Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

[YuengLinger]

Who needs capitalism when we could share a camera like this? Remember, you can own nothing and be happy.

 

[Richard CR]

I don't think it is lazy, so much as economic. With a weak market compared to the past, for Canon to make profits and stay in business, they have to make some decisions we aren't going to like. To say it more simply: Lenes you don't like versus no lenses or cameras at all.

I think I can understand that more when canon actually used humans for most of their lens assembly. but they do not have haven't for the last 10 years.

 

[Richard CR]

Seems to me you are a bit self-contradictory, Richard. You had a hissy when it was clear that Canon was going to retire the M line, but now you want them to build relatively expensive RF APS-C lenses that would effectively penalize anyone buying them who later wanted to upgrade to FF.

The two are separate arguments though. the problem with EOS-M is that there was no place for them to go .. easily. It was buy into a new system entirely somewhere. That somewhere may or may not be Canon given the choices at the time. There was always a transition for EF-S to EF and now RF-S to RF, at least RF-S lenses will work with RF camera bodies - so at times, the investment in lenses isn't entirely thrown out. Also resale of canon lenses have always been pretty good - so the delta between the purchase price and the resale price is your "usage / lease price" of the lens over time. That ends up usually being pretty inexpensive, but not when the entire line was silently dumped. Canon could have done a much better job of that.

As I see it, Canon is doing a very good job of making dual purpose lenses that are both small enough to make sense with APS-c and quite capable at FF. The 16mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, and 100-400 are the standouts, but the 24, 35, 50 f/1.8, and 600 f/11 are also small and inexpensive enough to fit the bill.

yes I specifically mentioned those lenses. I didn't mention the zooms because once you get over 50mm or so any benefit to aps-c image circle pretty much dissappears.

Note that the mentioned telephotos would not be any smaller if made for APS-s only. Yes, it would be nice to see the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 ported over to RF, but that may simply be a matter of time as it is clear that with the current market conditions that Canon is not building new production lines, but rather converting old lines after a discontinuance (and that makes huge sense).

canon for the most part uses automation to grind elements and assemble lenses. a production line exists but it works on many different lenses at the same time. if anything, with current economic and the camera market, canon is selling far less lenses than in the past - meaning they either have moved staff, laid them off or they are doing nothing these days.

Canon's RF response to APS-c is much more sensible than their EF approach in that there are more small, affordable RF FF lenses that work nicely on on APS-c than there were in EF format after all those years and that RF APS-c lenses can be used on FF bodies that automatically revert to APS-c format when the lens is attached.

Yes, I did specifically mention those - however, it's the "gap" under those lenses that a company like Sigma can specifically fit in and take care of when Canon can't be bothered to do so. Also it's a lot easier to make small cheap primes under 40mm for RF than it could be for EF. Some of it just comes down to focal plane distance and optics versus Canon being magnanimous.

The only parties complaining here are folks who somehow see APS-c as an end in itself.

for some it is - especially these days. The added expense and size / weight of full frame overall depending on kit choices make it for me, a nonstarter. for me, it's wide and under 75mm for most of my photography. I can simply for the most part, have a far smaller kit and lighter kit with APS-C, and the dynamic range and image quality out of Canon's 32.5mp sensor is excellent.

 

[Richard CR]

"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.

yes, that global marketshare is made up of mirrorless, EF cameras and EOS-M. I was specifically referring to a market that led the way in mirrorless adaptation for years even before Canon entered the market and that Canon for the most part has been very close to #1, if not #1 in that marketspace. as a matter of fact, the gap of 5.7% is the largest gap that Canon has had from #1 position since 2016.

Also that market is especially important to Canon.

Also the market can turn quite quickly, especially with a rather fragile mount installed base. Before Canon could make stupid decisions but with a massive overwhelming dominant mount base, they could get away with it. Canon just had to be competent - they didn't have to be brilliant. Mind you a lot of what we are seeing from Canon and the RF system is Canon's amazing technical wizardry, don't get me wrong. When they want to do and are motivated they are the best in the business and it's not even close. We have seen Nikon even with pretty damned good cameras and lenses, not execute the shift to mirrorless as easily and essentially drop out of Japan almost altogether even though their F mount ruled for years.

 

[Richard CR]

To add to Richards point, why personally I would prefer not to use old lenses and adapters:

View attachment 214474
This is a (bad) photoshop, of how the Sigma 18-50 2.8 would look on an R50. IMO a compelling package, which I would prefer to my R8. The EF-S version not so much. Not only is it bigger and heavier, but the old lens is IMO worse in IQ than the new Sigma.

Would that not be a nice combo? Together with an RF-S version of the 32mm and Sigma 56mm I would be a happy camper.

yes, you illustrate the problem well there. 10-18, 18-50 would handle most of my needs. maybe a 18-250 as well as a walkaround. then add a collection of the small RF primes.

with a 32MP good dynamic range sensor I never saw the need to return to full frame personally. maybe that's the case for others. but the M6 Mark II was an IQ revelation to me when it came out - it really was "good enough". Especially with good glass.

