The Sad Truth About Canon's Future?

[Kit.]

But it has done so at rate that is a fraction of what it was in the past.

Is it lower than it used to be for film ILCs?

Anytime someone mentions hey the R8 or R6ii are better cameras than the Sony equivalent the immediate reaction is BUT you have to pay $1000 more for a comparable lens.

So, where can I get an analog of RF 100-400 for minus $400?

Also, bear in mind that if the non-ILC market is "dead", then what is actually driving the profit is lenses. Selling a competitively priced body and then opening your competitors access to its lens market doesn't look like a sustainable business model.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Now as far as zoom lenses that where I see an issue. Sony has way more options because their e-mount is open to Sigma and Tamron. There are multiple lenses Sigma 18-50mmF2.8 ($550), Tamron 11-20mm F2.8($700), Tamron 17-28mm F2.8($800) just to name a few. Were talking about people looking to step up from smartphones. They are not going to be blowing images up they are looking for a certail look for youtube and social media. They are looking for at least an F2.8. The canon F2.8 is $2400.

The Canon RF 15-30mm is FF. Of the three lenses you list, only the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 is for FF cameras, and while it has a constant f/2.8 it's also 45% more expensive than the Canon UWA zoom. Sure, the Canon 14-35/4L and 15-35/2.8L are much more expensive, but they're also L-series lenses.

At the end of the day, Canon chooses the lenses to make. If they choose not to make sub-$1K constant aperture zoom lenses, then it's because they've decided it's in their best interest not to offer such lenses. I'm certain they know better than you how to drive their business. You can complain about that decision until you're blue in the face, it won't matter.

Canon can run their business as they see fit. I'm sure when Blockbuster controled the home video market with the most brand recognition had plenty of business acumen. They should'v become what Netfilx is today but they ignored the streaming sector and didn't cater to those customers because they were on top.

Well, that's refreshing...at least you didn't trot out Kodak and Nokia.

Sony jumped into mirrorless first and Canon finally moved over because they were forced.

I see. So Sony jumped into mirrorless because they were so technologically advanced that they knew mirrorless was the future. It had nothing to do with the fact that they could not make a dent in Canon and Nikon's DLSR market share, that didn't force them to seek a market where they could succeed. Then Sony jumped into FF mirrorless because they were so technologically advanced that they knew FF mirrorless was the future. It had nothing to do with the fact that Canon started making APS-C MILC (with a line that became the market leader in APS-C MILCs), that didn't force them to seek a market where they could succeed. I understand.

Go look in the comments section of any place that is pro Sony.

I'm guessing I'd find you there.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, where can I get an analog of RF 100-400 for minus $400?

Allow me to answer for @CJaurelius – "Who cares? If it doesn't have a constant aperture it doesn't matter because no one wants it."

 

[CJaurelius]

Then stop worrying about price and enjoy yourself !

Agreed on the having fun part. The issue is there is a lot of stuff out there to have fun with. Smartphones, action Cameras, drones, gimbals, lighting, new macs, photo/video editing software, etc. Heck I have a steam deck and elgato lights that if I'm honest with myself I only use during my work zoom calls.

My issue isn't price point its more about value. All of these companies are putting out products that a large percentage of their customers are using them as more of an entertainment factor then they are for productivity. You can buy expensive lights with the best light quality and CRI values or you can get cheaper lights that are a fraction of the cost for someone streaming themselves gaming on twitch.

I get it that canon wants to produce the best 24-70mm f2.8 for professionals but make a cheaper version (or let Sigma/Tamron do it) so the person who is never going to charge for their photos/vidoes can have fun.

They did that with the R8. While its the same sensor as teh R6ii the stripped out the extra SD card slot, ibis, cheaper body, etc. and sold it for $1000 cheaper. Why not do the same with the lenses? No professional is going to shoot with a single card slot camera. But as a hobbyist I'll buy the R8 just to have a full frame camera to take on vacation and then leave sitting in my closet 95% of the time.

 

[Kit.]

They did that with the R8. While its the same sensor as teh R6ii the stripped out the extra SD card slot, ibis, cheaper body, etc. and sold it for $1000 cheaper. Why not do the same with the lenses?

