Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[neuroanatomist]

Well, which one ?

I was speaking broadly about the majority of camera buyers. As @John Wilde just posted:

"for every interchangeable-lens digital camera, 1.6 units of interchangeable lenses were shipped in 2022" -CIPA

And that includes kit lenses.

It's not like everyone buys oodles and bunches of lenses.

Those data. Plus the observation that 2-lens kits tend to sell very well where such information is public (e.g., BCN). Many people on this forum have >1 camera body and several lenses, and thus are not representative of the 'typical' interchangeable lens camera buyer. People don't like hearing their views and purchasing patterns aren't really that important as far as the broader camera-buying market is concerned, but it's true. People don't like hearing about business realities, but they exist and they drive the decisions Canon and other manufacturers make regarding their strategy and products. Feel free to shoot the messenger, it won't change the facts.

I'm sorry, I only have a "real life" point of view. And everything I see indicates that most EOS-M system owners won't change it for RF-S (confirmed by some local retailers I know BTW). They find the system too big and inconvenient for their needs in comparison to what "was" M. (and in fact, what it is still by now)...

Bigger and less convenient than M. Okay. For example, the M50 II + M18-150 weighs 692 g, and the the R50 + RF-S 18-150 weighs 685 g. Side-by-side, they look like this:


Looks pretty much the same, to me. Are you seeing something I don't?

Of course, the EF-M lineup has many more lenses than the RF-S lineup, so far. But the RF-S lineup is progressing at basically the same rate of lens releases as EF-M did, and assuming Canon develops it similarly it will take a few more years for Canon to reach the 8 lenses they made for the EF-M mount.

Still, that does not mean it addresses former EOS-M owners at all. Especially if their cameras are still working fine and will for years.

That's my point, as well...but it depends on which owners you're talking about. Cameras last 5 years or more. The EOS M was the best-selling MILC line for a while, but that didn't happen until ~2018 and people who bought cameras then are probably only just beginning to look for a replacement. For those 'typical' buyers that bought the camera with 1-2 kit lenses, an equivalent R body (R50, R100) seems a likely purchase. For those invested in the M system, with one or more bodies and several M lenses, the RF-S setup is not there yet. But by the time those M bodies are breaking down, it most likely will be.

Personally, I plan to keep using my M6II and EF-M lenses for several more years, and I'm strongly considering a full spectrum conversion for my M6.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I don't get all the debate on this topic. What I would get is a 17-22 f/1.4 and a 14-16mm f/1.4, both appropriate for astro. Primes, of course. MF is fine, of course. I really don't care who makes it, but I do want RF mount.

 

[Pierre Lagarde]

... For those invested in the M system, with one or more bodies and several M lenses, the RF-S setup is not there yet. But by the time those M bodies are breaking down, it most likely will be.

Personally, I plan to keep using my M6II and EF-M lenses for several more years, and I'm strongly considering a full spectrum conversion for my M6.

... and we'll agree on this
Also, I read "about the same"... and that's probably why the guys I talked to didn't want to switch. EOS-M is still overall the smallest system for them (even if in your sample the back to front size is indeed the same, if not a bit shorter ). Putting a camera and some lenses in a small bag is probably making enough of a motivation for them not to switch to anything else.

At least myself, I don't even bother as I got an EOS-R body as FF and use it for different purposes. RF-S is clearly not an option for me at this point.
I was tempted by EOS R7 last year, because I was looking for something that can perhaps replace Nikon's DSLR for birding. But I have not been convinced for the moment.

 

[EricN]

I don't even know what you mean here. I owned (and own again) a M50, none of my lenses were able to be used on RF mount or any other mount. So to change to RF would be starting from scratch for me. The situation is only marginally better for a EF mount shooter, yes they can change to RF but are forced to use adapters. But the problem there is that once you accept adapters you have little reason to stay with Canon unless you *really* like their bodies (which is fine, they have some great ones, I think the R5 is probably the greatest camera release of the past five or so years). People can disparage Metabones or whatever, but I've used just a Viltrox and did not notice any difference in performance when adapting to Fuji than I did adapting them to EF-M, which is native EF performance. Granted that may not carry over to ever single lens, but the ones I tried just worked at least as good as they did on my M50 (I have friends with lots of EF glass).

