Cosina officially announces the Voigtlander NOKTON RF 75mm f/1.5

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,409
22,778
Well, I have EF lenses on my R5 and the fact someone manufactor manual lenses does not bother me as much. I am not a "fan" that demand a company I don't own (unfortunately) to make lenses that I would probably not buy (related to the previous reason). And by the way, many times I shift to manual focus cause these little ones move so fast that the AF can't capture them, so place the focus on where I expect them to come and then when they do....
There is something wrong with your camera/lens/settings if you can't use AF on the R5 to get sharp focus of small birds perched on a branch and have to resort to manual pre-focus. And, do you also use manual focus for birds in flight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,775
2,303
USA
Another manual focus lens?
I'm so fed up of Canon and their foolishness. GIVE YOUR USERS WHAT WE NEED TO DO OUR JOB AND WE WILL SUPPORT YOU BUT IF You DON'T WE WILL LEAVE, simple as that.
AMAZING COINCIDENCE!!! Just this morning my clock radio WOKE ME UP with a closely related story!!!

 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

P-visie

EOS 5 - R5
CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
128
229
Netherlands
www.p-visie.nl
AMAZING COINCIDENCE!!! Just this morning my clock radio WOKE ME UP with a closely related story!!!

And think of all the time saved if we do not have to scroll though all these post with threats of abandoning the Canon ship ;).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
578
145
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Ill keep enjoying my r5+m50+m6ii (with SIGMA efm lenses! :cool:) , and planning to get a S5ii so I can enjoy sigma lenses and adapt other stuff, have some flexibility.

Silly canon thinks locking in users their limited choices builds...brand value? It's so weird. I'm glad they finally stated it plainly to the press, so the canon leg humpers in these forums cant speculate their intentions anymore.

That money that would be spent on more canon gear has already gone to sony, and other oems. IT doesn't have to be, but that's canons choice (strategy).

I'd love to buy a canon 50 1.4 replacement, but i cant. So I'll get something else on a L mount body or whatever. Less money for...the market..leader. Yup.

#inb4someonementionscanonismarketleader (n)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
191
190
Ill keep enjoying my r5+m50+m6ii (with SIGMA efm lenses! :cool:) , and planning to get a S5ii so I can enjoy sigma lenses and adapt other stuff, have some flexibility.

Silly canon thinks locking in users their limited choices builds...brand value? It's so weird. I'm glad they finally stated it plainly to the press, so the canon leg humpers in these forums cant speculate their intentions anymore.

That money that would be spent on more canon gear has already gone to sony, and other oems. IT doesn't have to be, but that's canons choice (strategy).

I'd love to buy a canon 50 1.4 replacement, but i cant. So I'll get something else on a L mount body or whatever. Less money for...the market..leader. Yup.

#inb4someonementionscanonismarketleader (n)
Sigma are due to announce a 50mm f1.2 Art DG DN for E and L mount on the 26th of this month which according to the rumours will be the lightest in its class and have 13 aperture blades so it will be very interesting to see how it renders.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
578
145
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Sigma are due to announce a 50mm f1.2 Art DG DN for E and L mount on the 26th of this month which according to the rumours will be the lightest in its class and have 13 aperture blades so it will be very interesting to see how it renders.

Options are good.

Don't need to be a "market leader" to acknowledge that. Lol some trolls feelings will be hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,173
13,010
Options are good.

Don't need to be a "market leader" to acknowledge that. Lol some trolls feelings will be hurt.
Haven't seen anyone saying options are bad. Not sure why someone would think that. Or suggest it, except to troll.

But saying Canon is doomed because they're not allowing 3rd party AF lens options? That I've seen people say here. Several times. Canon's continued market dominance shows that such claims are foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,357
4,266
Haven't seen anyone saying options are bad. Not sure why someone would think that. Or suggest it, except to troll.