Canon sells cheap printers/MFUs near or even below their BoM costs. Why not do the same with the toner cartridges?

 

[CJaurelius]

Allow me to answer for @CJaurelius – "Who cares? If it doesn't have a constant aperture it doesn't matter because no one wants it."

Yes, I agree with your sarcasm . For the market I'm talking about a wide aperature is preferable over having the highest quality. People are using their content on youtube and social media. Smartphones are getting better at faking this (portrait mode, cinematic mode, etc). Jumping to a full frame really highlights the negatives of a smartphone. Having a cheap wide lens helps this. The other negative of the small sensor smartphone is low light which again lends itself to wider aperatures.

Again, this market is not looking for top quality of materials, longevity, etc. Example. Aputure sells a 60 watt studio light made of primarily metal with a great carrying case for $420. Then they sell a stripped down version that has the same light quality but the body is mostly plastic and it comes in cheap case that isn't really transportable. They sell that version for $170 or 60% cheaper under their Amaran line. The cheaper version doesn't hurt the sales of the expensive version because professionals need the durabilty of the expensive one. The amateurs looking for the cheap version to stream on twitch are additional customers as they've never buy the more expensive one. They've essentially conviced somone who would use a cheap lamp to instead use their products.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Jumping to a full frame really highlights the negatives of a smartphone. Having a cheap wide lens helps this.

As you already stated, there's the RF 16/2.8 for $300. What FF option for another brand is cheaper? With the R8's 1.8X cropped video mode (which admittedly I do not know if that's viable for vlogging), it gives a 29mm FoV with up to 4K output.

 

[CJaurelius]

Canon sells cheap printers/MFUs near or even below their BoM costs. Why not do the same with the toner cartridges?

Imagine it became popular for everyday people to make flyers. These flyers are essentially consumed immediately and thrown in the trash later. Another company comes along and makes toner cartridges that produce images while close in the look of more expensive flyers, dont last and fade away quicker. Since the materials are cheaper they sell the toner cartridge cheaper.

It would make sense for canon to sell the regular high quality toners to the professionals who need them at the higher price and then make a cheaper version to sell the people who are passing out cheap disposable flyers.

In that scenario you capture amateurs and in case they learn a lot from their experience and ever move past the cheap flyers they are inclined to stick with Canon.

Again they are doing this with the R8. Its a stripped down version of the R6ii with a plastic body. All I'm suggesting is they make lenses that complement the price point of these entry level cameras.

Take the RF15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM for $2400. Why not make a lens with the same specs that is made of cheaper materials, a motor that isn't as smooth and quiet has a longer minimum focusing distance, less durability, not weather sealed and sell it for $1200 which would be $100 more than the Sigma version? No one who was actually going to buy the original would buy this version but the hobbyist would buy it. They don't shoot enough for the flaws to matter. And then for the hobbyist that do start to notice those flaws they have the original to aspire to.

 

[CJaurelius]

As you already stated, there's the RF 16/2.8 for $300. What FF option for another brand is cheaper? With the R8's 1.8X cropped video mode (which admittedly I do not know if that's viable for vlogging), it gives a 29mm FoV with up to 4K output.

Right now the R8 ($1500) when it ships will be Canon's entry level and the ZV-E1 ($2200) will be Sony's. I like the R8 because its more verstatilve for video and photos. However the ZV-E1 has ibis.

An option would be the R8 and the 24mm F1.8 with stabilization. That would be $2100 total.

On the Sony side you could start with the ZV-E1 and the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 ($550) you have a total package at $2750. You wouldn't need the cropped mode and would have more focal range. OR the Sigma 16mm F1.4 ($450) at $2650 total. Or the Tamron 24mm F2.8 ($200) for $2400 total.

Their is nothing you can pair with the R8 to get that look because they don't have lenses. Again I think for the entry level consumer the R8 is more versatile. The Sony does better video but the R8 is a better photo/video package. But its being hindered by the cost of the lenses. Its the best value full frame camera to start with as long as you don't want anything more than just a prime lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Sony does better video but the R8 is a better photo/video package. But its being hindered by the cost of the lenses. Its the best value full frame camera to start with as long as you don't want anything more than just a prime lens.

