Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

[Grockle]

The article sums up exactly my feelings. As a long term Canon user I am disappointed with the lens choice for my R7. Here is a semi-pro camera with a lot of functionality but no decent lens. I don't mind full frame lenses for longer lengths, but I desperately need a replacement for my aging EF-S 17-55 f2.8. The 17-55 is ok but the electronics need updating, especially for video, and the adaptor makes it ungainly. An update to this and a wide angle zoom are all that’s needed to make the R7 far more useable. The current RF-S line up are all low quality small aperture with a flimsy plastic lens mount.

Using other brands? Over the years you get sucked in with all the peripherals: Flash guns, cable release, power adaptors etc. You have to replace the lot. Here in the UK prices are much higher than the US, and if like me you're not a pro, hard to justify. It's hard enough keeping up with changes Canon make. I could go R6 II, but I don't want the bulk and expense of full frame. I lug my kit round on a motorcycle most of the time and full frame is bulky (before digital, 35mm was OK because the FD lenses were so much more compact than AF lenses. I never used an EOS film camera, my AE1/A1/T90 were good enough).



Now I am fed up enough to consider changing to Lumix MFT or Fuji XT-5. Just one decent lens…...

 

[neuroanatomist]

The article sums up exactly my feelings. As a long term Canon user I am disappointed with the lens choice for my R7. Here is a semi-pro camera with a lot of functionality but no decent lens. I don't mind full frame lenses for longer lengths, but I desperately need a replacement for my aging EF-S 17-55 f2.8. The 17-55 is ok but the electronics need updating, especially for video, and the adaptor makes it ungainly. An update to this and a wide angle zoom are all that’s needed to make the R7 far more useable. The current RF-S line up are all low quality small aperture with a flimsy plastic lens mount.

I enjoyed using the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on a 7D. However, along the way I realized that the EF 24-105/4L on a FF camera was even better – wider, longer, and faster, coupled with the better noise performance of a larger sensor. Now, I get to pair a 24-105/2.8 with a FF sensor. IMO, the ultimate general purpose setup.

IMO, the only significant advantages of APS-C systems are generally lower cost, lighter weight and smaller size (I say generally because you can spend more on a Fuji APS-C system than a Canon FF system for the same coverage). Those are real, tangible advantages, but from an image-making standpoint FF gives more flexibility.

IMO, the R7 is aimed mainly at those using telephoto lenses and wanting more reach. Canon has provided a high performance crop body to pair with lenses like the RF 100-500L, 100-400, RF 600/11 and RF 800/11, and now the RF 200-800. Outside of the tele range, Canon is trying to push general users seeking better performance into FF bodies and lenses...and they've made doing so feasible, e.g. the R8 delivers good performance and a FF sensor for less than the cost of the R7, and there is a relatively inexpensive (compared to other brands) set of zooms covering 15-400mm.

 

[danfaz]

IMO, the R7 is aimed mainly at those using telephoto lenses and wanting more reach. Canon has provided a high performance crop body to pair with lenses like the RF 100-500L, 100-400, RF 600/11 and RF 800/11, and now the RF 200-800.

Yep, that's me right there!

 

[ashmadux]

Not an expert on other brands, but it seems like Nikon is doing even less with APS-C and Sony not so much either. It seems obvious as to why Canon does not make high-end crop lenses...because the market for them is probably tiny. I think most high-end crop purchasers use crop for the reach and will use RF or EF lenses. The vast majority of crop camera buyers are probably much more casual photographers who have absolutely no use or interest in fast primes or even fast zooms.

And as usual, as if you have a mental block that keeps you from stating the obvious (especially when you can be negative and complain) there are many, many, many EF-S lenses available by Canon AND third party lens makers for your RF crop cameras.

Seriously, stick to rumors rather than opinions, 'cause you just end up looking rather unintelligent.

This is one of those messages from someone who sounds silly but doesn't know it. Give us all a break.

No one asked you about old EFS lenses, some of which are not even produced anymore. Im sure some of them arent even supported by canon.

Lastly, have you looked at nikons crop lenses? Yeah you're not even paying attention but sure acting like you are.

 

[ashmadux]

"Canon sliding to 2nd in mirrorless in Japan" - the article

Drawing conclusions from one (small) country doesn't make much sense.

Worldwide, in their financial documents, Canon forecasts that they will have almost a (2.9/5.85) 50% 2023 interchangeable-lens camera market share. They also forecast that they will have a 2023 camera-only revenue that's +8.2% compared to 2022.

The final numbers for 2023 as a whole will be released on January 30, 2024.

Technical, anal ,corpo-hugging defense messages that don't do ANYTHING towards the topic- better lenses for RFS. It is 2024 and EFMs small selection is still has 2 orders of magnitude better lens selection. It's embarrassing. Canon is treating RFS users like beating sticks. RFS users are literally dreaming of sigma primes, because canon wont make them. Its that too hard to grasp?

