DXO do not have a strong correlation with final output. Your left with X camera being technically better on paper and that’s it. The chances are you will not be able to see any significant differences between most cameras in the output.

The marketing men would have you think otherwise if they could.

 

[Fotoni]

Canon is a large well-known brand, old habits die hard and common people like to decide by feeling because it is easy. Small phone displays with limited contrast hide lots of flaws, but that is a very common way to do photo viewing nowadays. Personally, I would be a bit angry, if in the near future I decide to look at some old photos with advanced headset or huge HDR display and then see all that noise.

 

[Mike CH]

Canon sells a lot of rebels.

That was the point, wasn’t it?

Regards, Mike

 

[Mike CH]

Canon has a solid dealer network, excellent professional support and good marketing that keeps visibility up so all the little kiddies and wanna be's think they need Canon. But also, who else has such an extensive lineup of lenses like this? Nikon has good lenses, but I'm more impressed with the breadth Canon's lineup, especially after the new tilt-shift lenses. Pros buy Canon because generally, Canon doesn't let them down.

So a combination of getting the job done and slick marketing will always make up for less-than the best in actual performance.

The only point you mention that isn’t somehow tied in to actual performance is ‘good marketing’.

Solid dealer network - means many contact points available if case of problems.

Excellent professional Support - fast renting of equipment or fast repairs.

Breadth of lens lineup - even specialties that other brands won’t think about putting on their roadmaps.

All those things tie into actual performance and the ability to get image you want when you want it.

Wouldn’t it make sense to also consider these aspects when considering ‘best’? Instead of just using a single aspect? Why do we continuously label something ‘best’ based on a single aspect?

Regards, Mike

 

[Don Lacy]

Canon is #1 because it the #1 selling camera. That means Canon is entirely Sales & Profit driven rather than Geeky-Engineering Driven (like Nikon is). In the end, more People buy Canon because its Canon (the brand), instead of its poor DxO Scores.

I hate to say it, but Canon = "Apple" in the photography worlds, where the brand names sells themselves.

Still doesn't explain why Canon has the majority of the pro market also.

 

[Don Lacy]

1. Fotoni wrote:

Canon is a large well-known brand, old habits die hard and common people like to decide by feeling because it is easy. Small phone displays with limited contrast hide lots of flaws, but that is a very common way to do photo viewing nowadays. Personally, I would be a bit angry, if in the near future I decide to look at some old photos with advanced headset or huge HDR display and then see all that noise.

All what noise none of my Canon images have excessive noise compared to other brands. If you want I can send you some of my images to look at on those headsets and HDR displays you will not be angry.

 

[George1958]

Was the customers buying the camera that the distributors stocked that drove demand?

 

[Mike CH]

Is there something wrong related with the DXO marks ... if not, that is, if these lists reflect the truths, why has Canon the biggest share in DSLR market?

Your question makes an unsound assumption: i.e. that there is, or should be, a strong correlation between product technical qualities and business performance, in a consumer products market.

Actually, I think there is a certain, somewhat strong correlation between technical qualities and business performance. It just so happens that it is not for those technical qualities that the technical pundits think it should be.

E.g. in these discussions the VHS/BetaMax case is often brought up by (technical) people lamenting that the best product lost. But not best in recording time (at least in the beginning) and there are strong indications that the buying public favoured the ease of handling related to the longer recording time over the image quality. So there really was a correlation between technical quality (and recording time is a technical quality) and business performance - just not one the pundits could accept.

This is, obviously, not always the case. But I see signs of it all over the place. What the pundits consider the most important technical aspect, that then determines what the best product is, is not always matched by what the buying public thinks. Look at car mileage. In a certain sense, low mileage is 'best'. People still buy roomier cars, or cars with a better response, or cars with more gadgets...
Regards, Mike

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

E.g. in these discussions the VHS/BetaMax case is often brought up by (technical) people lamenting that the best product lost. But not best in recording time (at least in the beginning) and there are strong indications that the buying public favoured the ease of handling related to the longer recording time over the image quality. So there really was a correlation between technical quality (and recording time is a technical quality) and business performance - just not one the pundits could accept.

....

In other words, it's not just technical picture quality that mattered. It was the system as a whole.

My dad initially chose VHS because he found a machine with a wired remote pause and 2X playback (with sound). At the time, there was no consumer BetaMax machine that offered these features.

