Have Canon and Nikon lost the lead?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I don't mean to start a war here, but I shot mostly Canon from 1977 to 2012, only to have to liquidate virtually my entire collection in the face of a major financial crisis. When I started buying again, Nikon had come out with the D800E, and so (being a "resolution freak") I had to bite for the big Nikon. Thus it is that for the past three and one-half years I have been shooting mostly Nikon.</p>

<p>Two recent links have made me wonder about the dominance of those two great brands. I have loved both and cannot give one an overwhelming endorsement over the other. The recent purchase of a <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1089336"><em>Sony a6000</em></a> for walking trails and city streets woke me up to how far Sony has come since I bought an <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=997650"><em>NEX-3</em></a> back in February, 2011. A friend's higher end Sony equipment also appears very versatile and has made me increasingly rethink brand dominance for several years.</p>

<p>The two links just mentioned, however, have really gotten me to thinking, and so without further ado I shall simply post them here for others to read and offer opinions in terms of which brand is dominant--and likely to remain dominant for the foreseeable future. Again, I do not want a war, and so I ask up front for civility in whatever may be said.</p>

<p><strong>I want to make perfectly clear that I am <em>not</em> asking for advice about changing brands.</strong> That would be out of the question for me for financial reasons, among others, including the time involved that it takes to change brands and learn a new system--and sell off most of everything else. It will not happen. I am in the middle of a book project that has been ongoing since 1995. That sets my agenda for the summer and beyond. Besides, I am not a professional photographer who might really have to have the very best.</p>

<p>My own situation and brand history are therefore irrelevant to the larger question: Which brand is currently dominant or likely to become dominant very soon? Here are the two links that I suggest be read before posting, although I know better than to to ask that. . . .</p>

<p><a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-a7rii-review-and-hands-on-report/"><strong>[Link 1]</strong></a><br /> <br /> <strong><a href="/digital-camera-forum/00dvCF">[Link 2]</a><br /></strong><br /> <br /> --Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie, without wanting to sound very harsh, but: "<em>Which brand is currently dominant or likely to become dominant very soon?</em>" - how does it really matter? I won't like my camera any better or worse if the brand is 2nd, or 1st, or last.<br /> The point that does matter is the rate of innovation, and how much those innovations matter to you personally. Sony certainly seems to innovate at a faster rate than Canon or Nikon do these days, as both of them are just iterating. Fuji does nice things, and Pentax seems to be finding some of its mojo back.<br /> Does any of that mean that choosing Canon or Nikon at this very moment stops making sense, because they're slipping in sales, and not coming up with enough new features? Or does the mere fact that both those brands have a very well established, well-rounded and complete system covering nearly all needs matter more?</p>

<p>One can only decide for his- or herself. I know my choice, and no matter how much people tell me that feature X on new camera Y is a "game changer" and that my camera is hopelessly outdated - my gear suits my needs, and that's all I care about and realistically nobody else needs to care about what I use but me ;-)<br /> Generically, we can only hope that companies continue to think of genuinely useful new features that enable us to get better photos more of the time. And having an open, competetive market is key to that, so let's hope no single brand will actually become dominant - not now, not soon, not ever. Because it won't serve us as customers if that happens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>General agreement with Wouter here.</p>

<p>I shot Pentax from 1959 to 1971, Nikon from 1971-2004, and Canon 2004-date.</p>

<p>I just liked the looks and feel of the Pentax. I switched to Nikon because of the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 lens.<br>

When I went to digital, I confess that my being able to use my non-AI Nikkors on the Canon digital bodies was one factor. More recently, my shooting with Canon has been further reinforced by the release of the TSE 17mm lens. <br>

In all cases, any switch from one to another platform was motivated by what I needed for specific tasks, not by some abstract idea of which was "dominant".</p>

