I don't deny the effectiveness of the way Canon is doing this, though I'm not entirely sure it will lead to a lot of FF purchases in the future since the lenses generally don't transfer. People can pick their FF system when they move, if they wish.
Canon is the best at building these very underspec'd very low-tier (yes, IMO junk) cameras and shoveling them out the door in large quantities. We saw it in the EOS days, and the result today is a huge number of junk bottom end EOS bodies in thrift shops that no one will ever want to use again. Most of them are likely broken anyway. It was this way in the film era, then the DSLR era as that progressed, and now in the RF era.
Of course they’ll end up on used shelves, unloved for the most part. Most entry products do, nostalgic collection aside. They’re throw-away hooks.
My family’s first entry level digital camera, the original Rebel, lead to seven additional camera purchases (and counting — R3 II, where are you?). Forward compatibility of lenses and mounts became a concern early on and reinforced these choices. Glad it was Canon we bought into. There will be the same stories for Sony and Nikon. I mean, for Sony it will be lamented like a lost generation
— but the same nonetheless.
Where there is one there’s a 1,000 as the marketing statement goes. So many people have ended up this way. Do some jump ship? Most certainly. Companies like Canon, Nikon, Apple, etc. all play the long game and know some of the losses are just bad timing in a much grander plan. If the premise was good to start with those people will be back.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with wanting more. But I think some perspective is warranted. And adaptability to ground truth.
I
love mechanical AF override, for example, but honestly what I really want is manual AF override in servo mode by twisting rings and not flipping menus or switches. I accept that’s a happy compromise for all of the other benefits gained. Do I want third party full frame AF RF lens options as well? Sure. I drool over Sigma’s 600 prime at its price point, but the
overall benefits of this ecosystem as a whole outweigh one desirable lens. The grass is always greener on the other side until you hop over and start pulling weeds. but that’s the game. (And, tbh, the Tamron and Tokina lenses I did have couldn’t put up with use or compatibility over time. So experience tells me Canon taking its time with third parties on the FF side makes good sense for everyone.)
Perhaps more useful is what you think a reasonable entry camera and price will be. Maybe someone here with a Canon connection will use it as a seed for thought. But keep in mind the need for low cost, economies of scale, and incentives to upgrade to the next tier. And what competition is charging for similar. The R100 might not be quite so crazy after all. I mean, if my kid grabs an R100 and an adapter she also gets access to every lens in my signature — vs an iPhone, say. This is the kind of tractor use case these companies have in mind.
!
.
