Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Ruman, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. Ruman

    Ruman Guest

    Hi all,
    Please excuse my ignorance, but one of my friends recently told me that
    Nikon is pretty much the only brand pro or semi-pros use. However, I
    got a totally different picture while googling about the fact:
    1. Sony - 21.5% market share (trending down) - 1.73 million cameras
    2. Kodak - 18.3% market share (trending up) - 1.47 million cameras
    3. Canon - 14.7% market share
    4. Olympus - 11.8% market share
    5. Fuji - 8.7% market share
    6. HP - 7% market share
    7. Nikon - 5.7% market share
    This statistics is for the total units shipped in the US alone, so not
    exactly in the same scope I guess.
    Can anyone tell me the market shares of pro/semi-pro 35mm SLR camera?
    Thanks in advance.
     
    Ruman, Oct 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ruman

    Skip M Guest

    Of that list, only Canon and Nikon still make film SLR cameras, so you can
    narrow it down to those two. And your friend was a bit off the mark with
    his/her statement, if you look at the sidelines of any sporting event, those
    white lenses you see are generally attached to Canon cameras, although the
    overwhelming majority of those are digital.
    Nikon still leads in medical, forensic and industrial applications, but
    Canon has a major share in other "pro" fields, fashion, sports, etc.
    BTW, I'm one "semipro" who uses Canon...
     
    Skip M, Oct 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ruman

    Rob Novak Guest

    Very few pros use 35mm film as a format anymore. 35mm has been
    replaced in the professional market by digital. There's still a fair
    amount of medium format (though photographers that can afford it are
    switching to digital backs) and large format film. The only place
    where film still has a solid foothold is with those that do a lot of
    black and white work, and a lot of that is medium-format
    portraiture/wedding.

    In the days of wetworks photojournalism, Canon overtook Nikon with the
    EOS line and the introduction of the USM lenses (around 1990, I think)
    which offered the best AF performance. Prior to that, the Nikon
    single-digit F's were rulers of the roost, for the most part.

    As far as "semi pro" - that term is next to meaningless, even though I
    use it myself. It can encompass everything from the part-time wedding
    or portrait photographer, to the budding assistant, to the guy who
    took pictures of his daughter's soccer team once, and every aspiring
    fine art photographer who still holds a day job. Equipment here
    ranges all over the board, with digital making serious inroads via the
    Nikon D70 (most popular digital SLR I see 'round my parts, though the
    RebelXT may outsell it nationally), the D100, and the Canon 20D.

    Primarily, people who are serious about photography and in the market
    for an SLR (digital or not) look to Canon and Nikon, with Minolta way
    back in the rear. Why? Support. Nikon and Canon have huge service
    networks, extensive accessory catalogs, vast lens system offerings,
    and lots of third-party support.

    Step out of the 35mm/dSLR format and into 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4"x5",
    and it's a whole different ballgame. Contax, Rollei, Hasselblad,
    Mamiya, Toyo, Sinar... you won't find many Canons and Nikons up here,
    simply because they don't exist.
     
    Rob Novak, Oct 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Ruman

    Jerry L Guest

    Plus....Canon EF lenses and the EOS line of camera bodies "left behind"
    a whole number of FD equipment owners when the "newer EOS" lineup of
    camera bodies came on the market.



    Some older (not wiser) Nikon equipment owners have had the same lens
    mount since 1959 --- the latest film Nikon body (F6) can still use many
    of the 'old' lenses, although some modification may be needed to make
    the lens Ai in function.




    The 'newer' digital wonders have 'maybe' a two-year span of "this is
    hot" before the next "hotter" model hits the market.




    A good film scanner can get a 24 Mb file on your computer hard
    drive.....or you can spend $4,000 (or $8,000 for a Canon) and clog up
    your hard drive with a number of 12 Mb files. You have a choice ---
    save on buying film and spend on the "latest" camera body.



    Has Canon released a 'mechanical' 35mm SLR that will run without a
    battery in the past four years? That is progress....
     