By all means, go on ignoring the existence of the RF 15-30, RF 24-105 non-L, and RF 100-400 because they have variable apertures. I get that you have a constant aperture fetish, but you might want to consider that the rest of the world probably does not share your bias.

Show me a kit you can put together from anyone but Canon that has a full frame camera with lenses covering 15-400mm for around $3000 (that's a rhetorical request, of course).

 

[Kit.]

Yes, I agree with your sarcasm . For the market I'm talking about a wide aperature is preferable over having the highest quality.

Is that a large market, profit-wise? Why do you think it's not covered by the existing EF offering?

If you want a cheap crappy 50/1.4, Canon has one. I even used to own it.

Imagine it became popular for everyday people to make flyers. These flyers are essentially consumed immediately and thrown in the trash later. Another company comes along and makes toner cartridges that produce images while close in the look of more expensive flyers, dont last and fade away quicker. Since the materials are cheaper they sell the toner cartridge cheaper.

It's not about material. It's about business model. Canon tries to make these third party cartridges not work in Canon's printers. Because if they do, Canon loses money.

It would make sense for canon to sell the regular high quality toners to the professionals who need them at the higher price and then make a cheaper version to sell the people who are passing out cheap disposable flyers.

Given that Canon acts directly the opposite already for decades and is still in business of selling printers, no, it looks like it wouldn't.

Again they are doing this with the R8. Its a stripped down version of the R6ii with a plastic body. All I'm suggesting is they make lenses that complement the price point of these entry level cameras.

They do make such lenses. RF 100-400 is a great lens (I bought is for my wife's R6ii, because EF 100-400L II is too heavy to her).

Take the RF15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM for $2400. Why not make a lens with the same specs that is made of cheaper materials,

Physically impossible. Get cheaper glass, and your optical formula stops working.

a motor that isn't as smooth and quiet has a longer minimum focusing distance, less durability, not weather sealed and sell it for $1200 which would be $100 more than the Sigma version?

Because Canon wants to sell RF 14-35 f/4 L instead. Which is also a great lens (I own it).

No one who was actually going to buy the original would buy this

Lolwhat?

 

[CJaurelius]

By all means, go on ignoring the existence of the RF 15-30, RF 24-105 non-L, and RF 100-400 because they have variable apertures. I get that you have a constant aperture fetish, but you might want to consider that the rest of the world probably does not share your bias.

Show me a kit you can put together from anyone but Canon that has a full frame camera with lenses covering 15-400mm for around $3000 (that's a rhetorical request, of course).

Again, I'm talking about the large market of content creators that are shooting primarily for Youtube and social media. Canon sells "Content Creator kits". Thats their terminology.

For example Sony put a new feature on the ZV-E1 called "product showcase". It allows you to sit in front of the camera and use the auto focus to stay locked in on your eyes but if you bring something in front of you it will switch focus without you having to cover your eyes. The feature is there just for Youtube creators and in fact isn't even on the more expensive cameras because the pros don't need it.

Its a big market and this market helped propel the digital camera growth from 2005 to 2013. Then smartphones got more capable and thats what destroyed the ILC market down to what it is today. In 2013 imaging systems was 37% of Canon's net sales at $1,448B Yen , in 2021 it was down to 18% of their net sales at $654B Yen.

I shoot in this space for fun. I'm older (somewhat) but most of the people I know through this hobby are young(er). And to the original posters point most of the ones I know shoot Sony. To them Sony has better lens selection. They also feel that the Sony cameras are cooler. They have more squared off bodies, have more cameras without viewfiinders and look more "techy". This is undoubtely to appeal to younger people. The ZV-E1 at $2200 has no viewfinder but the kept the ibis. Because if you are vlogging or shooting video content the ibis is more valueable than an evf. Most of the older shooters say that Canon rounded look provides better ergonomics. But to the younger people trying to be edgy making content for Youtube appearance is more important than comfort.

