Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
I doubt there is a large market for high end lenses for a consumer level APS-C camera, so why would Canon invest in this line? Makes no sense to me. Every camera manufacturer does not need to cover every area of the market. Give the 3rd parties a reason to exist. That is good.
If you don't like the lack of lens knowledge among APS-C users, make a youtube video about it with a sensationalist title and move on. you've done your part.
If you don't like the lack of lens knowledge among APS-C users, make a youtube video about it with a sensationalist title and move on. you've done your part.
Upvote
0
Not an expert on other brands, but it seems like Nikon is doing even less with APS-C and Sony not so much either. It seems obvious as to why Canon does not make high-end crop lenses...because the market for them is probably tiny. I think most high-end crop purchasers use crop for the reach and will use RF or EF lenses. The vast majority of crop camera buyers are probably much more casual photographers who have absolutely no use or interest in fast primes or even fast zooms.
And as usual, as if you have a mental block that keeps you from stating the obvious (especially when you can be negative and complain) there are many, many, many EF-S lenses available by Canon AND third party lens makers for your RF crop cameras.
Seriously, stick to rumors rather than opinions, 'cause you just end up looking rather unintelligent.
And as usual, as if you have a mental block that keeps you from stating the obvious (especially when you can be negative and complain) there are many, many, many EF-S lenses available by Canon AND third party lens makers for your RF crop cameras.
Seriously, stick to rumors rather than opinions, 'cause you just end up looking rather unintelligent.
Upvote
0
Hey Richard! I think, I fully get your message and agree a lot with it.
TBH, I suppose, that with the R6m2 and the R8 personally I'm through with APS-C. But that's me, prosumer geek.
But with the R10 and R50 I see a very powerful and well priced basis for Canon to get most consumers into their harbour.
And maybe the majority are happy with their double zoom kit or the RF100-400 when they do wildlife and sport and so.
But what potential would those bodies have when provided with the EF-M or third party patents that you mentioned.
Bang!
That would be something for all of my friends and other people into photography not wanting to spend that much as many here do, but knowing that a dedicated RF-S lens with f/2.x or even f/1.x would be a killer, no matter if prime or zoom.
Come on, Canon! Do it yourself! Or let others do it, if you don't want!
Upvote
0
They don't HAVE to. They have open mounts - Sigma, et all can make lenses for those mounts. That should have been obvious.
The market is tiny for a lot of things. Canon does it's vast maketshare for decades making sure that it covers as many of those tiny segments as possible.
I knew a lot of professionals that used crop cameras for everything but reach, and even if they use a crop camera for reach - do they ONLY use a camera for reach? do they have to purchase a full frame if they are using it for another purpose? If they are used of weather sealed or faster lenses on the tele end, should they have to just "make do" because Canon doesn't make a $400 RF-S lens?
RF lenses aren't available for the focal lengths described. There is no native RF solution that has autofocus and is comparable to the competition. I even suggested that for some focus, the RF primes that are there will suffice, but with other focals. it will not.
No one wants to use EF lenses on a small mirrorless camera body. Let's be real. 1) absolutely no support if it's an EF third party lens . 2) not even Canon sells EF-S lenses anymore. 3) not even Canon made at any time any comparable EF-S lenses discussed to mount on an RF-S camera body. Do you have this magical 10mm F1.4 on the EF mount somewhere? really? There's no mental block. the focal lengths were clearly stated. And again, other brands have this. Canon does not. Canon is the only brand that does not. Every brand supports ef lenses and third party via adapter. that's not the point.
Thanks but I'll listen to the boss more than you on that subject.
What boils my blood is Canon (not Sigma) patents of lenses they never intend on building. Canon files these patents to protect themselves from the likes of Sigma. But Canon has shut off the competition with their proprietary mount. So those sexy RF-S lens patents will never see the light of day, and there will be no 3rd party solution. I'm okay with patents protecting an actual product, but this is just stifling consumer choice.
As for Sigma patents -exciting stuff! Have at it
As for Sigma patents -exciting stuff! Have at it
Upvote
0
To add to Richards point, why personally I would prefer not to use old lenses and adapters:
This is a (bad) photoshop, of how the Sigma 18-50 2.8 would look on an R50. IMO a compelling package, which I would prefer to my R8. The EF-S version not so much. Not only is it bigger and heavier, but the old lens is IMO worse in IQ than the new Sigma.
Would that not be a nice combo? Together with an RF-S version of the 32mm and Sigma 56mm I would be a happy camper.