<p>My recommendation is to go and do likewise without worrying about dominance. Worry about what you need, not what you might lust for.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Wouter, I would like a (1) silent shutter and (2) in-camera stabilization, and I do not see Nikon going that way--but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Sony's (3) lighter weight could also become a factor as I get older. (I already carry the Sony a6000 when hiking.) Dare I mention (4) mirrorless?</p>

<p>A few years back, no one could touch Nikon on low-light shooting, and so I was very happy with the switch that I had made. I do a lot of night shooting. Now Sony can match or beat Nikon in low light. I would love Sony's silent shutter (on some models), and who would not like in-camera stabilization?</p>

<p>Few people can afford a wholesale switch based on one or two features, but, if I were young and upcoming, I would be looking at the factors numbered above. Most important of all, Sony has huge financial resources for R&D and a demonstrated propensity to innovate. It also makes a lot of sensors for Nikon--and will likely be able to weather future financial storms. If things get bad again, Nikon could either go under or have to cut back severely, I am afraid, in the face of competition at the DSLR level.</p>

<p>In any case, I will stick to Nikon because of what I have vested in it, but I will hope that it follows Sony's lead--or what I perceive to be Sony's increasing lead--in some critical areas.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Sanford]

<p>An informal observation after a walk around town in this tourist area, most people, by far, are carrying either Nikon or Canon DSLRs followed by camera phones. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I want to make perfectly clear that I am <em>not</em> asking for advice about changing brands.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I said that above, and it stands: I am talking about where the brands are headed, not where I am headed. Even so, for the record, I am with Nikon for now, and probably will be for the rest of my life. But if I were younger, what. . . ?</p>

<p>I do sincerely hope that Nikon can at least try to catch up on the (1) silent shutter and (2) in-camera stabilization. I would be happy with (3) lighter weight and (4) some aspects of mirrorless technology, but the first two are what made me post this morning.</p>

<p>In fact, I do expect Canon and Nikon to try to catch Sony in some areas where they are currently lagging. The only question might be "When?"</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>An informal observation after a walk around town in this tourist area, most people, by far, are carrying either Nikon or Canon DSLRs followed by camera phones.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As a Nikon shooter (and former Canon shooter), that is encouraging, Sanford. Will it stay that way? I said years ago that "The future belongs to Sony." Well, of course, you guys are right that competition is good and need not result in any of the big ones going down. (Look at Pentax's resurgence for a great success story.)</p>

<p>I confess that I have another reason for posting: <em><strong>Let's tell Nikon to get moving and stop being so complacent!</strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

--Lannie<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>More recently, my shooting with Canon has been further reinforced by the release of the TSE 17mm lens.</p>

<p>In all cases, any switch from one to another platform was motivated by what I needed for specific tasks, not by some abstract idea of which was "dominant".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You're making sense on both counts, JDM. I would like two very specific improvements from Nikon: (1) a silent shutter and (2) in-camera stabilization. As I get older, (3) lighter weight could be a decisive single factor by itself.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>I am a former Nikon sir/dslr shooter who made the transition to Sony mirrorless a few years ago (first NEX-6 now a6000) but based on my travels in Europe over the years and Hong Kong last month, I have to say neither Nikon or Canon predominate. More than 90% of the pictures I saw taken were with non traditional equipment which is to say camera phones and tablets while of the rest, most were point and shoot type cameras and mirrorless; dslr's were few and far between though they were all Nikons and Canons.<br>

Dslr's may not be dead but they are very very far from leading.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I was talking to a busy camera shop owner in Hong Kong and he said Canon is holding it's own, but Nikon is way down. </p>

[JosvanEekelen]

Canikon are doing well in profits/sales. Mirrorless (Sony, etc) are winning the reviews and forums - that is, for the

moment.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Canon, Nikon and Sony have a broad range of products. If you restrict the question to cameras with interchangeable lenses, that would probably reflect the interest of most participants at photo.net. In that regard, Canon and Nikon profits (not volume) declined roughly 25% in 2015, while Sony profits increased by 25%. Canon and Nikon each hold roughly the same market share, while Sony lags by about 10%. It's hard to say with any certainty how accurate these figures are, since companies conceal the real data by combining product lines and divisions in their quarterly reports. Any estimates must be derived by reading between the lines and considering various user polls.</p>

