| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2007 02:59:07 PM · #1 |
Posted on FM by Monito:
106 million digital cameras sold, up 14%.
Canon sold 19.7 million units, up 23% for an 18.7% share.
Sony's share was 15.8%, up from 15.2%.
Kodak's share was 10%, down from 14.2%.
Olympus 8.6%, down from 9.8%.
Samsung leapt to fifth place, up from ninth, with 7.8%, up from 3.8%.
Nikon dropped to sixth with 7.6%.
5 million DSLRs sold, up 39%.
Canon has a 46.7 percent share in 2006, with its shipments rising 30.7 percent
Nikon secured the No. 2 position in DSLRs with a 33 percent market share. Its shipments jumped 35.9 percent.
Sony, which bought the DSLR unit of Konica Minolta Holdings shipped 326,240 DSLRs in 2006, accounting for 6.2 percent of the market.
//www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2110905,00.asp
So to those that in the past have questioned my statement that Canon outsells Nikon 2:1...
Canon's count 19.7 million, Nikon's count for 8.058 million
Message edited by author 2007-04-13 09:14:39.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 03:29:46 PM · #2 |
Nikon makes pretty crap point and shoots if you ask me, I am not that surprised by this outcome.
For dSLR's Nikon is pretty strong with good growth, especially in the last couple of months of 2006.
In units it roughly equates to:
Canon 2,335,000
Nikon 1,650,000
So in that respect Canon does not outsell Nikon 2:1 :)
dSLR-wise Nikon sells as fast as they can produce, which is good. And they seem to be able to change the productlines in the factories quicker so they can deliver sooner after announcement.
I think Nikon needs to merge with Fuji and switch all dSLR stuff to the Nikon brand and all the p&s stuff to Fuji and get rid of Sony as their supplier. On the other hand, Sony uses Nikon optical stuff to produce sensors so best to keep a healthy relation as Sony is the biggest sensor supplier. :)
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 03:36:56 PM · #3 |
Does market share really matter, so long as we, as photographers, enjoy using the product?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 03:40:07 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Does market share really matter, so long as we, as photographers, enjoy using the product? |
I don't care but I am a bit bored. My market share is bigger than yours!
Message edited by author 2007-04-04 15:48:59.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 03:45:39 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Does market share really matter, so long as we, as photographers, enjoy using the product? |
I don't care but I am a bit bored. My marked share is bigger than yours! |
Sorry, I'm too slow tonight. I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 03:48:51 PM · #6 |
And I see I made a typo.
Market share talk is just as big a waste of time as talk about new camera rumours, but it keeps you busy when you are a bit bored.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 04:28:49 PM · #7 |
I think that we're in agreement here that going out and using our cameras is the most important and enjoyable thing.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 04:44:25 PM · #8 |
| Nikon is keeping production low to ensure excusivity :-) |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 05:01:52 PM · #9 |
| Who in the #$%#" cares... I could give a rat's A$$ who sells more. As long as your equipment performs and you are happy with it's performance why should it matter. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 05:11:17 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MARCUSPARHAM:
Who in the #$%#" cares... I could give a rat's A$$ who sells more. As long as your equipment performs and you are happy with it's performance why should it matter. |
i'll tell you why it matters. more sales means more revenue means more money for r&d which means more improvements to products and systems more quickly...theoretically, that is. there are plenty of exceptions where those with less have accomplished more, if only by sheer will. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 05:23:53 PM · #11 |
| From a photographer's standpoint.If Nikon only sold three cameras last year, and I bought two of them, and they performed admirably, then that is my concern. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 06:09:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Skip:
i'll tell you why it matters. more sales means more revenue means more money for r&d which means more improvements to products and systems more quickly...theoretically, that is. there are plenty of exceptions where those with less have accomplished more, if only by sheer will. |
What world have you lived in for the last few decades? More market share usually means more corporate arrogance and more spent on advertising, not R&D. For example look at the crap that came out of Detroit since the 70s.
I̢۪ve been shooting Nikons for over twenty years. I never questioned the quality of even its lowest priced cameras, until I started seeing them in chain stores in the late 90s.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 06:16:21 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MARCUSPARHAM:
Who in the #$%#" cares... |
People who trade stock and other bits of paper that have value.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 08:52:28 PM · #14 |
| Well talk about it on a stockmarket forum and save the photography forum for photography. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 09:30:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by MARCUSPARHAM:
Who in the #$%#" cares... I could give a rat's A$$ who sells more. As long as your equipment performs and you are happy with it's performance why should it matter. |
i'll tell you why it matters. more sales means more revenue means more money for r&d which means more improvements to products and systems more quickly...theoretically, that is. there are plenty of exceptions where those with less have accomplished more, if only by sheer will. |
Skip, almost all of the camera manufacturers that I can think of have parent companies that supply them with abundant cash for R&D. Sony is a hugh company that will give lots of funds for the new Sony/KM line; Nikon is connected with Mitsubishi, if I'm not mistaken; Olympus's parent company is the leading manufacturer for medical devices and makes a lot of money to supply the camera division with; Panasonic is also a mammoth company for the Panasonic line of cameras; Pentax is now owned by Tiffen; and Samsung is also a pretty big. (Not sure about Fuji.) Maybe we should be asking what the advertising and marketing spending is of these companies. That would be interesting. I couldn't find anything about that with a Google search. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 09:50:35 PM · #16 |
| the main concern about market share is whether or not the trend shows your favourite camera company will wrap their business anytime soon. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 10:07:34 PM · #17 |
I just want the market shares to stay about even. Once a single company gets a huge advantage over the rest, they can then just sit back and become bloated and lazy. As long the competition stays fierce, we're the benefactors, both in lower prices and in better quality / newer features. :-)
|
|
|
|
04/05/2007 11:10:09 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by MARCUSPARHAM:
Well talk about it on a stockmarket forum and save the photography forum for photography. |
Or you could just ignore this thread.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2007 02:34:40 PM · #19 |
Market share is not important, until you don't have any! Ask Konica-Minolta.
It also matters to you the end user - customer and technical support, resale value, etc.
If you sell millions of cameras you can afford local reps to support the stores, train sales personnel, etc. If you sell 100,000 you can't afford do that.
So as a customer I benefit from the larger company's large market share - more customer feedback, more friends have gear I can try out, etc.
The local association I belong to benefits too - Canon sends a rep (or two) with gear - all the bodies, lenses, flashes and usually a few printers to try out as well. Any technical question you can imagine they know the answer to. Nikon is never there A(and the world's largest owner of Nikon gear is 7 miles away), Fuji used to be but wasn't this year as they've re-organized and have no local rep anymore.
Message edited by author 2007-04-05 14:40:23.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2007 03:00:14 PM · #20 |
| trust me, i'm an idiot who's been living under a rock for the past few decades. i know nothing about business, and i am poorly read. please ignore me. |
|
|
|
04/05/2007 05:00:50 PM · #21 |
TO Azrifel:
You are correct, I should have just ignored the thread. My comments were uncalled for and for that I owe Prof-Fate and apology. I generally try and stay away from brand-loyalistic threads and read and respond to threads of a different nature.
To Prof-fate:
I do apologize for my response to your post. This is a friendly forum with a lot of good information. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 07:34:00 PM EDT.
