Opinion: The difficulty facing Canon (and everyone else)

[Richard CR]

Reading through the interviews from the Photo and Imaging 2023 show felt like I was back in the early days of the EF mount. But it's not the late 80s and early 90s when FD mount users were picking their jaws up off the floor. Back then film was still king, Velvia was amazing, Tmax was made by actual wizards, and new and exciting technologies such as USM and IS were coming out. All the major players were still in the game. It was a great time for the camera companies, carrying through all the way past the first decade of the new millennia. They could literally do what they wanted when they wanted. Money was to be made.

See full article...

 

[Richard CR]

Take it easy on me in here

 

[josephandrews222]

Great post...full of intelligent observations as well as interesting speculation.

Lenses lenses and more lenses, eh?

But not EF-M lenses

 

[esspy2]

A well-written piece! Good enough syndrome is so difficult for my friends to get over whenever I try to convince them to shoot with a camera, and I would almost never tell people they have to upgrade

I started my photography journey with the EOS M50 and have graduated to an EOS M6 Mark II as well as an EOS R6. While I love the RF mount lenses that are out (I love the budget primes and have a couple pro zooms) and the EF-M system of lenses, it has been hard to justify putting more money into the system. Back then, I even purchased a Canon SELPHY printer instead of the Fujifilm instant printer.

But last year, I picked up a Fuji body and I have now picked up a Sony body because the lenses are more interesting and more plentiful. I'm looking at Pansonic S series and Olympus m4/3 series as well (the 20-60mm and the 12-100mm f/4, respectively, are so tempting). There are so many exciting zoom options from Tamron (20-40mm F/2.8, 35-150mm F/2-2.8), and so many beautifully-built budget options from Sigma (I-series). Viltrox has put out beautiful lenses (13mm f/1.4, 75mm f/1.2, 16mm F/1.8, and 27mm f/1.2), and Samyang's V-AF series remains very interesting. There are a few issues with the RF budget primes (such as lack of weather sealing and a less-than-stellar AF system), and it just seems like there's so much interesting kit out there that the Canon system won't let us access. I still take my Canon bodies out, but I'm using them less and less. Hopefully Canon can replace our faith in the system soon!

 

[Traveler]

I think most of the market nowadays are professionals and those with gear acquisition syndrome. People who keep buying cameras and lenses but hardly use them. Sony knows that more than Canon.
Canon’s marketing is always so bad. The pictures they show are so ordinary. Canon don’t even explain some of their functions etc. Whereas Sony uses the best eye-catching pics from their ambassadors, every product is either the smallest, fastest, lighters or something like that. People wanna feel like they are buying something special and “the best”. Especially when they don’t understand it yet.

 

[GoldWing]

Canon has a huge chance with a loyal base of 1DX, II & III users to make the R1 a cash cow.

If Canon does not offer a clearly and vastly superior platform vs. the Z9 they will have failed.

 

[HMC11]

Welcome to CR, Richard! And thank you for a well-written and thoughtful piece. Please keep these coming regularly.

The issues you raised are pertinent to the photographers' communities. The perceived advantages of a ILC camera over that of a phone camera may have already dwindled to the point where most people who just want to take pictures and videos as a record of their activities will most likely reach for a phone rather than an ILC camera. The convenience of having a recording device that is with us most of the time is compelling. To do photography 'properly' these days would require dedicated planning and post processing work. Unless these are part of the enjoyment of photography, which I guess is for most of us here, it is much simpler to whip out the phone, point and record. Apart from convenience, it is also the case that young people's first encounter with photography and video is most likely through a phone. Given how good the video and image quality phones can produce these days, especially when the social media platforms do not require any better, it is little wonder that ILC photography struggles to compete. Going small and compact is one approach to compete with phones, but perhaps a rethink of the overal ILC approach and pricing could be another. For instance, I can imagine a different pricing structure that see cheap but high quality bodies to get new photographers on board, but aim to sell more lenses (both compact and 'normal' lenses) to subsidise the bodies. Having said this, I do not pretend to know more than Canon, and that they could well have thought through alternative models already and have rejected them for good reasons. Nevertheless, it seems that the ILC companies will continue to find it tough going without a break from the current buisness model. Meanwhile, I am still enjoying the RF system.

 

[Stu_bert]

Some good points thanks Richard. I lived in HK for 5 years (till 2022) but always found ways to get past any luggage checks. In fact it was a post on CR which I used (not in Asia) with an airline when they said they wanted to put my camera bag in the hold. “that’s fine, but the equipment is worth more than 10K and any damage or loss is your responsibility not mine”.

