Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.

[axtstern]

Many first-person shooter games have the feature to earn badges based on heroic or stupid behavior you show during the game. Such an achievement is usually announced to the complete team you are playing with through a sound or jingle.

If this forum were such shooter, you would get your “purple heart” badge for pointing out that Canon would build a lens based on individual desire rather than on business analysis. The sound played on the forum would be “Canon is leading the market by wisdom and science” shouted in a drill sergeant voice followed by a Darth Vader like breathing sound from Neuro.

The “Eiserne Kreuz” badge you would earn by pointing out that there is indeed a benefit from using APS C cameras in regard to length of the lens and IQ. This time the sound would be “You don’t understand reach” shouted in a choir by the complete full frame mafia here on the forum.

Had you been on the forum already 10 to 15 years ago, you could have earned a “ Bronce Valor” badge by defending the APS H format as the only valid sensor size for serious professionals, the silver version for claiming that the term “Full frame” should be reserved for the Texas Leica (GW 690III) and finally the golden one for debating the pros and cons of the Canon EOS IX.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One other point worth mentioning regarding the complaint that Canon has 'not released RF-S prime lenses' is that the statement itself is false. We are now 3.5 years after the first RF-S lens came out, and there are two RF-S prime lenses. That's double the number of EF-M primes at this relative point after the system launch (there was only the 22/2) and double the number of EF-S primes in that same time period after the first EF-S lens (there was only the 60/2.8 Macro).

The two RF-S primes are not often discussed on this forum, likely due to the demographic here. The RF-S 7.8mm Dual Lens and the RF-S 3.9mm Dual Fisheye lens are intended for content creators, not photographers, but that doesn't change the fact that there are already two RF-S primes. That indicates that Canon is now devoting more (or at least, faster) effort to crop prime lenses than with the EF-S or EF-M mounts. It’s just that ‘we’ are not the target market.

 

[P-visie]

Disdain for forum rules and/or forum etiquette: This thread is in the Rumors section of the forum. It should be in the Gear Talk section.

 

[Planterz]

The lack of Canon's interest in making their own RF-S lenses became fact and not suspicion when they "opened" up the mount to 3rd party manufacturers. Now there's a handful of Sigmas and Tamrons (one Tamron?). Still a mediocre selection, and it's evident they're only allowing certain lenses that won't cannibalize Canon's own lenses (no big supertelephotos, for example), but at least the RF-S mount has options other than kit lenses and expensive Canons.

 

[Ozarker]

The lack of Canon's interest in making their own RF-S lenses became fact and not suspicion when they "opened" up the mount to 3rd party manufacturers. Now there's a handful of Sigmas and Tamrons (one Tamron?). Still a mediocre selection, and it's evident they're only allowing certain lenses that won't cannibalize Canon's own lenses (no big supertelephotos, for example), but at least the RF-S mount has options other than kit lenses and expensive Canons.

Why would Canon make an asp-c Supertelephoto??? The dang regular Supertelephoto lenses work.

Many birders pair their crop sensor cameras with existing Supertelephoto lenses. Why tf does Canon need asp-c supers????

You are starting to come across as irrational.

 

[Planterz]

Why would Canon make an asp-c Supertelephoto??? The dang regular Supertelephoto lenses work.

Many birders pair their crop sensor cameras with existing Supertelephoto lenses. Why tf does Canon need asp-c supers????

You are starting to come across as irrational.

I didn't mean APS-C supertelephotos. There aren't any 3rd party APS-C supertelephotos for any mount by any brand except the Tamron and Sigma 300mm superzooms, so I don't know what you might think I'd be talking about. I meant only that Canon isn't allowing 3rd party lenses that would encroach on their own lens sales. RF or RF-S. And defnitely no supertelephotos.

My fault for bad wording, but that's no reason to be a prick about it.

 

[scyrene]

The sharing of that contrary viewpoint just felt like a very well read, oft repeated statement that did not further anything. Beating a dead horse.

About as redundant as what I just wrote.

And, well, a TS-R 14mm could very well be an item coursing through my neural pathways.

With respect, the OP was hardly original in their position, and posting a rant on here, especially as its own thread is bound to attract comment of the type it has.

 

[becceric]

With respect, the OP was hardly original in their position, and posting a rant on here, especially as its own thread is bound to attract comment of the type it has.

The OP admitted to that rant, did not state a "Canon must or I switch" demand, and did in my mind seem to understand
that Canon made their choice. This would imply awareness of Canon's marketplace standing and strategies for that.

Therefore while anyone is fully entitled to respond with Canon knows better than individuals on how best to retain/increase their business position, that, as my current response, is a road travelled down so often that the trip has become tedious.

