Canon celebrates 20th consecutive year of No. 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market

[Hector1970]

Canon is doomed.

Interesting doooooomed is replaced by ********

 

[David - Sydney]

That's a quote from the movie "The Lord of The Red Rings"!

Isn't that after eating spicy food?

 

[David - Sydney]

And when you mean great quality products, apparently you're not talking about the 50 mm 1.4 that is literally 20 plus years old They refuse to upgrade.

Agreed. There is a vast gulf in cost/quality etc from RF50/1.8 and RF50/1.2. It would be good to have something in between

Or their new set of lenses that go all the way down to a disgusting 7.1.

Disgusting? Mirrorless enables AF to f22 with the RF600/800 f11 + 2x TC. Having a single focus point at f8 was remarkable in the past.
Horses for courses... pay for wider aperture if you need it and Canon will sell it to you but it is good to have a choice. The RF100-500 at f7.1 is almost the same aperture from the EF100-400 + 1.4xTC but lighter, faster autofocus etc.
But vast improvements in ISO performance means that perfectly acceptable images can be made at a reasonable cost. The RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 is dark but AF and ISO performance makes up for it.
I was forced to shoot underwater last weekend at ISO6400 due to a loose screw and although not my best images, they were still able to be manipulated in post and had to reasonable results.

Or the excessive prices of their L lens lineup.

Canon is there to make money for their shareholders and there are still shortages for some L lenses so there is demand there. In the Australian market, there are often sales for RF L lenses to tempt you.
You always have the option to buy new EF L lenses or second hand L lenses not to mention heaps of 3rd party quality EF lenses to choose from. Most RF L lenses that correspond closely to EF L lenses have additional features/weight/size etc to justify their added cost. RF600/800 big whites being the obvious outlier. The RF50/1.2 and RF85/1.2 are bigger than their E counterparts but image quality/ AF speed does offset the extra weight.

Or the embarrassment that is RFS lens lineup, which is almost non-existent and terrible.

Every EF/EF-S/RF lens works on RF-S bodies. What is the point you are making?
What is missing is wide angle RF-S options that only adapted EF-S lenses support

I can go on but I don't want to.

You know you want to

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Give companies too much credit. They don't give you what you want they give you what they want to sell you.

Companies do not give us anything.
They sell us things.
Canon just happens to sell gear that I like.
They do not have to make it and I do not have to buy it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It certainly wasn't a failure in terms of design or performance

Sony stated themselves that their DSLR sales were a disappointment.
They are a business that sells things in order to stay in business.
Making things that do not sell is a failure for them even if it was not a failure for you.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sony stated themselves that their DSLR sales were a disappointment.
They are a business that sells things in order to stay in business.
Making things that do not sell is a failure for them even if it was not a failure for you.

The paradigm for certain things are changing in some ways especially for bundling. eg Amazon making content and providing it for "free" if you buy their Prime service. Given how tight Amazon is many areas of their business, giving away their content with free delivery csots seems like a strange concept compared to Disney/Netflix/HBP Max etc justifying their monthly streaming services.

 

[pahountisg]

Being like Apple is not a good thing. And I'm a 20-year Apple user.

Nope. High quality products in great design doesn't mean excessive locking in, shady marketing practices and a lack of after purchase options.

About Sony's competition, there would be no R5. It would be no advanced AF tracking. They only made these moves to try to maintain their number one spot, not for the good of the customer. Give companies too much credit. They don't give you what you want they give you what they want to sell you.

And when you mean great quality products, apparently you're not talking about the 50 mm 1.4 that is literally 20 plus years old They refuse to upgrade. Or their new set of lenses that go all the way down to a disgusting 7.1. Or the excessive prices of their L lens lineup.

Or the embarrassment that is RFS lens lineup, which is almost non-existent and terrible.

Or lack of Ibis unless you pay $1,500.. And that's for a crop body.

I can go on but I don't want to.

+1000%

 

[entoman]

Sony stated themselves that their DSLR sales were a disappointment.
They are a business that sells things in order to stay in business.
Making things that do not sell is a failure for them even if it was not a failure for you.

Yes, that was exactly my point. The a700 in its day was a fantastic camera. The "semi-DSLR" a99 was also a fantastic camera. But they were competing with DSLRs from Nikon and Canon, who had such a stranglehold on the market that Sony couldn't make much of an impact. So Sony were disappointed in terms of sales, and the answer they found was to create the a7 series, believing that smaller, lighter FF cameras and better sensor tech would help them to establish themselves as a major player.

