MSH411 said:

At least you are consistent in your MO but that is not what the focus of the OP's thread.

Click to expand...

The focus is high-end lenses for APS-C cameras, and my post was about the business drivers for such lenses. The relevance is obvious, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

MSH411 said:

The topic is that Canon is not producing prime APS-C lenses to support the bodies they manufacture for the masses, not a singular person.... similar to their competitors.

Click to expand...

So you believe that Canon should make all the lenses that their competitors make? Why? Has it occurred to you that their competitors make some products because Canon doesn't, in an attempt to capture part of the market that Canon is not pursuing?

I get that you think Canon should make some lenses they aren't making. Fine, you are welcome to that opinion. Canon has led the ILC market for 22 years and counting. Who do you think knows better what lenses their customer base is most likely to buy – you, the OP, or the company that has made the product development decisions that have maintained a market-leading position for over two decades?

MSH411 said:

You like to distort peoples content to fit your agenda.

Click to expand...

The OP stated that, "Sony is successfully running a two format system, with lenses for both, primes and zooms." It is true that Sony is a successful camera manufacturer, but it's also true that Sony has gone from being #1 in mirrorless camera sales to being #2 in mirrorless camera sales, with Canon having taken over the #1 spot and maintaining it for the past few years. Canon has managed to do so without making the lenses that the OP wants. There is a logical inference that can be drawn from those facts, namely that those lenses are not necessary to succeed in the current market.

My 'agenda' is to promote the reliance on data and facts to support logical conclusions. I do understand that seems to upset those who believe their own opinions are facts. I also notice that when someone disagrees with me and I ask them to produce data to support their point(s), they usually do just what you did – ignore the request.

MSH411 said:

Personally I don't have to prove anything to you.

Click to expand...

Well, then...you are free to not respond.

Etnaphele said:

Sony manufactures everything in China and Thailand, so they already try to exploit the lower costs there (compared to Canons mid to high end which is made in Japan, with lower tiers in Taiwan and Malaysia): if Chinese companies are offering more and more compelling lenses, they will sooner or later offer great cameras probably undercutting in price the current main manufacturers (look at Hasselblad, ok no price undercut but great tech). Keeping them out of the RF mount won't avoid it from happening - but I agree that it is wise of Canon of not opening the mount, but they should for sure compete with them on price/performance because they risk of being detached from the actual market and when a Chinese camera system will rise, they will have blunt weapons.

Click to expand...

Sony seems to be using the lower pricing of the 3rd party accessories to build a more robust ecosystem to where they can charge more for their bodies. Canon seem to be charging less for their bodies to sell more accesories. Take the R6miii which Canon has priced at $2,800. Sony releases the direct competior A7V AFTER Canon with LESS features and prices it at $2,900.

Canon releases the R5mii at $4,400 and then put in on sale for $3,900. Meanwhile Sony releases the A1II AFTER the R5mii, doesn't update much, adds precapture and increases the price to $7k.

Sony spent years trying to put out camera bodies with more tech that are priced aggressively to make up for their lack of historical customer base. Its clear they now feel they have enough people tied to their ecosystem that they no longer need to compete on price and specs. So now Canon is saying hey we have the better specs per price buy our camera and then when they need a new lens they makeup the extra money. Sony is saying pay more upfront for our bodies because you'll have cheaper options for accessories that we wont make money from later.

Sony seems to be focused on being a premium product. The Chinese may be able to attack the budget and eventually the midrange but they will probably always have trouble branding luxury products. This seems to be the same lesson they've learned in the TV space. Companies like TCL and Hisense make the best TV's for the money and have gobbled up market share. Sony focuses on the high end luxury tvs and makes more per unit due to that image.

While Canon is primarily an imaging and printing company Sony is an electronics company. If smartphones were to replace cameras then Sony would just either make smarthones or sell the sensors to the companies who are. If the Chinese start making apsc or full frame cameras, they'll just sell them the sensors. They sell more sensors to car makers then they put in cameras.

Camera are about 5% of Sony's revnue so if they completely lost that entire market to the Chinese and picked up some sensor sales that wouldn't be that impactful. Meanwhile Cameras are 20% of Canon's revenue and they aren't a major seller of sensors. As a result Canon seems to be more invested in Cameras as an actualy product that is key to their business where as Sony seems to treat cameras as a means to an end.