This is a (bad) photoshop, of how the Sigma 18-50 2.8 would look on an R50. IMO a compelling package, which I would prefer to my R8. The EF-S version not so much. Not only is it bigger and heavier, but the old lens is IMO worse in IQ than the new Sigma.
Would that not be a nice combo? Together with an RF-S version of the 32mm and Sigma 56mm I would be a happy camper.
Upvote
0
I bought an R50, refurbished, for my elementary school daughter. It came with what seems, in terms of build quality, a toy lens, an 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM. But it's perfect for her. She knows how to be careful with gear, but she's just a kid. When she learns more about using the camera, and I see she takes good care, I'll let her use my very nice RF 35mm f/1.8. Macro IS STM.
The R50 is wonderfully compact, but the controls for AF point placement and other functions are limiting and frustrating. She likes it, though, as it is a step up from her G12, which her younger brother now proudly uses.
The R50 balances ok with medium sized RF lenses, such as the 15-35mm. From what I understand, the R50 has a lot of "M" in its DNA, though I've never used an "M" camera.
We don't want our kids to have smartphones, but I like taking photos with the kids. It's a great shared activity. But most parents, I believe, aren't so skittish about phones, and they'd be perfectly happy letting the kids learn to take pictures with the phones.
Maybe Canon should consider making even smaller bodies. I know five photographers who developed joint and strength issues, and, as they got older, gave up full-frame and went to Micro four-thirds. But at some point, photographers who don't want to deal with full-frame also don't want to bother with all the paraphernalia that goes along with any interchangeable system--so they just get an Apple iPhone.
There needs to be some clear line of demarcation for camera companies, in my opinion. How can they compete with the convenience, size, weight, and multi-use capabilities of a smartphone? If Canon thinks being full-framed bias works for profit, great. If competing with Olympus works, great. But I think APS-C is gradually becoming a compromise that satisfies fewer and fewer photographers and camera companies. Yes, it's nice to have a more compact body with an APS-C for fun, travel, and learning, but wouldn't Canon need higher volumes to compete perpetually in that arena? And once the knock-offs get in the game, where does that leave Canon?
The R50 is wonderfully compact, but the controls for AF point placement and other functions are limiting and frustrating. She likes it, though, as it is a step up from her G12, which her younger brother now proudly uses.
The R50 balances ok with medium sized RF lenses, such as the 15-35mm. From what I understand, the R50 has a lot of "M" in its DNA, though I've never used an "M" camera.
We don't want our kids to have smartphones, but I like taking photos with the kids. It's a great shared activity. But most parents, I believe, aren't so skittish about phones, and they'd be perfectly happy letting the kids learn to take pictures with the phones.
Maybe Canon should consider making even smaller bodies. I know five photographers who developed joint and strength issues, and, as they got older, gave up full-frame and went to Micro four-thirds. But at some point, photographers who don't want to deal with full-frame also don't want to bother with all the paraphernalia that goes along with any interchangeable system--so they just get an Apple iPhone.
There needs to be some clear line of demarcation for camera companies, in my opinion. How can they compete with the convenience, size, weight, and multi-use capabilities of a smartphone? If Canon thinks being full-framed bias works for profit, great. If competing with Olympus works, great. But I think APS-C is gradually becoming a compromise that satisfies fewer and fewer photographers and camera companies. Yes, it's nice to have a more compact body with an APS-C for fun, travel, and learning, but wouldn't Canon need higher volumes to compete perpetually in that arena? And once the knock-offs get in the game, where does that leave Canon?
Upvote
0
The RF system is why I won't give up my 7d Mark II and 5d Mark IV. I have plenty of EF mount lenses that I can adapt to my R7 as I'm waiting to see what the next R-series body releases are, but Canon is slow rolling (as usual) on every new RF product and their lack of letting third party mfrs use that mount is simply going to make them keep losing market share. They keep patenting new stuff and can't even ship current product.
Honestly this is what keeps me from coming back to Canon despite great deals like the R8 for only $1000 - the lenses I'd need to throw on it would make the price not even worth it, not to mention any size differences of advantages being gone by how large the RF lenses are. I keep hoping with each new release that Canon will surprise me, but they keep releasing the most absurdly slow *cheap* lenses (f/6.3 and f/7.1, what!?) and it seems lazy more than anything, when we all know Canon is capable of so much better.