However certainly Canon and other manufacturers should lobby the airlines to offer a solution. I’m sure many photographers would pay an extra fee (if reasonable) just to have a secure option. It’s ironic that if I want to take my bike with me, I can, and it’s not that expensive (certainly cheaper than renting for a week). If Canon et al doesn’t then the rumour sites should band together to do it!

And certainly offering smaller but good lenses would be great - Canon won’t likely won’t, but allow Sigma et al fills these gaps. I get their need to satisfy their shareholders…

The article over at peta from Sigma CEO was interesting around lens development. Certainly it seems to be still, despite recent innovations, a lengthy process. Maybe they need to look to see if AI can shorten the process to allow them to release quicker.

And most definitely provide a roadmap, especially if they’re controlling which 3rd parties can release what lenses.

Still, I feel an equally large risk they face is around the software - something they’re not that invested in (not just Canon). You rightly highlight that mobile workflow is very good. It is, and we all use it. But the camera companies still seem to ignore it and still practise, iirc, features missing on different bodies. I doubt, but happy to be corrected, how many people would upgrade their body just to get a few new software features. Yet the manufacturers still seem to think it will encourage us to do so. Offer paid upgrades. If they feel better AF on a R5 mk II will compel me to upgrade from the current body, well it won’t. Better sensor, better digic, better cooling. Better comms. Sure, combined they all might. Of course others here may have a different perspective but I think the camera manufacturers should separate the hardware and the software. I’m fine to pay a reasonable fee to get better AF and some features from the R7 or R6 II

They should look at adding hardware and software to our cameras that make it easy to get photos to other people or sites. Aside from the AF, I don’t think they need to necessarily add computational to the camera unless they’re going to improve battery life considerably. Using your phone however is certainly an option, but only if they get higher speed connectivity. Either way, simply improving the usability and the features in software would keep people in the eco-system.

Yes it means we won’t buy bodies perhaps as often, but perhaps that is the new reality they need to face. Professionals upgrade if there’s a “business case”, enthusiasts (unless they have deep pockets) need something compelling. In between providing those compelling reasons, entice them with software which you can iterate annually and offer it as a subscription or upgrade.

Just my 5c

 

[DhlcadR6]

I think most of the market nowadays are professionals and those with gear acquisition syndrome. People who keep buying cameras and lenses but hardly use them. Sony knows that more than Canon.
Canon’s marketing is always so bad. The pictures they show are so ordinary. Canon don’t even explain some of their functions etc. Whereas Sony uses the best eye-catching pics from their ambassadors, every product is either the smallest, fastest, lighters or something like that. People wanna feel like they are buying something special and “the best”. Especially when they don’t understand it yet.

Canon's marketing isn't bad. They just aren't rich as Sony to buy all the youtubers to not talk bad about their cameras.

Meanwhile Nikon and Olympus have less marketing....

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The RF-S mount has just started.
Canon has been making cameras for nearly a century and has never had a roadmap.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon's marketing isn't bad. They just aren't rich as Sony to buy all the youtubers to not talk bad about their cameras.

Sony literally gave them cameras.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think most of the market nowadays are professionals and those with gear acquisition syndrome.

Canon is going hard after entry level and they pretty much always have.
When it comes to pros Canon has a pretty solid line up.
When it comes to GAS, Canon typically falls down compared to Nikon and Sony.
Those two companies are more into specs for spec sake.
That being said, they still make some compelling products at compelling prices.

 

[hollybush]

I think you’re making too much of the carry-on limits. The domestic airlines here in Australia have often enforced the 7kg limit, as well as a size limit, for carry-on, going back at least 10 years. It’s nothing new, and I managed to travel with a 1Ds Mk III and multiple lenses. The kit for my upcoming trips will be the R3 + 100–500 + EF 24–70 f/4 IS + adapter + 77mm C-POL and then either the EF 16–35 f/4 IS + adapter or the 1Ds Mk III. This is either 4.17kg or 4.9kg. My Crumpler bag is 1.6kg.

People need to revise their idea of a lightweight kit. I see kits including a 600mm f/4 described as lightweight. Is a laptop really needed, or could the images just sit on cards until you get home?

