Only Canon knows, but if you can't wait, Fuji seems to be making apsc customers happy
Upvote
0
Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Several FF RF lenses do that as well. Sony and Fuji have done the same for longer than Canon.
Everything is a compromise. The RF 14-35/4L at 14mm after the required distortion correction gives IQ as good as the EF 11-24/4L at the same focal length, and the latter needs no distortion correction. The 14-35 is small, light, goes to 14 and still takes 77mm filters. The RF 10-20/4 is significantly smaller and lighter than my EF 11-24. To me, all of those are worthwhile compromises.
Upvote
0
Or a higher price. But for a smaller, lighter lens that delivers the same IQ? Worth it to me.
The factor you’re apparently not grasping is that all rectilinear lenses require the image to be stretched. Some now do part of that stretching with algorithms instead of lens elements. That doesn’t automatically mean the software correction is worse.
Upvote
0
Canon refuses to split out MILC sales from all the other stuff they sell. When market numbers come out (such as the recent Japan overall market numbers), they show Sony leading Canon in MILC sales.
Upvote
0
I view APS-C as entry level, even though not all APS-C products are entry level items. There needs to be an upgrade path, an attractive overall APS-C ecosystem.
On the Canon APS-C front, there are four slow RF-S zoom lenses. And....that's it.
Meanwhile over in Sony land, just from Sigma, there's a 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 30/1.4, 56/1.4, 10-18/2.8, 18-50/2.8, and a soon to be arriving 50-130/2.8. Yes, an APS-C f2.8 trinity. The two received so far are fantastic, and superbly compact. Excited to see what they do with the last one.
Tamron adds an 11-20/2.8, 17-70/2.8 with VC, and a great (and affordable!) 18-300 3.5-6.3 lens with VC.
Then Sony themselves have no fewer than 34 APS-C lenses, though some of them are in need of an update. On the excellent side of things there are the 11/1.8 and 15/1.4G primes. There are also multiple less expensive primes for people just starting out. There are also the same sorts of inexpensive slow zooms that Canon offers, but in addition there's the superb 16-55/2.8G, and the 70-350/4.5-6.3G OSS lens which has had excellent reviews too. The new 10-20/4G lens with PZ, great for gimbal use. There are many more, and likely to be more coming still as APS-C is a strong seller for Sony in many parts of the world.
So yes, Canon and Nikon have both pretty much abandoned APS-C to Sony. Same for the entry level vlogging cameras which are selling like hotcakes these days.
You could argue that Canon has a better targeted FF entry level RF camera body, but where is the glass to go with it? If all there is are slow zooms and no affordable high quality options (hello 3rd party glass), then what's the point?
Upvote
0
Sure, sure. Double down instead of admitting you’re wrong. No surprise there. Added to that is the typical and expected moving of the goalposts…”Oh, when I said Canon ignores the entry level, I meant MILCs, not the DSLR segment which is almost exclusively entry level APS-C now, mostly Canon and comprises ~20% of all ILC sales.”
Incidentally, if by ‘Japan overall market’ you mean BCN, they aggregate sales from ~40% of retailers in Japan. Not exactly ‘overall’. And Japan represents only ~8% of the global ILC market.
In 2022, Canon topped the BCN ranking for mirrorless. I suspect the pruning then discontinuation of the M line was the reason they slipped back in 2023.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Check this post. I think the first paragraph was leftover from a previous start.
To your point, EF-s lenses work fine on an RF-s body but I think most of the griping is from folks who want it their way and maybe from some who would like to buy on the cheap but convince their friends they have the latest and greatest. You can take great pictures with an R100, but if you listen to some folks, the R100 isn't even worth a casual glance. Similar comments regarding lenses that require some image warping in post with no understanding of the tradeoffs in lens design. The RF 14-35 is one of the all around best WA lenses you can find anywhere and at current prices, it is a steal, but many still gripe about the wide end requiring post warping with no regard for the final result. The fact that some folks are griping about Canon not doing what Fuji is doing, but still aren't buying Fuji suggests they have found out that Fuji is not exactly a bargain basement approach to photography. Not Leica pricey, but not cheap, either. Then they want Canon to duplicate what Fuji has done but for much less money. Best to just take pictures with what you have and ignore such commentary. Canon is doing what Canon thinks will move its market forward and Canon has a pretty good track record with regard to identifying market opportunity. Not always first, but often first with what has real longevity. The whole EOS concept, High end video on still camera (5D II)and DPAF come to mind.
Upvote
0
Yes, it was leftover and I got distracted before I could post it and forgot about it.
I agree with everything you just posted.