    Jerry L, Oct 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Ruman

    Rob Novak Guest

    Consider that a good 35mm negative has about 10Mpx of information, and
    a good fine-grain chrome about 16, and you'll see why that format is
    almost completely obsolete in the pro circuit. Scanning at 4000-5400
    dpi and 32Mpx from a 35mm negative just makes for bigger files.
    Admittedly, you can gain some benefit from higher resolutions by
    avoiding interpolation error/noise in enlargements. If you want to
    beat the 12-16Mpx dSLRs in real resolution, you need to move to bigger
    film.

    Now, having said this, I'm still primarily a film guy. I'm shooting
    more than ever - mostly black and white - and processing myself. For
    color, I'll shoot chromes for archival work, or digital when I need
    quick turnaround. B&W negs and chromes go into a Minolta Scan Elite
    5400 and from that point, everything's digital workflow no matter what
    the source. I'm working on a way to get medium format or better into
    digital files without spending a mint to do it. Then, I'll be fairly
    self-sufficient all 'round.
     
    Rob Novak, Oct 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Ruman

    artographer Guest

    Here are the facts plain and simple and I don't care what you read see
    or hear.

    Fact One. Canon EOS DSLR'r are faster, better and more reliable than
    Nikon.
    Fact Two. Film is obsolete...period.
    Fact Three. Kodak knows flim is obsolete because they are
    discontinuing the B/W print paper that wes the standard
    for almost a century. The writings on the wall folks!
    Fact Four. Canon has created the be all and end all with the 20D.
    As a professional wedding photog it can't be beat. I was
    a Nikon shooter for 20 years. The only thing Nikon has
    over Canon is customer loyalty.
    Fact Five. If you want the best DSLR on the market you have to spend
    8 Grand and get a Canon EOS1Ds
    Fact Six. If you want a blazeing fast DSLR for pro shoots and want
    to keep your budget under 2 Grand the 20D is hands down
    the best out there.
    Fact Seven. For under a thousand the Digital Reble is the best.
    Fact Eight. The Nikon D70 stinks in extreme weather conditions.
    Fact Nine. Regardless how many loyal Nikon shooters will want to
    say different and regardless of how many so called
    "pros"
    will stick up for film. It's OVER folks.
    Fact Ten. Olympus, Konica/Minolta, Fuji, Kodak, Pentax...will
    to "BRING UP THE REAR" in the near and distant
    future of digital photography.

    Now stop looking for rationalizations...get on with it :)
     
    artographer, Oct 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Ruman

    artographer Guest

    Hey Rob...I may have sent a post with my Canon diatribe to you
    unintentionally...it was ment for Ruman
     
    artographer, Oct 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Ruman

    artographer Guest

    www.myultimateaffair.com
     
    artographer, Oct 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Ruman

    artographer Guest

    artographer, Oct 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Ruman

    Matt Clara Guest

    Matt Clara, Oct 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Ruman

    Guest Guest

    No, not in a lot of areas and not by a lot of pros in the EU and the US
    really. Top world class pros.
    No, Kodak is just bad at doing biz and are more interested in selling
    batteries. Fugi is coming out with new films and so are other companies,
    I see these new films in the EU and Japan, could be they just don't care
    about America.


    Great, so what. Weddings, who cares? Great if you make your living that
    way but it is not what all pros do or want to do. If I did weddings I
    would use digital too, alongsid film as a backup but it is not the whole
    world of the art of photography. Art!
    Or take great shots with an old manual camera and some film. My old
    Spotty takes great pics and I just got another for 19 bucks at the thrift
    store. I am on assignment with my wife this next month to document live
    music in Italy, Germany and other parts of the EU. We are taking to Canon
    EOS film bodies and my old Pentax Spotmatic. The lighting at many stage
    shows can drive some digitals crazy. You will see a lot of pros shooting
    digital as well at such events but the smart ones have a film camera in
    there bag too.
    Most digitals suck here.
    Now you really sound like a troll. It's really your world though as you
    are so smart. Many top pros, some of the worlds best, still shoot film
    along side digital. Some say they have gone digital but are on the take
    from Nikon or Canon. Some are just stupid. There have been several
    occasions where my wife and I would have no shots to bring back had we
    relied on electronic cameras, digital or film. Rain forests, desserts,
    thunder storms, sailing, old Spotmatic and old Nikon F worked every time.