They may have worked marginally better on a RF body, but would it be enough to put up with the drawbacks of that system? Up to every user but IMO once you are talking adapters you may as well consider all your options. I know for Fuji shooters using Metabones with Canon or Nikon glass has long been the 'solution' for long lens shooters since it's not a market Fuji has pursued, and it works very well. One of the huge advantages of mirrorless has been the ability to adapt DSLR glass to MILC bodies with relative ease. For someone like me, being able to get a ton of very high quality glass designed for my crop sensor, but still have the option of more exotic glass should I need it via adapter is an advantage. And gives a result better than going to RF-S where the crop lenses are extremely limited.

Sorry I didn't notice this.
1st plan and simple, none of the EF-M lenses were produced to have the high quality of L lenses. I assume you didn't ask anyone because I feel certain no normal person would have made that kind of claim. When you say you had out grown the M-50, it's understandable. However, to be upset, cheesed, disappointed or whatever with Canon is unreasonable because at that point, you would have wanted new lenses and a new body, no matter which company you had supported.
Your thinking seems to be all over the place. You admit adapting may be marginally better with EF lenses on RF cameras, but then say adapting Canon and Nikon are the - and you even used apostrophes around - solution for Fuji. It seems you look at things from a narrow perspective based on your personal experience, wants/needs and do mental gymnastics to validate it while disregarding things that go against your feelings.

No, I'm not trying to insult you. I think some people feel I come off that way because I don't have infinite patience and some variation of this topic appears in another topic about once a week. When I say, "it's not productive," it's not because I want to police you, it's because I believe you'll have more success with other methods.

 

[neuroanatomist]

... and we'll agree on this
Also, I read "about the same"... and that's probably why the guys I talked to didn't want to switch. EOS-M is still overall the smallest system for them (even if in your sample the back to front size is indeed the same, if not a bit shorter ). Putting a camera and some lenses in a small bag is probably making enough of a motivation for them not to switch to anything else.

Given that the bodies like the R50 and R100 and the RF-S lenses offer no significant advantages over most M bodies and EF-M lenses, what would be the motivation to switch, anyway? I can't think of one. For those wanting R7-level performance, there would be a reason.

If one had, for example, an M body and the M15-45, 18-150 and/or 50-200, the R50 and the equivalent RF-S lens(es) would fit in the same bag without any difficulty.

The main reason not to switch at this point is that the RF-S lens lineup is not fleshed out. Notably, there is no UWA zoom like the M11-22. There are also no primes yet, at all (vs. the three EF-M primes).

At least myself, I don't even bother as I got an EOS-R body as FF and use it for different purposes. RF-S is clearly not an option for me at this point.

Personally, without a UWA zoom in the system (my most commonly-used lens while traveling), I have zero interest in the APS-C R-series bodies. In fact, before my last trip, I picked up an R8 and took that with several RF lenses. But for an overnight trip with carryon luggage only, the M system will remain my go-to.

 

[ReflexVE]

Sorry I didn't notice this.
1st plan and simple, none of the EF-M lenses were produced to have the high quality of L lenses. I assume you didn't ask anyone because I feel certain no normal person would have made that kind of claim. When you say you had out grown the M-50, it's understandable. However, to be upset, cheesed, disappointed or whatever with Canon is unreasonable because at that point, you would have wanted new lenses and a new body, no matter which company you had supported.
Your thinking seems to be all over the place. You admit adapting may be marginally better with EF lenses on RF cameras, but then say adapting Canon and Nikon are the - and you even used apostrophes around - solution for Fuji. It seems you look at things from a narrow perspective based on your personal experience, wants/needs and do mental gymnastics to validate it while disregarding things that go against your feelings.

No, I'm not trying to insult you. I think some people feel I come off that way because I don't have infinite patience and some variation of this topic appears in another topic about once a week. When I say, "it's not productive," it's not because I want to police you, it's because I believe you'll have more success with other methods.

