The Canon EOS R system turns 3 and Lensrentals.com gives us a breakdown of its progression

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,300
2,072
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
The Canon EOS R system launched on September 5, 2018, and began hitting the streets in October of the same year. Commemorating the 3-year anniversary of the new system, Lensrentals.com has done a nice article on the progression of the system.
What Canon has accomplished in 3 years is pretty remarkable when everything the system has to offer is broken down. I would think the system would be even further along if not for all of the challenges that the pandemic has had on labour, manufacturing and logistics.
If we just look at EOS R...

Continue reading...
 

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
480
464
I would like to see how the Sony E mount Lense collection looked like 3 years after release. Does anyone have a lineup?
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
652
369
I think they screwed up the lens rollout.

They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.

They could have started with reportage/general, with a trinity of some kind, but only gave us the mid zoom of an f/4 trinity.

They could have also started with a street outfit of lenses that prioritize small size, sturdiness, and IQ above spec and cost: awesome 21/2.0 24/2.0 28/1.8 35/1.4 50/1.4 90/2 and 135/2.8. But nada.

They could have started with halo lenses, ones with specs so high or novel they almost don't make sense, and did so with the 28-70/2.0 (still looks like a typo to me), 85DS, and 50/1.2 the resolution king. It could also include 35/1.0, 135/1.4, etc. But it was odd to go overboard offering even two of these on day one.

They could have started with amateur lenses that prioritize cost and fun features over size, sturdiness and IQ, like the 35/1.8 macro.

Finally they could target sports or nature shooters with teles.

Instead they offered one reportage/general lens, two halos, and an amateur. What amateur would buy a camera for which they could only get one lens? What reporter would buy a camera for which they could only get the middle of a trinity? What street photog would buy into RF even today? And while moneybags enthusiasts might buy every halo lens that comes out, that's not a lot of buyers.

I still shoot with the R, and am waiting for something to exceed 50MP for landscape work before upgrading. The R's lack of huge sales isn't down to the camera. The camera's OK for serious amateur use and delivers fantastic images. The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rontele7

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
Products I’d like Canon to launch next:
  • RF 180mm F5.6L macro with OIS
  • R7 - APS-C with 30MP
  • Better batteries for R5, R6 etc
  • RF 500mm F5.6L

Firmware updates I’d like soon:
  • Exposure bracketing with electronic shutter on R5
  • 5fps and 10fps with electronic shutter on R5
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
In the mean time, Canon continues to ignore M development, because it's a low-margin system.
Is it? You could say the same about $399 Rebel kits but Canon made a fortune on the volume.

Could it be that as far as most M purchasers go the system fulfills their needs and doesn't need radical investment or marginal 'improvements'?
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,097
861
Is it? You could say the same about $399 Rebel kits but Canon made a fortune on the volume.

Could it be that as far as most M purchasers go the system fulfills their needs and doesn't need radical investment or marginal 'improvements'?
At the very least Canon needs to remove the 30-minute recording limit from both systems to keep up with the competition.
Less of a crop in 4K on the mid-tier models would go a long way as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
Is it? You could say the same about $399 Rebel kits but Canon made a fortune on the volume.

Could it be that as far as most M purchasers go the system fulfills their needs and doesn't need radical investment or marginal 'improvements'?
Now, now…some people would rather sell one luxury item with a $500,000 margin than one million cheap widgets with a $1 margin. Math is hard.
 

BigShooter

I'm New Here
May 10, 2016
14
19
I think they screwed up the lens rollout.

They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.

They could have started with reportage/general, with a trinity of some kind, but only gave us the mid zoom of an f/4 trinity.

They could have also started with a street outfit of lenses that prioritize small size, sturdiness, and IQ above spec and cost: awesome 21/2.0 24/2.0 28/1.8 35/1.4 50/1.4 90/2 and 135/2.8. But nada.

They could have started with halo lenses, ones with specs so high or novel they almost don't make sense, and did so with the 28-70/2.0 (still looks like a typo to me), 85DS, and 50/1.2 the resolution king. It could also include 35/1.0, 135/1.4, etc. But it was odd to go overboard offering even two of these on day one.

They could have started with amateur lenses that prioritize cost and fun features over size, sturdiness and IQ, like the 35/1.8 macro.

Finally they could target sports or nature shooters with teles.

Instead they offered one reportage/general lens, two halos, and an amateur. What amateur would buy a camera for which they could only get one lens? What reporter would buy a camera for which they could only get the middle of a trinity? What street photog would buy into RF even today? And while moneybags enthusiasts might buy every halo lens that comes out, that's not a lot of buyers.

I still shoot with the R, and am waiting for something to exceed 50MP for landscape work before upgrading. The R's lack of huge sales isn't down to the camera. The camera's OK for serious amateur use and delivers fantastic images. The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE.
 

BigShooter

I'm New Here
May 10, 2016
14
19
" The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE."

Garbage. The R was released with an EF adapter and I still use an EF200 f/2 IS L USM with mine. THere are literally dozens of Canon lenses available to use on the R system and has been since day 1.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
Yes but allowing for the crop factor that would be 13.846% in imperial units, nobody actually knows what it might be in metric. :ROFLMAO:

With wikipedia, we can translate 13.846% into any units desired, Chinese or Russian traditional...we might even be able to take a stab at Indus Valley Civilization units.

