Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Many theories abound about the RF mount lockout for third parties but absent of any official word and no sign of a whistle-blower, I have concluded that it is a marketing decision from the top. "They are just mean greedy corporate overlords". There were a few manufacturers with good credentials that surprisingly were able to reverse engineer the RF mount before Canon had got the basic lenses out, I single out Samyang for producing two great weather sealed Auto Focus RF lenses at a fraction of Canons L series offering - they even had a red band ! . I think his scared Canon and they saw their whole RF role out plan, strategy and profits going up in smoke... If Samyang can do it, they quickly reasoned, then surely Sigma and Tamron will follow with better lenses and better value lenses than Canon itself can produce. Time to put a stop to it they all cried in unison in the Canon boardroom and the lawyers were summoned. Sales of Canon RF cameras and lenses seems to prove them right but how many have decided to switch brands to Sony and Nikon for the huge third party lens choices ? I have seriously considered it, I am still considering it. I might stop considering it when I see the first fully AF, image stabilised RF mount Sigma lens. My Xmas wish list (Dear Santa) is a Sigma 60-600 so I can replace my Sigma 150-600 EF and adapter and get proper AF that doesn't wander off between shots. Oh well, I can dream.
Upvote
0
You are right that APS-C obeys the same exposure triangle as FF. However, with an f/1.2 lens on APS-C, although it has the same brightness as on FF, there is less light falling on the smaller sensor because its area is 2.56x less. Accordingly, it's like shooting at a couple of stops higher iso than on FF as far as signal to noise in the image. So, you can shoot at a smaller aperture on FF at higher iso and have just as as good signal/noise and with the same dof as on APS-C. That's what he means by equivalence.
Upvote
0
The M line was aimed at entry/consumer level buyers. The data indicate that most of those buy just a relatively inexpensive camera and the 1-2 lenses bundled with it. Only a relative few upgrade to higher end gear, be that a higher spec APS-C camera or FF.
For most, when their camera gets old or stops working, if they buy another camera at all then it will be the current iteration of what they were using. So, someone who is replacing an M50 or M100 with M kit lens(es) will buy an R50 or R100 with RF-S kit lens(es).
The other relevant factor is that up until 2020, DSLRs still outsold MILCs. That means the installed base of DSLRs is still higher than that of MILCs. Those DSLR owners who are looking to replace their cameras are now more likely to be looking at MILCs. The majority of DSLR owners have a Canon camera, and they’ll find something very familiar in an R50/100 with RF-S kit lens.
Upvote
0
Exactly. The ‘advantages of crop’ are limited to potential savings in cost, size and/or weight, and with current sensors available, more pixels on target when focal length limited. Those are real, meaningful advantages. The size/weight advantage is why I have a substantial EOS M kit (2 bodies and all 8 lenses; of course, the lower cost was also a factor that made the bar for having all the lenses very low for me). The 'pixels on duck' advantage is why I'd probably be using an R7 if I was not fortunate enough to have and be able to handhold a 600mm f/4 lens.
However, those are the only 'advantages of crop'. Those touting other advantages either lack understanding of the relevant concepts or are deluding themselves.
Upvote
0
You make decisions like a child. The EF-M lens being discontinued didn't mean you had to jump ship when you did. Based on your comments in this thread and the article, it seems like you decided to "stand up for the little guy" and stick it to the big camera brand by switching to the brand your professional buddies told you about.
You don't use facts or data to back up your opinions and you switched when you didn't have to switch.
Upvote
0
50mm f1.2 L RF - $2099/£2349
50mm f1.4 DG DN - $849/£849
85mm f1.2 L RF - $2499/£2849
85mm f1.4 DG DN - $1099/£999
35mm f1.2 DG DN - $1499/£1459
35mm f1.4 DG DN - $799/£749
Yes Sigma only have the 35mm in an f1.2 aperture but when Canon makes their premium 35mm L lens its pretty much certain that it will cost a lot more than both equivalent Sigmas and possibly cost more than both of them combined. Again if Canon were to make 50mm and 85mm f1.4 RF lenses I doubt they will be equal to/less expensive than Sigma's options. Some care because they can't afford L series prices and want native mount options that are generally smaller and much lighter than their EF versions.
Upvote
0
There are some alternatives to Canon with RF mount, with manuel focus, for instance :
TTARTISAN 90mm f/1.25 Canon RF
LAOWA Argus 28mm f/1.2
7ARTISANS 50mm f/1.05
LAOWA 15MM F/2 ZERO-D
7ARTISANS 50mm f/1.05
...
But I don't know what's their optical quality...
