Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.

[snegri45]

I bought a Digital Rebel with the 18-55 kit lens in September 2003 and upgraded regularly through the T6s. Eventually I also got three 5D series bodies. I had been using the EOS system since 1993, so I was well equipped with EF lenses and Speedlites.

My main problem was the lack of wide primes and fast zooms. The EF-S 17-55/2,8 was great, but it had L size and price. Eventually two Tokina f/2.8 zooms made up a variant of the Holy Trinity.

But for primes I only found three, the 24/2.8 pancake, the 60 macro and one more. For a while I used the EF 28/1.8 as a normal lens, but the results were suboptimal. Eventually a Sigma 30/1.4 (pre Art) came to the rescue. I could use my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 as portrait lenses, but at the wide end, nada!

With great fanfare Canon introduced the R system in 2018. What they left unsaid, though, was that they had started the M series in 2012 and developed it significantly. With the M5 in 2015 I started using it professionally. In 2018 appeared the M6 II which to some extent is still my favorite camera. Early on they had introduced the EF-M 22/2 which was a nice little lens. Late in the game Canon introduced what I think was their most ambitious normal lens to date, the 32/1.4. That puppy had 14 elements, at a time when the Zeiss Otis 55/1.4 had 12 elements. Anyway, in 2022 they pulled the plug on the M system. Long live the R!

The R7 and R10 have now been available for a while and variable aperture zooms abound. There should have been adequate time to remount the two EF-M primes as RF-S lenses. Definitely hasn’t happened yet, maybe it never will. “Wasn’t invented here!”.

Sony is successfully running a two format system, with lenses for both, primes and zooms. I still have most of my EF system and still use it for some jobs. But for travel the M system is still my preference. I have, however, built up my R7 system. I like primes and I have bought a batch of Sigma Contemporary f/1.4 primes and two f/2.8 zooms, as well as an f/1.8 Art zoom. Canon has NOTHING like it!!!

We don’t all need/want Full Frame, or even if we have it, we may still want an APS-C outfit. I like my R7, I like the stabilizer and the full sviwel screen. Personally I don’t need two cards and I would prefer an LP-E17 battery, it’s easy to carry extras in return for a smaller body.

By its policy Canon lost out on about $ 4-5 K in lens purchases. Good job, guys!

And that concludes my rant!

 

[Ozarker]

 

[MSH411]

Pretty valid rant snegri45 that I've heard many stating the same. Canon isn't listening.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

By its policy Canon lost out on about $ 4-5 K in lens purchases. Good job, guys!

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.

Pretty valid rant snegri45 that I've heard many stating the same. Canon isn't listening.

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.

 

[sfericean]

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

 

[Etnaphele]

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

 

[MSH411]

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

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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.

 

[MSH411]

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

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.

 

[Jethro]

The information you seek is readily available ...

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.

 

[EricN]

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.

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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.

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.

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?

You like to distort peoples content to fit your agenda.

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.

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

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

 

[becceric]

The OP stated their lack of need for full frame and lack of higher quality ASP-C lenses from Canon. They pointed out that therefore Canon did not get 4 to 5k of money from them.

Pretty straight forward. No statements of "Canon must", or "Canon doomed". No demands at all. Just his experience.
To me the OP understands where Canon finds their profit. It doesn't seem they needed to be informed on the details regularly provided by Neuro.

My personal experience has been a fondness for full frame cameras, and higher quality lenses than I need. There are still niche lenses I would like to purchase, but Canon has no idea of my desires. No big deal. I sure won't be describing them here. I have no desire to read anyone's statement of Canon's motives for or against my unspecified niche photographic longings.

I just hope to go out shooting the forthcoming winter creekside frost. I missed it this morning.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Thanks for the succinct summary.

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.

I suppose some people just want others to agree with them, regardless of the facts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Pretty straight forward. No statements of "Canon must", or "Canon doomed". No demands at all. Just his experience.
To me the OP understands where Canon finds their profit. It doesn't seem they needed to be informed on the details regularly provided by Neuro.

Sharing a viewpoint is fine, sharing a contrary viewpoint is not. Mmmmmkay.

FWIW, I personally would like to see Canon make some nice RF-S primes, and it seems like low-hanging fruit to have converted the M22/2 and M32/1.4 (or even the M28 Macro) to the RF mount as they did with the M18-150 (looking at the lenses, I can see why they needed to redesign the M11-22 but that should not be needed for the three). But they haven't, and most likely that is a data-driven decision based on how well those lenses sold (or didn't sell) in the EF-M mount.

But I'd like even more to see some of those niche lenses you won't mention. TS-R 14mm, please.

 

[becceric]

The sharing of that contrary viewpoint just felt like a very well read, oft repeated statement that did not further anything. Beating a dead horse.

About as redundant as what I just wrote.

And, well, a TS-R 14mm could very well be an item coursing through my neural pathways.

 

[EricN]

Sharing a viewpoint is fine, sharing a contrary viewpoint is not. Mmmmmkay.

FWIW, I personally would like to see Canon make some nice RF-S primes, and it seems like low-hanging fruit to have converted the M22/2 and M32/1.4 (or even the M28 Macro) to the RF mount as they did with the M18-150 (looking at the lenses, I can see why they needed to redesign the M11-22 but that should not be needed for the three). But they haven't, and most likely that is a data-driven decision based on how well those lenses sold (or didn't sell) in the EF-M mount.

But I'd like even more to see some of those niche lenses you won't mention. TS-R 14mm, please.

I would bet money that RF-S versions these M lenses or updated designs will appear at some point. the question is if that will be before or after lenses such a 200- 600 lens 5.6, the TS-E lenses or 35mm 1.2...

The sharing of that contrary viewpoint just felt like a very well read, oft repeated statement that did not further anything. Beating a dead horse.

About as redundant as what I just wrote.

And, well, a TS-R 14mm could very well be an item coursing through my neural pathways.

Almost everything people write (especially on internet) is redundant unfortunately not everyone could read it or can understand the truth or lack of truth immediately and so it gets repeated ad nauseam.