The Canon EOS R8 will be announced at CP+ in February
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Agreed - this is one of my assumptions as to why Canon has kept the RF mount autofocus protocols under a bit of control - they don't want some of those smaller manufacturers making lenses that Canon hasn't yet prioritized on RF. Canon is still building out the RF mount offerings and having Sigma/Tamron swoop in and deliver a lens Canon has plans to make gives the smaller manufacturers an advantage. I half expect Canon to open the mount after they feel they've covered all their bases.
Upvote
0
If the perceived backlash is big enough to impact sales to make upper management nervous. That is a lot of assumptions stacked on top of each other (maybe even back side illuminated assumptions), so I'm not going to try guessing how likely that is.
Other places in the interwebs are pointing at the most recent Yodobashi numbers that show Canon has disappeared from the top 10 sales list, but that's a single vendor in a single country, etc. I'm very curious about other vendors and countries to see if Yodobashi is indeed an outlier.
Upvote
0
I'll be highly surprised if Canon ever licences the RF mount - it just doesn't make economic sense, when you currently have the market to yourself, and are selling stacks of RF lenses, to make it easy for third parties to steal sales from you. Particularly as Canon probably makes a lot more money from selling lenses than from selling bodies. I don't think the unavailability of third party AF lenses has much impact on the sales of RF cameras either, as Canon covers *most* people's needs/wants already.
Sigma (and to a lesser extent Tamron, who have an agreement regarding Nikon Z mount) will be working hard to reverse engineer for RF, but the longer it takes, the harder it will be for them to compete with Canon's own lenses, because the line is expanding all the time, leaving Sigma etc with only a handful of specialised optics to cover. Many of the latter, particularly macro and shift lenses, are already covered by Laowa, who have no issues with RF protocols because all their glass is manual focus.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, considering that the EF mount wasn't closed to those manufacturers, Canon has previously shown willingness to let other manufacturers engage. I would think the benefit changes over time. Today, there is benefit to Canon to keep it closed because having another manufacturer release something Canon plans to release eventually will give those other manufacturers a competitive advantage and impact Canon's long-term revenue. For instance, if Sigma bolts on an RF mount to their 14mm 1.8 before Canon releases a 14mm in RF, yes, people who may have bought the RF version may buy the Sigma instead because it's available today and Canon's version doesn't yet exist. Competition here is impacted by being first to market.
Once Canon has rounded out their offerings on RF, the benefit may change to make opening the mount more favourable. Competing with Canon wouldn't be about being first to market with a product, but rather finding niches where they can find some success because Canon hasn't filled the niche - whether by being a lens that is a low volume speciality product, or lower cost/quality option. If a secondary manufacturer wants to release a lens that Canon doesn't believe will be profitable enough to warrant manufacturing, it's a benefit to the system to have someone else do it - more lenses available, Canon wasn't planning on selling that product anyway, reduces some of the noise about the closed ecosystem, wins for everyone.
Upvote
0
You always had to take your chances with third party AF on the EF mount. Even when they had got it pretty reliable with centre point and ‘one shot’, the AF was pretty (downright?) unreliable with outer points or Servo. For myself that’s why I mostly chose Canon lenses, and if others are like me it puts a brake on how many people will choose third party over Canon.
However the mirrorless RF mount appears to change all that; my third party EF lenses that I do have work flawlessly on RF via the EF to RF adapter. So if I was Canon I’d be very concerned that my new mount allows consumers to purchase cheaper, third party lenses with impunity, whereas the old dslr EF offered a fair degree of protection from flawless third party operation.
Upvote
0
Downmarket has nothing to do with a camera's abilities.
The OM-1 is priced significantly less than the original release price EM1X.
The R10 has more features than the 1DC.
Upvote
0
That's exactly one major reason why I love FF bodies, the larger body size. Having largish hands, I couldn't even get used to the RP or Soni's A7 series. So, small bodies, for many certainly an advantage, are for me a reason not to buy.I mostly agree with you. The main reason that I wanted to go from APS-C to FF was to fit larger insects (e.g. wasps) in the frame with the MP-E65mm. Going from 7D+M50 to RP+M6II gave me a lot of flexibility and I could mix the cameras and bodies if I wanted to. But now that I have replaced more and more EF lenses with RF variants, and seeing how far ahead the R5 is to the M6II, I find myself looking for a smaller R body. It being APS-C or FF doesn't really matter, I've come to appreciate how wide you can go on FF with the RF16 and using the 100-500 on a small-ish body wouldn't happen a lot.
So for me it's more about body size and form factor, less about sensor size. And after renting an R7: the auto-level feature using IBIS saves me a lot of horizon straightening in post
Yet, I was interested in the EOS R7, for the reach APS/C offers. But the lack of a battery grip killed this camera for me.
De gustus...
Upvote
0
In addition, keeping up with BIF is much easier with a 60% wider field of view with FF - some of my b est shots have had the bird at the edge of the frame as I was desperately trying to pan it.
Upvote
0
For the RP I needed the EG-E1 to make it nice to hold, and I have average sized hands for my 6" height. I'm not fond of bodies that keep the L shaped formfactor of their more expensive cousins, but shrink it down to finger-pinching proportions. On the RP you run out of space for your fingers when using the RF85L, I wonder what the 28-70 would do.
The original M combined with the glue-on franiec 'grip' was very comfortable to hold and use plus you could even dangle it from the tips of your fingers without dropping it. I really hope that the rumoured tiny R body is small in a smart way like the M and not tiny in a clicked-scale-in-CAD way like the M50.
The M50 was really horrible, it added a front grip that was too small to securely hold and at the same time too large to give your fingers space between the grip and lens. But I have to admit that even the M50 felt better than some of the other brands I handled since then, only Nikon and Canon seem to have employed designers familiar with actual hands.
Upvote
0
You could use the same shorter length lens on a high resolution FF sensor and still have the 60% wider field of view. For that reason, I preferred the 50 Mpx 5DSR, which crops to 20 Mpx APS-C, over my 20 Mpx 7DII and retain the same pixel density. I take out the R5 rather than R7 for BIF every time because not only has it better AF, the wider fov is more important than the lower pixel density for me. It also makes a difference when using primes: the 5DSR and 400mm DO II gave me the same resolution as the 400mm on the 7DII but the equivalent of a fov of a 250mm. For static shots and the high quality zoom lenses available, the fov is much less important and the APS-C is usually more than good enough.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