 

[Rudolf_Appel]

As Richard says the market has become so slim that they need to protect their intellectual properties, ie. AF and IS algorithms in order to gain enough profit to stay in the market (have enough cash to finance development). There is no room anymore for third party lens manufacturers. Either those companies develop new fantastic cameras for their lenses or have to live with protected small markets. Like said, days of everybody carrying ILC’s cameras are over. Nobody can blame them. I can take pictures with my smart phone, edit them and share them with my loved ones within minutes after the event war recorded. Forget that with ILC’s and their ultra slow Bluetooth features and poorly maintained smartphone apps.
ILCs are for pro’s and enthousiasts who have to or are willing to pay for canon lenses. For anything else people use their phones.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Maybe I'm extreme, I would rather pay to keep my gears carry-on plane then force myself cut down the gears need for the trip. Check-in luggage is not the option. I've worked on airport ramp; I have zero trust with the guys in basement & ramp.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

In a proper bag it is no problem to put lenses into checked luggage. The trick is to make those lenses the center of your luggage and surround them with clothes. My 70-200 for example already travelled with me for 18 years and to five continents and it was always in checked in luggage. Even if a bag is thrown, that should not be a problem if you packed right. The 35mm f/2 IS even fits into a shoe. There it is extremely safe.

He is right with the "last camera" idea. My 1D X, which came out 11 years ago, is already so good for my needs that a new camera would not help me very much to take good photos.

I do not share his hope that those new cameras will last longer than the old ones. Mechanical stuff may be reduced, but new cameras have IBIS and an EVF. Those are things that might not survive as long as we would hope.

 

[AlanF]

I think you’re making too much of the carry-on limits. The domestic airlines here in Australia have often enforced the 7kg limit, as well as a size limit, for carry-on, going back at least 10 years. It’s nothing new, and I managed to travel with a 1Ds Mk III and multiple lenses. The kit for my upcoming trips will be the R3 + 100–500 + EF 24–70 f/4 IS + adapter + 77mm C-POL and then either the EF 16–35 f/4 IS + adapter or the 1Ds Mk III. This is either 4.17kg or 4.9kg. My Crumpler bag is 1.6kg.

People need to revise their idea of a lightweight kit. I see kits including a 600mm f/4 described as lightweight. Is a laptop really needed, or could the images just sit on cards until you get home?

I've travelled in the Far East on Air Asia flights to Borneo for a birding safari, and they actually do check your baggage weight! But Canon has made it easier still. The R7 + RF 100-400mm comes in at a working weight of 1.3kg, under half the weight of your R3 + RF 100-500mm, and has an equivalent reach in terms of pixel-level resolution of a 740mm lens on an R3. And believe me, it has about the same resolution as my R5 + RF 100-500mm at long distances and beats it close up for insects. It's certainly better than the 5DIV + EF 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC I took to Borneo. And, you can throw in an RF 800mm f/11 into your hold luggage without too much worry that you will lose or damage an expensive lens. I also travel with a small iPad for downloading and backing up to a lightweight SSD or uploading to the cloud. My wife and I routinely travel on European holiday flights with just carry-on luggage, which contains of all of our clothes etc plus a an R5, R7 and RF 100-400 and 100-500, as well as iPads MacBook Air and two each of all chargers and cables.

 

[Surab]

I must agree that thanks to the lack of 3rd party lenses wenn AF I've not gotten an R, R6, or R8/R6II. The cameras are always super enticing but I'm not a pro and I'm not rich, so knowing there are sub 1000 F2.8 Zoome available on E mount is very enticing, also their APSC line is genuinely more interesting due to third party support.

I am aware that Canon probably doesn't care about sold bodies and hence customers that would buy third party lenses, but I still would get the 24-105 L, a couple of primes, and then as things go on maybe even other lenses...

Cheers

 

[blackcoffee17]

Canon does not offer anything premium and small. Every APS-C lens is cheap, plastic and slow. Any small and affordable full frame RF lens has slow AF motor and lacks any weathersealing.

 

[hollybush]

In a proper bag it is no problem to put lenses into checked luggage. The trick is to make those lenses the center of your luggage and surround them with clothes.

I’ve done this in the past with bodies that aren’t worth much, with tripods and the chargers.

The problem these days is whether the checked baggage will get there at all. In DSLR days, I probably wasn’t going to need to charge anyway, but this is no longer true with mirrorless, and that huge R3 charger needs to go in the checked baggage. On the other hand, if my hiking/wet weather gear was in that checked baggage and is lost I would also have a real problem.