Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

[neuroanatomist]

…their lack of letting third party mfrs use that mount is simply going to make them keep losing market share.

You’re so right. Since the R system launched Canon, has dropped precipitously from having nearly 50% of the global market share to having nearly 50% of the global market share. All due to the lack of 3rd party lenses. Thanks for your informative post.

 

[AlanF]

Honestly this is what keeps me from coming back to Canon despite great deals like the R8 for only $1000 - the lenses I'd need to throw on it would make the price not even worth it, not to mention any size differences of advantages being gone by how large the RF lenses are. I keep hoping with each new release that Canon will surprise me, but they keep releasing the most absurdly slow *cheap* lenses (f/6.3 and f/7.1, what!?) and it seems lazy more than anything, when we all know Canon is capable of so much better.

"absurdly slow" (f/6.3 and f/7.1)? Nikon is rightly praised for its Z 600mm f/6.3 and Z 800mm f/6.3 *expensive* lenses. And, users have been very happy with the f/6.3 600mm zooms from Tamron, Sigma and Sony for several years.

 

[YuengLinger]

But in this case they're losing a potential customer, I can't be the only one.

You are right. There must a few others.

 

[Dragon]

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. 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. 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'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. The only parties complaining here are folks who somehow see APS-c as an end in itself. That is a small market that is eloquently served by Fuji and its size is quantified by Fuji's market share. It must also be remembered that MITI (Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry) is very heavy handed in telling companies what areas they are welcome to play in, so do not discount outside forces as Fuji may well have been given an exclusive for the market you cherish. The return favor may well have been that Canon got to be the first to introduce 8k in a consumer camera. If you doubt that kind of horse-trading exists, then you do not understand how Japan works.

 

[EricN]

But in this case they're losing a potential customer, I can't be the only one.

I'm sure you're not the only one. Time will tell if it was a good decision for Canon.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I hear ya. It is frustrating that they\'re not doing these things, and I\'ve got a lot of Canon gear. I wish Canon would put more weather sealing in its non-L stuff. I\'ve got an A7R III but I simply hate using it (I find the R10 more comfortable to hold, and that\'s saying something). I\'ll sell the Sony soon and probably pick up a m43 body. I\'m really hoping Sigma connects with Canon soon and brings its 28-70 over to RF, and maybe some of the I-series primes.

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

 

[EricN]

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. 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. 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'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. The only parties complaining here are folks who somehow see APS-c as an end in itself. That is a small market that is eloquently served by Fuji and its size is quantified by Fuji's market share. It must also be remembered that MITI (Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry) is very heavy handed in telling companies what areas they are welcome to play in, so do not discount outside forces as Fuji may well have been given an exclusive for the market you cherish. The return favor may well have been that Canon got to be the first to introduce 8k in a consumer camera. If you doubt that kind of horse-trading exists, then you do not understand how Japan works.

That's a possibility I hadn't thought about.

 

[EricN]

"absurdly slow" (f/6.3 and f/7.1)? Nikon is rightly praised for its Z 600mm f/6.3 and Z 800mm f/6.3 *expensive* lenses. And, users have been very happy with the f/6.3 600mm zooms from Tamron, Sigma and Sony for several years.

In woodworking, there is the philosophy to use the tool that makes the shape you want or adjust your design to use the tool you have. It can be applied well in other situations.

 

[blackcoffee17]

True. With RF mount, even the USM motor is reserved for the high end lenses. Wasn’t the case with EF and EF-S in its earlier days.

Not quite, the RF 100-400 is USM. But that's the only one outside the L range if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Nemorino]

RF 200-800mm 6.3-9.0 IS USM
It's big, it's white but not a L. ;-)

 

[Dragon]

Not quite, the RF 100-400 is USM. But that's the only one outside the L range if I'm not mistaken.

The 24-240 uses nano-usm and it works very well.

 

[AJ]

Unfortunately, that's part of capitalism... As they say, Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Hate capitalism? That's a bit of a stretch...
Canon's tactics are like this: This is my sandbox. I'll play in my sandbox if I want, and if I don't want to play then you can't play either.

 

[nunataks]

"absurdly slow" (f/6.3 and f/7.1)? Nikon is rightly praised for its Z 600mm f/6.3 and Z 800mm f/6.3 *expensive* lenses. And, users have been very happy with the f/6.3 600mm zooms from Tamron, Sigma and Sony for several years.

Those lenses don't only go to 30mm or 105mm respectively. Or have a range of 24-50mm but somehow a slower aperture than the 40 year old EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.

 

[John Wilde]

"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.

 

[Walrus]

the 40 year old EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.

I've got a fetish for that lens, whenever I find a nice maintained used copy of it for cheap I buy it, test it alongside the copy I own at the moment, and resell the less sharp copy. It's a couple of years that I was stable with a golden copy that was beating hands down all the others I was buying, I thought I had found the best of it all.
Then at the end of 2023 I bought a rare mark II copy of it (7 blades vs 5 blades of the mk I), that turned out to be a stellar copy (while the extending tubes, when fully retracted, are wobblier then the mk I, so before testing I was expecting it to be slightly misaligned and not as sharp), but the thing turned out to be sharper then my 24-70 2.8 L II in the second half of the focal range (which is the one I mostly care for) when put them side to side...and that had me discover that my 24-70 L II copy it's definitely not up to the standards, I'll need to ditch it for a better one if I'll found an occasion...you never finish to buy those damn lenses unfortunately ahah

 

[BBarn]

4. Some regular readers of CR, at times, forget the second word here (Rumors)

The site might be "_ Rumors", but the subject is an "Opinion" not based on rumors.

 

[blackcoffee17]

"absurdly slow" (f/6.3 and f/7.1)? Nikon is rightly praised for its Z 600mm f/6.3 and Z 800mm f/6.3 *expensive* lenses. And, users have been very happy with the f/6.3 600mm zooms from Tamron, Sigma and Sony for several years.

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is a huge difference between 600mm 6.3 and 30mm 6.3.

Except in terms of exposure. Ya know, if that sort of thing matters for photography.

 

[EricN]

Hate capitalism? That's a bit of a stretch...
Canon's tactics are like this: This is my sandbox. I'll play in my sandbox if I want, and if I don't want to play then you can't play either.

The rules of capitalism allow Canon to do this.

 

[Dragon]

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.

The RF 55-210 (not 50-210) is much smaller and lighter than the EF 55-250 but similarly sharp. It is very similar to the EF-M 55-200, but sharper. I fail to see why a kit lens that has good IQ and a good stabilizer is a disappointment because it is 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop slower than the EF equivalent in trade for considerable size and weight reduction. The only reason the EF lens was capped at f/5.6 was due to the limitations of AF on SLRs. DPAF has allowed lenses to become much smaller with a small trade-off in brightness. For most APS-C users, that will be a welcome trade, given the improvements in IS and sensor sensitivity. APS-c kit lenses have never been fast from any vendor. If you want a fast portrait lens that blurs 95% of the image, then you have to choke up the big bucks and get one. OTOH, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is quite small and cheap and it works pretty well for portrait work on an RFs body.