<p>Sony's future is bright. The have an unusually strong relationship with Zeiss, a conservative company in all regards, and Voigtlander and other companies are getting on board with the E/FE mount, which are actually identical. FE is is a descriptor for full-frame lenses. Sony recently announced that the imaging division would split from the main company. This can mean a number of things, but since their imaging division is so successful, it indicates the stock price will benefit with more independence.</p>

<p>While SLRs are the mainstays of Canon and Nikon, Sony has effectively abandoned their Minolta (A-mount) line, and is actively building their EVF/ILC product line. If Canikon were to follow suit, every EVF/ILC sale would mean one less DSLR. Sony says they intend to dominate the market by 2020. If the current trend continues, that may be a pessimistic projection.</p>

<p>DSLRs currently dominate the field for sports and wildlife photography. The high frame rate, continuity of an optical finder are necessary features for active sports. Long lenses and focus tracking are features needed for photographing beasts and birds. Looking ahead, this advantage is more a matter of degree than of kind. The frame rate of a mechanical system has essentially peaked for Canon and Nikon. There are no moving parts in an EVF system that would prevent leaping ahead in this regard. DSLR focusing is external to the sensor, and requires calibration for the matchup. EVF focusing is embedded in the sensor itself. Focus tracking is a matter of logic and design intent, controlled by these increasingly capable computers we call digital cameras.</p>

<p>The Sony E-mount is already used on cinematic video cameras, and more recently on low-end (meaning affordable) professional camcorders. The same lenses used on still cameras can be used for video, although dedicated video lenses offer significant operational advantages (at 4x the price). Get this! The latest lenses for the Sony A7 are parfocal (constant focus zooms) and neither zooms nor primes exhibit focus breathing.</p>

<p>All said, the E-mount is a flash in the pan - NOT!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Fact of the matter, most photographers never reach the capability limits of a fine camera. Oh, there may be a set of circumstances here or there where you can't get it to do what you want, but frequently there is a way, but we just don't know it or have the necessary skills. Brand is irrelevant, though familiarity breeds affection. I do like my Nikons and Leica, but have recently been experimenting with a used Ricoh GXR kit which has been interesting, and will be for some time. If my cameras were all gone, with a few minor exceptions, I would replace what I have. If there were no Nikon it would be another brand with similar attributes.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>In that regard, Canon and Nikon profits (not volume) declined roughly 25% in 2015 blah blah blah</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Canon's issues come form laser printers and compact cameras. Sony's growth in profits come from semiconductors and Playstation. Sony's revenue in cameras is dropping.</p>

<p>Profit reflects things that have little to do with consumers much of the time. Currency fluctuations, vendor relationships, etc. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I think JDM hit it with his last paragraph. Market dominance has v. little to do with actual images....that's photographer's domain and less so about the eq. But, the argument about pixels, etc. will continue....I was under the impression that this is not DPR :>).</p>

<p>Les</p>

[andylynn]

All those systems have some great equipment and a strong market and I see them all being around for a long time. The

cameras have different capabilities of course and each is better for some purposes than others, but really, who cares?