To bring this back to cameras, the quality of the image is only one factor.

Imagine that there was a single number that measured quality. A score of "100" was perfect quality, a score of 75 was good quality, 50 was bad, and anything below that was unwatchable.

Imagine that the top 100 cameras all had scores between 98 and 99. Would it be crazy to buy a camera with a score of 98.1, even though there were a hundred cameras with better scores? The fact that a camera is not in the top 100 does not mean it has bad quality.

When the bottom of the line cameras all offer excellent quality, the quality differences between the top of the line cameras are only visible under extraordinary circumstances. At that point other factors are likely going to overshadow quality when it comes to picking a camera.

 

[Mike CH]

...

E.g. in these discussions the VHS/BetaMax case is often brought up by (technical) people lamenting that the best product lost. But not best in recording time (at least in the beginning) and there are strong indications that the buying public favoured the ease of handling related to the longer recording time over the image quality. So there really was a correlation between technical quality (and recording time is a technical quality) and business performance - just not one the pundits could accept.

....

In other words, it's not just technical picture quality that mattered. It was the system as a whole.

I tend to think that it is the system as a whole, too. But I wouldn't rule out that there could be technical qualities that drive business, but just not the ones that the pundits find interesting.

My dad initially chose VHS because he found a machine with a wired remote pause and 2X playback (with sound). At the time, there was no consumer BetaMax machine that offered these features.

Real People (TM) make other trade-offs than pundits do. And DPR (and other places, too) are full of wannabe pundits.

To bring this back to cameras, the quality of the image is only one factor.

Imagine that there was a single number that measured quality.

We can stop here. That is simply not possible

Not that the rest of your argument is wrong. It absolutely isn't - it gets very crowded at the top, and correspondingly hardly anybody can tell the difference between cameras in the top most of the time. Completely independent of how many values are assigned and in which manner.

But DxO does have a business case and model to uphold...

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

 

[caspianm]

Canon sells a lot of rebels.

That was the point, wasn’t it?

Regards, Mike

 

[Mike CH]

Canon sells a lot of rebels.

That was the point, wasn’t it?

No! Read again!

You will always have the potential situation that not all lines in a product family are equally profitable, and you should be rather careful in interpreting anything into that - particularly as an outsider that doesn't have access to the full information.

The point remains - Canon is still almost twice as big in the DSLR segment as number two. That may change, but it certainly hasn't changed as fast as people have been predicting for the last many years, so take those isolated, individual numbers with a grain of salt.

Regards, Mike

 

[stevo23]

DxoMark examines a small part of the big picture. With a duty to produce important images, I need to consider the whole system, the whole big picture. (I do not claim to be a “professional” photographer, just a public servant with an obligation to produce accurate images as part of my official duties, and the personal need to shoot plenty of flowers, birds, puppies, and butterflies, in order to off-set what I do while at work.)

I use a pair of 7D Mark II cameras for evidentiary/forensic/crime scene photography. I have to upload properly-exposed OOC JPEGs, for official purposes, and the 7D Mark II does this very well. I must upload every image in a series, with no deletions, and no editing, so the flicker detection and sync capability is valuable for consistent WB and exposures.

My wife’s new Nikon D500 clearly “beats” my 7D Mark II cameras, in several ways, but the 7D and 7D Mark II ruled this category for a number of years. Until the D500 was introduced, and I then bought one for her, she had to be content with less-capable AF than I had with my Canons.

No one lens manufacturer owns the best-in-class title in every category, but Canon certainly has capable lenses for a variety of tasks. I use both Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses, and love individual lenses, made by each, too much to ever settle upon one brand, to the exclusion of the other. A macro lens of about 100mm being very important to me, I prefer the EF 100/2.8L Macro IS to its Nikkor 105mm counterpart. My Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60/2.8G is excellent, but see the next paragraph, regarding macro flash. (I also use two Zeiss lenses, and plan to acquire more, over time.)

I work at night, so flash is important. In my opinion, Canon’s 580EX II at least equaled its Nikon counterpart, and the 600EX-RT took another step forward. (I have experience with Speedlites and Speedlights, and neither are junk.) Canon’s Macro Ringlite allows me to work more quickly than does the multi-piece Nikon system.

Canon’s customer support/service has a very good reputation. I have been fortunate, in not yet needing quick support/service, but I did pay attention to this aspect when deciding upon a system.

