Top 10 digital cameras - determined by EXIF data of uploaded photos

[Towncrier]

I found this link today that I thought might interest the folks here on the Photography Board. If this has already been posted, I apologize for the duplication. The authors of this webpage have an interesting way of determining the "top 10" digital cameras by examining the EXIF data on photos uploaded to FLICKR. Enjoy.

http://www.logicamera.com/digital-camera-news/topcameras-on-flickr.php

 

[Master Mason]

I think that it is kind of a squewed number... People that own Higher end cameras would tend to frequent a site like flickr, more than the vastly higher percentage of people that don't have higher end cameras. Most folks I know that own P&S cameras use no website, they DL it to the computer, and burn it on a disk if they really are thinking about it. This is just my observations of folks I know, but I would guess that most of you would say the same thing.

 

[Michele]

I think that it is kind of a squewed number... People that own Higher end cameras would tend to frequent a site like flickr, more than the vastly higher percentage of people that don't have higher end cameras. Most folks I know that own P&S cameras use no website, they DL it to the computer, and burn it on a disk if they really are thinking about it. This is just my observations of folks I know, but I would guess that most of you would say the same thing.

It seems they somewhat took that into account by adding this at the end.

Quote

Further, you will notice that the D-SLRs dominate the list. Perhaps this is due to the sheer volume that photo enthusiasts (amateur photographers and professionals) upload on their sites, which sometimes serve as their portfolios. They're likely the ones to have Pro accounts, too, which gives them unlimited upload capability. Casual users, on the other hand, might not be uploading so frequently, and would probably have free, limited accounts.

Still, it's a good representation of the actual market share of the various brands, with the top ten ranked as follows:

1. Canon
2. Nikon
3. Sony
4. Olympus
5. FujiFilm
6. Kodak
7. Panasonic
8. Casio
9. Nokia
10. Sony Ericsson

 

[Towncrier]

I find it most interesting that the 9th and 10th place manufacturers on this list only make cellphones. Perhaps I should dust off my PalmPix camera and try to skew the numbers in favor of Palm.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Yeah, it doesn't tell you much about the actual market share in terms of camera sales. It's a bit closer to the market share in terms of use. It still is biased by who is likely to post on FlickR, how much they are likely to shoot, and how much they are likely to post.

My guess is P&S numbers are lower because, as said above, they aren't as likely to use online photo sites like FlickR. They are also not likely to take as many photos. People that are really, really into photography will take more pictures and be more likely to move up to more expensive cameras.

Pros are also underrepresented because they are much less likely to put their photos up on a site like FlickR.

Finally, film people (they do still exist), are unlikely to add the EXIF data even if they do post.

So what it really tells you is the percentages of FlickR photos with EXIF information for various camera types. Interesting, perhaps, but of fairly limited usefulness.

 

[Groucho]

I would agree that this tells you nothing useful. One photo sharing site is hardly representative of anything. (Especially when there are so many and different ones target different groups.)

Even if this covered everything, the number is useless as it's apparently counting photos and not users. One user uploading 200 pictures counts for 10x as much as someone uploading 20.

Aaaaaaaaaand, even if it did it by user, all you're left with is "cameras most often used by people", not how happy they are with them, the quality of said camera, etc.

To say nothing of some of us who usually INTENTIONALLY strip off exif data on uploaded photos to try to be kind to people on slower connections. (Not me personally, as I don't use Flickr, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who does that. I don't like the way the article assumes that you have to be a dope to upload a picture without exif.)

 

[caniswolfie]

The article was referencing a post on a blog on another site. Going to that site, the person had a good bunch of apps and stuff that used the Flickr API. I think the list was just a little thing he had done with the API and not intending to make any other inferences on the result that the article and some other people are attributing to it. I think the original author's intent was to show what kind of neat things you can do with the Flickr API.

As far as stripping EXIF data, as least on Flickr all the thumbnails and resized photos on the site already have the data stripped. The only time it is attached to the file is if you click on an image and bring up the original sized image. Then it is in that file. So for most users stripping may be more work. In addition you can hide the EXIF data as well from you photos (Flickr puts it up in HTML form so you can show it if you would like). However if you can download the original image, it does have the EXIF as part of that file. So if you can download the original image, it is part of that file.