jim quist wrote:
Why is Nikon so low?
Hubris, good sir, hubris!
Yes, I happen to have Nikon and my eyes are straying.
NMY
Remember when the Segway came out...whole cities were going to be built around it...The R5 should be great but not sure I’d go as far as your statement...
CHG_CANON wrote:
The EOS R5 will change how we think about mirrorless, how we think about photography, how we think about life.
Everything is a set of compromises. People bring $100,000 cars to the drag strip for test and tune night and get their doors blown off by a $25,000 drag car.
I recall a kid at the local store showing me an article about a new Super Car that went 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. I told him my son’s drag car went 0-200 in 3.8 seconds. Everything is relative.
burkphoto wrote:
I'd much rather drive a Prius than just about anything else. Lamborghinis are cute, but unless you have money to burn and have a burning need to show off... They're a bit impractical. High maintenance, too.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Yep, Canon still #1.
In fact, Canon's 45.4% market share is greater than Sony, Nikon and Fuji's combined. To keep this announcement from being sent to the back 40 of Links & Resources, let's reference the summary numbers provided by Nikkei Asian Review, just published for the 2019 worldwide market share for digital cameras (gathered from 74 countries) :
Canon 45.4% (+ 2.4)
Sony 20.2% (+ 0.9)
Nikon 18.6% (- 1.6)
Fujifilm Holdings 4.7% (- 0.4)
Panasonic 4.7% (0.0 )
b Yep, Canon still #1. /b br br In fact, Canon... (
show quote)
I always looked at market statistics based upon markets served. If I was selling against Kodak, I wasn't taking on the entire enterprise that was Kodak. I was competing with Kodak for the consumer home color printing market. And I outsold them.
At the low end of the picture taking market, we all know that cell phones used to take pictures far outsell the combined dedicated camera market in these stats.
And, in the same way, every camera Canon makes, doesn't mean much compared to the dedicated bridge or interchangeable lens camera that most of us on UHH use and enjoy.
So, all things considered, these 'stats' are much ado about nothing.
It requires a huge amount of energy and compromise to be the market leader. It is generally not sustainable.
Think about the televisions that RCA made while they were the market leader. Were they the television that you bought if you were a TV enthusiast? Absolutely not. There were others that were far better. As for the oft-lamented Kodak, how long has it been, if ever, since you would have been interested in any camera that Kodak built.
Companies that worry about where they rank historically do a much better job serving their stockholders than their customers, because they rarely expend the energy to learn how to serve both.
This is true in almost every industry. I would much rather buy something important from a competent niche company than from one who specializes in racking up numbers and raking in money.
I am a Panasonic camera user so should i care?
Luck can often be as simple as changing your camera brand at just the right moment.
BDHender wrote:
Lots of people buy Chevys. A few people by Porsche.
Bryan
And even fewer still buy one of these
Basil wrote:
And even fewer still buy one of these
A beautiful classic. And, if yours, you know all about finding and paying for a competent mechanic, parts supply, etc.
A friend is a Jag lover, has a 25+ year old sitting in the garage because he is afraid of driving it and needing repairs.
Speaking as a Canon user and Nikon user, plus many other brands during my photographic lifetime, I tend to go with the opinion of Ansel Adams - (paraphrased) "The most important part of any camera is the 12" behind it."
How do you hide your camera gear?
They certainly have moved well ahead with the last two mirrorless camera introductions, and there "cheap" long reach primes, for bright shiny days. Adding fully articulated screens and IBIS puts Olympus and Panasonic at a disadvantage. Wonder what their plans are for C size sensors?
Market share is really not important. I think leading the technology and art for
the customer is what I want. I have been an Apple computer user and appreciate
most of what they have done. They sell 12% of the world's computers. Their products shine.
When Nikon was making great camera's I loved the brand and the experience.
Sony got my business when they excelled with NEX camera my first one was
really good. Their a7 and a7s line is superb. Their small camcorders were good
enough quality to rival the big expensive camcorders.
I admired Canon's video camera's but way to expensive for me.
I think Sony's pricing and technology in mirrorless is the leader.
They make pro TV camera's and Canon makes good TV camera's
All good but price and performance wins.
So you would or would not own Apple, Google and Amazon stock...
larryepage wrote:
It requires a huge amount of energy and compromise to be the market leader. It is generally not sustainable.
Think about the televisions that RCA made while they were the market leader. Were they the television that you bought if you were a TV enthusiast? Absolutely not. There were others that were far better. As for the oft-lamented Kodak, how long has it been, if ever, since you would have been interested in any camera that Kodak built.
Companies that worry about where they rank historically do a much better job serving their stockholders than their customers, because they rarely expend the energy to learn how to serve both.
This is true in almost every industry. I would much rather buy something important from a competent niche company than from one who specializes in racking up numbers and raking in money.
It requires a huge amount of energy and compromise... (
show quote)
When your #1 you can only go down, so they have to work harder.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.