Canon celebrates 16th consecutive year of Number 1 share of global interchangeable-lens digital camera market

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
How many lenses over the entire product line history for EF-M vs., say, for the just the first year of the RF mount or first year of the EF for that matter?

That said, I'll agree "flash in the pan" does the EF-M line a disservice. Given Canon's lack of even one really portable R lens announcement, the EF-M probably IS pencilled in to continue forward for a while. However successful small-sensor MILs have been, though, they're now being squeezed with advancing smartphones below and the MILFFs above. It may be that Canon's choice of a film-flange for the RF system that disallows EF-M lenses may be an attempt to keep the EF-M bodies selling.
How many lenses over the entire product line history for EF-S vs., say, for the EF line? The APS-C DSLRs are what made Canon #1, and they are still the biggest-selling segment of the ILC market. Since the launch of the EOS M, Canon has released more EF-M lenses than EF-S, EF-M has gotten duplicated lenses first (e.g. the 28mm Macro), and there's never been an EF-S lens to match the EF-M 32/1.4, a lens which approaches the L-series in image quality.

But clearly, RF is the place for higher-end lenses, since the EOS M line is targeted at consumer-level buyers.

I have to question the logic of your last statement – Canon wants to keep EOS M bodies from selling? As I stated, the EOS M is the best-selling MILC line globally. Suggesting that Canon is trying to keep them from selling is like saying you don't want your own left leg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
So Canon's not down, percentage-wise, in FF SLRs, more than other brands? If that's what you're saying its good to hear. If that's not what what you're saying, then what is your explanation?
Let's try this again. Canon sold more FF ILCs last year than any other manufacturer. Say it with me: "Canon sold more FF ILCs last year than any other manufacturer." Got it, now?

Note that Canon's FF ILC sales may still have dropped (likely did) as part of the overall market contraction. But, once last time, Canon sold more FF ILCs last year than any other manufacturer.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
[IBIS is] hardly niche here on Earth. 7 out of every 10 posts I see discussing system vs. system site it.
Fine, people on the Internet are discussing it. Canon ILCs don't have IBIS. Canon sells more ILCs than any other manufacturer, and has done so for 16 years and counting. Half of all ILCs sold are made by Canon, and none have IBIS. Another quarter of ILCs sold are made by Nikon, and only two of them have IBIS, and that's only been true for the past 6 months.

So, to sum up. 7 out of every 10 posts you see discussing system vs. system cite IBIS. Over 7 out of 10 ILCs sold don't have IBIS. Therefore, IBIS is not important for the vast majority of consumers. Period.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,770
Canada
Fine, people on the Internet are discussing it. Canon ILCs don't have IBIS. Canon sells more ILCs than any other manufacturer, and has done so for 16 years and counting. Half of all ILCs sold are made by Canon, and none have IBIS. Another quarter of ILCs sold are made by Nikon, and only two of them have IBIS, and that's only been true for the past 6 months.

So, to sum up. 7 out of every 10 posts you see discussing system vs. system cite IBIS. Over 7 out of 10 ILCs sold don't have IBIS. Therefore, IBIS is not important for the vast majority of consumers. Period.
This is all opinion and speculation, but I think that for the vast majority of people that IS is important, it’s just that most don’t care if it is optical (in lens) or if it is IBIS.

Personally, I think that the best solution is a hybrid system that uses both and I expect to see that hybrid system in higher level Mirrorless cameras. Since the R and it’s younger brother are both low end cameras, I am not surprised in the least that they do not have IBIS.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,305
193
Personally, I think that the best solution is a hybrid system that uses both and I expect to see that hybrid system in higher level Mirrorless cameras. Since the R and it’s younger brother are both low end cameras, I am not surprised in the least that they do not have IBIS.
It is interesting to note that Sony GM and Nikon S series lenses for the ultrawide and normal zooms don't have IS. Bodies are introduced more often than lenses. It would be ironic if in a couple years Canon has better IS because of IBIS + IS because they thought of it on the lens side first.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,770
Canada
It is interesting to note that Sony GM and Nikon S series lenses for the ultrawide and normal zooms don't have IS. Bodies are introduced more often than lenses. It would be ironic if in a couple years Canon has better IS because of IBIS + IS because they thought of it on the lens side first.
I am not surprised. IS is supposed to work better on longer lenses, IBIS best on shorter lenses....
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
Canon wants to keep EOS M bodies from selling? As I stated, the EOS M is the best-selling MILC line globally. Suggesting that Canon is trying to keep them from selling is like saying you don't want your own left leg.
Not sure how you got that, my point was the opposite.