Your responses are still really odd. You seem to stand up strawmen for me (where did I mention L glass? Where did I mention that *I* was adapting EF on Fuji/others?) in order to knock them down rather than addressing my point? My point is really, really simple -

- I joined with a M50 which was widely considered a great camera for it's time, especially in the price/performance/features equation.
- Two years after getting it, I'd outgrown it's limitations, such as a single dial and lack of a focus joystick
- Canon offered no upgrade path. No more advanced body, no path for using my lenses elsewhere
- The only option was to sell everything and start over, at which point why would Canon have any advantage over any other system?
- I decided I preferred crop shooting for a number of reasons so that was my first requirement
- The options in 2020 were the Sony a6xxx series, Nikon's Z50, Fuji's X mount or to find a way to stick with EF-M
- Fuji offered the most complete set of lenses, and with the release of the X-S10, a modern PSAM body with far more dials, buttons and a focusing joystick plus a reputation for long term support
- Since I had to sell everything anyway, I switched

I was sad to switch. Why would I want to switch from a brand that had done me no wrong? I'm a CR Pro member here because I was serious about Canon. But they literally offered me no options if I wasn't going all in on FF and spending the kind of money while accepting the size and the drawbacks of that format (every format has advantages and drawbacks, for me crop advantages outweigh it's drawbacks).

Down the line as RF-S was announced a couple years later I ended up with no regrets when I discovered that Canon was not launching a reasonably full set of lenses for the format, and that they were blocking third party lenses, some of which are truly spectacular and which Canon has no match for, from using the mount as well.

This is a pretty consistent set of reasons. They may not be reasons that matter to *you* or others, and that is okay. We all have our preferences and shooting styles. I don't spend my time here criticizing your decision making process, it's personal. But when Richard posts about his problems with Canon's mount decisions, and I respond relating how that also impacted my decisions as well.

 

[EricN]

Your responses are still really odd. You seem to stand up strawmen for me (where did I mention L glass? Where did I mention that *I* was adapting EF on Fuji/others?) in order to knock them down rather than addressing my point? My point is really, really simple -

- I joined with a M50 which was widely considered a great camera for it's time, especially in the price/performance/features equation.
- Two years after getting it, I'd outgrown it's limitations, such as a single dial and lack of a focus joystick
- Canon offered no upgrade path. No more advanced body, no path for using my lenses elsewhere
- The only option was to sell everything and start over, at which point why would Canon have any advantage over any other system?
- I decided I preferred crop shooting for a number of reasons so that was my first requirement
- The options in 2020 were the Sony a6xxx series, Nikon's Z50, Fuji's X mount or to find a way to stick with EF-M
- Fuji offered the most complete set of lenses, and with the release of the X-S10, a modern PSAM body with far more dials, buttons and a focusing joystick plus a reputation for long term support
- Since I had to sell everything anyway, I switched

I was sad to switch. Why would I want to switch from a brand that had done me no wrong? I'm a CR Pro member here because I was serious about Canon. But they literally offered me no options if I wasn't going all in on FF and spending the kind of money while accepting the size and the drawbacks of that format (every format has advantages and drawbacks, for me crop advantages outweigh it's drawbacks).

Down the line as RF-S was announced a couple years later I ended up with no regrets when I discovered that Canon was not launching a reasonably full set of lenses for the format, and that they were blocking third party lenses, some of which are truly spectacular and which Canon has no match for, from using the mount as well.

This is a pretty consistent set of reasons. They may not be reasons that matter to *you* or others, and that is okay. We all have our preferences and shooting styles. I don't spend my time here criticizing your decision making process, it's personal. But when Richard posts about his problems with Canon's mount decisions, and I respond relating how that also impacted my decisions as well.

Read your other posts. From what you say you wanted, what you claim to have experienced, and how say you felt about Canon, a reasonable person would have tried some L lenses. I'm sorry, if you think having more dials on the body is more important than higher quality lenses or I saw you mention you didn't want to shoot at f/1.2 but somehow didn't seem to know many lenses shoot sharper a couple stops above widest aperture, then I'd be surprised if you know 30% of what you should to discuss things rationally. It's ok, you can say this is another odd response and a strawman you knocked down and say I'm policing and insulting you, because I'm now sure you have very little desire to learn anything. I had guessed trying to help you think about things a different way would be a waste of time back on page 1, maybe you remember?

