Spoks
Well-known
Olsen has shown on a Norwegian photo site the annual reports of the largest camera producers in the world and their camera divisions. Since launching the first Full Frame D-SLR, the 1Ds, Canon has been the leader of all camera producers when it comes to turnover and profit. For several years as much as 80% of the total profit within the camera producers has landed in Canons coffers. First when introducing FF-D-SLRs Nikon seems to be catching up on them. But Nikon is still far smaller - slightly more than half of Canon, and earns only a quarter of Canon's profit.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
On the other hand Nikon is owned by a much larger company and hence has a lot more capital behind it. 
Olsen
Well-known
On the other hand Nikon is owned by a much larger company and hence has a lot more capital behind it.
Nikon and Canon are both companies noted on the Tokio Stock Exchange. Behind both are some large Japanese banks to ensure a Japanese ownership. To prevent that they are bought up by foreigners. There is no indication that the banks behind Nikon do have any more money than the banks behind Canon (it is rather to the contrary, really). Nor is that any indicator for success. As with just any other company which ownership can be bought on the stock exchange, the only thing that counts is 'profit'. In making profit Canon is far better, and Canon, totally, and Canon is far larger than Nikon, totally.
Canon got larger production runs - which enables lower prices for technically the same product, and larger - far larger, profit that they can re-invest in product development than Nikon.
Nikon is for sale, by the way. Which tells of deeply concerned owners that are not satisfied.
On the other hand Nikon is owned by a much larger company and hence has a lot more capital behind it.
Ahh yes, a member of The Friday Club too.
You've said this before, but when questioned about it, failed to provide any information (links etc.) to back up your claim. Or is it just speculation on your part?
Olsen
Well-known
I did provide a link! I don't speculate on a thing like this. It was in one of the press statements after a board meeting a few years back, listed up on Nikon's investor relations site: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/index.htm
You might have to look up in the archives now.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Do I understand correctly that you back up your statement that a company is for sale with a press release from a board meeting a few years back?
Olsen
Well-known
.........Yes!
micromontenegro
Well-known
Amazing how the "announcement" of the M9 reverted what was, for all intents and purposes, a Nikon landslide
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
sepiareverb
genius and moron
At this point in time Leica appears to be doing the most innovation. Squeezing an MF sensor into an SLR size body or a FF sensor into a RF body seems pretty darn innovative to me. The Nikon or Canon dSLR's are not that much different per incarnation. Oooh, 256 focus sensors!
Here is your previous post on this dated 28th November 2008. You didn't provide any evidence then, just like you haven't this time. 2006 is a long time ago in business. Nikon was in a hole back then, but the D70/D70S turned that around.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
It's a bit difficult to compare because Leica is only producing their third model or so. The M9 is for digital rangefinders what the 5D or D700 were for Canon or Nikon likewise (I'm deliberately leaving out the larger camera bodies from this comparison). Leica is integrating it into a smaller package, but they're also a few years later. Otherwise, the differences between the M8 and the M8-2 are even smaller than those between two iterations of cameras from those manufacturers.
TomN
Established
Leica are obviously the best, but if I were to go back to small format DSLR's, the Sony would be very tempting. I had a D3, and it was a good camera, average lenses though. I handled the A900 the otherday, and it felt really good. The viewfinder smoked the viewfinders of the 1Ds and the D3/x. With some nice Carl Zeiss glass on the front, it seems to be a great package. I can't help but think that Canon and Sony will be the major players in ten or fifteen years.
santino
FSU gear head
Matus
Well-known
Concerning the SONY - I do not know. They produce their own chips, but every time a comparison of some of their DSLRs comes out, the noise performance is always worse then the competition. Also - their lens prices are usually above the Nikon/Canon ones. And their lens line is rather small. They do offer some interesting (Zeiss) lenses though.
BTW, I voted for Cosina/Voigtlaender as I appreciate the way they manage to find their place far from the main stream, and they offer products with very good price/performance ratio.
BTW, I voted for Cosina/Voigtlaender as I appreciate the way they manage to find their place far from the main stream, and they offer products with very good price/performance ratio.
sqjaw
sqjaw = Mr.Lauren MacInto
In my small world the Pentax gives you dollar for dollar value with its K20D in my book, and the K20d is one of the last newer camera that does not have Video on it which what DSLR is suppose to be not Video camera!
laptoprob
back to basics
Panasonic for building the GF-1. I like their approach in new, fresh developments. If only they would be able to produce more, to get some proper availability!
slungu
Established
Well, I voted for Canon as they are pretty much up there with their cameras, have a large spectrum of offerings including two lines of full frame cameras, a decent lens lineup and have one big advantage that they probably didn't think of : you can mount Nikon, Leica R, Olympus and Zeiss lenses on their bodys with an adapter and so getting new life to those great lenses out there.
Of course, I am watching Sony and Leica close, as well as Zeiss and Cosina, the first one for a new SLR, the last two for a new digital rangefinder, and Leica because I am still amazed that they still exist
Of course, I am watching Sony and Leica close, as well as Zeiss and Cosina, the first one for a new SLR, the last two for a new digital rangefinder, and Leica because I am still amazed that they still exist
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
I voted for Leica, because of the quality. Also, so I didn't have to choose between Nikon and Canon.
That being said, those two have the lock on "innovations". Except that they are evolutions.
And Cosina (Er, I mean Voigtlander) for pluck, of course. For price / quality, I would have to choose CV, hands down.
On the opposite end of the spectrum: Mamiya. The Mamiya 7 has the worst price / quality ratio I have ever seen. I love the camera, but it is way overpriced, and feels like junk.
That being said, those two have the lock on "innovations". Except that they are evolutions.
And Cosina (Er, I mean Voigtlander) for pluck, of course. For price / quality, I would have to choose CV, hands down.
On the opposite end of the spectrum: Mamiya. The Mamiya 7 has the worst price / quality ratio I have ever seen. I love the camera, but it is way overpriced, and feels like junk.