I can't think of why Canon made the film/flange distance of the R too long to take compact lenses designed for the EF-M. At first glance, that'd be a great source of small lenses for people who want to use the R both for "serious glass" projects as well as for just normal tourism and birthday parties etc.

The only reason I can think of--and I realize this could be weak so am asking your opinion--is that maybe they want people like me to go into the R but ALSO keep an EF-M body and keep buying more EF-M bodies going forward as our "little camera." I'm a case in point: I sold my EF-M to roll into RF, but knowing I wouldn't be able to use the little EF-M lenses did make this a hard decision and I'm sure for many it's too hard, in other words, they don't give up the EF-M. Had there been an EF-M-lens-to-RF-body adapter possibility, it'd be a lot easier for pros and serious amateurs to use an R as their "little" body with a tiny EF-M lens, and just never buy an EF-M body again.

I realize RF and EF buyers (whom I think will mostly come to RF in 1-4 years) may be fewer than EF-M buyers, but still, even if it's 20%, you don't want to lose 20% of EF-M body sales.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
Therefore, IBIS is not important for the vast majority of consumers.
Hasty assumption to make. It'd be plausible that people want IBIS but buy Canon/Nikon anyway for other reasons, for instance, ranging from advertising to pricing, system depth, professional services, etc. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's silly to say that Canon leads sales therefore IBIS absolutely couldn't possibly be important to buyers.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
Personally, I think that the best solution is a hybrid system that uses both and I expect to see that hybrid system in higher level Mirrorless cameras
The R white paper makes clear that the R uses lens sensor information for IBIS... at least for video, and for digital IBIS. (Simplest example: the IS diagram shows roll correction, which absolutely cannot be done optically.)
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
Looks pretty portable to me.
It's not, to the level I wanted. The macro and IS make it too big. BTW the 28/2.8 and 40/2.8 pancake lenses on adapters are also that big.

I'm talking about something the size of a Leica M 35/2 or something. Or any 28-35-50mm lens on any quality point-and-shoot from a Yashica T5* to Contax G to Nikon 35Ti to Hexanon to heck, QL17s. I grant Canon needs more space for AF, and for a control dial now too, but they could do it.

It doesn't need to be a pancake. With the grip sticking out as far as it does, a lens shorter than the grip won't make the camera any shallower, really. But I'd accept a lens about as deep as the grip.

My only other requirement for this lens is that it must be faster than the trinity zooms, because if I buy it I want it to have a purpose even when I've got the big glass with me. If you have a 24-70/2.8, you may actually want your 35/2 with you as well. A 35/2.8 instead would bring nothing to the table in that case. I don't want a lens that is ONLY for walking around, which is why I've never had a pancake.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,770
Canada
And the 24-240! If that isn’t a single lens solution for someone going walkabout, what is?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
Not sure how you got that, my point was the opposite.
I got that by totally misreading what you wrote. Apologies!

I can't think of why Canon made the film/flange distance of the R too long to take compact lenses designed for the EF-M. At first glance, that'd be a great source of small lenses for people who want to use the R both for "serious glass" projects as well as for just normal tourism and birthday parties etc.

The only reason I can think of--and I realize this could be weak so am asking your opinion--is that maybe they want people like me to go into the R but ALSO keep an EF-M body and keep buying more EF-M bodies going forward as our "little camera." I'm a case in point: I sold my EF-M to roll into RF, but knowing I wouldn't be able to use the little EF-M lenses did make this a hard decision and I'm sure for many it's too hard, in other words, they don't give up the EF-M. Had there been an EF-M-lens-to-RF-body adapter possibility, it'd be a lot easier for pros and serious amateurs to use an R as their "little" body with a tiny EF-M lens, and just never buy an EF-M body again.