Or I can just give you the answer off the top of my head, and I am sure PBD knows why and how... :LOL:
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,455
331
I think they screwed up the lens rollout.

They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.

They could have started with reportage/general, with a trinity of some kind, but only gave us the mid zoom of an f/4 trinity.

They could have also started with a street outfit of lenses that prioritize small size, sturdiness, and IQ above spec and cost: awesome 21/2.0 24/2.0 28/1.8 35/1.4 50/1.4 90/2 and 135/2.8. But nada.

They could have started with halo lenses, ones with specs so high or novel they almost don't make sense, and did so with the 28-70/2.0 (still looks like a typo to me), 85DS, and 50/1.2 the resolution king. It could also include 35/1.0, 135/1.4, etc. But it was odd to go overboard offering even two of these on day one.

They could have started with amateur lenses that prioritize cost and fun features over size, sturdiness and IQ, like the 35/1.8 macro.

Finally they could target sports or nature shooters with teles.

Instead they offered one reportage/general lens, two halos, and an amateur. What amateur would buy a camera for which they could only get one lens? What reporter would buy a camera for which they could only get the middle of a trinity? What street photog would buy into RF even today? And while moneybags enthusiasts might buy every halo lens that comes out, that's not a lot of buyers.

I still shoot with the R, and am waiting for something to exceed 50MP for landscape work before upgrading. The R's lack of huge sales isn't down to the camera. The camera's OK for serious amateur use and delivers fantastic images. The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE.

They didn't screw up the lens rollout; they screwed up the underfeatured body. One reason why the R sold at all in the beginning was because of the RF 50L, the RF 28-70L and the RF 35. It sold better the next year, once the f/2.8 trinity appeared along with 85 f/1.2s. Not many people jumped into the EOS R because of the R; I sure didn't.

I wasn't planning on jumping on the R bandwagon when it came out, but I saw deals on it that fall, so I did. I tried the R, when a Canon team visited a local camera store. It wasn't categorically better than the 5D4, but it had its advantages. For the next 1-2 years, I used a 5D4 and the R together. After firmware updates, the R was a better tool for portraits, but the 5D4 was still better for sports because the R's EVF was so laggy. I started swapping EF lenses for RF lenses, but I had a large swap after I replaced the 5D4 with the R5. The R5 was THE camera that convinced me to ditch DSLRs, and I haven't looked back since.

By your logic, Canon should have mirrored Nikon with its emphasis on 1.8 primes, but how has that served them? 600-800+ plus for a single f/1.8 lens? And I remember the Z6 and Z7 receiving better reviews than the R (and rightfully so), but where is Nikon now with the Z system? Leading Canon.... nope! Leading with sports lenses made no sense because the R did not do sports well -- the 5D4 was still a superior camera for that genre. NIkon had the perfect opportunity to pass Canon with the introduction of the R/Z ecosystem, and they blew it.

So, thank you Canon, for having launching with the mediocre R. Initial demand was low enough that was I able to get the initial RF lenses at a discount along with the control ring adapter -- objects that became scarce once people saw the value of the R system. I bought the 24-105 with the body as a kit, but I got good deals on the other 3 lenses. And thanks to CanonRumors/CanonPriceWatch I was able to source the subsequent RF lenses without much issue.
 

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,300
2,072
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
I think they screwed up the lens rollout.

They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.

They could have started with reportage/general, with a trinity of some kind, but only gave us the mid zoom of an f/4 trinity.

They could have also started with a street outfit of lenses that prioritize small size, sturdiness, and IQ above spec and cost: awesome 21/2.0 24/2.0 28/1.8 35/1.4 50/1.4 90/2 and 135/2.8. But nada.

They could have started with halo lenses, ones with specs so high or novel they almost don't make sense, and did so with the 28-70/2.0 (still looks like a typo to me), 85DS, and 50/1.2 the resolution king. It could also include 35/1.0, 135/1.4, etc. But it was odd to go overboard offering even two of these on day one.

They could have started with amateur lenses that prioritize cost and fun features over size, sturdiness and IQ, like the 35/1.8 macro.

Finally they could target sports or nature shooters with teles.

Instead they offered one reportage/general lens, two halos, and an amateur. What amateur would buy a camera for which they could only get one lens? What reporter would buy a camera for which they could only get the middle of a trinity? What street photog would buy into RF even today? And while moneybags enthusiasts might buy every halo lens that comes out, that's not a lot of buyers.

I still shoot with the R, and am waiting for something to exceed 50MP for landscape work before upgrading. The R's lack of huge sales isn't down to the camera. The camera's OK for serious amateur use and delivers fantastic images. The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE.

The lens rollout was done the correct way. Higher-margin, lower yield lenses. You don't start with a bunch of lenses that you need to sell a ton of to make it worthwhile when there is basically one camera body coming to the market that can use them. The true amateur market was not and still isn't the target market for the EOS R lineup. We'll see that come to pass once manufacturing woes improve and they announce replacements for the EOS RP and EOS R.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
I have no idea why some people persist in the belief that Canon’s primary target market for higher-end gear is users of other brands. That would be pretty foolish, if for no other reason than the fact that the majority of ILC users have already bought Canon.

So, a comment like ‘Canon blew it by not having every popular lens available in a native mount at EOS R launch’ is asinine, because most EOS R buyers already owned their chosen set of EF lenses that were readily adapted.