    Or shoot film for a few years more if you want. This way it will just get
    better as digital is designed more by feedback from real pros in the
    field. The Goodwills and thrift stores will be full of the stuff that is
    out now in just a few years. Just like they are with computer stuff now.

    There are a lot of people in this world who go out and spend countless
    dollars on the latest, greatest thing, cameras, SUVs, HDTV and then they
    have to justify it so we end up with a lot of false information. Best
    thing to do really is search out professionals who are doing what you
    want to do and ask them. Be careful of the ones who have any endorsements
    from Nikon or Cannon and such. But, after you see what they are doing you
    can make a good call and go digital or film depending on what you want to
    get and for what purpose. My wife gets paid by major publications for her
    artistic work with 35mm film. If she was to go digital for this they
    would kiss her off for several reasons.

    Digital is great, but expensive and can be hassel to get good prints if
    you don't have all the expensive gear to go along with it but you can use
    a lab. Film is great and can be a hassel too and you have to wait to see
    the results and find a good lab for color prints but they both have there
    place and will for some time.

    Go here for some good advice.
    www.kenrockwell.com
    www.samys.com/articles/ian_kennedy/100504.html
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/
     
    Guest, Oct 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Ruman

    Guest Guest

    There are a lot of people in this world who go out and spend countless
    dollars on the latest, greatest thing, cameras, SUVs, HDTV and then they
    have to justify it so we end up with a lot of false information. Best
    thing to do really is search out professionals who are doing what you
    want to do and ask them. Be careful of the ones who have any endorsements
    from Nikon or Cannon and such. But, after you see what they are doing you
    can make a good call and go digital or film depending on what you want to
    get and for what purpose. My wife gets paid by major publications for her
    artistic work with 35mm film. If she was to go digital for this they
    would kiss her off for several reasons.

    Digital is great, but expensive and can be a hassel to get good prints if
    you don't have all the expensive gear to go along with it but you can use
    a lab. Film is great and can be a hassel too and you have to wait to see
    the results and find a good lab for color prints but they both have there
    place and will for some time. Don't get fooled by the trolls on either
    side of the pond.

    Go here for some good advice.
    www.kenrockwell.com
    www.samys.com/articles/ian_kennedy/100504.html
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/

    BTW I use Canon EOS film cameras most of the time. They seem to hold up
    well.
     
    Guest, Oct 3, 2005
    #12
  13. Ruman

    Robert C. Guest

    I don't see why it is not possible for FILM and DIGITAL to CO-EXIST
    together. Other formats are still in existence: APS, 110, 120, 220, 135, why
    not DIGITAL too?
     
    Robert C., Oct 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Ruman

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Professionals are a very small part of the market. Film SLR sales are not
    what they use to be overall, though it might be true that more Nikon film
    SLRs have been used by professionals than other brands. With digital SLRs,
    it would seem that Canon is maybe a bit more common amongst professionals,
    though I don't know of any definite numbers.

    Not sure what you mean by "semi-pro", unless that is an enthusiast, or
    someone who occasionally sells an image. Regardless, the bulk of sales go
    to consumers, not professionals. The numbers you found are overall figures
    and mostly consumers. Probably less than 5% of camera sales go to
    professionals.

    Sony do not make any true SLRs with changeable lenses, nor do HP, and
    neither make film cameras. Canon still make new film SLRs, though you
    would have trouble telling that judging by the bulk of their advertising.
    Kodak just discontinued their digital SLRs, though you can still find them
    new; also no film SLRs. Olympus only make direct digital cameras, though
    they do now have a few interchangeable lens D-SLRs; some small usage by
    professionals in the fashion realm, since Olympus has on-site support at
    many fashion events. Fuji make a couple digital SLR bodies that take Nikon
    lenses, but no SLR film bodies.
     
