... and to add a slightly facetious comment gathered from buying a lot of kit over the years, IMO...
Canon gear always performs very solidly, but no surprises or delights with a kick-ass feature at the price point. They behave like you would expect, reliably (and best-sellingly).
The one exception was where Canon jump-started a revolution with video on the 5D Mark II- unintentionally and accidentally! They thought the feature would be useful for photo journalists, and it sorta came for free once you have live view at a decent frame rate. Canons always seem to be lacking just one or two features that their competitors have at that price point... but you can always spend more and get it. They kick started a revolution and then had no idea what to do with it.
Nikons have had the best AF, the best low ISO IQ, plus the very long legacy of lenses which has kept them many fans. There's been plenty to love in terms of image quality, but it is conservative steady progress rather than any big leaps forward.
Panasonic has a long history in the video arena and are famous for always squeezing in one or two killer features at a price point
no-one else manages. That's why the DVX100 sold and sold (progressive scan, cine-like gammas- even an anamorphic adaptor for Pete's sake). The HVX200 brought HD in reach of mortals, and the GH4 brought pro-level 4K. They've been really hindered by having nothing larger than 43rds size sensors in the lower price range, and their colours got a bit wonky for a while. But they are back on track and a full frame GH5 is a very tantalising prospect.
Olympus do small size and top quality within those constraints, same as they always have.
Leica do large price and larger price, hit and miss quality (remember the magenta blacks?) I don't know a single person who uses one as their workhorse.
Sony do technological leap forward Franken-creatures with more features than their interface designers have any idea how to control. It's like a formula one racing car which can fly to the moon, but with clown car controls. Nonetheless, they've been the technological driver for a few years now and everyone else is playing catch-up.
Hasselblad nearly died (Lunar...) but have a solid end-of-the-road MF dSLR in the H6 and a promising platform in mirrorless MF; allied with DJI who aren't afraid to kick ass and take names, they are undergoing something of a renaissance. One to watch, the X1D successor might be quite the thing. Oh and you can use V series and Xpan lenses on them now which is entirely retro but nonetheless rather awesome.
Pentax have some killer bodies with unique features (astro tracking, and the 645Z is by all accounts really nice) but seem a bit at sea with coherent lens lineups. They just can't seem to catch a break and grab a market segment to make their own. I don't know what to tell their marketing guys- keep at it, I guess, and get the parent company to put out some exciting lenses.
Phase One have come full circle with the vendetta against Hasselblad after Hasselblad sealed their system- now it is Phase that won't play nice. (Try opening a Pentax or Hasselblad MF shot in Capture One to see what I mean- and you can't use the latest Phase backs on H bodies). They've got the very, very top end sewn up, but I have no idea how long that's going to be viable for them. If you really need 150 megapixels they are the only game in town... but who actually does? Especially if the next step up in FF is 75 megapixels and crop MF is 100 megapixels.
Sigma have made a very impressive change from the cheap alternative lens supplier to the world into THE current kick-ass lens company. They just have no idea where to go with their camera bodies. They've got a potentially killer feature in Foveon sensors but can't seem to bring it to market in a way which captures the customers, and there may just be too many technical issues to make it viable compared with the Swiss army knife capabilities of Bayer sensors. Or maybe someone with deep pockets can invest in the tech and get it to mature. I feel like it ought to be the answer, but maybe the requirements of fabrication and readout are just prohibitive.
Fuji do their own sweet thing with beautiful filmic results- I know a lot of people have and love a Fuji as their second system, but somehow few people are using them as their workhorse A cam. Maybe full frame is too crowded now for them - maybe they should do more of the "killer for one job" cameras they've done good things with in the past. A dedicated digital Xpan, for example. "Make beautiful images easily" could be their strap line- it's sort of an 80:20 thing. 80% of the results with 20% of the effort, but harder to get that extra 20% of the result compared with some competing systems, and in 20% of the shooting scenarios you might find you'd be better off with a camera with broader capabilities.
Have I missed anyone?
Hywel
