Are Nikon and Canon the two main/best brands?

Canon are closely followed by Pentax, Sony, Holga and then Nikon.
 
I think that should be taken with a pinch of salt....

Canon and Nikon are the biggest brands, but not neccesarilly the best.

Yes more people use them, but there isnt anything wrong with the other brands as such, they just dont have the marketing of the bigger brands
 
Think of them as General Motors (Vauxhall) and Ford. They sell more units than anyone else but they're not necessarily the best out there.
 
Thanks guys. :thumbs:

Al de Man said:
Think of them as General Motors (Vauxhall) and Ford. They sell more units than anyone else but they're not necessarily the best out there.
Click to expand...

That is a brilliant way of thinking about it, thanks! :thumbs:
 
I think they are both the biggest and the best. There are certainly no better brands in the DSLR market.

Nikon and Canon have around 80% market share between them. Sony, Olympus etc are nowhere in terms of sales volumes.
 
Please don't tell too many people, it's not common knowledge, but Canon is made in A small sweat shop in china and Nikon are made in the old Daily mail factory in london. They are actually totally inferior to Olympus, and Zuiko lenses, being made from the bottom of old beer bottles.

Both companies have told me quietly that they are going to admit their inferiority in the new year and recommend that people who might otherwise have bought their products should buy Olympus. I would get in now before the rush..........

Truth is, in my opinion, that all modern DSLR's of around 10mp are capable of images that you will find entirely suitable.

The only real difference between prosumer and pro is the quality and choice of lenses and build that will stand rough usage.
 
In DSLR terms both Nykon and Canon are the best, There's nothing wrong with other brands, but with them having the largest share of the market, makes them better for choice of quality lenses, second hand equipment, and they both provide THE benchmark what a dslr should be. IMHO of course. ;-)
 
RCAnderson said:
And they couldn't even make them look nice...:cuckoo::shrug:
Click to expand...

I think Hassleblad have lost the plot now. They're clinging on by the thinest of threads anyway with preposterous and unsustainable pricing, but when you start making them in red Ferrari limited editions and now another stainless steel limited edition, it's time to have a serious word with yourself :nono:

They should book a a graveyard plot next to Leica.
 
String said:
Please don't tell too many people, it's not common knowledge, but Canon is made in A small sweat shop in china and Nikon are made in the old Daily mail factory in london. They are actually totally inferior to Olympus, and Zuiko lenses, being made from the bottom of old beer bottles.

Both companies have told me quietly that they are going to admit their inferiority in the new year and recommend that people who might otherwise have bought their products should buy Olympus. I would get in now before the rush..........

Truth is, in my opinion, that all modern DSLR's of around 10mp are capable of images that you will find entirely suitable.

The only real difference between prosumer and pro is the quality and choice of lenses and build that will stand rough usage.
Click to expand...

Now, now, no jokes about Canon or Nikon glass, it's good enough for most people. :lol:
 
pg333 said:
You've got a point there too - I'm sure we had a camcorder in the 80's with a similar looking style!
Click to expand...

Interesting. When I brought one home "just for a borrow" my wife said "oh, so they didn't bother making them look nice then...". But nobody else dares tell me it's ugly to my face. I just traded in a very nice car for less than my 'blad cost.
 
Canon and Nikon have a duopoly over the camera market, rather like Apple and Microsoft having a duopoly over the personal computer market.. I've never known anything but Canon really, and IDRGAF either.
 
Cookaaaaay said:
Hello,

Do Nikon and Canon produce the best cameras?

Cheers.:thumbs:
Click to expand...


No.. they produce the camera's that have the largest market share but they aren't the best available as there are more expensive camera's capable of better images
 
hi mate
you wont go far wrong buying nikon or canon
plenty of good lenses new and secondhand
 
holty said:
hi mate
you wont go far wrong buying nikon or canon
plenty of good lenses new and secondhand
Click to expand...

By the way everyone, I wasn't asking because I want to buy one.. I was asking because I was just wondering. haha.

I'm getting an Olympus. :thumbs::thumbs:

Thanks for all the replies. :D
 
Nobody has said why Nikon & Canon are the two market leaders, so i will explain why,,, not that i know a lot, but i know that no other makes come close in terms of High ISO= superior image quality i.e. Canon 1Ds Mk4/5 and the Nikon D3x & D3s (ISO 64000,128000)
with some of the less expensive mid range camera's of both makes being at a slightly lower level AND getting better as time goes by.
 
Graham00 said:
Nobody has said why Nikon & Canon are the two market leaders, so i will explain why,,, not that i know a lot, but i know that no other makes come close in terms of High ISO= superior image quality i.e. Canon 1Ds Mk4/5 and the Nikon D3x & D3s (ISO 64000,128000)
with some of the less expensive mid range camera's of both makes being at a slightly lower level AND getting better as time goes by.
Click to expand...
That's not the reason. The cameras you mentioned only account for a small fraction of their sales, and high-ISO performance has only really be an issue for the last 2 or 3 years.

Canon are one of the market leaders because they were the first people to make decent, affordable DSLRs. The 300D, launched in 2003, was the real mould-breaker because it was the first DSLR which was aimed at the non-professional market. The 1Ds, launched in 2002, was the first full-frame DSLR and was 5 years ahead of Nikon's D3.

Nikon are one of the market leaders because they're Nikon. They've been a market leader forever. They struggled by comparison with Canon in the first half of this decade, because Canon had invested more in DSLR R&D and were producing better products; but even so their market share never dropped below about 30-35% because of the huge historic base of Nikon users. And they've caught up with a bang in the last 3 years.
 
StewartR said:
That's not the reason. The cameras you mentioned only account for a small fraction of their sales, and high-ISO performance has only really be an issue for the last 2 or 3 years.

Canon are one of the market leaders because they were the first people to make decent, affordable DSLRs. The 300D, launched in 2003, was the real mould-breaker because it was the first DSLR which was aimed at the non-professional market. The 1Ds, launched in 2002, was the first full-frame DSLR and was 5 years ahead of Nikon's D3.

Nikon are one of the market leaders because they're Nikon. They've been a market leader forever. They struggled by comparison with Canon in the first half of this decade, because Canon had invested more in DSLR R&D and were producing better products; but even so their market share never dropped below about 30-35% because of the huge historic base of Nikon users. And they've caught up with a bang in the last 3 years.
Click to expand...

For all those good reasons, I can't see the Nikon/Canon stranglehold being broken at the enthusiast end of the market for a very long time, if ever.

It would take someone very big like Sony, Samsung or Panasonic to a) produce a significantly better product, b) sell it cheaper, c) back it with a range of lenses and accessories to at least match the big two, d) do it for twenty years. That is more or less what Canon started doing in the 1970s and it took them a very long time indeed to overtake Nikon.

Meanwhile, where have all the old major brands gone? Most of them have just died and those that remain - Pentax, Leica, Hassleblad, Mamiya - are clinging on by a thread. I doubt that they have more than one or two percent market share between them.

The other thing about DLSRs is the used market for cameras and lenses. That's really important for enthusiasts who want to trade and upgrade, to get new stuff and sell on the old. That pretty much means Nikon or Canon, and so the cirlce continues and it's impossible for rivals to break in.

And if you want to hire a lens, from the excellent StewartR, well it had better be Nikon or Canon ;)
 
the main reason they aere regarded as the main choise is the rage of lens and accessories that are available for both brands. the third party are starting to support the other brands bout this will take time .


Cheers Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top