Shoot whatever's working for you, it doesn't matter what the rest of the cool kids on the forums are doing.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Market dominance has v. little to do with actual images....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking for myself alone, Leszek, I was thinking of technological dominance first: who has the best cameras with the best features for capturing those images when one needs to or wants to? That is not to say that money does not play into the development of technological dominance, nor is it to say that money does not derive from technological dominance.</p>

<p>In any case, I am concerned primarily with the age-old question: who is producing the best cameras these days? Specifically, are Canon and Nikon still on top where producing great high end cameras is concerned? If they are still on top, can they stay on top? For how long? One asks questions like these primarily to know which one ought to buy, that is, which offers the most bang for the buck. The financial side enters again when one realizes that it is also about which brand one wants to invest in for the long haul. Here marketing dominance is something that one cannot afford to be totally indifferent to. If I were young and just starting out, I would want to know if Sony is going to keep coming on like gangbusters. I would also like to know what Canon and Nikon (or whoever) are developing in order to stay competitive.</p>

<p>I believe that these are reasonable questions to ask. I do not know the answers. I am convinced that Nikon is meeting my needs, but my wants? I would sure like to have that silent electronic shutter--and in-camera stabilization would be nice to have if I keep buying bodies and lenses in the future. </p>

<p>The larger horse race between the top three (but don't forget Pentax)? Well, it interests me (thus this thread), but I expect to stay with Nikon. I do not see myself changing brands just because at present Nikon does not offer everything that I would like to have. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I started out shooting with Canon SLRs some 33 years ago and switched to Nikon about 26 years ago. The switch didn't last very long, though, because I became a multi-system user soon after the switch: Nikon and Canon EOS. Until very recently all my Nikons have been manual focus film cameras (I bought an F4 about a year ago). Also, beginning six or seven years ago, I started buying back into Canon FD, such that it is now the largest segment of my collection. My interest in film cameras has also expanded to include Pentax, both M42 and K-mount, and Minolta MD. Since I already owned an EOS outfit, when it came time to buy a DSLR, going with an EOS model was pretty much a no-brainer.</p>

<p>But about a year and a half ago, I bought a clean used Sony NEX 7. Its use has ended up being a bit of a revelation for me. My EOS DSLR gets used seldom now and, after buying adapters for almost all my lens mounts, I find myself using my old manual focus lenses with my NEX most of the time. It is a genuine treat getting to use this classic old glass, much of which is of excellent quality. So, Sony gets top marks from me in terms of innovation and providing features that its users can make good use of. Where I think Sony is falling a bit short so far is its dearth of lenses for the E mount, especially the APS-C models, and for those, especially ultra-wides and zooms that operate in this range. But I see this as a temporary condition, and I'm sure it's one that Sony is working hard at addressing.</p>

<p>I think the mirrorless phenomenon is still somewhat "out there" for your average photo gear buyer, but I also firmly believe it is here to stay. Its biggest drawbacks are an EVF that still can't compete with a good optical finder and the way the EVF behaves in high-speed situations, which in the case of my NEX 7, are significant drawbacks when I'm shooting fast-paced sporting events. So Canikon still has a few areas where they hold a clear advantage. But as tech improves, this advantage will shrink. Canikon has a <em>lot</em> invested in the old "mirror box" tech and will likely have to be dragged kicking and screaming into competing directly with Sony's mirrorless tech. But sooner or later they will be forced to as their market share continues to erode. The writing is on the wall, and has been for some time. Continuing to put off the inevitable will only cost them in the long run. And I think it is stupendously short-sighted of them not to be aggressively charging ahead with mirrorless tech.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Where I think Sony is falling a bit short so far is its dearth of lenses for the E mount, especially the APS-C models, and for those, especially ultra-wides and zooms that operate in this range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While Sony recently introduced a fine APS-C camera, the A6300, the development of lenses for that format by Sony and their affiliates have practically ceased. Sony is putting their smart money into full frame EVF cameras. Between Sony, Zeiss and Voigtlander (and others), there are pro quality lenses from 16 mm to 200 mm, with no end in sight. Since January, Sony has announced three state of the art G-Master lenses, 24-70/2.8 (delivered), 85/1.4 (delivered) and 70-200/2.8 (pending). Zeiss introduced a new manual lens, the Loxia 21/2.8 and an autofocus lens, the Batis 18/2.8, adding to two existing lenses in each lineup.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Its biggest drawbacks are an EVF that still can't compete with a good optical finder and the way the EVF behaves in high-speed situations</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two parts to this statement. EVF finders are hard to use for high speed shooting, due primarily to a low (5 fps) frame rate and the stop-action view. OVF cameras have a higher frame rate and an unobstructed view between shots. On the other hand, EVF finders compensate for scene brightness, provide outstanding assistance for manual focusing, and display a lot of useful information, configured by the user. The A6300 has the stop-action effect during continuous shooting, but achieves a rate of 11 fps, delivering performance comparable to an OVF. EVF lag for normal viewing is very low in the A7 and A6300, estimated to be on the order of 25 msec or less. Resolution, at 2.4 MP at about .8x magnification for a "normal" lens is better than the human eye. More resolution (e.g., the Leica SL601) will allow more magnification.<br /> <br /> OVFs aren't going to get much better, but EVFs have almost unlimited potential to improve.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have assembled a portfolio of examples using a Sony A7Rii with a Sony 24-70 f/2.8 FE OSS GM lens. If you don't mind carrying a 2 pound lens around your neck, it performs as well as the four Zeiss prime lenses I own covering the same range, albeit a stop (f/2) faster. None of these images were taken with a tripod. In judging the image quality, I pay particular attention to the extreme corners, which are sharp even wide open.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1089923</p>

