Some more factors not mentioned in the blog:
- Canon came out with Image Stabilization lenses first and had a 3 to 4 year head start on Nikon. (Arguably, Nikon invented VR Vibration Reduction first but they didn't beat Canon to market by making professional lenses immediately.) This started the mass exodus of professionals to Canon and caused the "sea of white lenses" you see at every sports event.[1]
- Canon bet on in-house CMOS technology for sensors instead of Nikon's strategy of partnering with Sony (and Kodak). Canon iterated faster on their digital cameras. In 2002, Canon had a very well-received 1ds full-frame digital while Nikon only offered a body for Kodak's horrible Dcs Pro 14n. Nikon didn't have their own full-frame camera until 2007. In technology races, 5 years is an eternity. Although the most expensive camera is never the best-selling product, any leadership position in the top-of-the-line camera can be leveraged and its features can trickle down to the cheaper mass-market cameras.
- Canon was the bigger company with other profitable product domains outside of cameras such as photocopiers, video camcorders, printers, etc. (E.g. Canon made the imaging engine for both Apple LaserWriter and HP LaserJet.) This allowed them to plow more capital and investments back into the camera division. Nikon also some other domains such as scientific microscopes and film scanners but they were less profitable.
In the film days, Nikon definitely had the perception of being the "Ferrari" of cameras but the shift to digital allowed Canon to take the lead.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+ev...
- Canon came out with Image Stabilization lenses first and had a 3 to 4 year head start on Nikon. (Arguably, Nikon invented VR Vibration Reduction first but they didn't beat Canon to market by making professional lenses immediately.) This started the mass exodus of professionals to Canon and caused the "sea of white lenses" you see at every sports event.[1]
- Canon bet on in-house CMOS technology for sensors instead of Nikon's strategy of partnering with Sony (and Kodak). Canon iterated faster on their digital cameras. In 2002, Canon had a very well-received 1ds full-frame digital while Nikon only offered a body for Kodak's horrible Dcs Pro 14n. Nikon didn't have their own full-frame camera until 2007. In technology races, 5 years is an eternity. Although the most expensive camera is never the best-selling product, any leadership position in the top-of-the-line camera can be leveraged and its features can trickle down to the cheaper mass-market cameras.
- Canon was the bigger company with other profitable product domains outside of cameras such as photocopiers, video camcorders, printers, etc. (E.g. Canon made the imaging engine for both Apple LaserWriter and HP LaserJet.) This allowed them to plow more capital and investments back into the camera division. Nikon also some other domains such as scientific microscopes and film scanners but they were less profitable.
In the film days, Nikon definitely had the perception of being the "Ferrari" of cameras but the shift to digital allowed Canon to take the lead.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+ev...