MSH411 said:

At least you are consistent in your MO but that is not what the focus of the OP's thread.

The topic is that Canon is not producing prime APS-C lenses to support the bodies they manufacture for the masses, not a singular person.... similar to their competitors.

You like to distort peoples content to fit your agenda. I'm sure that was most likely one of the reasons you were given a vacation. Personally I don't have to prove anything to you. The information you seek is readily available to you just open you mind and read the content as it is written without distorting it to your own meaning.

Click to expand...

Why is it difficult to accept a plausible explanation for why the company chose not to sell R-S prime lenses at this time? At one point some people complained there was no R-S and no third-party AF. Now you have both for apsc and we can't be sure what they will do in the future.

cy20250430 said:

This was probably referring to the new 45mm F1.2 STM. Don't you think so?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes. Not as exciting as I hoped, but probably good for Canon profits.

roby17269 said:

So far Canon does not have a Z9 equivalent, so there are slots.

Click to expand...

The Z9 is essential a Z8 in a larger body. They are both direct competitors to the R5mii. If you want the larger body on the R5mii then just add the battery grip. All three of these cameras are 45MP.

roby17269 said:

I am not saying that it will happen overnight, but eventually we will see higher-mp cameras. The new capabilities will either be the answer to heightened demand or they will eventually create new demand.

You're making a lot of assumptions for a lot of people....

Again you are making a lot of assumptions. Cutting edge is always a niche of a niche, but it gradually trickles down. Eventually 8K will be the new 4K and 8K screens will be the norm and cameras will shoot 12K for reframing. 12K cameras exist already by the way

If there was no market for it then things would not be made. Cutting edge / luxury are different markets than consumer. But it is not infrequent that those markets end up driving innovation that trickles down to consumers once commoditized

Click to expand...

I don't see this as the case for resolution. 8k tv sales peaked in 2022 and have declined ever since leading companies like Sony exited the market. 12K cameras are used in high end filmaking in order to be able to stablize and reframe the content later. Again you can buy an SSC Tuatara that is street legal and goes 295 mph. But this is an incredibly niche market, as will anything more than 8k will likely be.

The human eye can only see so much detail. It's hard to commoditize something you cant see or use, which is exactly why companies like Sony stopped making 8k tvs. For a 75" tv you would need to be sitting 3 - 4 feet away from the tv to even be able to notice a difference. But sitting that close to that size TV would be uncomfortable. Meanwhile in the real world most people are viewing content on their 6" smartphone.

Del Paso said:

Sure, honest competition is absolutely ok, but I'm not sure it would be beneficial for Canon in a shrinking market.Companies have to make money, not to make us happy!

Click to expand...

Sure, but if they do not make me happy while they make money, then they do not make money out of me. I know I know I matter not in the grand scheme of things... I can only vote with my wallet. This year it has been the first year in a long time that I haven't spent a single dollar on Canon gear. DJI got my money and Hasselblad will get my money. I spend my money for my photography's sake, not for Canon's sake.

Del Paso said:

Apple is also a closed system, do they suffer from being so?

Click to expand...

Apple has a critical mass that Canon can dream about... and their system is much more diversified than Canon's... and more importantly they have achieved a "status" that Canon hasn't. I do not think they are a good comparison.

Del Paso said:

Also, I must confess I'm not really interested in current 3rd. party offers. Of course, I know that needs, wishes and bank-accounts can differ.
In the past, I had some 3rd. party lenses in focals Canon didn't sell, from Zeiss, but didn't find Tamron or Sigma mechanically very convincing. Especially Tamrons still feel a bit on the cheap side.

Click to expand...

On the other side... In DSLR times, the EF mount was almost 100% complete and I was not looking at Sigma or others because I could always find the lenses I wanted in Canon's inventory. Nowadays not so much: the RF lens line-up is not at EF level of completeness yet and Sigma has a few interesting offerings which are of much better quality compared to a few years ago.

MSH411 said:

The information you seek is readily available ...

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could neatly summarise it, or provide a link?

I doubt anyone disagrees that it would be good for some users if the lenses listed above were developed and marketed by Canon. Although I suspect the next complaint would be that they are more expensive than 3rd party variants ...

