Will We Finally See Third-Party Autofocus for Full-Frame RF?

[Quack]

Canon is more expensive? Mmmmkay, maybe where you are. Care to share some pricing examples? Here, Canon starts at $480 for the R100, followed by Nikon at $550 for the Z30, Sony comes in at $700 with the ZV-E10. With kit lenses, Canon and Nikon are $600, Panasonic's G7 is $650, Oly comes in at $700 and Sony will cost you $750 for the 6 year old a6100 or $800 for the much newer ZV-E10. That same $800 will get you an R100 with two lenses (covering 18-210mm), an R50 with the kit lens, or even the EOS RP, which at $800 is cheapest FF camera available.

What do other brands, including 3rd party options, have to offer that compares to the RF 16/2.8, 15-30, 100-400, 600/11 or 800/11?

Overall, it certainly seems to me that Canon offers a much more affordable entry point both for APS-C and FF.

Not to mention the used market, where you can get Pro level EF lenses in pretty much all focal lengths that are quite affordable. I have posted numerous times comparing the prices of the pro level standard lenses for Canon, Nikon and Sony, and they are all roughly equal. Of course, those trying hard to prove their point will cherry pick the Canon lenses that are more expensive, ignoring those that are not. But, as we all know, if you repeat a falsehood over and over it becomes the truth. So, obviously, Canon must be more expensive because Internet forum users say so.

 

[t.linn]

As someone who watches more YouTube than regular TV, my impression is the same: Sony dominates YouTube—at least for the street, travel, and landscape genres. Each of those three genres favor compact. lightweight systems, and Canon doesn't seem to care about either. Sony's excellent 24-70 MkII is about the size of Canon's 24-105 F4L.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As someone who watches more YouTube than regular TV, my impression is the same: Sony dominates YouTube—at least for the street, travel, and landscape genres. Each of those three genres favor compact. lightweight systems, and Canon doesn't seem to care about either. Sony's excellent 24-70 MkII is about the size of Canon's 24-105 F4L.

Yes, Canon doesn’t care about making a compact, lightweight lens. Guess which one I carried when hiking up Mt. Etna?



"Salina" – One of the Aeolian Islands north of Sicily, seen from Mt. Etna (90 km away)

EOS R8, RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM @ 400mm, 1/400 s, f/8, ISO 1000

 

[EricN]

Yes, Canon doesn’t care about making a compact, lightweight lens. Guess which one I carried when hiking up Mt. Etna?

View attachment 223899

"Salina" – One of the Aeolian Islands north of Sicily, seen from Mt. Etna (90 km away)

EOS R8, RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM @ 400mm, 1/400 s, f/8, ISO 1000

I had forgotten that you even used R8 for this photo. Really light weight and economical, but "canon not sony so canon is doomed"

 

[Surab]

It's not that they're too big to fail, it's that they've made good strategic decisions that keep buyers buying.
......
Indeed. That pretty much verbatim echoes replies I got from others starting over a dozen years ago. And here we are, with Canon still leading the market.

The FF lenses you mentioned are the 2nd reason after body ergonomics for which I bought Canon: in particular the 100-400 because I know I can't and don't want to afford the mid range ones for a long time.

And since I've switched to FF I've not paid much attention to APSC.

So you're right there're aspects to Canon's budget-friendly strategy I did not pay attention to at all. That's why I'm here to learn more and discuss about this hobby.

Indeed I should not have mentioned anecdotes particularly since at best they are only a representation of the Western markets (which they aren't, just to be clear).

Well, then you can look forward to being correct in 10 years. Given that I've invested in Canon's system I sure hope so.

 

[Surab]

I had forgotten that you even used R8 for this photo. Really light weight and economical, but "canon not sony so canon is doomed"

The R8 is a fantastic beast and there are still moments I wonder if it was "correct" to spend an extra 1000 EUR for R6II.. eventually I will add one to my kit.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The FF lenses you mentioned are the 2nd reason after body ergonomics for which I bought Canon: in particular the 100-400 because I know I can't and don't want to afford the mid range ones for a long time.