<p>The A7Rii can be used the same as any other camera for routine jobs. But when it comes down to fine detail, it has what it takes, and the lenses to match.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If a top system camera and optics are your need, and you can relax ftom having all the bells and whistles, Leica's colour 240 and monochrome 246 can compete with the big three or four, as the manufacturer has always done so. But small company and small production means high prices. </p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Which brand is currently dominant or likely to become dominant very soon?</em>" - how does it really matter? I won't like my camera any better or worse if the brand is 2nd, or 1st, or last.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Generally, I agree too. In that matter, I just want to add that which brand is (or is going to be) dominant is a very important matter <strong>to the manufacturers</strong> (and dealers), not to the users (the photographers) at all.<br>

In general, I love to play with cameras of all brands, I own many of each brand. Of course, I never bought anything that my pocket wouldn't allow. That means in general my financial condition decide which cameras I would buy, but other than that, I love them all. Only when there is an emphasize in taste, when I really dislike a camera because of its design, that is usually a Sony. Please do not fight me just because of my opinion and feeling about the Sony cameras. The Sony+Minolta is obviously better (than Sony alone), but I guess Minolta+Sony would be much better. The "bad" feeling that I have had with a Sony camera is that it is not a camera. If I can name it, I would call a Sony camera a camera-less camera.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>As I see it and with absolutely no research, Canon and Nikon seem to still dominate the DSLR market with Sony making inroads into mirrorless while phones have decimated the lower end. But that is just my perception. Competition is good and provides us users with a continual supply of new toys.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I'm not sure why it matters. If you need a certain feature or product from another manufacturer and can afford it, you can buy it. Why would the brand have anything to do with it? In-camera stabilization, as far as i know, is a Minolta technology and Sony inherited it. Canon and Nikon have invested in optical stabilization in the lens and it would be unlikely they'd want to switch (especially if the optical stabilization in long lenses works better than in-body stabilization, as is claimed). The "war" between brands is just as much a war between technologies. The users make their choices based on their needs and the products that are on offer.</p>

<p>The D810 is relatively quiet for a DSLR in normal operation (its sound rarely is distracting), and the D5 offers silent shooting in live view. Of course, if you want silent shooting with a viewfinder, then you need a mirrorless camera (or an accessory EVF, which are available but may make the rig too big). There are many mirrorless cameras (and systems) on offer that may suit your needs, and you seem to have found some. The reason Nikon and Canon are not offering high end mirrorless cameras is because you'd have to leave the old lenses behind to get optimal AF performance in the new system (and they have successful DSLR product lines so the lens investment and lens system compatibility are high priority for both the users and the manufacturers). So there would be little or no advantage to stay within the brand.</p>