To my point earlier Sony's imaging division went from $742B Yen in 2013 to $1,076B Yen in 2021. Canon has a LARGER market share. I think the Canon R8 is the best value entry level full frame camera. But facts are facts. While Canon is making LESS money by controlling a bigger piece of a shrinking market, Sony is making MORE money by expanding to where the consumers are (smartphones). Their growth is due to the sensors they make for smartphones. I like dedicated cameras and therefore want Canon to succeed, but the flaw I see is affordable lenses. The other people in this thread are making the same claims. Younger people want affordable (wide aperature I'm adding) lenses.

I get it that Canon makes great options FOR YOU at the price you want. Great for you. But just like there were a ton of people happy to have a DVD collection and though the pricing model was great the world moved past them with streaming. They yelled that it was stupid to not be able to own your own physical media but again the market decided otherwise.

 

[CJaurelius]

Is that a large market, profit-wise? Why do you think it's not covered by the existing EF offering?

Yes and more importantly its growing at a faced pace. Recent studies have named Youtuber as the job most kids want beating out doctors (pretty sad if you ask me).

As far as EF that is a pretty hard sell when you have competitor that have native glass. Trying to explain to a 22 year old that they need to get an adapter to put "older" lenses on their brand new camera is a tough sell. That's not really giving the image content creators want to go for.

If you want a cheap crappy 50/1.4, Canon has one. I even used to own it.

Define crappy.

It's not about material. It's about business model. Canon tries to make these third party cartridges not work in Canon's printers. Because if they do, Canon loses money.

Again, that fine if you don't have a competitor that is using the cartidges AND giving an acceptable product at a cheaper price. The business model your describing is to milk your customers as long as you can before they catch on and ditch you.

Given that Canon acts directly the opposite already for decades and is still in business of selling printers, no, it looks like it wouldn't.

Again that was a hypothetical. Can is LOSING money or rather not making as much money as they used. Look at their sales. Canon is slowly moving away from cameras. You guys are defending Canon because they have the largest market share but in 20 years they either wont be making cameras and if they do they will be specfic high end ones for extreme professional reasons (cinema, wildlife, etc)

They do make such lenses. RF 100-400 is a great lens (I bought is for my wife's R6ii, because EF 100-400L II is too heavy to her).

Again that's great that works for your wife. But 99% of content creators don't need a 100-400. They are shooting for Youtube, social media and Only fans lol.

Physically impossible. Get cheaper glass, and your optical formula stops working.

Again, you can get a 24-70mm f2.8 from Sigma that works on a Sony for $1100. It has outstanding review. Is the Canon version at $2400 better, sure. But for many people the areas where its "better" dont matter.

Because Canon wants to sell RF 14-35 f/4 L instead. Which is also a great lens (I own it).

Again great for you. The problem is that you probably aren't the future of the market.

Lolwhat?

Canon sells their 24-70mm for $2400 and the Sigma sells their version for $1100. Only one option can be true. Either the more expensive version has features that are extremely beneficial to pros and therefore giving the option to buy the cheaper version they would still buy the more expensive one OR the cheaper version is just as good as the expensive one and Canon is therfore ripping of their customers by charging $1300 more for a comparable lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Again, I'm talking about the large market of content creators that are shooting primarily for Youtube and social media. Canon sells "Content Creator kits". Thats their terminology.

Here are the Content Creator Kits on available Canon USA right now:

• EOS R10, RF-S18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
• EOS R10, RF-S18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
• EOS M200, EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

It’s your claim that this ‘large market’ requires fast/constant aperture zooms. Those kits all contain slow/variable aperture zooms.

Evidently Canon has a different opinion than yours about wants/needs of the content creator market. Maybe you’re right and Canon is wrong…heck, a stopped analog clock is right twice a day.

Far more likely that Canon has conducted ample market research and are basing their product decisions on actual data. You don’t like their decisions, so your argument is that ‘the market’ will punish them for it. You’re following in the footsteps of dozens of posters here over the years who believed their personal wants/needs were representative of a majority of buyers, and predicted dire consequences for Canon because they didn’t like Canon’s decisions. None of them were right. We’ll see if you are but the Magic 8-Ball says, “Signs point to No.”

