I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. The DPR article is basically a Sony marketing message repeated by dpreview and it chooses to show only the numbers convenient to Sony and leaves out a lot (for example, Canon's market share). It is always best to look at multiple sources. The Nikkei ertimates of market share at least include all the relevant brands. I think there is a lot of selective reporting online and often there is a spin to it. Now, I understand that a lot of people here are genuinely concerned about Nikon's fate. Personally I think they are doing OK, not as well as they might have, if some mistakes had not been made, but it's not a disaster, either.
As the Bloomberg stats show, Sony have had the second position in the market before. They seem to have lost it for a while and then regained it, though this time they are stronger in ILC than in the past. This should not be big news really, streets are packed with Sony cameras these days, and many people use their E mount products. In any case I think it's not a healthy state of affairs that there is only two strong manufacturers of cameras, a bit more choice is better for healthy competition. Now we seem to be getting that as there are more different technologies available to the photographer, with medium format also gaining some market (for a time they were outrageously expensive now the smallest MF cameras are comparable to the price of high end 35mm gear).
I think the current situation is probably better for the consumer. I think Nikon can do just fine with about 20% market share even if the total ILC sales decline to 5 million units per year or below. Most of the advances that needed to be made in camera technology to transition from film to digital have been made and I don't think a huge amount of spending on research and development is necessary to continue successfully in the camera market. From what I understand Nikon still spends a large amount of money on R&D and I believe they will remain competitive.