The point being made is that the likely reason Canon hasn't released RF-S primes is that they don't think it would be profitable for them to do so. And that not doing so in similar circumstances has not, over many years, seemed to make any significant dent in their market share.

neuroanatomist said:

Disdain? Canon extracts substantial profit from the APS-C market!


I'm sure Canon felt the pain of losing that revenue. What is $5,000 divided by $1,137,803,014 (Canon's camera+lens revenue for 2024)? I'll let you do the math on that one.


Why should Canon listen to the 'many' ranting about this? By the way, how many is many? How does the number of people you hear stating this compare to the 2,840,000 cameras that Canon sold last year?

I get that some people want 'high end' APS-C cameras and lenses. Fuji makes them. Last year, Fuji sold 490,000 cameras. Canon sold 790,000 DSLRs, most of them entry level / low cost APS-C cameras. What does that say about the demand for cheap, entry level vs. high end APS-C cameras?

Ranting is all well and good. About as effective as pissing into the wind, but I guess that makes some people feel better, too.

Incidentally, I am well-invested in the EOS M system. I started with the original EOS M in the USA 'fire sale' soon after launch, well before it went on to become the globally best-selling MILC line (at it's peak 17% of all cameras sold in the world had an EOS M badge). I have all of the EF-M lenses and I really enjoy using my full spectrum M6.

But given that Canon ended the M line and went all-in on RF, and their market share has remained a dominant near-50% (and more significantly, has maintained that through the transition from DSLR to MILC), it's clear that they know what they're doing in terms of strategy. You are welcome to argue that they are making mistakes, just as you are welcome to argue that the earth is flat.

Click to expand...

It's weird to me how people take a business's product line personally.

Imagine the backlash if Canon was an American company tied closely to our heritage, history, and national identity...like, um, Cracker Barrel.

roby17269 said:

To be clear, I agree that unfair competition (e.g. stealing IP, governments' interference, etc.) is bad, and it should be prevented and punished.
But honest competition? that's perfectly fine in my view.
Artificially protecting a business line has an history of long-term failure.

Click to expand...

Sure, honest competition is absolutely ok, but I'm not sure it would be beneficial for Canon in a shrinking market.Companies have to make money, not to make us happy!
Apple is also a closed system, do they suffer from being so?
Also, I must confess I'm not really interested in current 3rd. party offers. Of course, I know that needs, wishes and bank-accounts can differ.
In the past, I had some 3rd. party lenses in focals Canon didn't sell, from Zeiss, but didn't find Tamron or Sigma mechanically very convincing. Especially Tamrons still feel a bit on the cheap side.

HenWin said:

Have there been any problems/complaints with the new firmware that came out last week (11/26/25)? I ask because I'm about to take a long trip and I don't want to install something that's being problematical.

Click to expand...

Nothing unexpected so far.

Del Paso said:

Ok, but there was far less competition then, the Chinese optical companies were still producing cheap crappy lenses.
I think you underestimate what is at stake for western companies, namely survival for many of them. Opening one's mount has, in my opinion, become a larger risk than when only Sigma and Tamron were 3rd. party lens suppliers.
That's why, even if I fully understand why many would appreciate a wider choice, I still believe that Canon made the right decision. Maybe not for you and others, but for their company.
I would also dislike buying from companies brazenly copying products and illegally using patents by others. (This is not about Sigma or Tamron).

Click to expand...

To be clear, I agree that unfair competition (e.g. stealing IP, governments' interference, etc.) is bad, and it should be prevented and punished.
But honest competition? that's perfectly fine in my view.
Artificially protecting a business line has an history of long-term failure.

MSH411 said:

No neuro it is the real world.

I respect people using forums enough to stay on topic and not attempt to divert their message to something that is not germane to the topic they wished to discuss.

Click to expand...

The topic is Canon not making the lenses someone wants and thinks they should make. Logical reasons those lenses have not been made and are unlikely to be made in the future are entirely germane to the topic.

Unless by ‘stay on topic’ you mean just agree with the self-styled ‘rant’, as you seem to. It seems to me that you’re the one drifting off-topic. Would you care to share some data to support your assertion that there is a market for Canon to make such lenses? Note that ‘many people think so’ does not constitute data.

