Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Upvote
0
Fair point. For example, a few months ago Canon did a PR that they've produced 110 million EOS cameras and 160 million EF/RF lenses. They also state, "[Canon] has maintained the world’s No. 1 share³ of digital SLR cameras over 20 years, from 2003 to 2022." That little ³ footnote is, "In terms of market share by number of units sold. Based on Canon research." I have no doubt that their research is correct (pretty easy to confirm given that they report their unit sales with the financials and CIPA reports total units), but still...
Upvote
0
Yes, many mourn and cry for native RF lenses as Avril mourns in her song:
I'm standing on a bridge
I'm waitin' in the dark
I thought that you'd be here by now
There's nothing but the rain
No footsteps on the ground
I'm listening but there's no sound - on 3rd party RF lenses
Just put the adapter on the camera and enjoy excellent EF lenses at ridiculous prices.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
For the past couple of years, the RP + 24-105 kit has frequently been in the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan (and often it's the only FF camera there). It was #8 in August and #10 last month. That suggests that the RP is probably still selling pretty well (no doubt the price drop helped).
I recall that I highly doubted Canon would release an APS-C EOS R camera, much less kill off the M series that was the best-selling APS-C MILC line globally. The fact that the R50 and R10 are now regularly in the top 10 (often one or both are in the top 3) on BCN suggests that despite killing off the M line over the past few years, Canon is continuing to have strong sales of APS-C MILCs and is successfully convincing current buyers to purchase entry-level bodies with the RF mount. As I often say, Canon knows more about making and selling cameras than anyone posting on this forum, and obviously that includes me.
Upvote
0
I also find it interesting that ~10 years ago, when these forums were full of naysayers decrying Canon sensors' DR, adapting EF lenses on Sony bodies was considered fine, but now doing the same on RF bodies is unacceptable somehow. Seems the same sort of people in both cases.
Upvote
0
Does anyone remember a Russell Baker column (early '80s?) where he discussed the not at all famous necktie argument?
First person: Everyone should wear neckties. They increase morale and focus and improve everyone's productivity.
Second person: What about Ted Williams? He hit 400 and never wore a necktie (I didn't realize at the time there was a well known necktie quote by TW)
First person: Ah! but imagine how much better he could have hit if he had worn a necktie!
First person is ridiculous because the necktie logic/plausibility is poor, but he's right on the unknowable effect of alternate scenarios. We can't do a manipulative experiment. We can't evaluate the effect of mount policy from sales data, because in fact, sales might well have been higher with different policies. We might be able to ask sub-questions that could shape our expectations. We could ask how many 3rd-party lenses different tiers of canon owners bought in EF and EF-M mount, to get some range of the money to mouth ratio is of people asking for 3rd-party lenses. Well, probably we couldn't but in theory...
Other than that, we can just speak for ourselves. I'm keeping the M6II until it dies. My M-use has changed over time. When I first got an M, it was to replace a S-120. The M2 was heavier than the S-120, but so much better quality. I took a magical vacation with just the M2 and the 22 F2, enjoyed the discipline and limits. Now I never use the 22 F2, the phone is close enough. I mostly use the 32/1.4, second the Sigma 56/1.4, 3rd/4th the 18-150 and the EF-S 55-250, and so 2 of those missing from RF-S, and the creeping size increase, means there's no incentive for me to use R for compact/inobtrusive photography. Honestly people complain about Canon being high-priced, but I've stuck with it because they often have very inexpensive gems that Fuji and Olympus just don't. the 32 1.4, the old 35 1.8 EF, the EF-S 15-85 and especially the 55-250. Oddly the R8 is better than RF-S for my common walk around combo, because R8 plus the 50 1.8 is so much lighter than an R7 plus a 35 1.8, and lighter than an R100 with the 35 1.8, even lighter than the M6II with 32 1.4, and with FF and focus tech. benefits. The 32 is better, but the 50 could be stopped down to 2.2 to match the DOF, and probably not be much worse there than the 32 at 1.4
First person: Everyone should wear neckties. They increase morale and focus and improve everyone's productivity.
Second person: What about Ted Williams? He hit 400 and never wore a necktie (I didn't realize at the time there was a well known necktie quote by TW)
First person: Ah! but imagine how much better he could have hit if he had worn a necktie!
First person is ridiculous because the necktie logic/plausibility is poor, but he's right on the unknowable effect of alternate scenarios. We can't do a manipulative experiment. We can't evaluate the effect of mount policy from sales data, because in fact, sales might well have been higher with different policies. We might be able to ask sub-questions that could shape our expectations. We could ask how many 3rd-party lenses different tiers of canon owners bought in EF and EF-M mount, to get some range of the money to mouth ratio is of people asking for 3rd-party lenses. Well, probably we couldn't but in theory...