 

[koenkooi]

[…]
For example Sony put a new feature on the ZV-E1 called "product showcase". It allows you to sit in front of the camera and use the auto focus to stay locked in on your eyes but if you bring something in front of you it will switch focus without you having to cover your eyes. The feature is there just for Youtube creators and in fact isn't even on the more expensive cameras because the pros don't need it. […]

Didn’t Canon highlight that as an improvement in the R6II video modes as well?
I couldn’t find it with 5 minutes of googling pre-coffee, but I remember thinking “everyone now has it” when seeing the zv-e1 showcase.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Again they are doing this with the R8. Its a stripped down version of the R6ii with a plastic body. All I'm suggesting is they make lenses that complement the price point of these entry level cameras.

They make an ample selection of such lenses. You just don’t like that they have slow/variable apertures, and you believe that the most buyers share your bias even though market data clearly show they don’t.

 

[Kit.]

Yes and more importantly its growing at a faced pace. Recent studies have named Youtuber as the job most kids want beating out doctors (pretty sad if you ask me).

What makes you think that "kids that want Youtuber job" are the market for the lenses you want?

I'd say it's obvious that they aren't. I'd say that the vast majority of those wannabe Youtubers that actually get an ILC will just use a kit lens, and only about a single digit percentage of those will maybe consider getting an RF 35/1.8 "or something".

As far as EF that is a pretty hard sell when you have competitor that have native glass. Trying to explain to a 22 year old that they need to get an adapter to put "older" lenses on their brand new camera is a tough sell. That's not really giving the image content creators want to go for.

Why not?

Do you think that the modern 22 year olds are more mentally lazy, more stereotypical or less creative than we were at their age?

Define crappy.

"I'm talking about a wide aperature is preferable over having the highest quality."

Like the EF 50/1.4.

Again, that fine if you don't have a competitor that is using the cartidges AND giving an acceptable product at a cheaper price.

Isn't it worth thinking why you don't have such a competitor? Maybe being such a competitor is unsustainable, thus infeasible for a business?

The business model your describing is to milk your customers as long as you can before they catch on and ditch you.

They never do.

The markets we are talking about are driven by low cost of entry, not by low total cost of ownership. It's actually the pros that prefer low TCOs.

Again that's great that works for your wife. But 99% of content creators don't need a 100-400.

Indeed. Neither they need a Canon ILC body. They are fine with their Samsung, iPhone or Xiaomi.

Again, you can get a 24-70mm f2.8 from Sigma that works on a Sony for $1100.

So, I start with 15-35 from Canon, replace the glass with some cheaper one, and end up with "a 24-70mm f2.8 from Sigma that works on a Sony"?

Or how is your Sigma relevant to the lens you want to make from the 15-35?

Again great for you. The problem is that you probably aren't the future of the market.

Probably you neither.

But you are not asking Canon to produce smartphones. You are asking Canon to produce lenses that are even less relevant in the future market.

Canon sells their 24-70mm for $2400 and the Sigma sells their version for $1100.

How is that relevant?

You weren't talking about replacing Canon's main pro zoom with one without IS, with cat-eye bokeh wide-open, and without Canon's CPS support. You were talking about replacing a Canon ultrawide zoom lens with (hypothetical) Canon's another zoom lens with the same optical specs, but with worse weather sealing and cheaper motor, for half the price.

Of course, most of the pros will go for half the price. Better weather sealing and faster motor on such an ultrawide don't cost half the price, neither in its BoM costs nor in its market valuation.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd say that the vast majority of those wannabe Youtubers that actually get an ILC will just use a kit lens, and only about a single digit percentage of those will maybe consider getting an RF 35/1.8 "or something".

Exactly, and the kits lens is all they'll need. Professional portrait/event photographers often use fast lenses, but if you ever go into a 'factory' portrait studio (e.g. those you find in a mall or a high school yearbook shoot), you'll typically see them using an APS-C body with a slow/variable aperture zoom. The reason is the same in both cases – the creator/photographer has control of the lighting.

 

[CJaurelius]

Here are the Content Creator Kits on available Canon USA right now:

• EOS R10, RF-S18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
• EOS R10, RF-S18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
• EOS M200, EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

It’s your claim that this ‘large market’ requires fast/constant aperture zooms. Those kits all contain slow/variable aperture zooms.