I realize RF and EF buyers (whom I think will mostly come to RF in 1-4 years) may be fewer than EF-M buyers, but still, even if it's 20%, you don't want to lose 20% of EF-M body sales.
Interesting idea. It could be as simple as them choosing to make the RF mount the best possible from a lens design standpoint, without regard for potentially using EF-M lenses. They certainly have ample data on APS-C owners’ purchases of FF bodies and lenses. But it may have been an attempt to get people to maintain both systems.

I would have thought the opposite was the bigger problem for them – they didn’t allow RF lenses to mount on the M bodies, unlike EF mounting directly on APS-C DSLRs. But as I said, they have the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
Hasty assumption to make. It'd be plausible that people want IBIS but buy Canon/Nikon anyway for other reasons, for instance, ranging from advertising to pricing, system depth, professional services, etc. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's silly to say that Canon leads sales therefore IBIS absolutely couldn't possibly be important to buyers.
I should have phrased it as, IBIS is not critical for most users, as it hasn’t significantly affected buying decisions in aggregate. Sort of like DR. Even if the feature is important, it’s not important enough. Particularly since IS is available in many lenses.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,770
Canada
Not sure how you got that, my point was the opposite.

I can't think of why Canon made the film/flange distance of the R too long to take compact lenses designed for the EF-M. At first glance, that'd be a great source of small lenses for people who want to use the R both for "serious glass" projects as well as for just normal tourism and birthday parties etc.

The only reason I can think of--and I realize this could be weak so am asking your opinion--is that maybe they want people like me to go into the R but ALSO keep an EF-M body and keep buying more EF-M bodies going forward as our "little camera." I'm a case in point: I sold my EF-M to roll into RF, but knowing I wouldn't be able to use the little EF-M lenses did make this a hard decision and I'm sure for many it's too hard, in other words, they don't give up the EF-M. Had there been an EF-M-lens-to-RF-body adapter possibility, it'd be a lot easier for pros and serious amateurs to use an R as their "little" body with a tiny EF-M lens, and just never buy an EF-M body again.

I realize RF and EF buyers (whom I think will mostly come to RF in 1-4 years) may be fewer than EF-M buyers, but still, even if it's 20%, you don't want to lose 20% of EF-M body sales.
The image circle of the M lenses is not enough to cover a FF sensor, so you end up having to electronically crop a R photo to the middle 40% of the picture.... it's kind of like having to pay twice the price to get a 10Mpixel M.... the market just isn't there!

We are very early into the R series, and there will be lots of lenses coming. I am sure that some of them will be slower (and smaller) lenses to take advantage of the size of the R cameras. They have already told us that a non-L 24-240 lens is coming. This lens goes to F6.3 on the long end..... This is a lot more important than a lot of people realize.... first of all, it means that there will be non L lenses in the RF mount. Second, it means that the F5.6 barrier no longer exists and slower lenses will be offered. This means cheaper, slower, and SMALLER lenses are a very real expectation for the future. If I want a decent quality, yet affordable, camera with a single (and versatile) lens as a walkabout camera, the RP and 24-240 combination can not be beaten by anything else. This is going to be a combo that is going to sell in numbers like we are used to see with the rebels and kit lenses.
 

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
189
122
If there was a prize for conveying the most misinformation in a succinct, well-written post, you’d win it. Not that that’s something of which you should be proud.
I suspect that the cause of this kind of misinformation is articles like the following:

 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
The image circle of the M lenses is not enough to cover a FF sensor, so you end up having to electronically crop a R photo to the middle 40% of the picture.... it's kind of like having to pay twice the price to get a 10Mpixel M.... the market just isn't there!
If the choice comes down to using the center of your R's sensor, or not using the R at all, surely using the center would be preferable, no? They've allowed it to work with EF-S lenses, and 4k shooters are only using the center zone as well.