<p>There is no way to predict what technologies will be introduced by Nikon or Canon (or other manufacturers) in the future, so it's best to make decisions based on what is available today and how it solves your problems rather than speculate about the future. I personally find EVFs distracting and I'm not able to focus on the subject's emotional cues while viewing the subject through the EVF, so if I were to use a mirrorless camera I would elect one with OVF (e.g. Fuji X-Pro series camera, or Leica rangefinder) or look past the camera to see the subject directly. The OVF of DSLRs is a key feature without which I would not consider a camera purchase at this time. This isn't to say that DSLRs don't have drawbacks - they do. It's a war between technologies and users should choose based on what allows them to do best their own thing, and not worry about brand domination or the future.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If you need a certain feature or product from another manufacturer and can afford it, you can buy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, yes, there is that big "if": <em><strong>"if. . . you can afford it."</strong></em></p>

<p>Ilkka, I have only Nikon lenses for my full-frame cameras, and so it is not so easy ("affordable") for me to buy a new body and lens(es) just so that I can use a silent shutter. It appears that at present I would have no alternative but to buy an entire new system--body and a lens or two, minimum--just to be able to shoot with a silent shutter. That just is not an option for me.</p>

<p>As I said (<a href="/digital-camera-forum/00dvCF"><em><strong>on the other thread</strong></em></a> under "mirrorless cameras"), I recently was at a dance concert and would have loved to have come back another night with my D800E or D3s and my AF-s 70-200mm f/2.8 VR--or maybe my AF-s 24-70mm f/2.8--and get some truly great shots with my best equipment. Frankly, though, for that particular performance, I would have needed a totally silent shutter. Neither big Nikon was silent enough, and the shutter on the D3s would have had people ducking under their seats--and the performers looking out to see who just messed up their performance.</p>

<p>Are you saying that Nikon could not make a mirrorless body (with a silent electronic shutter) that would not and could not work with my existing lenses? I don't understand the technology well enough to understand why going mirrorless would require an entire new line of lenses. I'm committed to my Nikon glass (although I had no trouble with Canon glass, either).</p>

<p>Even having to buy a new body is expensive enough, but a new body with new lenses?! That just isn't something that I could do. Now, if I were a pro or expected to shoot as many silent performance as Jeff Spirer shoots rock concerts and boxing matches, I could see the logic of springing for a new system, or a parallel system. Alas, I am pretty much the photographic dilettante, and so at present I will just have to forego shooting in venues where total silence is required. I wish that it were not so, but it is no great tragedy in my case. There is the possibility of shooting APS-C with a silent shutter, I suppose. I really don't know what's out there. My Sony a6000 has a reasonably silent shutter--but I need total silence to do what I would really love to do (but admittedly don't have to do).</p>

<p>In any case, those kinds of situations simply made me start thinking how nice it would be to have a silent shutter--and then suddenly there was Edward Ingold writing about how great the silent shutter was. I don't absolutely have to have it and so I have happy to stay with Nikon. Besides, at my age there is probably no particular reason to think about what is going to be cutting edge in ten to fifteen years. If I were younger, however, I think that I would be looking about for a brand that can do it all. Perhaps it does not exist. I shrink, however, from concluding that it <em>could not</em> exist. I don't want to have to buy two different lines of high-end glass. More to the point, I can't afford to. A new body with existing glass might be financially possible, but I don't want to start all over. I only teach part-time these days and am not bringing in enough dough to spring for the Sony line just to be able to shoot in silence. I want Nikon to make that possible with Nikon gear, if that might be possible.</p>

<p>As for mirrorless, I have to say that I don't expect mirrorless technology to stand still. Mirrorless electronic viewfinders do irritate me, even though I don't do a lot of high-speed shooting. But will mirrorless continue to have that disconcerting lag? I really have no idea. Nor do I know what Nikon has up its sleeve where new products are concerned--or Canon, either, for that matter.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>