Thats my whole point. Canon is marketing to these people wrong. If you google "Iphone vs random camera" you get tons of videos showing that in most cases you can get better quality out of an iphone. Tons of people use smartphones to create all their content. Companies like Rode that make professional mics are making version for iphone. There isn't much point to get an apsc camera with slow/variable aperatures when you have smartphone that can produce better results.

Enter full frame cameras with fast/constant aperatures. Now you have something that will produce a much better result. And since they aren't doing this "professionally" then just make a dumbed down version camera (R8) and dubmed down version 24-70mm (the sigma version that already exists and sells for $1100).

Evidently Canon has a different opinion than yours about wants/needs of the content creator market. Maybe you’re right and Canon is wrong…heck, a stopped analog clock is right twice a day.

Canon is clearlly not know for looking ahead. Heck they had to go to the mirrorless market kicking and screaming after Sony paved the way.

Far more likely that Canon has conducted ample market research and are basing their product decisions on actual data. You don’t like their decisions, so your argument is that ‘the market’ will punish them for it. You’re following in the footsteps of dozens of posters here over the years who believed their personal wants/needs were representative of a majority of buyers, and predicted dire consequences for Canon because they didn’t like Canon’s decisions. None of them were right. We’ll see if you are but the Magic 8-Ball says, “Signs point to No.”

But we are rigth. You can look at Canon's finacials. Their imaging systems division has been decimated and they've moved into the medical systems to compensate. They're transitioning their company so that in the future when mirroless cameras go the way of DSLR's they'll have other business to thrive. The net sales for this division is less than HALF of what it was a just 8 years ago and yet Sony's division is up 45%. Again because they are making sensors to be put smarthphones and not just cameras.

CIPA is predicting 5.72 million DSLR and Mirrorless bodies (DOWN) and 9.39 million lenses (DOWN) for calendar 2023. That compares to:

2022: 5.927 million bodies (+10.8%), 9.7 million lenses (+1.6%).
2021: 5.348 million bodies (+0.75%), 9.55 million lenses (+6.1%)
2020: 5.308 million bodies (-37.3%), 9 million lenses (-36.6%)
2019: 8.462 million bodies (-21.4%), 14.2 million lenses (-21.1%)
2018: 10.76 million bodies (-7.9%), 18 million lenses (-6.4%)
2017: 11.68 million bodies (+0.6%) 19.22 million lenses (+0.156%)
2016: 11.61 million bodies (-11.1%), 19.19 million lenses (-11.6%)
2015: 13.06 million bodies (-5.6%), 21.7 million lenses (-5.2%)


Feb 2023: Units & Shipped Value:

DSLR Units : 133,900 -59% YTD
DSLR Shipped Value: ¥6.2 billion -52% YTD

Mirrorless Units: 449,625 +5% YTD
Mirrorless Shipped Value: ¥52.1 billion +6% YTD

The increase in Mirroless isn't make up for the decrease in DSLR's.

Lenses for smaller than 35mm Units: 518,499 -26% YTD
Lenses for smaller than 35mm Shipped Value: ¥10.34 billion -5% YTD

Lenses for 35mm and larger Units: 585,121 -13% YTD
Lenses for 35mm and larger Shipped Value: ¥43.6 billion +3% YTD

The Stategy seems clear. The market is tanking and the companies are trying to increase the price per camrea/lens to make up for the loss in total number of units sold. Again the end result of this is that in the years to come they are no longer going to be selling low to mid priced cameras to consumers and insead only selling specific high end gear to professionals in niche markets.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...rice-has-tripled-in-the-last-10-years-but-why

Now fully in the smartphone generation, far fewer truly low-cost ICL cameras exist today on the market with camera manufacturers refocusing their efforts on top spec and luxury cameras, the one area where smartphones cannot reach (just yet anyway!).

My lowly opinion. Camera makers should be targeting $1000 for a cheaply made entry level full frame camera. I think the RP was a good move. They've seemed to ditch the RP with the R8 being the entry level at $500 more but it has the same sensor as thr R6ii so I'll give them a pass on that. But they could take the R8 and take out the evf as people don't need it, make it smaller and pair it with an assortment of affordable wide angle lenes with good aperatures. They could use cheaper materials and brand it as a "creator" line so the lower quality doesn't detract from the premuim lines.