 

[danfaz]

Being like Apple is not a good thing. And I'm a 20-year Apple user.

Not sure if that is good or bad news from a customer perspective. It will not encourage Canon to lower its prices. It is like Apple.

We always hear that consumers can "vote with their wallets."
It would appear plenty of people are happy with Canon.

 

[Del Paso]

Being like Apple is not a good thing. And I'm a 20-year Apple user.

Nope. High quality products in great design doesn't mean excessive locking in, shady marketing practices and a lack of after purchase options.

About Sony's competition, there would be no R5. It would be no advanced AF tracking. They only made these moves to try to maintain their number one spot, not for the good of the customer. Give companies too much credit. They don't give you what you want they give you what they want to sell you.

And when you mean great quality products, apparently you're not talking about the 50 mm 1.4 that is literally 20 plus years old They refuse to upgrade. Or their new set of lenses that go all the way down to a disgusting 7.1. Or the excessive prices of their L lens lineup.

Or the embarrassment that is RFS lens lineup, which is almost non-existent and terrible.

Or lack of Ibis unless you pay $1,500.. And that's for a crop body.

I can go on but I don't want to.

Since I'm not a native speaker, would you please explain me what is "shady" about Canon's marketing practices?
I always stupidly thought "shady" means dishonest, but I'm sure it can't be your intention to accuse Canon of illegal deeds.
But maybe I'm wrong???

 

[TinTin]

Congrats, Canon!

How about some 20% special discount for 20th consecutive years?

Here's to Canon celebrating 100 consecutive years of No 1 share of ILC market!

 

[JohanCruyff]

And when you mean great quality products, apparently you're not talking about the 50 mm 1.4 that is literally 20 plus years old They refuse to upgrade.

Agreed. There is a vast gulf in cost/quality etc from RF50/1.8 and RF50/1.2. It would be good to have something in between

Here in Italy the RF 50mm F1.8 STM costs some 200 euros and the RF 50mm F/1.2 L about 2.500.
I used to hope that the future RF 50mm F/1.4 would cost more or less like the RF 85mm F/2 STM (about 700 euros here), but then I saw the price of the Sony 50mm F/1.4 GM: it's about 1.700 euros.

So I'm afraid that if when a RF 50mm F/1.4 appears, if its construction, optical quality and autofocus are adequate, its price will be much closer to the one of the RF 1.2 than to the RF1.8.

If this will be the case, I probably won't feel the need to switch from my adapted Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art.

 

[woodman411]

Here in Italy the RF 50mm F1.8 STM costs some 200 euros and the RF 50mm F/1.2 L about 2.500.
I used to hope that the future RF 50mm F/1.4 would cost more or less like the RF 85mm F/2 STM (about 700 euros here), but then I saw the price of the Sony 50mm F/1.4 GM: it's about 1.700 euros.

So I'm afraid that if when a RF 50mm F/1.4 appears, if its construction, optical quality and autofocus are adequate, its price will be much closer to the one of the RF 1.2 than to the RF1.8.

If this will be the case, I probably won't feel the need to switch from my adapted Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art.

Adapted EF lenses are currently the best way to fill the gaps between low and high cost RF lenses, this is true for the Sigma example you mentioned, or the EF 85 f/1.4L IS (or even the 85 f/1.2L II), 135 f/2L, 35 f/1.4L, etc. where the EF lens cost usually slices right in the middle of the low and high side of the RF market (I suspect this is one of the reasons why Canon refuses to open up to third parties, because they invested their time to make sure adapted EF glass works adequately on RF bodies).

 

[entoman]

Adapted EF lenses are currently the best way to fill the gaps between low and high cost RF lenses, this is true for the Sigma example you mentioned, or the EF 85 f/1.4L IS (or even the 85 f/1.2L II), 135 f/2L, 35 f/1.4L, etc. where the EF lens cost usually slices right in the middle of the low and high side of the RF market (I suspect this is one of the reasons why Canon refuses to open up to third parties, because they invested their time to make sure adapted EF glass works adequately on RF bodies).

Actually, I'd regard that as very much an understatement.

AF acquisition speed with genuine Canon EF is in most cases as good as with RF lenses, and the AF motors can keep up with accelerating subjects almost as easily. Optically there's little to choose between recent EF and RF lenses. The only areas, in my experience, where RF lenses have real advantages are in stabilisation and improved specs (e.g. longer zoom range, closer MFD). I'd have absolutely no hesitation in using EF glass in the few instances where RF equivalents are not yet available.