But saying Canon is doomed because they're not allowing 3rd party AF lens options? That I've seen people say here. Several times. Canon's continued market dominance shows that such claims are foolish.
And once they have the 3rd. party lenses, they'll start whining for 3rd. party RF-like cameras. :p
 
Upvote 0

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
578
145
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Haven't seen anyone saying options are bad. Not sure why someone would think that. Or suggest it, except to troll.

But saying Canon is doomed because they're not allowing 3rd party AF lens options? That I've seen people say here. Several times. Canon's continued market dominance shows that such claims are foolish.

I don't remember myself saying canon was doomed. I have an r5 ..why would I (or others) want canon to really fail? Frustration breeds discontent.

It also doesn't even matter if someone feels that way, you simply cannot tell someone how to feel, especially when their favorite brand they depend on refuses to build/update a product. So why waste your time? It's indeed, a waste of time. It's not a battle to be won. People will feel how they feel when supposedly slighted by another human or favorite brand. That's normal and fair. Disparaging people because they don't accept your (canons) reasoning is a terrible thing to do, especially after it's been made clear 100x that no one wants to hear it.

And regardless, this ongoing excuse / reasoning about market-share.. no one cares. It's not a reason I cant buy a 50mm RF1.4 - its because they wont make it for their locked system. It's not helpful to keep tossing that silly grenade again and again.

It's really that simple. This inane response that market share is the holy grail of answers to ruffled, loyal canon customers needs to die because it is nonsense. It's utterly useless. An OEM either has an offering or they don't. It's one thing if there was a production map- but there isn't.

(Canon says they want to surprise us. Well surprise, they've lost customers/sales. That doesn't help canon - what a great market-share strategy, eh?)

Look, we can't take hardware with us to the next stage of(after) life. Time is fleeting, OEMs either make what we need or we find it elsewhere. While keeping our current fine working gear. I already love my new r5, pry it from my cold dead hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,173
13,010
It also doesn't even matter if someone feels that way, you simply cannot tell someone how to feel,
I’m not telling anyone how to feel. There’s no point in that. If you happen to feel that the Earth is flat or that evolution doesn’t occur because it’s ’just a theory’, that’s fine. But if you post such ridiculous feelings, you absolutely deserve the ridicule you’ll receive.

(Canon says they want to surprise us. Well surprise, they've lost customers/sales. That doesn't help canon - what a great market-share strategy, eh?)
Except…they haven’t lost market share. That's what the data show. If they’ve lost customers/sales, they’ve also gained them. No net change. So yes, their strategy is working very well, ‘eh?

If you want to base an argument on Canon losing customers…you go right ahead and make yourself look asinine. Just don’t be surprised if someone calls you an ass.

especially after it's been made clear 100x that no one wants to hear it.
You’ve made it clear you don’t want to hear it. You don’t get to speak for everyone. No one does.

especially when their favorite brand they depend on refuses to build/update a product.
And regardless, this ongoing excuse / reasoning about market-share.. no one cares.It's not a reason I cant buy a 50mm RF1.4 - it’s because they wont make it for their locked system.
Did you really intend such an egregious oxymoron? Do you really think Canon makes product development decisions capriciously? Or does the market demand play a role? A major role?

If Canon fails to meet the demand of the market, they’ll lose market share. They haven’t lost market share. The fact that Canon hasn’t made an RF 50/1.4 is irrelevant to the market. I get that it’s relevant to you. And @ahsanford. What you can’t seem to grasp is that your personal needs are irrelevant to the broader market, and thus they’re irrelevant to Canon. It’s really that simple.

You could try to understand that, or you can ignore the reasons because you don’t care (again, you don’t speak for anyone but yourself) and keep complaining. I guess you like pissing into the wind. Best of luck with that.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 21, 2015
68
44
^^^

Not all of them.