MSH411 said:

The OP wasn't addressing profitability, I believe the focus was more directed at lack of RF-S lenses that support the APS-C bodies. Sales and profitability are a completely different topic.

Click to expand...

I see. So in your world, sales and profitability are a completely different topic than what products a manufacturer chooses to develop and sell.

I’m not sure what world you live in, but it’s not the real one. It’s probably a really nice place, though.

roby17269 said:

The EF mount was open - kind of maybe but people could mount Sigma and other lenses on their EF DSLR cameras and that did not prevent Canon from remaining the #1 manufacturer for decades.

I understand that the market is different now and that there could be the side effects you mention but a) one could argue that Canon could see more camera sales with a more open mount and b) if "long run" means years / decades do we really care? and c) action cameras are not as "sticky" as system cameras and if GoPro are not innovating (I have one and it has a lot of issues) and if the competition offers something better, then why not jump?

If the "unthinkable" was to happen and Canon went bankrupt, we could still use our cameras and lenses for quite some time. I use a dead system (Hasselblad HC) and that does not prevent me from capturing photos I like with it. I am aware that this is not something that can last indefinitely, but I do have enough time to take the necessary remediating actions (update to a X2D II) when I want and / or if needed.

Life is short and this is my hobby... I do not buy camera gear with the aim to support or to hurt companies. I want to buy the best stuff I can afford that helps me achieving my photographic goals, which in turn makes me happy-er.

Click to expand...

Ok, but there was far less competition then, the Chinese optical companies were still producing cheap crappy lenses.
I think you underestimate what is at stake for western companies, namely survival for many of them. Opening one's mount has, in my opinion, become a larger risk than when only Sigma and Tamron were 3rd. party lens suppliers.
That's why, even if I fully understand why many would appreciate a wider choice, I still believe that Canon made the right decision. Maybe not for you and others, but for their company.
I would also dislike buying from companies brazenly copying products and illegally using patents by others. (This is not about Sigma or Tamron).

that's a REALLY good option form Sony. LOVE the new screen design, that's the way it should be going forward. I'm glad to see it on affordable models.

Yesterday on my way back from work I dreamt about a Canon rangefinder style body. But full frame, obviously

JohanCruyff said:

Sorry for this political OT.

My personal horizons exclude lenses made in China,
I'm afraid China is already good enough at destroying companies located in democratic countries, and it doesn't need my help.

If I had been alive in the 1930s, I wouldn't have bought a German car, knowing it was built in factories that exploited political prisoners or Jews etc. as slaves.

But one can legitimately complain about the lack of Sigma lenses for Canon full-frame mirrorless cameras.

Click to expand...

For the historical record, the Nazis used slave labour during WWII, possibly starting in 1939 but primarily 1940-45. In the 1930s, the Nazis were throwing out Jews from their jobs and depriving them of work and their businesses. Hugo Boss was active in the 1930s making uniforms for the Nazi Party, and he was an ardent Nazi.

CJaurelius said:

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

Click to expand...

Sony manufactures everything in China and Thailand, so they already try to exploit the lower costs there (compared to Canons mid to high end which is made in Japan, with lower tiers in Taiwan and Malaysia): if Chinese companies are offering more and more compelling lenses, they will sooner or later offer great cameras probably undercutting in price the current main manufacturers (look at Hasselblad, ok no price undercut but great tech). Keeping them out of the RF mount won't avoid it from happening - but I agree that it is wise of Canon of not opening the mount, but they should for sure compete with them on price/performance because they risk of being detached from the actual market and when a Chinese camera system will rise, they will have blunt weapons.

CJaurelius said:

It's hard to find a different slot when all the other cameras are becoming increasingly more capable.

Click to expand...

So far Canon does not have a Z9 equivalent, so there are slots.

CJaurelius said:

The Sony A7 has been at 33 MP for over 4 years now. Canon mailnly increased the MP to match Sony. Sony has a 61MP A7R series and it's really not that beneficial. When you factor in the file size 45-50MP is basically as high as you need to go. That's why you see the flagship A1 at 50MP even though the lower tier A7R is 61MP. The 33MP allow you to get to 7k which is plenty for a 4k camera and 45MP allow you to get to 8K which is why the R5mii is in that range.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that it will happen overnight, but eventually we will see higher-mp cameras. The new capabilities will either be the answer to heightened demand or they will eventually create new demand.

