[shuttertalk]

Just having a bit of a browse through the camera stats from Flickr of the two most popular DSLR brands, Olympus and Sony. Just kidding... Canon and Nikon. These stats are taken from the EXIF data contained within photos uploaded in the past month.

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/?s=rank#models
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/?s=rank#models

Some random observations:
1. Top 5 Canon cameras are the intermediate level 400D-550D models + the full frame 5D Mk II
2. Top 5 Nikon are more balanced - there's the intermediate D90 & D80, plus the entry level D5000 and D3000, followed by the full frame D700.
3. The more advanced Nikon D300/D300s and Canon 50/60/7Ds are all are further down the list at #8 rank or more and the pro models are around #30 in rank.
4. Compact cameras start around #15 in the Nikon camp and #20 in the Canon camp.
5. There's still someone using a Nikon Coolpix 700 from circa 1999 on a daily basis. I applaud you, O faithful user.

It could be that the flickr site itself is more used by casual shooters rather than the more serious type photographers. Or you could surmise perhaps that the more expensive cameras are not as widespread, leading to less photos being taken / uploaded. Not sure here....

Had a quick look at the Olympus and Panny stats as well, and the PEN and GF1 micro four thirds cameras are well entrenched in the top 5. Looks like those are doing well...

What other astute observations can you guys come up with?

[Pavel]

I do not see ownership of fancy gear as a sign of being advanced. Many people that know little about in-camera work and post-processing, let alone composition and creativity have very fancy gear. On the other hand many very good photographers have simple gear that they know how to make sing. Many serious photographers do not post on Flickr. My generation is often afraid of Flickr. Few people in the 2 clubs I have been in in the last 2 years use Flickr. Many photos posted on Flickr are private. I do not know if the statistics is collected from these private photos. I know that it is hard to resist to collect numbers. However I worked enough with statistics or used statistics (more than 40 years) to know that you have to formulate your question very clearly and narrowly and to correct/account for any confounding factors to have any chance of getting a meaningful answer from statistics. In this case, I do not know what the question is.

P

[Zig]

Good points Pavel(thx for the mail by the way!);
Yep; indeed, how many "serious type" photographers post anywhere in a mass marketplace other than several stock warehouses? Not that posting in Flickr is in any way infra dig, of course. I'd guess the more expensive cameras are both widespread and rattling through the frames on a daily basis, then outputting straight to client.
Just as an example, our very own Chris(Wedding Shooter) presumably blats through several hundred shots a week, and has to get them to "go", the client satisfied, bills paid and food on the table...and I'd guess he has to get them right at the front end and batch-treat too. Arty part-timers like me can prat about for hours on an image making a deep-and-meaningful statement and then whack it onto PBase and Anywhere Else in the Vain Hope...yet I'd guess that if one is busy enough to have snapping the main means of livelihood, I'd not have time for vaunting it on Flickr. Or for writing on here for that matter!

[Toad]

83.7% of statistics are false.

[Wedding Shooter]

Just as an example, our very own Chris(Wedding Shooter) presumably blats through several hundred shots a week, and has to get them to "go", the client satisfied, bills paid and food on the table...and I'd guess he has to get them right at the front end and batch-treat too. Arty part-timers like me can prat about for hours on an image making a deep-and-meaningful statement and then whack it onto PBase and Anywhere Else in the Vain Hope...yet I'd guess that if one is busy enough to have snapping the main means of livelihood, I'd not have time for vaunting it on Flickr. Or for writing on here for that matter!

Too true my friend.

[Zig]

Get back to work, you!

[NT73]

It is a strange old world, the world of the internet. Anyone can be anyone or no-one if it so suits them.
I am very reluctant to use sites that require me to give them more information, than I wish to give. So I don't post on Flickr, Pbase, et al. I don't feel a need for either gratuitious, or genuine feedback on my photo's.
If someone likes them or not and wishes to comment that is fine with me, and if they don't then so be it. I may be famous in posterity.
The camera is unimportant unless it is a means to an end. (i.e. A profession) I will amend that to within reason.
I have been scanning 35mm slides (taken with pre digital cameras, el cheapos :/) on a £100 Plustek 7200 scanner and some are turning out better than some taken with the top of the range digital stuff. IMO
The B all and end all, is what you think of them yourself. Life really is too short to worry.

In a survey I carried out last night, my photo's came out at 119% popular with at least one person.