Dress it however you want, RFS is the worst crop mount available with the stinkiest set of lenses. I could care less about martketshare, i care about what lenses i can buy for my preferred platform. It doesn't matter about reasons or excuses or hugging canons leg - there is no 22/f2 equivalent for RFS, and the new lens versions are physically and functionally WORSE than previous versions. How do you like that 7.1? You want fries with that?

Responding to honest complaints about canons lack of good products for this line with...marketing and financial mumbo jumbo.. is nonsense.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Technical, anal ,corpo-hugging defense messages that don't do ANYTHING towards the topic- better lenses for RFS. It is 2024 and EFMs small selection is still has 2 orders of magnitude better lens selection. It's embarrassing.

What's embarrassing...your math skills? Yes, yes they are. It seems you don't understand what comprises an order of magnitude. There are 4 RF-S lenses. Please list for us the 400 EF-M lenses available.

Incidentally, the first APS-C RF-mount cameras were announced 20 months ago, and there are 4 RF-S lenses. By 20 months after the EOS M launched, there were 3 EF-M lenses. In case the math exceeds your capabilities, that means that there is one more RF-S lens compared to the number of EF-M after the same amount of time.

Canon is treating RFS users like beating sticks. RFS users are literally dreaming of sigma primes, because canon wont make them. Its that too hard to grasp?

Not at all. What do you propose people do about it? Oh, I know...they should come here to complain. I mean, just look how effective you have been at that approach.

Dress it however you want, RFS is the worst crop mount available with the stinkiest set of lenses. I could care less about martketshare, i care about what lenses i can buy for my preferred platform. It doesn't matter about reasons or excuses or hugging canons leg - there is no 22/f2 equivalent for RFS, and the new lens versions are physically and functionally WORSE than previous versions. How do you like that 7.1? You want fries with that?

Sounds like a you problem. Perhaps your 'preferred system' is not something you should continue preferring. No one needs to make excuses for Canon. They're not a charity to benefit photographers, they're a business making business decisions that are in their best interest.

Responding to honest complaints about canons lack of good products for this line with...marketing and financial mumbo jumbo.. is nonsense.

I get that facts and data are 'mumbo jumbo' to you, but posting asinine diatribes also... is nonsense.

 

[koenkooi]

[…] I could care less about martketshare, […]

Can you quantify how much less you can care about market share? Context implies you could not care less, but you wrote something different.

 

[danfaz]

Context implies you could not care less, but you wrote something different.

Thank you.

 

[EricN]

Technical, anal ,corpo-hugging defense messages that don't do ANYTHING towards the topic- better lenses for RFS. It is 2024 and EFMs small selection is still has 2 orders of magnitude better lens selection. It's embarrassing. Canon is treating RFS users like beating sticks. RFS users are literally dreaming of sigma primes, because canon wont make them. Its that too hard to grasp?

Dress it however you want, RFS is the worst crop mount available with the stinkiest set of lenses. I could care less about martketshare, i care about what lenses i can buy for my preferred platform. It doesn't matter about reasons or excuses or hugging canons leg - there is no 22/f2 equivalent for RFS, and the new lens versions are physically and functionally WORSE than previous versions. How do you like that 7.1? You want fries with that?

Responding to honest complaints about canons lack of good products for this line with...marketing and financial mumbo jumbo.. is nonsense.

One question: Is RF-S is your preferred platform and if so, would investing in it before it had anything but stinky lenses be nonsense?

 

[scyrene]

I hope Richard continues to post these opinions that get you so fired up; it seems many more people identify with them than those who don't,

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that one side is more vocal, but not necessarily more numerous (for example, I've not contributed much to this thread and I disagree with the OP).

 

[Jethro]

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that one side is more vocal, but not necessarily more numerous (for example, I've not contributed much to this thread and I disagree with the OP).

Sure, and fair enough from your point of view, and not all of us are going to be interested in every topic posted. Interest or lack of it in a particular topic isn't a reflection on the people interested (or not interested) - it just reflects what attract them personally.

Clearly a large number of people are interested in this one, and have contributed in a generally positive and constructive manner. I think there is absolutely room for more 'opinion pieces' like this within CR, in addition to actual Rumours.

 

[AlanF]

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that one side is more vocal, but not necessarily more numerous (for example, I've not contributed much to this thread and I disagree with the OP).

I haven’t contributed to this thread either as there is enough drivel without my adding to it.

 

[David - Sydney]

Dress it however you want, RFS is the worst crop mount available with the stinkiest set of lenses. I could care less about martketshare, i care about what lenses i can buy for my preferred platform.

{hightlight is mine}
Perhaps you can illuminate us on why RF-S is your preferred platform? Is it RF-S or R mount in general?

Canon is clearly providing an option for crop sensor users but with the same mount as full frame. They are providing a simple upgrade path to full frame and perhaps nudging users a lot to get you there. Canon could easily repackage EF-M lenses (the good ones) to RF-S but they haven't... yet.