Other than that, we can just speak for ourselves. I'm keeping the M6II until it dies. My M-use has changed over time. When I first got an M, it was to replace a S-120. The M2 was heavier than the S-120, but so much better quality. I took a magical vacation with just the M2 and the 22 F2, enjoyed the discipline and limits. Now I never use the 22 F2, the phone is close enough. I mostly use the 32/1.4, second the Sigma 56/1.4, 3rd/4th the 18-150 and the EF-S 55-250, and so 2 of those missing from RF-S, and the creeping size increase, means there's no incentive for me to use R for compact/inobtrusive photography. Honestly people complain about Canon being high-priced, but I've stuck with it because they often have very inexpensive gems that Fuji and Olympus just don't. the 32 1.4, the old 35 1.8 EF, the EF-S 15-85 and especially the 55-250. Oddly the R8 is better than RF-S for my common walk around combo, because R8 plus the 50 1.8 is so much lighter than an R7 plus a 35 1.8, and lighter than an R100 with the 35 1.8, even lighter than the M6II with 32 1.4, and with FF and focus tech. benefits. The 32 is better, but the 50 could be stopped down to 2.2 to match the DOF, and probably not be much worse there than the 32 at 1.4
Upvote
0
True, body sales might have been positively impacted by an open mount. If they were significantly negatively impacted, that should have been evident based on Canon’s market share, or which 20% was R in 2021, it is higher now). But in all likelihood, RF lens sales would have been negatively impacted by the availability of 3rd party lenses. Canon has stated lens sales are very profitable for them.
Canon probably has a good estimate of those numbers, for EF, EF-S and EF-M (based on their own data, data from product registrations, and competitive intelligence on other manufacturers' sales data). With those data in hand, Canon decided to restrict 3rd party ability to make AF lenses for the RF mount (apparently). I would argue (and have done) that Canon is the one best-placed to decide what the effect of their RF mount policy would be, and they have seemingly decided to keep it 'closed'. I get that some people here think they know better...but that's not very likely. People can certainly be unhappy about Canon's decision, and those who want 3rd party AF lenses for cost savings, lenses outside the current lineup, or just because have every right to feel that way, and to complain. But when they claim that Canon has made a mistake, or extrapolate their personal feelings to mean a business consequence for Canon, that's just foolish.
I followed a similar trajectory. I used an S95 and then an S100 for travel, until getting the EOS M for better IQ. When my original M died, I got the M2 (it was only $20 more to order that from Japan via Amazon than Canon's flat repair fee for the M). I later got the M6, then the M6II and all three of those still work and are used variously by me and/or my kids.
I recently got the R8, and it's great for travel. With the RF 24-105/4, it fits in the the same bag as my M travel kit (M6II, M11-22, M18-150, M22/2, in a TT Mirrorless Mover 20).
Like you, I will keep my M kit until it dies (in addition to the three bodies, I have all EF-M lenses). I expect an uptick in use in the near future – I just sent the M6 off for a full spectrum conversion.
Upvote
0
Nope.
Which car manufacturers are the OEM for the tires on their cars? That’s not the case for any car I’ve ever owned. Honda uses Bridgestone a lot, Tesla uses Michelin, Subaru uses Continental. At least in the US. Probably different elsewhere.
By that analogy, Canon wouldn’t make any lenses at all, would put Sigma lenses in some of their kits and Tamron lenses in others.
Upvote
0
This is nonetheless reality for many high performance cars, they are often limited in their tyre choice. Usually Michelin, sometimes Pirelli. Certification and insurance are void if driven on different brands and tyre specs. A Bugatti or Königsegg owner is only allowed to buy Michelin (fortunately!). The only tyres which can be run at 440 kmh.
Same applies to the new hi-perf. Mustang, Corvettes, Ferraris, many Porsches etc...
Wrong example, sorry...wrong car analogy!
Upvote
0
This is nonetheless reality for many high performance cars, they are often limited in their tyre choice. Usually Michelin, sometimes Pirelli. Certification and insurance are void if driven on different brands and tyre specs. A Bugatti or Königsegg owner is only allowed to buy Michelin (fortunately!). The only tyres which can be run at 440 kmh.
Same applies to the new hi-perf. Mustang, Corvettes, Ferraris, many Porsches etc...
Wrong example, sorry...wrong car analogy!
Find out why the Bugatti Veyron’s tyres cost £32,000 per set
The Veyron is still a very special supercar, but maintaining it is very expensive. The tyres alone are a major chunk of change to replace.
uk.motor1.com
Do you also have to be insane to buy a Bugatti? Never mind the analogy, it's the wrong car for me!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Insane? Sure!Find out why the Bugatti Veyron’s tyres cost £32,000 per set
The Veyron is still a very special supercar, but maintaining it is very expensive. The tyres alone are a major chunk of change to replace.
Do you also have to be insane to buy a Bugatti? Never mind the analogy, it's the wrong car for me!
Insanely rich.
These tyres are, according to Michelin, good for 2000 km maximum (that's a lot, without irony...)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