Upvote
0
Weird response. I made the decision because Canon did not offer a reasonable replacement/update to the M50 in 2020 when I was ready to upgrade. What product did they have that met my needs of small/light, good image quality, reasonable price and, ideally but not necessarily, a crop sensor? The RF mount at that point had zero crop sensor bodies, the R/RP were questionable bodies, the R5 was nearly 4x the price of the competition and the lens lineup had even fewer reasonably priced lens options than it has now (which is still very limited for a prime shooter like myself). I wanted a more advanced body, they didn't offer it. At the time I was looking at Fuji but I did not find the classic control scheme appealing at all. When they suddenly announced the X-S10 it was literally what I had been hoping for the hypothetical M7 that was in all the rumors back then, and had a massive and highly rated lens lineup, so I jumped.
What about this is child like decision making? And what has really changed competitively? Were I making the decision today the equation would be a bit different in that Canon does have some competitive options but the lens lineup is still lacking. Meanwhile Fuji and Sony have both released very nice APS-C and even small FF options (like the A7C) priced similarly and with a much more fleshed out lens lineup.
While today I would have a bit more pause before switching, an unbiased decision likely would still lead to a switch given the state of the overall ecosystems comparatively, which is exacerbated by the actual topic of the article this thread is attached to, namely Canon's lack of third party lens options. Canon literally has no answer to several lenses on other systems, such as the Viltrox 13, 27 and 75mm lenses. Their crop sensor option has no 56mm option. The 50mm f/1.8 they released is quite terrible compared to the competition. It's just not a fleshed out ecosystem without an EF adapter, and again I can go native on other systems or if I really want an EF lens they are easy to adapt to Sony or Fuji.
Upvote
0
ReflexVE said:
No one in this thread can explain why Canon's decisions are good for us, the photographers. All they are doing is explaining why they believe it makes sense for Canon. Why should any of us care about what makes sense for Canon?
You could say the same thing about Canon employees. Ultimately, Canon have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders... not by customers or other non-government parties.
The assumption is that good corporate governance and financial performance will enable R&D spend into new competitive products that customers will buy. They don't have to be happy but it helps
Upvote
0
Well, which one ? I'm sorry, I only have a "real life" point of view. And everything I see indicates that most EOS-M system owners won't change it for RF-S (confirmed by some local retailers I know BTW). They find the system too big and inconvenient for their needs in comparison to what "was" M. (and in fact, what it is still by now)...
And a majority of others switched to mostly only using their phone at one point or another in time. But of course, to each their point of view I guess, and I'm only in a little part of the world.
Also, same retailers at my place (well, with a national network though
) told me that the RF-S buyers are mostly former standard EF-S owners that still want to replace their camera or simply new-comers as there was when DSLRs were the only choice.I got no statistics and data and I don't pretend to have a "worldwide" view, only what I see and hear nearby my home...
It looks logical though that RF-S is addressing entry/consumer level buyers. Still, that does not mean it addresses former EOS-M owners at all. Especially if their cameras are still working fine and will for years.
Upvote
0
I believe its more of a 'I don't have an investment to keep me going in this path'. If you're starting without an initial investment of EF lenses most folks going to look at the entire field.. currently is more or less equal from a body perspective, but maybe less so from a native mount perspective. Lenses are not cheap, L lenses (which I have some of) are eye watering in cost if you do not make an income from it. Had the R5 not come out I honestly would've jumped. I don't regret buying it, fantastic camera and I could continue with what I invested in Canon and evolve it from there. However, like many things (this includes Nikon, Sony, Fuji and the others) there is room for improvement..
As for going between system A and B and C within a brand.. it does happen. I went Canon SLR to G series back to SLR.. hoped to get weight down, but buy high end all in ones for travel and cost effective under water.. it worked, but you lose stuff with smaller systems (reach, image quality) as you gain other things (weight, cost, etc).
This is simply airing an opinion on what some customers would like to see. Choose to agree or disagree, in the end it is some customers expressing what they think and it is ok.
Upvote
0
Literally this. None of us hate Canon (well at least I don't). But expressing our frustration with some of their decisions is fully within our rights, and on topic with this article and discussion thread. Random asides about Canon business strategies, what we should want, etc are off topic tangents.
Upvote
0
Comments here seem to take the tack that all 3rd party players are the same. This is simply not true. The two most likely to offer interesting and usable products are Sigma and Tamron and they both have affiliations that could cause technology leakage to major competitors. Sigma is in the L alliance and Tamron is partly owned by Sony. To anyone who has ever been in a competitive business, those are big red flags. OTOH, companies like Viltrox are dangerous to hand over technology to since once a technology is established in China, it seems to suddenly appear everywhere in China. Canon has made the decision to move all manufacturing out of China for just that reason. Sony opened their protocol at a point in time when they were struggling for a place in a growing market and were willing to sacrifice profits for market share. It worked out on the volume side, but hard to tell how it played on the profit front since Sony's accounting is pretty opaque with divisions constantly changing. Today, the market is much smaller and not really growing, so the game is much different.
Upvote
0