 

[ReflexVE]

Read your other posts. From what you say you wanted, what you claim to have experienced, and how say you felt about Canon, a reasonable person would have tried some L lenses. I'm sorry, if you think having more dials on the body is more important than higher quality lenses or I saw you mention you didn't want to shoot at f/1.2 but somehow didn't seem to know many lenses shoot sharper a couple stops above widest aperture, then I'd be surprised if you know 30% of what you should to discuss things rationally. It's ok, you can say this is another odd response and a strawman you knocked down and say I'm policing and insulting you, because I'm now sure you have very little desire to learn anything. I had guessed trying to help you think about things a different way would be a waste of time back on page 1, maybe you remember?

Again, I was shooting EF-M, there is no L glass for that mount, and L glass is huge and very expensive. It did not make sense for a M50. And your statement about the quality of the glass is just uninformed. I get L quality glass on Fuji for a fraction of the cost. As a prime shooter, I'm very happy with the XF18mm f/1.4, 33mm f/1.4, the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 and the 90mm f/2 all of which compare very well to L glass. The test that one reviewer performed putting the $899 XF33 up against the RF50mm f/1.8 and RF50mm f/1.2 found the Fuji option was nearly as detailed as the RF50mm f/1.2 despite being around a third of the price and a small fraction of the size/weight, and way beyond the detail and overall performance of the f/1.8 version. Fuji's latest generation of glass is extremely competitive with anything Canon is putting out, even on their latest 40MP sensor.

All that said, again where did I say I wanted to shoot 'sharper'? I was pretty clear that the reason I value fast glass is *light* while maintaining a DoF wide enough not to leave a person halfway out of focus. That is easier to accomplish practically on APS-C than it is on FF, especially outdoors rather than in controlled environments. Yes, I am aware there are other parts of the exposure triangle, however sometimes aperture is the one in my control, in fact that's my most common situation so I value it.

You need to stop making assumptions about others' photography and simply accept what they say as their experience. It's not your place to continue to tell them how they should be looking at things. Nobody is doing that to you.

 

[UlfricStormcloak]

I don't understand why everyone is still running around this topic. Sony flooded the market with a significant list of cameras. Even the previous generation is not as bad as the canon's previous. Leave the statistics about DSLRs for canon's protectors. Maybe they are right and "the way to run business" is to sell big whites and items 3k per piece.

 

[Dragon]

I was speaking broadly about the majority of camera buyers. As @John Wilde just posted:


Those data. Plus the observation that 2-lens kits tend to sell very well where such information is public (e.g., BCN). Many people on this forum have >1 camera body and several lenses, and thus are not representative of the 'typical' interchangeable lens camera buyer. People don't like hearing their views and purchasing patterns aren't really that important as far as the broader camera-buying market is concerned, but it's true. People don't like hearing about business realities, but they exist and they drive the decisions Canon and other manufacturers make regarding their strategy and products. Feel free to shoot the messenger, it won't change the facts.


Bigger and less convenient than M. Okay. For example, the M50 II + M18-150 weighs 692 g, and the the R50 + RF-S 18-150 weighs 685 g. Side-by-side, they look like this:
View attachment 211983

Looks pretty much the same, to me. Are you seeing something I don't?

Of course, the EF-M lineup has many more lenses than the RF-S lineup, so far. But the RF-S lineup is progressing at basically the same rate of lens releases as EF-M did, and assuming Canon develops it similarly it will take a few more years for Canon to reach the 8 lenses they made for the EF-M mount.


That's my point, as well...but it depends on which owners you're talking about. Cameras last 5 years or more. The EOS M was the best-selling MILC line for a while, but that didn't happen until ~2018 and people who bought cameras then are probably only just beginning to look for a replacement. For those 'typical' buyers that bought the camera with 1-2 kit lenses, an equivalent R body (R50, R100) seems a likely purchase. For those invested in the M system, with one or more bodies and several M lenses, the RF-S setup is not there yet. But by the time those M bodies are breaking down, it most likely will be.