 

[Richard CR]

I love Sony E-mount lens choices but holding their full frame cameras it's just not comfortable. Like some sharp bricks.

worst feeling cameras that ever existed. I have no idea how they managed that. it takes great skill to accomplish that.
but they have gotten better. it only took them 5 versions of cameras to do so.

 

[Richard CR]

I think some of you need to know - these kinds of posts are what Craig wanted me to do when I came on board, that and patents. he wanted me to purposely stir things up, hit controversial elements, and so forth. Canon is a fantastic imaging company. I'm happy that I have in some way over the last 7 years contributed to the community via CanonNews and now here. But if my bitchfests can cause even a slight change of direction in someone in canon's thought patterns I think I've done good and helped serve the community by doing so. Having a larger audience, and I'm sure there are folks at Canon that DO read Canonrumors maybe just maybe we can convince them to smarten up a bit.

So I'll continue to have an opinion but if you read my other stuff, you'll realize I have a profound admiration and respect for Canon. But I'm not blind (well, -6 diopters is pretty close I guess).

Enjoy - and I'm happy to see that at least these kind of articles stir up comments and other observations.

Wait until you see my next opinion piece. it's a doozy.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, I did specifically mention those - however, it's the "gap" under those lenses that a company like Sigma can specifically fit in and take care of when Canon can't be bothered to do so.


for some it is - especially these days.

A quick check of Sigma DC DN lenses brings up 6 lenses. All of them are relatively fast, but they are not that cheap, so the idea of a "gap" under the FF Canon lenses that I mentioned does not hold up. Those Sigma lenses are pricewise almost directly competitive with the small FF Canon lenses, but they are about a half to one stop faster. From a business perspective, letting Sigma into the game would have two negatives. Firstly, it would be almost direct competition at the dollar level and secondly, it would encourage APS-c users looking for more performance to dig themselves into the non-upgradeable hole that I mentioned at the beginning. Canon has clearly long wanted serious photographers to move to FF, so anything that encourages them to stay on APS-c will be frowned upon. Exceptions like the 7d II and the R7 are there for a specific purpose (reach) and are used by FF photographers to extend expensive telephoto lenes even further. Canon understands that and (somewhat grudgingly) has offered those exceptions. It will be interesting to see if the EF-M 32mm gets ported to RF. It is a really nice lens, but it doesn't fit the pattern.

BTW, you didn't respond to my speculation that there may be outside forces involved in some of these decisions. I know for a fact that MITI funds (sometimes quite generously and often via entities like NHK) development projects at individual companies, but the price is that they also tell companies what they cannot do (if they want any future funding). MITI may not have the clout that it did 20 or 30 years ago, but I doubt very much that it has gone away. I thought it was quite interesting that Canon was first with 8k even though it is pretty clear that Sony was not really that much behind (and maybe not at all). Never underestimate the power of politics (and that is at least as true in Japan as in the US). For a parallel, how many companies do you suppose would be making electric cars without heavy handed government arm twisting (and huge subsidies)?

 

[AlanF]

There is a huge difference between 600mm 6.3 and 30mm 6.3. And while 7.1 at 500mm is acceptable for the 100-500, the RF-S 50-210 7.1 is disappointing.

There is a huge difference between 600mm 6.3 and 30mm 6.3. But it is 600mm vs 30mm not 6.3 vs 6.3. It is absurd to say f/6.3 is absurdly slow.

 

[Richard CR]

A quick check of Sigma DC DN lenses brings up 6 lenses. All of them are relatively fast, but they are not that cheap, so the idea of a "gap" under the FF Canon lenses that I mentioned does not hold up. Those Sigma lenses are pricewise almost directly competitive with the small FF Canon lenses

I'm going to apologize and cut it right there. I specifically mentioned that Canon had it covered down to 16mm full frame in small primes which is 26mm on crop, what the problem is, is UNDER 26mm where the choices are nonexistant. Sigma has the 16, 23 and what brought about this article the 10mm.

"I would be remiss if I didn't mention that small full-frame lenses that use digital image stretching to fit a full-frame image circle are usually very good on APS-C, perhaps even better than on full-frame cameras because they don't have to do as much digital manipulation. So I have to be honest here, lenses like the 16mm F2.8, 24mm F1.8, and 28mm F2.8 are uniquely suitable for the RF-S platform, and lenses like the 35mm F1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 find new uses on the RF-S platform from their traditional use cases on full frame."

also RF-S lenses work on an RF camera. it's not a non-existant non upgradable hole. Canon isn't doing anyone any favors by not allowing Sigma into the market. SOmeone buying premier primes knows the consequences of that purchase already - however, they have the choice if they choose to purchase them.