    Gordon Moat, Oct 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Ruman

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Oh this is fun! I like lists!
    You should read PDNforums, and see how many complaints there are about
    Canon D-SLRs. Reliability is a relative term, and the only real way to
    tell would be to get service records from both Canon and Nikon.
    Film is not "convenient" (translation).
    That is why they have bought into Lucky Film in China, and committed to
    funding operations there for the next 16 years. True fact is that few B/W
    photographers used Kodak B/W papers, meaning they have always been poor
    sellers (in other words, no great loss).

    Writings on the wall . . . is that some reference to your bathroom? ;-)
    Crap amateur camera. If it is not a 1Ds, then it is a cheap replica.
    Sure it could, 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, the new "N" version of same, or maybe the
    new 5D. That's quite a beating, and only from Canon. I could throw in the
    D2X to beat the 20D, but it sounds like you have an anti-Nikon bias.
    Why would Nikon users be more loyal than Canon users?
    Or get a medium format digital back to better that. Currently the best are
    from PhaseOne and Sinar, though lots more than $8000.
    If you really are doing "pro shoots", that camera expense would often be
    much less than buying lenses, or in many cases buying lighting gear. Why
    take chances on a "pro shoot" with a cheap 20D. If your "pro shoots" are
    billed appropriately, then you should be re-investing that income into
    something better than a 20D.
    Cheap consumer digital SLRs really are worth next to nothing. These could
    be thought of as disposables. The OP asked about pro or semi-pro. Sure,
    there are some pros getting images published from a Holga, but why limit
    yourself. Get the best you can, take it seriously, and spend to insure
    consistent results. If someone is serious about an income from
    photography, don't be cheap about it by getting the bottom of the barrel.
    Tell that to Steve McCurry. Still using Nikon film cameras. If you get a
    chance to see his images in person, you would like the printed quality
    (even if you might not like the subject matter).

    Simple Fact is that people can still create compelling images by using
    film. When you get more exhibits and accolades than Steve McCurry, then
    your claims will be absolutes.

    The reality is that direct digital is vastly more convenient. The greatest
    reason digital SLRs are now outselling film SLRs is that convenience.
    Funny, Kodak is near the top in overall camera sales world-wide, matched
    in most markets only by Sony. However, the bulk of those sales are not
    going to professionals, nor would they be considered professional cameras
    in most cases.
    Anyone with even an ounce of talent and creative vision should be able to
    make compelling images using either film cameras and/or direct digital.
    The camera does not make the image compelling; the person behind the
    camera controls the results.
     
    Gordon Moat, Oct 3, 2005
    #15
  16. Ruman

    Tony Polson Guest

    Tony Polson, Oct 3, 2005
    #16
  17. Ruman

    Tony Polson Guest


    Well said. There is no reason why not.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 3, 2005
    #17
  18. Ruman

    Tony Polson Guest


    "Good advice" and "Ken Rockwell" in the same paragraph?

    Rockwell is entertaining but his "advice" is ultimately unreliable.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Ruman

    Guest Guest

    Very well said. You left out only one part. Some types of photography can
    easily be duplicated digitally and discredited, where, if they are
    printed straight from negs or slides they are what they are. This is
    where my wife sits, makes most of her money from her shots by doing
    artistic things direct to the film. To her credit publishers and gallery
    folks are happy to know it is direct from film and not a digitally
    manipulated image.

    The other thing I see all over the EU and Asia is film cameras and film
    stores. It will be some time before many people in the world will have
    computers powerful enough to afford the switch to a high end digital
    cameras for their work. Many of the small shops do have a way to print
    form digital sources but most of these photographers know how to take a
    good slide and will do so for some time. Americans always seem to think
    everyone should do what they do. Not everyone can or wants to.
     
    Guest, Oct 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Ruman

    Guest Guest

    Depends on how you look at what he has to say. It is not anymore
    unreliable than anyone persons views or books for that matter. His site
    has quite a bit of good useable information. All is only what one can get
    out of the information. Take it as you will. And your site of better
    information written by you is where?
     
    Guest, Oct 3, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.