Upvote
0
I just did a little more looking into Fuji. An X-H2 is almost exactly the same size and weight as an R6 II (and close in price as well) and the 16-80 f/4 is only a half pound lighter than the RF 24-105 f/4 L and you lose a stop in sensitivity in the bargain. The consumer RF 24-105 is smaller and lighter than the Fuji lens and only half the price. When you look at it through that lens (humor intended), it is pretty easy to see why Canon doesn't go there. Just too much overlap. In the end, exactly the same reason that Fuji has said repeatedly that they will not do FF. The step from their pricey APS-c line to GFx is big enough to make sense, but a FF line would have to compete directly with Canon, Nikon, and Sony and would thus make their APS-c pricing look out of place. Canon makes APS-c for the masses and the masses are not clamoring for any of the gussied up bits that get requested here and on other forums. Fuji makes affordable Leicas and seems to be doing OK in that Niche. There are a lot of parallels in the auto industry where vendors have tried to make a fancy version of a less pricey brand and the success rate has been pretty dismal in the long run.
Upvote
0
Unless there's something I'm missing, with the current smaller market, the manufacturers have to make changes. Segmenting based on their customer data seems like the safest solution. It's true they will lose some customers with this stratagy, but I think they can get new customers, too. We'll have to watch the market reports to know how it comes out. I am surprised Canon is continues to develop so many lenses and the lenses I have tried are all nicer than I expected. I wonder how many of the people who aren't have tried all of what is available.
Fuji's medium format also seems nice for the market it's aimed at.
I tend to think if weight is important, why not go M4/3? last time I checked, you can get a similar kit with three primes for around the same price as a budget kit of canon's primes. The trade off is even less control over depth of field, but the people I've talked to that use them are happy.
Upvote
0
I agree re the quality of RF lenses. In spite of what some reviewers have to say, I have found all the RF lenses I have bought are a step up from similar lenses in previous generations. Often the difference isn't obvious in specs and tests, but it does show up in the resulting images. As to M4/3, I think the vendors have almost completely missed the opportunity to sell on size and weight. A Panny G9 II is almost exactly the size and weight of an R6 II and 50% heavier than an R8, so why would someone not just get the R8 if they want smaller and lighter. And, yes, FF lenses are bigger for equivalent focal length, but it must be remembered that an M4/3 image is effectively 1/4 of a FF image, so if you take the opportunity to crop the FF shots, the lens situation comes much closer to parity. My sense is that M4/3 will likely be one of the next things on the chopping block. Panny has already moved their still image focus to FF with only the G9 II and G6H left as current models in M4/3 and they are both full size bodies and heavily video centric. Olympus/OM Systems has built some very nice kit over the years, but it is not clear that they have the financial strength to weather the storm, so to speak, and they haven't played the size card well either. An OM5 is essentially the same size and weight as an R10 (which is a very nice camera, BTW), so where is the advantage of M4/3 for giving up almost half the image area relative to APS-c. Canon has done a spectacular job of shrinking FF and APS-c cameras to the point that smaller formats really will not be able to compete, but they have maintained size and heft where it makes sense, with the R7 being a prime example. It is intended to swing big lenses (like the 200-800) and it is just big enough to do that. All that is needed is an RF-s body to replace the M6 II, either without an EVF or with a pop-up EVF a la the Powershot G5X II.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thank you for mentioning the comparisons with the G9 ii. I had only looked at some of the bodies and lenses separately, but never compared with full frame, because I didn't feel it was right for me.
Olympus is interesting because of the scandal and eventual 5% ownership. I know they said they didn't plan to change stratagy, but I'm curious nonetheless.
I think Canon is happy with full frame, but I wonder if more manufacturers won't go to medium format or even something pricy and exotic like a lens and sensor dedicated to panorama.
Olympus is interesting because of the scandal and eventual 5% ownership. I know they said they didn't plan to change stratagy, but I'm curious nonetheless.
I think Canon is happy with full frame, but I wonder if more manufacturers won't go to medium format or even something pricy and exotic like a lens and sensor dedicated to panorama.
Upvote
0
Canon can't be all things to all people. Developing lenses for cameras is an expensive proposition and you can't expect them to take development money from a RF lens and put it on a lens designed for an inexpensive camera. Are you saying that you'd be happier with less selection in RF glass to boost APS-C lenses? I think generally speaking people who would notice the difference wouldn't buy a crop sensor in the first place. Plus the price of the lens has to be proportionate to the body cost. The RF 85 f1.2 mentioned several times in the original post is almost $3K and I'm not sure too many people with a $1,000 - $1,500 camera would spring for an APS-C version of the 85/f1.2.
Upvote
0
Having shot FUJIFILM for years, I would argue that they are the easy choice for anyone wanting a high-end APS-C system. And, in some ways, their camera bodies are more sophisticated than more expensive Canon bodies. But if you're a zoom shooter and looking for their top end "red badge" glass, don't expect size or weight savings vs the equivalent Canon F4L series lenses. In fact, in some cases the Fujinon equivalent is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. OTOH, if you shoot primes, an XT-40 (expected this year) with their small F2 primes is a fun choice....
and yeah I've been having serious thoughts about getting an X-T30 already
Upvote
0
Right or wrong, Canon seems to believe they can maximize profits by forcing APS-C shooters who care about IQ to buy full frame L glass. They have a long history of doing this so I would guess something drastic would be necessary to change this calculation. As a full frame shooter, I'm okay with them devoting their R&D resources to FF glass while developing their lower end APS-C product line just enough to get people into the system.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