Look at the action camera market. It is steadiy incerasing. Smartphones are MUCH better than these action cameras but who cares when you're only paying $400. People will buy 4 actions cameras over the years paying $1600 with them sitting in the closet most of the time. There are people who will buy a full frame camera for $1000 just to put in their "Youtube studio" and they use it most the time as a webcam.

 

[CJaurelius]

What makes you think that "kids that want Youtuber job" are the market for the lenses you want?

Because this is what I see when I talk with them. They want cool fast lenses. The don't make enough money to justify the premium lens so the opt for the Sony because the have cheaper versions. They watch other Youtubers who all have the coolest stuff and instead of thinking about working hard for 10 years they think if they get a cool F1.8 that creamy bokeh will make them better.

I'd say it's obvious that they aren't. I'd say that the vast majority of those wannabe Youtubers that actually get an ILC will just use a kit lens, and only about a single digit percentage of those will maybe consider getting an RF 35/1.8 "or something".

Again go watch videos comparing a kit lens mirroless to an iphone. In most cases the iphone is better which is why they aren't selling well to this segment. They have a better camera in their pocket for free

Why not?

Do you think that the modern 22 year olds are more mentally lazy, more stereotypical or less creative than we were at their age?

Absolutely. Most of the people I know in this space like it because they want to work a job where they can do what the want when they want. They don't have to go into an office. They spend their days shooting content and streaming themselves online playing video games.

"I'm talking about a wide aperature is preferable over having the highest quality."

Like the EF 50/1.4.

Again that isn't a native lens. Their gear is part of the cool factor.

Isn't it worth thinking why you don't have such a competitor? Maybe being such a competitor is unsustainable, thus infeasible for a business?

But they do have a competitor Sony and smartphones. And their business is unsustainable. Every year the sell less cameras and make less money. At some point the ride will be over.

Indeed. Neither they need a Canon ILC body. They are fine with their Samsung, iPhone or Xiaomi.

We agree here. But instead of creating demand it seems their goal is to milk the industry for as long as they can and move on. Pretty sad.

So, I start with 15-35 from Canon, replace the glass with some cheaper one, and end up with "a 24-70mm f2.8 from Sigma that works on a Sony"?

Or how is your Sigma relevant to the lens you want to make from the 15-35?

Not sure I follow. You can get a Sigma or Tamron at pretty much all focal lengths either cheaper, with better aperatures or a combination of the two. I'm simply asking Canon to either allow them to sell their lenses for the RF mount our make an equivalent lens. OR better yet do what Nikon is doing.

https://petapixel.com/2022/09/20/ni...ing-tamron-lenses-for-its-mirrorless-cameras/

Nikon’s first-party lens support for its Z-mount mirrorless cameras has been growing rapidly over the last few years to nearly 30 optics. But to support that rapid growth, the company appears to be purchasing Tamron designs and rehousing them to appear as Nikon originals.

Probably you neither.

But you are not asking Canon to produce smartphones. You are asking Canon to produce lenses that are even less relevant in the future market.

No I'm asking them to produce lenses that people who use smartphones attractive to convert them to camera users instead of conceeding the market to smartphones.

You weren't talking about replacing Canon's main pro zoom with one without IS, with cat-eye bokeh wide-open, and without Canon's CPS support. You were talking about replacing a Canon ultrawide zoom lens with (hypothetical) Canon's another zoom lens with the same optical specs, but with worse weather sealing and cheaper motor, for half the price.

Again, I've stated over and over it didn't need the same optical specs. The Canon at $2400 is much better than the Sigma at $1100. But only for someone doing professional work that is going to be viewed optimally. If you are shooting content that is going to be seen on a 6" screen you don't need the best optical specs. You do need fast aperatures however to recreate the look people are going for.

Of course, most of the pros will go for half the price. Better weather sealing and faster motor on such an ultrawide don't cost half the price, neither in its BoM costs nor in its market valuation.

Again, if this is true then Canon is essentially riping you off. Because Sigma can make the same lense more less than half the cost. And Canon doesn't want to allow Sigma to sell their lenses on Canon because they know people will only buy their lenses if forced to.