Regardless, I still read virtually all new posts since new info and forum members experiences/photos keep me mentally involved with all sorts of photography.

 

[Ozarker]

I didn't mean APS-C supertelephotos. There aren't any 3rd party APS-C supertelephotos for any mount by any brand except the Tamron and Sigma 300mm superzooms, so I don't know what you might think I'd be talking about. I meant only that Canon isn't allowing 3rd party lenses that would encroach on their own lens sales. RF or RF-S. And defnitely no supertelephotos.

My fault for bad wording, but that's no reason to be a prick about it.

"I meant only that Canon isn't allowing 3rd party lenses that would encroach on their own lens sales."

Read what you said reeeeeaaaal slow Clem. The answer is staring you straight in the face.

Why do you demand that Canon allow other companies get a slice of their potential profits without the investment? You don't own a business, do you? Never spent millions on R&D. So you don't understand at all how sophmorishly entitled your rant is. Me a prick? You expect Canon to put at risk their investment and the jobs of it's employees because YOU want a cheaper 3rd party alternative.

"But Sony and Nikon do it!" So tf what? They aren't numero uno, either.

 

[EricN]

The OP admitted to that rant, did not state a "Canon must or I switch" demand, and did in my mind seem to understand
that Canon made their choice. This would imply awareness of Canon's marketplace standing and strategies for that.

Therefore while anyone is fully entitled to respond with Canon knows better than individuals on how best to retain/increase their business position, that, as my current response, is a road travelled down so often that the trip has become tedious.

Regardless, I still read virtually all new posts since new info and forum members experiences/photos keep me mentally involved with all sorts of photography.

The title uses the word "distain." Common sense should tell you it's a business decision and if it were profitable enough for Canon to produce apsc L lenses they would make it a priority to do it. Unfortunately, because of science things [there are people here who can explain much better than myself], balancing the triangle of kg /financial / quality, Canon has settled on the business model that Full-Frame is the best format to pursue with APS-C secondary. One can note the hard fact Canon doesn't produce m43 nor medium format interchangeable lens systems. If there truly is distain form Canon, it must be for m34 or medium, but I can't remember anyone posting a complaint about those two formats.

 

[becceric]

The title uses the word "distain." Common sense should tell you it's a business decision and if it were profitable enough for Canon to produce apsc L lenses they would make it a priority to do it. Unfortunately, because of science things [there are people here who can explain much better than myself], balancing the triangle of kg /financial / quality, Canon has settled on the business model that Full-Frame is the best format to pursue with APS-C secondary. One can note the hard fact Canon doesn't produce m43 nor medium format interchangeable lens systems. If there truly is distain form Canon, it must be for m34 or medium, but I can't remember anyone posting a complaint about those two formats.

I agree.
That is also likely why OP labeled their statement a rant.

For what it is worth, I also agree with the oft repeated statements of Canon's business decisions.

I'm sure we all have desires for some type of gear that Canon has not produced. Just looking at the numerous posts of future camera features can be considered as rant premonitions once some do not come into fruition.
And several will be posted and read here. The forum universe is partially powered by this energy.

 

[mangobutter]

I love my Fuji X stuff (OG user here, no Tiktok bandwagoner), but Canons have a certain no-fuss way about them that i wish they made an equivalent APS-C system. i'd dump my X gear in a heartbeat. Give me something tiny, something metallic. something with steel dials and buttons. give me steel lenses. give me something highly compact and highly premium.

 

[Maximilian]

I would like to see wide aperture RF-S zooms and primes from Canon.
I don’t get why they do think they wouldn‘t make enough money with them and so don’t offer them.
In the meantime I enjoy using the great Sigma 18-50/2.8 with my R50 together with the great (for APS-C) RF100-400.
Light, lovely travel combo.

 

[EricN]

I agree.
That is also likely why OP labeled their statement a rant.

For what it is worth, I also agree with the oft repeated statements of Canon's business decisions.

I'm sure we all have desires for some type of gear that Canon has not produced. Just looking at the numerous posts of future camera features can be considered as rant premonitions once some do not come into fruition.
And several will be posted and read here. The forum universe is partially powered by this energy.

Canonlogical constant (Λ) ?

 

[EricN]

I would like to see wide aperture RF-S zooms and primes from Canon.
I don’t get why they do think they wouldn‘t make enough money with them and so don’t offer them.
In the meantime I enjoy using the great Sigma 18-50/2.8 with my R50 together with the great (for APS-C) RF100-400.
Light, lovely travel combo.

I'm guessing from analyzing past sales and current trends they determine which products to prioritize in development and production.