That's why I said "in the scheme of things". It's a tiny business. I love cameras and will probably have a medium format digital camera at some point, but it's a tiny business that can't move the needle in a $34b company like Canon.

Put another way, if over night Canon had won 100% market share of all film cameras it would not be noticeable in the next quarterly earnings report.

It's like saying Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise because they sell only a few thousands cars a year. The same goes for large format film photography.

Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise.

But Ferrari matters greatly in the luxury sports car segment. There's no sin in tailoring a business to a small niche.

Heck, I'd say "in the grand scheme of things", if you look at some of the data available (https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/latest-camera-sales-chart-r...), stand-alone digital cameras "don't matter market-wise" compared to what has replaced them for a lot of people -- smartphones. Not that all stand alone digital cameras will disappear anytime soon (especially in segments like the DSLR market where the lenses can offer advantages for certain pictures), but the general purpose "compact digital camera" is probably doomed.

If that's true then why does everybody know who they are?

Why would there be a correlation here? Ferrari could disappear tomorrow, and it would have zero effect on the automotive market.

On sales? Sure. But the market as a whole? Ferrari is an outsize innovator, both in technology and design. If they disappeared, you'd notice.

A couple of years ago I bought a Hasselblad 503cx w/80mm lens, paid about $1000 for it. Also, a 50mm CF that cost me around another $400. So relatively expensive for a 25-year-old camera, but in inflation-adjusted terms about 10 percent of it's original price. Some desirable cameras still have some value, but a lot are going for pennies on the dollar.

I paid more for the 'blad than either of my 4x5's.