Canon EOS R5 Mark II will ship in June or July

[neuroanatomist]

You own all those?

RF 100-300 f2.8 $9,500
RF 24-105 f2.8 $3,000
RF 10-20 f4 $2300
RF 28-70 $3000

Congratulations you paid 100% markup all-in cost for a few mm on both ends.

I do, and thanks.

Tons of other options from Sony and Nikon and 3rd parties for a fraction of the price. Because, you know, you have a choice.

Where is Canons 600 f6.3 that isn’t $9K+? 800mm 6.3? 200-800 is great until you realize Canon gimped it with optical coatings for some strange reason. The zoom throw is 1000 miles long and stiff as hell. How did Sony make an internal 200-600 that performa so great and is affordable too? Nikon did the same 180-600 6.3. HOW?

I see that you’ve turned to page 2 of the troll playbook – move the goalposts. First, Canon didn’t have great offerings. Now, Canon doesn’t have great offerings…at the price you want (or can afford).

So, let’s carry that one forward. Where are Sony and Nikon’s long and ultrawide lenses that cost a few hundred dollars while still delivering very good image quality? How did Canon make a 15-30 for FF and 100-400 that are regularly available for $500? How did Canon make an 800mm lens costing under $1000? HOW?

And, yeah, those are some great focal lengths and apertures, for the price, from Canon…until they are not.

Ummm, okay. If that statement makes sense to you, then at least it makes sense to one person.

You seem quite upset with Sony even thinking of releasing a better F2 zoom than Canon. You need to step back from the brand brown nosing.

Canon needs to release better midrange glass that isn’t used car prices. Oh, and actually have them for sale to buy somewhere.

Quite the opposite. A 24-70/2 (not 28) would be a great lens. It’s just ironic that people claim Canon is ‘behind’.

My overall point is that Canon has great lenses, and so do Sony and Nikon. They’re not all the same great lenses, and that’s a good thing. Choice is a good thing. Would you rather that Canon, Nikon and Sony all had the same lens portfolios? IMO, that would be silly.

However, you seem quite upset that Canon doesn’t make the lenses you think they should. You should step back from thinking that what you personally want matters to anyone but you.

As for what Canon needs to do, what they need to do is sell cameras and lenses. The fact that they’ve led the market for two decades, and maintained their nearly 50% market share through the shift to mirrorless even as Nikon lost over half of their market share to Sony…that shows Canon is making the right decisions.

Plenty of people disagree with those decisions, and that’s fine. Plenty of people think the earth is flat, too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Weight. I shoot 300mm f/2.8 handheld for hours. Also - like most people - I shoot telephoto-zooms mostly at the long end. Meanwhile the 70-200mm f/2.8 is equally good @100-200mm.

For me, my initial gripe with the 100-300/2.8 was the length. Weight doesn't bother me much, I regularly handhold an EF 6004/ II.

I'd been on the fence about the EF 300/2.8 II for some time, knowing that I'd want something longer than the 70-200mm at f/2.8 for indoor events, and I was hoping for an RF 300/2.8. The gain of 75mm / 3" of the zoom over the prime means a lens that's harder to carry around.

I've previously acknowledged that I'm not 'most people', but unlike you I don't presume to speak for them. But maybe you have data on what focal lengths most people use when shooting with telephoto zoom lenses – do you? If so, please share.

I have data only for myself, and personally I don’t shoot ‘mostly at the long end’. With the 100-300/2.8, 29% of my shots are at 300mm, 13% are at 100mm, and the rest are spread pretty evenly over the range. My shots with 70-200/2.8 zooms (EF and RF) are quite similar, with 31% at 200mm. I buy zooms because they zoom.

An alternative would be two cameras, one with a 70-200/2.8 and the other with a 300/2.8. But that’s a lot more weight than one camera with the 100-300/2.8.

 

[Finn]

You should step back from thinking that what you personally want matters to anyone but you.

You should take your own advice.

However, you seem quite upset that Canon doesn’t make the lenses you think they should.

It's not just me and implying otherwise is just...dumb.

My overall point is that Canon has great lenses, and so do Sony and Nikon. They’re not all the same great lenses, and that’s a good thing. Choice is a good thing. Would you rather that Canon, Nikon and Sony all had the same lens portfolios?

My point went completely over your head. With Canon you have 1 choice in the system. With other brands you have lots of great options in all price brackets not just what Canon thinks you should buy.

I don't even care about the R5mk2. I've given canon plenty of time to update a lens roadmap and release new things and so-far it has been very, very lackluster everywhere except the the high-end. Even their low-end affordable options are not very good compared to competitors lacking basic things like a $2 weather gasket around the mount and basic weather sealing. Mid-tier is non-existent unless you want to buy old EF lenses that are being discontinued everyday without replacements in RF.

I will be moving to a system that does give me what I want–now–and at a much better price. If that doesn't matter to Canon...then good luck maintaining that 47% market share.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You should take your own advice.

I’m not the one telling Canon that what they need to do is make the lenses I personally want, or else. That’s you, bub.

It's not just me and implying otherwise is just...dumb.