#peoplewhobitchforyearsbutkeepbuyingCanonarefools (n)
EF->RF is a system switch, EF can be adapted to other mirrorless systems. Just as with choosing EF, I'm going to look before leaping. I've got a system I'm happy with, so I don't have to make a forced jump. My gear acquisition has switched to lighting/studio instead of the expense of re-buying lenses. Meanwhile, I have the fund to renovate the house. :) Early RF wasn't appealing at all, the picture has improved but not enough to outweigh other things I can get with that much investment. There seems to be a reasonable shot that'll change before I decide I want to switch, thus my wait-and-see. I totally get other folks having a business case for moving long ago.

TLDR aside:
I'm missing something though - why is market share being argued for a metric vs total sales? As the customer, why would we be happy about tactics that maximize our expense? I get that's Canon's play, but why is that an argument to invest in RF? It feels like the opposite. I could see the Apple (marketing) argument - pay boutique prices for a boutique product. Pay boutique prices because they've lost the fewest customers feels like it misses the point. (i.e. biggest market share in a shrinking market)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

P-visie

EOS 5 - R5
CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
128
229
Netherlands
www.p-visie.nl
I'm missing something though - why is market share being argued for a metric vs total sales? As the customer, why would we be happy about tactics that maximize our expense? I get that's Canon's play, but why is that an argument to invest in RF? It feels like the opposite. I could see the Apple (marketing) argument - pay boutique prices for a boutique product. Pay boutique prices because they've lost the fewest customers feels like it misses the point. (i.e. biggest market share in a shrinking market)
A lot of posters that are not happy that Canon does not meet their individual needs claim that Canon is losing customers because of ‘dark lenses‘, ‘no f 1.x 24, 28, 35, 50 mm etc. lenses’, ‘no third party AF lenses’, Etc. Etc.
The ‘market share argument’ as you call it, proves that Canons marketshare is stable at around 50% of the ILC market. The claims made in these posts are incorrect (in my opinion it is hard to argue against facts ;)).
As the customer, why would we be happy about tactics that maximize our expense?
All camera companies are in business to make a profit, ie. extract the maximum revenue and margin from their customers. Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron are not different from Canon in that aspect. They just have different strategies to achieve that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,173
13,010
I'm missing something though - why is market share being argued for a metric vs total sales? As the customer, why would we be happy about tactics that maximize our expense? I get that's Canon's play, but why is that an argument to invest in RF? It feels like the opposite. I could see the Apple (marketing) argument - pay boutique prices for a boutique product. Pay boutique prices because they've lost the fewest customers feels like it misses the point. (i.e. biggest market share in a shrinking market)
Speaking for myself, I bring up market share in specific circumstances, and those circumstances do not include questions like, “Why should I buy Canon?” People should buy the gear that best meets their needs.

Market share isn’t a concern, unless it’s so low for a ‘major’ brand that there is a significant risk of that company abandoning the segment (for example, Fuji was actually close to that point, but stated they would continue making digital cameras because of the ‘historical and societal significance’ for their company). Even then, it’s not really about market share, but about profitability.

However, when someone claims that Canon must do X or add/improve feature Y because Sony and/or Nikon do/have it, Canon not doing/adding A, B, C, D, etc., over two decades and having maintained and grown their market leadership, that’s when market share is a logical and relevant rebuttal to such claims. Over the years, people here have chosen to die on (or at least shout their foolishness from) the hills of ‘poor low ISO DR’, ‘late to mirrorless’, ‘late to FF mirrorless’, ‘locking out 3rd party lenses’, and many claims of similar ilk.

“Canon must…, or else.”
“Or else, what? Exactly.”

As for the boutique prices, the whole industry is moving that direction. Canon makes a significant profit on RF lenses, and the high price is one reason for that. But overall (based on CPA), the unit value of mirrorless cameras has been increasing steadily in recent years. As you say, the market is shrinking (or at least it was, it seems to have stabilized at this point, at least for now.). To maintain revenue, if unit sales go down then prices must go up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0