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

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
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....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
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.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Quirkz

CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
297
221
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:

 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I see you shoot an M6 and an R? Is there any R lens or lenses that would make the R compact enough you'd get rid of the M6, or is the body still too big?
Still too big, for me. As it is now, the R + RF24-105 pretty much fills mt Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 25 (there's space behind the body for a 77mm filter in its pouch). In that same bag, I can fit the M6, three EF-M lenses (4 if one is the 22/2) and a 270 flash.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
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.
If the EF-M 15-45 mounted directly on the R, that would give 24-72mm in a very compact package with good IQ that would deliver 12 MP images. The M22/2 would be a nice 35mm fixed walkaround. That's not bad!
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
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.
I don't think it is elitist to suggest that for very many buyers, IBIS is no more on wish lists than TERN or HERON.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0