Yes, the 100-400 is a real gem, IMO. I have the 100-500L as well, but I usually take the 100-400 on trips.

And since I've switched to FF I've not paid much attention to APSC.

You’re not alone. A few years ago, FF comprised 10% of the market and today it’s around 25%. But APS-C is still the major market driver, you can see that also by the average price of a mirrorless camera, which is ~$800.

Indeed I should not have mentioned anecdotes particularly since at best they are only a representation of the Western markets (which they aren't, just to be clear).

Anecdotes are fine, as long as people don’t make conclusions about the broader market based on them.

Well, then you can look forward to being correct in 10 years. Given that I've invested in Canon's system I sure hope so.

 

[koenkooi]

As someone who watches more YouTube than regular TV, my impression is the same: Sony dominates YouTube—at least for the street, travel, and landscape genres. Each of those three genres favor compact. lightweight systems, and Canon doesn't seem to care about either. Sony's excellent 24-70 MkII is about the size of Canon's 24-105 F4L.

Yes, I get the same impression from youtube, I also notice at tradeshows that most video/photographers use a Sony rig.
Which makes the market share numbers counterintuitive to my perception. But perception is not reality

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, I get the same impression from youtube, I also notice at tradeshows that most video/photographers use a Sony rig.
Which makes the market share numbers counterintuitive to my perception. But perception is not reality

At the conference I attended last week, the photographer was using a pair of 5DIV bodies with a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

 

[roby17269]

At the conference I attended last week, the photographer was using a pair of 5DIV bodies with a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

dpreview linked to an interesting video made by some big influencers discussing what video gear is used by content creators on YouTube:
Link

In short, they went through almost all brands, and concluded that Sony was the most used for a number of reasons.

Of course YT creator is a niche, and a video-related one at that, so take it FWIW

 

[docsmith]

Sony dominates YouTube—at least for the street, travel, and landscape genres. Each of those three genres favor compact. lightweight systems, and Canon doesn't seem to care about either. Sony's excellent 24-70 MkII is about the size of Canon's 24-105 F4L.

Always remember

Anecdotes are fine, as long as people don’t make conclusions about the broader market based on them.

Not knocking anything Sony has done, in a bit more than a decade, they've become the #2 most popular camera brand. I think this intelligently targeted Youtube and agree, there was a point a few years ago that more cameras than not were Sony....but not anymore.

Quick recap: Tom Heaton: Hasselblad and Nikon (formerly Canon); Fro Knows Photo: He's using Canon more than anything at the moment; Nick Page: Canon; Pangolin: Canon; Chistian Schaffer: Canon; Adam Gibbs: last I checked Fuji; Martin Castein: Canon; Peter Mackinnon: Canon; Vannessa Joy: Canon; Peter Coulson: Hasselblad (some Leica/some Sony); Irene Rudnyk Canon (some Nikon, some Sony); Morton Hilmer: Nikon; James Quantz: Canon; Cam Mackey: All over the place; Mark Smith: Sony (some Nikon); Whistling Wings: Canon; Mark Denney: I think Nikon after awhile with Fuji; Steve Perry: Nikon; Michael Shainblum: Sony, Jan Wegener: Canon; Duade Patton, Mostly Canon, etc.

Does that mean anything? Maybe not, other than I have followed a number of different photographers over the years. This isn't even a complete list. Because I shoot Canon the algorithms may have sent me more Canon shooters. I have seen a number of these people waffle between brands. At the moment, a number have ended up with Canon. Largely due to the R5 and R5II. At least that is my impression.

If you think Sony is dominating Youtube, it may very well be that the algorithm concluded you want to see Sony content. What I can say, is that at least in the ecosystem of Youtube I dabble in, it is a lot of Canon with others sprinkled in.

 

[neuroanatomist]

dpreview linked to an interesting video made by some big influencers discussing what video gear is used by content creators on YouTube:
Link

In short, they went through almost all brands, and concluded that Sony was the most used for a number of reasons.