CJaurelius said:

I'm sure someone out there could use it but it's just not that useful to be commercially viable. For most people 4k60 is good enough for slo-mo and 4k120 is the upper limit that most people can use.

Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions for a lot of people....

CJaurelius said:

I don't think so. The obvious reason being that at normal viewing distances their just isn't a perceivable difference for most people. Currently options above 4k are used primarly to be able to reframe/crop and still have a 4k image. As a result 8k displays aren't really a thing. Sure you can buy a $5k 6k Apple pro display but the use case for that is to be able to edit a 4k image while still haveing UI on the display.

Click to expand...

Again you are making a lot of assumptions. Cutting edge is always a niche of a niche, but it gradually trickles down. Eventually 8K will be the new 4K and 8K screens will be the norm and cameras will shoot 12K for reframing. 12K cameras exist already by the way

CJaurelius said:

Sure technology marches on but advancements come in different areas. One of the latest innovations has been precapture. Alowing you to have multiple photos up to 1 second before you actually take a picture is a technological advancement but it doesn't increase the quality of the pictures you can take.

So sure SSC Tuatara can make a street legal car that goes 295 mph, but 99.99% of cars don't go anywhere near that speed because there's no market for it. The top speed of most cars hit a limit and then advancements moved to a differnt area.

Click to expand...

If there was no market for it then things would not be made. Cutting edge / luxury are different markets than consumer. But it is not infrequent that those markets end up driving innovation that trickles down to consumers once commoditized

m4ndr4ke said:

I didn’t have that issue with any of the Sigma Art lenses I used with my original R6 (28, 35, 40 and 50).

Click to expand...

I believe the default is to have FTM not enabled, so if you didn't change it you wouldn't have seen it...

Would love to see an updated professional cinema camera. They should be able out figure out how to include but fully disable IBIS and lock the sensor in place when it is not desired to prevent wobble. Updated sensor. 2 CF express cards. Excellent heat management. Built in ND filters. Full sized HDMI. Internal sound recording with 120p. While we are at it, there seems to be no technical reason they can't make it fully functional for stills with an electronic shutter. That would be my dream camera.

CJaurelius said:

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

Click to expand...

The EF mount was open - kind of maybe but people could mount Sigma and other lenses on their EF DSLR cameras and that did not prevent Canon from remaining the #1 manufacturer for decades.

I understand that the market is different now and that there could be the side effects you mention but a) one could argue that Canon could see more camera sales with a more open mount and b) if "long run" means years / decades do we really care? and c) action cameras are not as "sticky" as system cameras and if GoPro are not innovating (I have one and it has a lot of issues) and if the competition offers something better, then why not jump?

If the "unthinkable" was to happen and Canon went bankrupt, we could still use our cameras and lenses for quite some time. I use a dead system (Hasselblad HC) and that does not prevent me from capturing photos I like with it. I am aware that this is not something that can last indefinitely, but I do have enough time to take the necessary remediating actions (update to a X2D II) when I want and / or if needed.

Life is short and this is my hobby... I do not buy camera gear with the aim to support or to hurt companies. I want to buy the best stuff I can afford that helps me achieving my photographic goals, which in turn makes me happy-er.

CJaurelius said:

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

Click to expand...

Agreed!
I wonder which percentage of lenses mounted on Sony bodies are actually made by Sony...

roby17269 said:

I can see how opening the mount could affect Canon... I fail to see how that would threaten consumers though

Click to expand...

To be fair, if Canon were to open their mount then the loss in lens sales would need to be offset by an increase in body sales and that may not be the case. So the reduced revenue would put them in a position to have less for R&D of new products.

So while a more variety of less expensive lenses may be better for consumers today it could be pretty damaging in the long run. Take at look at action cameras, The Chinese have basically destroyed the company GoPro that created that market. The Pocket 3 is doing the same thing to the low end video market and if they ever work their way up to apcs or full frame cameras that would be catasrophic for the Japanese camera makers.

Helping companies grow that want to eventually destroy your company is a dangerous game.

Canon since its inception: "Buy the full-frame and no one gets hurt."