Personally, I plan to keep using my M6II and EF-M lenses for several more years, and I'm strongly considering a full spectrum conversion for my M6.

There may be only a couple of RF-s lenses at this point, but the RF 16mm, the RF 28mm, and the RF 50mm f/1.8 are all priced (and sized) like RF-s lenses and my R7 loves them all, but then so does my R5, and the RF100-400 wouldn't get measurably smaller designed for RF-s, so maybe, just maybe Canon's strategy is to make a future transition to FF from RF-s much easier than the transition from EF-s to EF. All that is missing at this point is a really wide crop frame lens and the rumor mill keeps hinting a that. Sounds like a solid strategy to me and surprising that there are so many commenters that seem to be fixated on an RF-s label. One has to wonder if buyers and particularly sales folks in places like B&H are similarly short sighted. Somehow, I doubt it. BTW, I also have an M3, an M6-II, and all the M lenses and am not upset. If I were looking for a very portable system today, I would be happy to pick up an R50, but for most uses, the R7 is a much better camera than either the M6-II or the R50 and it is still not that big.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was pretty clear that the reason I value fast glass is *light* while maintaining a DoF wide enough not to leave a person halfway out of focus. That is easier to accomplish practically on APS-C than it is on FF, especially outdoors rather than in controlled environments. Yes, I am aware there are other parts of the exposure triangle, however sometimes aperture is the one in my control, in fact that's my most common situation so I value it.

Yes, you are pretty clearly demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

If someone wants to discuss and learn, great. @AlanF took the effort to explain (in brief, simple terms) the relevant facts. Those facts apparently bounced off your closed mind. I was pretty sure that would be the case, which is why I didn’t bother. Again, I was proven right. Shocking.

This time, I’m really done engaging. I hope you manage to learn more about the technical aspects of photography someday, that can help you achieve better results. But maybe you just like pressing the buttons. Either way, bon chance.

 

[Pete Roberts]

the only people I hear complaining about Canon's RF mount decisions are amateurs and youtubers. All the pros I work with love RF glass

 

[neuroanatomist]

There may be only a couple of RF-s lenses at this point, but the RF 16mm, the RF 28mm, and the RF 50mm f/1.8 are all priced (and sized) like RF-s lenses and my R7 loves them all, but then so does my R5, and the RF100-400 wouldn't get measurably smaller designed for RF-s, so maybe, just maybe Canon's strategy is to make a future transition to FF from RF-s much easier than the transition from EF-s to EF.

Makes sense. I have the 28/2.8, and it’s a surprisingly good lens even in the FF corners.

One has to wonder if buyers and particularly sales folks in places like B&H are similarly short sighted. Somehow, I doubt it.

Yep. Lots of those so willfully blind they will not see here on CR.

 

[Dragon]

Makes sense. I have the 28/2.8, and it’s a surprisingly good lens even in the FF corners.

That was my take. The 16 has had some bashers, but compared to other primes in that range (even ones that are considerably pricier it is quite good and the APS-c area is excellent.

Yep. Lots of those so willfully blind they will not see here on CR.

Be prepared for your sarcasm to be missed by certain individuals

 

[David - Sydney]

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest answer is the most likely and I'd guess Canon is simply trying to protect their bottom line. I only buy Canon L lenses for my R5 and they all run $2,500 - $3,000 a pop. This is also the difference between Apple and the PC computers. Apple has a closed infrastructure like Canon RF mounts and their products are typically twice the cost of a equivalent PC. As long as customers are willing to pay the price, why not?

Nah, the cost difference between "equivalent" Apple vs win PCs is nowhere near that. Just as we have the exposure triangle, to find an equivalent PC to a macbook air/pro means having the same size/weight/performance/battery life. There are some PCs that get close but the pricing is similar.

PCs may be more easily upgraded after purchase and have cheaper memory upgrades before purchase but overall cost of ownership appears to tilted towards the mac. When I got my MBP 16" M1 max, there wasn't anything close on the PC side. The Dell XPS 15 (OLED) was then released and when specced to the same approximate level was USD200 different and there were still a number of advantages to get the MBP.