It’s not just you. Heck, 8-10 other people on this forum have made similar comments. It’s funny that in your head, you think you’re speaking for a meaningful number of people, to Canon. That’s just…dumb.

My point went completely over your head. With Canon you have 1 choice in the system. With other brands you have lots of great options in all price brackets not just what Canon thinks you should buy.

Sure, sure…after you moved the goalposts. Your initial point, to which I responded, was that Canon has a, “…lack of great offerings compared to competitors.” Only after I pointed out how asinine such a statement was by listing several great offerings (which you subsequently acknowledged as such), did you start talking about price.

As I pointed out, Canon has many offerings across price brackets, great high-end stuff (as do other manufacturers) as well as FF UWA and supertele lenses that are cheaper than other brands including 3rd party lenses.

I get that you’re hung up on ‘mid-tier’ lenses, you probably want non-L constant-aperture zooms and f/1.4 primes. Canon has consistently shown the ability to provide what the majority of the market will actually buy, which is why they have maintained their dominance of the market. If they believed the lenses you personally want were desired/required by a majority of camera buyers, they’d already be available with a Canon badge on them.

You say Canon needs to release those lenses. Or else, what? You’re just a recent entry in a decade of those foolishly believing they understand the camera market better than Canon and predicting a negative impact on Canon for not addressing their personal wants. Pissing into the wind, by any other name…

I will be moving to a system that does give me what I want–now–and at a much better price. If that doesn't matter to Canon...then good luck maintaining that 47% market share.

I honestly hope you’re joking (not about switching systems, that’s your choice and feel free to switch rumor forums, as well). If you actually believe whether or not you switch systems matters to Canon, you need to spend your money on psychiatric treatment, not camera gear.

 

[Kit.]

I don't even care about the R5mk2.

What are you doing in this thread then?

 

[David - Sydney]

I will be moving to a system that does give me what I want–now–and at a much better price. If that doesn't matter to Canon...then good luck maintaining that 47% market share.

and the standard reply is.... this isn't an airport - no need to announce your departure

Canon has formal ways to provide direct feedback via their support pages. If you really wanted to give them your thoughts then that is the appropriate way to do it rather than arguing in an internet forum.

Some believe that their personal gripe with Canon means that them switching systems is indicative of the overall market movements. 5 years after the release of the R mount, the NET CHANGE (people switching out and new/switching in) is still roughly 50% market share. That is after the decimation of the compact camera end of the market due to mobile phone cameras some years ago with stabilising unit sales today. You could argue about where the profit is in which end of the body market or lenses etc and we could have a good discussion if the 3 main players released equivalent financial data which they don't.

 

[MSH411]

Big fan of your album on flickr David, some very creative and beautiful images!

 

[EricN]

The real question here is who is laughable...

Despite what @PhotoBob seems to think, Canon is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[David - Sydney]

Big fan of your album on flickr David, some very creative and beautiful images!

Thanks.. you are very kind
More average shots are on my public facebook page

 

[EricN]

I do, and thanks.


I see that you’ve turned to page 2 of the troll playbook – move the goalposts. First, Canon didn’t have great offerings. Now, Canon doesn’t have great offerings…at the price you want (or can afford).

So, let’s carry that one forward. Where are Sony and Nikon’s long and ultrawide lenses that cost a few hundred dollars while still delivering very good image quality? How did Canon make a 15-30 for FF and 100-400 that are regularly available for $500? How did Canon make an 800mm lens costing under $1000? HOW?


Ummm, okay. If that statement makes sense to you, then at least it makes sense to one person.


Quite the opposite. A 24-70/2 (not 28) would be a great lens. It’s just ironic that people claim Canon is ‘behind’.

My overall point is that Canon has great lenses, and so do Sony and Nikon. They’re not all the same great lenses, and that’s a good thing. Choice is a good thing. Would you rather that Canon, Nikon and Sony all had the same lens portfolios? IMO, that would be silly.

However, you seem quite upset that Canon doesn’t make the lenses you think they should. You should step back from thinking that what you personally want matters to anyone but you.

As for what Canon needs to do, what they need to do is sell cameras and lenses. The fact that they’ve led the market for two decades, and maintained their nearly 50% market share through the shift to mirrorless even as Nikon lost over half of their market share to Sony…that shows Canon is making the right decisions.

Plenty of people disagree with those decisions, and that’s fine. Plenty of people think the earth is flat, too.

I always get a kick out of it when trolls method where they not only define another's emotion from a statement that didn't give any impression of the emotion, but also exaggerate it...

Lately, I have been thinking of using one body for ultrawide and one body for tele. switching out a lens for more standard focal lengths. As you mentioned, the different manufacturers offer different lens formulas. More and more I wondered, what about trying a Nikon? It doesn't end there. Now, I am starting to ask myself will I really go to bad ergonomic hand-cramp city if I used a Sony body?

Does anyone know an exorcist?

 

[P-visie]

More and more I wondered, what about trying a Nikon? It doesn't end there. Now, I am starting to ask myself will I really go to bad ergonomic hand-cramp city if I used a Sony body?

Does anyone know an exorcist?

That is what you get when you ignore my advice. Don’t say I didn’t warn you .