I find it hard to believe that in a set of forums devoted to photography, intelligent people are arguing about market share between brands and formats. I mean who really the f_ck cares about how many cameras are being sold by brand a,b, or c or what size format masses of people are buying except for the people inside the companies and their marketing firms?
Are you just bored? Are you trying to see if your computer and internet connection still work?
Now if you want to talk about "is this camera and system I am thinking about buying really appropriate to my real and perceived needs?" that is a valid subject of conversation. But arguing about market share? Pffft.
Do yourself a favor and get off your ass go make some photos.
I don't know if these comments were directed at me or not; I certainly hope they were not.
I had never given much (any) thought as to what the market share numbers were prior to this thread. I had some guesses about what the market share might look like, which I found were off.
I haven't directly considered market share as part of my decision when purchasing, camera or otherwise. I own many neanderthal woodworking tools--hardly a market share leader. I don't imagine I will change my habits ever.
Purchase decisions can be indirectly influenced by market share as larger players generally have a more diverse selection of lenses and more third party lenses and accessories. These factors can result in a lower cost and an increased range of capabilities. It seems like mFTS is starting to benefit from this, but it has taken quite a while for third parties to come out with niche lenses. Please note, I said "generally" not "always". There are specialty companies in the market that create niche products, though generally at a premium price.