After 5 years of R mount, Canon has a pretty reasonable range of inexpensive and unique/expensive range of native full frame lenses to choose from and using the R7 you also get pixel density for "reach". There are niches that are missing that maybe 3rd party option would fill and maybe not.

What is the real problem you have?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps you can illuminate us on why RF-S is your preferred platform? Is it RF-S or R mount in general?

He just loves Canon. Can't you tell?

I'm taking a loss on a r62 with crap autofocus.

I've sent so many products back to canon for lack of fixes, its not even funny.

 

[mimbu]

Do you know how long ago Sony started selling their aps-c lenses for e-mount vs canon and rf-s lens?

You can always adapt an ef lens or even get a second hand one if you need to save more money.

And do you know that all of Sony's FF GM glass (except 85/1.4 GM and 100-400 GM), a large portion of their FF G glass, and all of their good APS-C glass (and all of Sigma's and Tamron's good APS-C glass) has come out in the years since Canon released RF mount? Canon people seem to think that Sony had this complete ecosystem created years in advance but it's just not correct.

 

[mimbu]

Is that sound I hear the moving of goalposts?

How is wanting an apples to apples comparison "moving goalposts"?

Sales number for the Japan market were released recently, the ones collected directly from most of the camera stores in Japan. Sony is ahead of Canon in MILC body and lens sales. Nikon is down in #4.

Canon and Nikon have both neglected the entry level portions of their mirrorless ecosystems while Sony has been gobbling up new customers. It's likely that Nikon lacks the financial & human resources to address all segments of the market at once but Canon certainly shouldn't have problems doing that. Then again, Canon has always left the APS-C market hanging out to dry so perhaps this is to be expected.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And do you know that all of Sony's FF GM glass (except 85/1.4 GM and 100-400 GM)...has come out in the years since Canon released RF mount? Canon people seem to think that Sony had this complete ecosystem created years in advance but it's just not correct.

And the 24-70/2.8 GM, and the 70-200/2.8 GM OSS, and the 16-35/2.8 GM, and the 100/2.8 STF GM OSS (and I noticed you edited your post to add those two you listed).

So, 6 GM lenses before RF. You were saying something about people being incorrect. Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[danfaz]

Sales number for the Japan market were released recently, the ones collected directly from most of the camera stores in Japan. Sony is ahead of Canon in MILC body and lens sales. Nikon is down in #4.

If you're referring to the BCN awards, that's not a very robust sample, as it's approximately 40-60% of the market:

"The BCN Awards exclusively account for the Japanese market, and only for Japanese retailers inside BCN’s network, who account for 40-60% of total sales in the country. It is not necessarily a perfect cross-section, either, as BCN tends to capture consumer and prosumer sales at a higher rate than higher-end purchasers, like professional or commercial buyers, who are more likely to shop at dedicated photography retailers rather than the general electronics stores BCN monitors."

 

[neuroanatomist]

How is wanting an apples to apples comparison "moving goalposts"?

Because your first post on the topic didn’t mention ‘mirrorless’, then when your statements were refuted you tried restricting your point to mirrorless.

Sales number for the Japan market were released recently, …

Canon and Nikon have both neglected the entry level portions of their mirrorless ecosystems while Sony has been gobbling up new customers.

Yes, and according to BCN the two of three best-selling Canon cameras were R50 and the R10 (and the third was the M50 II). Since all of those are entry level APS-C cameras, please explain how Canon is neglecting that segment?

Can’t wait to see you triple-down on looking foolish. I’d call it a trifecta, except that implies long odds and the odds of you continuing to look foolish are pretty close to 100%.

 

[Grockle]

IMO, the only significant advantages of APS-C systems are generally lower cost, lighter weight and smaller size (I say generally because you can spend more on a Fuji APS-C system than a Canon FF system for the same coverage). Those are real, tangible advantages, but from an image-making standpoint FF gives more flexibility.

The lighter weight, more compact size is why I bought APS-C in the first place, it's the primary reason for me. Lower cost doesn't do any harm. Canon did support the format for EOS APS-C, if only in a small way, and they only need to produce 1 or 2 reasonable spec lenses to support the format in RF-S.

I'm sure the 24-105 lens on a FF camera is superior, and to be honest an R6 with this is hardly any larger than the R7 with "proposed" RF-S 17-55, but this is missing the point. If I went FF I'd have to swap my 70-200 for a 100-400, and get a new wide angle zoom. More bulky and a significant outlay if you're not making money from it.

Like many people, I thought of the R7 as the replacement for the 7DII. I pre ordered and had to wait 4 months to get it. I'm not disappointed by the camera, but now it doesn't seem like a good decision.

I can see where Canon are coming from. The rise of the phone camera has shrunk the sales of low end cameras, and they can make more money out of FF, so they concentrate on the Pro-end of the market (especially video). Great for them, not much good for me.