For reference, I'm comparing EF100-400mm Mkii with RF100-500mm, EF 100mm macro with RF100mm macro, and EF24-105mm F4L with RF equivalent).

 

[entoman]

Canon is *******.

Interesting doooooomed is replaced by ********

Maybe it should be "Sony is ******"

 

[woodman411]

Actually, I'd regard that as very much an understatement.

AF acquisition speed with genuine Canon EF is in most cases as good as with RF lenses, and the AF motors can keep up with accelerating subjects almost as easily. Optically there's little to choose between recent EF and RF lenses. The only areas, in my experience, where RF lenses have real advantages are in stabilisation and improved specs (e.g. longer zoom range, closer MFD). I'd have absolutely no hesitation in using EF glass in the few instances where RF equivalents are not yet available.

For reference, I'm comparing EF100-400mm Mkii with RF100-500mm, EF 100mm macro with RF100mm macro, and EF24-105mm F4L with RF equivalent).

Glad it has worked well for you, it has been a mixed bag for me. Focus acquisition and accuracy was abysmal on my EF 70-300 f/4L + R6 + genuine Canon adapter, while so-so on a cheap EF 85 f/1.8, and pretty good on a EF 35 f/1.4L. Perhaps the newer the EF glass, the better the experience. Either way, none of them are as sure and accurate as my RF glass: 50 f/1.2L, 14-35 f/4L, and 70-200 f/2.8L.

 

[Hector1970]

Maybe it should be "Sony is ******"

It's strange it automatically replaced Canon is "Dooomed "with Canon is ******. . The word do-omed is forbidden. A nice autocorrect feature. But of course yes Sony is doomed.

 

[entoman]

Glad it has worked well for you, it has been a mixed bag for me. Focus acquisition and accuracy was abysmal on my EF 70-300 f/4L + R6 + genuine Canon adapter, while so-so on a cheap EF 85 f/1.8, and pretty good on a EF 35 f/1.4L. Perhaps the newer the EF glass, the better the experience. Either way, none of them are as sure and accurate as my RF glass: 50 f/1.2L, 14-35 f/4L, and 70-200 f/2.8L.

It doesn't surprise me that older glass like the EF70-300mm has mediocre AF on the R6 - I had the lens myself a few years ago and AF was far from ideal on my 5DMkiv. So I'll rephrase "AF acquisition speed with the more recent Canon EF glass is in most cases as good as with RF lenses, and the AF motors can keep up with accelerating subjects almost as easily."

One aspect of RF (and EF) glass that I've found a little disappointing is the bokeh - e.g. I get a lot of aperture-shaped specular highlights and onion-ring effect on water drops etc in defocused backgrounds, and was rather hoping that Canon would up their game with RF. I also find that mildly defocused bushes and other foliage can look very "busy". I think Canon could perhaps benefit from some Sigma technology in this regard.

 

[woodman411]

It doesn't surprise me that older glass like the EF70-300mm has mediocre AF on the R6 - I had the lens myself a few years ago and AF was far from ideal on my 5DMkiv. So I'll rephrase "AF acquisition speed with the more recent Canon EF glass is in most cases as good as with RF lenses, and the AF motors can keep up with accelerating subjects almost as easily."

One aspect of RF (and EF) glass that I've found a little disappointing is the bokeh - e.g. I get a lot of aperture-shaped specular highlights and onion-ring effect on water drops etc in defocused backgrounds, and was rather hoping that Canon would up their game with RF. I also find that mildly defocused bushes and other foliage can look very "busy". I think Canon could perhaps benefit from some Sigma technology in this regard.

I had the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art and didn't like the bokeh, which is why paid up for the Canon 50 f/1.2 RF, to each their own since this is subjective, but yes, hard to find good bokeh especially with foliage background. My favorite was the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 (made by Cosina Japan), loved almost everything about it including the bokeh, but couldn't live with the manual focus.

 

[entoman]

It's strange it automatically replaced Canon is "Dooomed "with Canon is ******. . The word do-omed is forbidden. A nice autocorrect feature. But of course yes Sony is *******.

Yes, very very odd "protectionist" policy to ban the use of the word "d00med" on the basis that it became a derogatory term used by fan-persons of Sony. What next I wonder - will the words "Sony" and "Nikon" be banned as being "politically incorrect" words on a Canon-orientated website? Most odd.