The other thing to keep in mind about the 'global digital camera market share' numbers is that those include P&S cameras that even in 2023 still accounted for 22% of cameras shipped. From a revenue standpoint, that's not a major factor but from a unit standpoint it does make a difference, and I don't think that's a market segment that Canon dominates as they do ILCs (but I really don't know the P&S market share distribution).
However, Canon reports the number of ILCs they sell each year (from 2017 on; before that they reported y/y growth but not the actual numbers), and CIPA reports the number of ILCs shipped each year. Even though sold ≠ shipped, they're going to be close enough to approximate an ILC market share especially if you're looking across multiple years.
Looking at just ILCs, Canon's (approximate) market share was:
2023: 2.88 M / 6.00 M = 48.0%
2022: 2.86 M / 5.96 M = 48.2%
2021: 2.74 M / 5.35 M = 51.2%
2020: 2.76 M / 5.37 M = 51.5%
2019: 4.16 M / 8.46 M = 49.2%
2018: 5.04 M / 10.76 M = 46.8%
2017: 5.51 M / 11.68 M = 47.2%
I suppose some people (looking at you,
@Uneternal) could look at the above data and say Canon has lost 3.5% ILC market share over a 4 year period and somehow conclude that massive numbers of people are switching away from Canon and that Canon is Doomed™. I stand by my conclusion that the data show Canon's market share has hovered around 50% for many years.
Just looking at the denominators above, you can see that the global ILC market has contracted by close to 50% over the past 7 years; if you go back further, you see that it's collapsed by ~90% from the peak. In 2017, Nikon had about 25% of the market and Sony had half of that, and over the past 7 years Nikon and Sony have swapped market shares while Canon remained stable.
The logical inference from the above is that Canon's strategy is working, and working very well. The market has shifted dramatically over the past decade, Canon has maintained their dominance. Despite that, people here continue to make claims about Canon's supposed grievous errors like 'dragging their feet on opening up the RF mount', 'not launching a high MP camera', or 'whatever'. Objectively, those claims are steaming piles of bovine scat (BS by any other name still stinks). The RF mount has been around for 6 years. Sony launched a 61 MP camera 5 years ago. If either those two exemplary claims were meaningful in terms of camera sales, the data would show the effects. They don't.
What those claims really amount to is people trying to inflate the significance of their personal desires. "I wish Canon would allow 3rd party full frame lenses for the RF mount, because I want to pay less for lenses," is a perfectly reasonable request, as is, "I want more than 45 MP," or, "I wish Canon would fill what I consider to be holes in their APS-C lens lineup." But for some reason, people can't just make those statements.
Instead, people make false claims about negative business consequences Canon has suffered because their personal wishes have not been met, or claim that what they wish for is wished for by 'everyone' or 'most people'. They have no evidence to back up such claims (though some obviously try to misinterpret data or outright make stuff up), but still they make the claims. Oh well, if people want to look asinine, that's their choice. They'll keep on predicting that Canon is Doomed™. Will they be right? Maybe. And maybe Charlie will actually kick that football.
View attachment 219483