It is “all about the system.”

There's nothing about your job and what you do that couldn't be done with Nikon. This isn't about the system, it's about what you like.

 

[caspianm]

We already know that Canon is leading the segment. Who cares it is the rebels or FF..

The question was how it stays in lead knowing that its products (bodies) not competitive.

It is not the sale record but rather underlying reasons. Getting sidetracked?

 

[Michael Fryd]

....

There's nothing about your job and what you do that couldn't be done with Nikon. This isn't about the system, it's about what you like.

Once you're at a point where there are multiple options that can do the job, the decision falls back on to secondary and tertiary considerations. If Canon and Nikon both make products that can do the job, why not pick the one that is compatible with your existing gear? Why not pick the same one as your friend so you can borrow his lenses?

Why not pick the one with better marketing? If either will do, why not pick the same one as the big-time professionals use. After all, if the guys on the Red Carpet at the Oscars were shooting it, wouldn't it feel nice to have the same brand?

 

[Mike CH]

We already know that Canon is leading the segment. Who cares it is the rebels or FF..

Apparently, you did? Otherwise, why bring it up?

The question was how it stays in lead knowing that its products (bodies) not competitive.

Could you examine that sentence again, please? Before I roll of my chair?

Being able to stay in the lead is pretty much the definition of being competitive, actually of being the most competitive.

It is not the sale record but rather underlying reasons. Getting sidetracked?

No.

But then I have no problem accepting that people buy things for reasons the pundits don't consider important.

Regards, Mike

 

[stevo23]

Canon has a solid dealer network, excellent professional support and good marketing that keeps visibility up so all the little kiddies and wanna be's think they need Canon. But also, who else has such an extensive lineup of lenses like this? Nikon has good lenses, but I'm more impressed with the breadth Canon's lineup, especially after the new tilt-shift lenses. Pros buy Canon because generally, Canon doesn't let them down.

So a combination of getting the job done and slick marketing will always make up for less-than the best in actual performance.

The only point you mention that isn’t somehow tied in to actual performance is ‘good marketing’.

None of those are tied to what I mean. The only thing that impacts performance of the end product is the design and manufacturing part of the chain. If the support program's capacity were suddenly cut in half through layoffs, would your 5DIV's resolution drop from 30Mp to 18Mp?

Solid dealer network - means many contact points available if case of problems.

By that I mean you will have less trouble getting what you need when you need it.

Excellent professional Support - fast renting of equipment or fast repairs.

Sure.

Breadth of lens lineup - even specialties that other brands won’t think about putting on their roadmaps.

Yes.

All those things tie into actual performance and the ability to get image you want when you want it.

No, they have nothing to do with the end product and it's performance, only with your ability to get repairs or product. By performance, you're talking about company performance in satisfying needs. I am implying that is part of the reason they're popular.

But I'm specifically talking about the actual camera and lens pair itself as in "better at producing high quality images". I'm not sure how that wasn't clear in context, but happy to explain.

Wouldn’t it make sense to also consider these aspects when considering ‘best’?

Again, I'm talking about the actual image making potential of the engineered and manufactured end product. No support network will change that once it rolls off the line. They could increase their support network with twice as many repair centers and half the turnaround time tomorrow, but the 6DII will still be a step backward. The 5DIV will still be behind it's peers.

Instead of just using a single aspect? Why do we continuously label something ‘best’ based on a single aspect?

? How am I only considering one aspect? Those points about the dealer network and support program and product depth weren't your points, they were mine.

My point was this - just because a camera/lens can demonstrate a superior ability to capture an image, it doesn't mean that will be the highest selling camera.

 

[Mike CH]

My point was this - just because a camera/lens can demonstrate a superior ability to capture an image, it doesn't mean that will be the highest selling camera.

Well, that was kind of my point, too

Together with an observation that 'best' - justifiably so - means different things to different people.

Regards, Mike

 

[abe4652]

"Regular" people do not perceive the difference between a current model $600 camera with a $400 kit lens and a top model with lens costing 3 or 4 times as much.

They feel that they have already spent "quite a lot" with the $1,000 purchase, feel that they have already "moved up to the big leagues" with a "big, professional camera," like the pictures it produces, and will still be shooting with it in 2020.

And it doesn't help that in 2022, the top $600 camera model will be producing better pictures than today's $2,400 camera.

Regular people are not sitting on the train dpreview people are on.