Overall, to suggest that Apple is typically twice the cost of an equivalent PC is the same notion that Canon cameras overheat and Canon will fail because it doesn't allow 3rd party RF lenses.

 

[David - Sydney]

50mm f1.2 L RF - $2099/£2349
50mm f1.4 DG DN - $849/£849

85mm f1.2 L RF - $2499/£2849
85mm f1.4 DG DN - $1099/£999

35mm f1.2 DG DN - $1499/£1459
35mm f1.4 DG DN - $799/£749

Yes Sigma only have the 35mm in an f1.2 aperture but when Canon makes their premium 35mm L lens its pretty much certain that it will cost a lot more than both equivalent Sigmas and possibly cost more than both of them combined. Again if Canon were to make 50mm and 85mm f1.4 RF lenses I doubt they will be equal to/less expensive than Sigma's options. Some care because they can't afford L series prices and want native mount options that are generally smaller and much lighter than their EF versions.

I don't disagree that Canon 1st party lenses tend to be more expensive than equivalent 3rd party lenses... 3rd parties have to compete on price for similar (or slightly less) performance. Native Canon lenses will command a premium. Even Sony cripples 3rd party lenses for AF/fps.

But... your Sigma 35mm examples of f1.4 vs f.12 shows almost double the price. The larger front element and motors to move more glass costs more. We could argue whether f1.2 vs f.14 is worthwhile but to give the impression that a potential Sigma 50/1.2 for RF will be substantially cheaper than the RF50/1.2 (for similar performance) is yet to be determined. You should include the RF85/2 for USD500 to give a better overview. Canon hasn't released mid range/f1.4 lenses but I am sure they will at some point.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Overall, to suggest that Apple is typically twice the cost of an equivalent PC is the same notion that Canon cameras overheat and Canon will fail because it doesn't allow 3rd party RF lenses.

I think people conflate the fact that the cheapest Mac starts at >$1000, and PCs can be bought for far less with the idea that a similar-spec PC is a lot cheaper.

 

[neuroanatomist]

IYou should include the RF85/2 for USD500 to give a better overview.

A better overview doesn’t seem to be the goal. It’s more pushing an agenda. Even when acknowledging Canon’s inexpensive RF lenses that deliver good IQ at an accessible cost, @SNJ Ops tacks on a ‘Yeah-but-‘.

 

[David - Sydney]

That's my point, as well...but it depends on which owners you're talking about. Cameras last 5 years or more.

Cameras may mechanically last 5 years on average but we don't know the average buying cycle for owners.

A well known wedding photographer I did a workshop with says he changes every 2 years but he is a Canon ambassador so that makes sense but he shoots up to 10k images per wedding so shutter life is an issue. He also tests out competitor's bodies to check that Canon is leading class and prefers Canon's ergonomics and colours although he is happy to take ISO12800 shots with Sony vs ISO3200 with Canon. As an aside, he uses a R3 with RF24-105/4. No bride has ever said that his shots aren't sharp enough although occasionally he will use his RF50/1.2
https://yervantphotography.com/

Personally, I have upgraded on a <5 year cycle (including a second body now) but it is likely that I will keep my R5 for >5 years.

More relevant is that many others will never upgrade in the future if the progress with camera phone/computational photography improves let alone how AI will change people's perception of Insta pics. The low end kit bundles that sit on the shelf at home won't be upgraded. That said, the prices of higher end phones with decent cameras are playing in the same segment as lowish dedicated camera bodies now.

I personally believe that Canon are playing in the future space of higher end bodies/lenses where buyers will want to play in the future and it is a profitable segment in the long term.

 

[David - Sydney]

OTOH, companies like Viltrox are dangerous to hand over technology to since once a technology is established in China, it seems to suddenly appear everywhere in China. Canon has made the decision to move all manufacturing out of China for just that reason.

I can personally second that experience from my time working in China.
Team China is the inexorable goal for them... there is a reason "china" in chinese (Zhongguo) literally means central state or more commonly middle kingdom.