 

[Richard CR]

BTW, you didn't respond to my speculation that there may be outside forces involved in some of these decisions. I know for a fact that MITI funds (sometimes quite generously and often via entities like NHK) development projects at individual companies, but the price is that they also tell companies what they cannot do (if they want any future funding). MITI may not have the clout that it did 20 or 30 years ago, but I doubt very much that it has gone away. I thought it was quite interesting that Canon was first with 8k even though it is pretty clear that Sony was not really that much behind (and maybe not at all). Never underestimate the power of politics (and that is at least as true in Japan as in the US). For a parallel, how many companies do you suppose would be making electric cars without heavy handed government arm twisting (and huge subsidies)?

because canon is a vast company as is fuji. if there was hand shake deals it could have been in medical or other fields. if there really was a deal, then canon or nikon or sony never would have had aps-c camera system and given that all to fuji. Also sony is still actively developing aps-c lenses for their models (albeit very slowly) and it IS just speculation. it could have been anything. if anything canon and sony have far more power to wield than fuji does.

 

[Dragon]

with a 32MP good dynamic range sensor I never saw the need to return to full frame personally. maybe that's the case for others. but the M6 Mark II was an IQ revelation to me when it came out - it really was "good enough". Especially with good glass.

I still use the M6 II for portability, but with a very similar sensor, the R7 is a much more capable camera thanks to IBIS, EFCS (mysteriously missing from the M6II), and, of course, the Digic x processor.

 

[Richard CR]

I still use the M6 II for portability, but with a very similar sensor, the R7 is a much more capable camera thanks to IBIS, EFCS (mysteriously missing from the M6II), and, of course, the Digic x processor.

totally agree.

 

[Dragon]

because canon is a vast company as is fuji. if there was hand shake deals it could have been in medical or other fields. if there really was a deal, then canon or nikon or sony never would have had aps-c camera system and given that all to fuji. Also sony is still actively developing aps-c lenses for their models (albeit very slowly) and it IS just speculation. it could have been anything. if anything canon and sony have far more power to wield than fuji does.

To your point about Canon's level of automation, Fuji (total company) has about 2/3 the revenue of Canon, but 4 times as many employees.

 

[Dragon]

There is a huge difference between 600mm 6.3 and 30mm 6.3. But it is 600mm vs 30mm not 6.3 vs 6.3. It is absurd to say f/6.3 is absurdly slow.

Mustn't forget that Ansel Adams was a member in good standing of the f/64 club . Works very well with an 8x10 Speed Graphic.

 

[SnowMiku]

There should be a couple of APS-C L level zooms and a prime. Maybe with a new colour for the ring.

I can't see an APS-C L zoom or prime happening. The flagship APS-C body which is the R7 doesn't even support a battery grip.

 

[mkush]

I completely agree with the opinion expressed in the original article. Canon should make top-shelf RF-S lenses just like they do for RF. Even L lenses. This is an area where I really admire the Fujifilm and Olympus/Panasonic systems. They both have a full selection of small lenses with excellent optics and build quality. For the ultimate example, look at the Olympus 150-400 f/4.5. Beautiful lens, unique in the industry.

On a similar subject, why do most RF L primes seemingly have to be f/1.2? Why not a 50/1.4L? An 85/1.4L? Etc. The 1.2s may be epic but the cost and size…

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Perhaps, but I would not hold my breath waiting for them.

I don't see it ever happening... but a couple of x-mount quality lenses to stick on my R50? It'd just be nice.

 

[Birdshooter]

For me, I keep using Canon because the alternatives I tried have all annoyed me too much. The Sony bodies have shockingly bad EVFs and were designed by someone who has never seen actual hands. The Olympus bodies had good ergonomics, but the menus and product segmentation (no orientation sensor, really?!?!) turned me off on it.
I did like the Nikon Z bodies a lot, but at that point I already had an R body, so switching would be €€€€.
The Fuji bodies have great specs, but are 2 to 3 times the price of equivalent EF-M bodies and lenses. And for APS-C, they are HUGE.

With the 100-500L and 100L macro I have great autofocus lenses for the type of photography I like, no other system offers equivalent lenses.
I wish proper 1:1 or better macro was more popular, I don’t mind manual focus, but I do want an electronically controlled aperture!

I think the person that designed the Tesla pickup truck is the same person that designs the Sony bodies.

 

[mxwphoto]

I completely agree with the opinion expressed in the original article. Canon should make top-shelf RF-S lenses just like they do for RF. Even L lenses. This is an area where I really admire the Fujifilm and Olympus/Panasonic systems. They both have a full selection of small lenses with excellent optics and build quality. For the ultimate example, look at the Olympus 150-400 f/4.5. Beautiful lens, unique in the industry.

On a similar subject, why do most RF L primes seemingly have to be f/1.2? Why not a 50/1.4L? An 85/1.4L? Etc. The 1.2s may be epic but the cost and size…

The OM 150-400 f4.5 is the equivalent of a full frame 300-800 f9. Canon has the 200-800 f6.3-9 and sure, maybe the OM is marginally sharper and a bit more weather resistant, but at their lens only price of $7500 you can buy a R5 + a 200-800 + a 70-200 and still have money left over.

The OM lens was quite interesting when it came out but now the economics and IQ just can't keep up.