Upvote
0
Thanks for your comment on Sony "hand-ergonomics"! I literally hated my A7*, so that I got rid of it after just 2 months.
After this sad episode, I hesitated, "thanks" to "expert" camera magazines, between Nikon D850 and Canon 5 DIII. Just like your experience with the 100-500 & 100 macro, the 24 TSE & 100-400 L II were strong arguments for the EOS.
I would certainly have been happy with the Nikon body, but far less with the equivalent lenses.
The RF lenses are the major reason why I don't even think about alternatives. The lack of 3rd. party lenses? I couldn't care less, with the exception of Zeiss Otus. Yet knowing many have reasons to disagree...
But Canon, please, we are at least 2 desperate for a 50 and 180 1:1 (or more macro)...
Upvote
0
I don't think it is lazy, so much as economic. With a weak market compared to the past, for Canon to make profits and stay in business, they have to make some decisions we aren't going to like. To say it more simply: Lenes you don't like versus no lenses or cameras at all.
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
Square Sensors + AI = Better Images
In honor of David Letterman's Top 10 List:
1. Wonderful post, RIchard.
2. Wonderful response as well.
3. Other wonderful responses, too.
4. Some regular readers of CR, at times, forget the second word here (Rumors)
5. Implicit in 'rumors' for a tech/gadget site is fun. Some posters here, I think, have a different definition of fun than I do.
6. Some posters here are quite sensitive about any criticism of Canon. Inspection of my Canon gear reveals my own preference for Canon. But it does not follow from my own preferences that I believe Canon never makes mistakes...or is incapable of future mistakes. As I've stated previously, the Canon Pro 100 was a mistake (in terms of how many of them that they manufactured)--if you account for the included ink alone, for years Canon was giving them away! Another mistake was Irista. Google it!
7. I chuckled out loud when I read earlier in this thread about the desire expressed by some posters here for Canon to make smaller cameras. Especially for kids. I guess I'm a kid...I just bought ANOTHER M-200 kit ($300.00)...in white!
8. As I've posted here previously, camera+lens 'volume' and 'mass' are oh-so-important, especially to me...and especially to many new-to-Canon customers (some of whom are female, including my now adult-aged daughters). That Canon walked away from the M ecosystem, as well the smaller point-and-shoot 'advanced' models...I just do not understand. I believe this to be another mistake.
9. Better photographers than me...including those with the best gear and seemingly unlimited resources for travel etc. may have meaningful experiences that differ--but my own views are informed by my family-of-four's week-long trip to Paris in summer 2010 (my only trip there). In my hands was exactly one camera: the Canon S95. Like my high school sweetheart all those years ago, the S95 performed quite nicely.
10. But two things can be true at the same time: I'll be on the waiting list for the R5II...after I read all about it on CR!
1. Wonderful post, RIchard.
2. Wonderful response as well.
3. Other wonderful responses, too.
4. Some regular readers of CR, at times, forget the second word here (Rumors)
5. Implicit in 'rumors' for a tech/gadget site is fun. Some posters here, I think, have a different definition of fun than I do.
6. Some posters here are quite sensitive about any criticism of Canon. Inspection of my Canon gear reveals my own preference for Canon. But it does not follow from my own preferences that I believe Canon never makes mistakes...or is incapable of future mistakes. As I've stated previously, the Canon Pro 100 was a mistake (in terms of how many of them that they manufactured)--if you account for the included ink alone, for years Canon was giving them away! Another mistake was Irista. Google it!
7. I chuckled out loud when I read earlier in this thread about the desire expressed by some posters here for Canon to make smaller cameras. Especially for kids. I guess I'm a kid...I just bought ANOTHER M-200 kit ($300.00)...in white!
8. As I've posted here previously, camera+lens 'volume' and 'mass' are oh-so-important, especially to me...and especially to many new-to-Canon customers (some of whom are female, including my now adult-aged daughters). That Canon walked away from the M ecosystem, as well the smaller point-and-shoot 'advanced' models...I just do not understand. I believe this to be another mistake.
9. Better photographers than me...including those with the best gear and seemingly unlimited resources for travel etc. may have meaningful experiences that differ--but my own views are informed by my family-of-four's week-long trip to Paris in summer 2010 (my only trip there). In my hands was exactly one camera: the Canon S95. Like my high school sweetheart all those years ago, the S95 performed quite nicely.
10. But two things can be true at the same time: I'll be on the waiting list for the R5II...after I read all about it on CR!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