I wonder who sponsors those 'big influencers' who concluded that Sony is the most used?

 

[roby17269]

I wonder who sponsors those 'big influencers' who concluded that Sony is the most used?

Well, they do say that Sony is the best at courting influencers
Doesn't change the fact and its context / scope

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, they do say that Sony is the best at courting influencers
Doesn't change the fact and its context / scope

Sorry, I must have missed the 'fact' to which you are referring. From the DPR intro:

The hosts, Marques Brownlee and David Imel, sat down with studio producers Eric Villa and Rich Ho to discuss cameras. They spent time interviewing more than a dozen creators like...

So...they talked to about 15 people. The context/scope is totally anecdotal. To reiterate...anecdotes ≠ data.

 

[roby17269]

Sorry, I must have missed the 'fact' to which you are referring. From the DPR intro:

So...they talked to about 15 people. The context/scope is totally anecdotal. To reiterate...anecdotes ≠ data.

The word "fact" is too strong, I agree, my mistake.
But I have watched the video (it's long) they have indeed convinced me that Sony is #1 in the YT video creator niche... which does not change the outlook of the overall market

 

[neuroanatomist]

The word "fact" is too strong, I agree, my mistake.
But I have watched the video (it's long) they have indeed convinced me that Sony is #1 in the YT video creator niche... which does not change the outlook of the overall market

I have no plans to watch the video, but I am curious if there were any actual data presented. 'Me and all my friends love jumping off bridges' would not convince me that most people love jumping off bridges.

I'm thinking of something for YT that's analogous to what Flickr does:

 

[roby17269]

I have no plans to watch the video, but I am curious if there were any actual data presented. 'Me and all my friends love jumping off bridges' would not convince me that most people love jumping off bridges.

I'm thinking of something for YT that's analogous to what Flickr does:
View attachment 223908

No, no actual data only anecdotal - although I have found it compelling enough.
Unfortunately it does not look like YT has a similar functionality (AFAIK video files do contain metadata but there is no clear standard such as EXIF for images - e.g. my drones record camera info in photos' metadata, but not in videos'... go figure)

 

[mimbu]

Will We Finally See Third-Party Autofocus for Full-Frame RF?

Unlikely. Very, very unlikely.

Canon hates 3rd party glass. They have ALWAYS hated third party glass. Canon is the reason those "USB docks" came out to allow lens firmware updates and later some lenses got USB ports. Canon would intentionally break 3rd party lens compatibility with new cameras or with firmware updates. Prior to lens USB firmware updates, lenses would have to be sent back to the maker for a chip swap every time Canon broke compatibility! Eventually the lens would no longer be supported and it would become incompatible with all future bodies, and many older bodies if the body firmware was updated.

If access to 3rd party AF/AE glass is important to you then I'm sorry to say but RF is not the right mount to be using.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Unlikely. Very, very unlikely.

Canon hates 3rd party glass. They have ALWAYS hated third party glass. Canon is the reason those "USB docks" came out to allow lens firmware updates and later some lenses got USB ports. Canon would intentionally break 3rd party lens compatibility with new cameras or with firmware updates. Prior to lens USB firmware updates, lenses would have to be sent back to the maker for a chip swap every time Canon broke compatibility! Eventually the lens would no longer be supported and it would become incompatible with all future bodies, and many older bodies if the body firmware was updated.

If access to 3rd party AF/AE glass is important to you then I'm sorry to say but RF is not the right mount to be using.

1) Canon never (AFAIK) explicitly allowed 3rd party lenses for EF. Manufacturers would 'borrow' the Lens IDs for Canon lenses, meaning the camera thinks a Canon lens is attached (e.g., see this list from LensRentals). There was no guarantee from Canon that the 3rd party lenses would be supported, which is why 3rd party lens makers jumped through hoops to keep them compatible.

2) With the RF mount APS-C lenses, Canon explicitly licensed them ("As of April 23, 2024, SIGMA is developing 6 APS-C format lenses under a license agreement with Canon, Inc."). That implies continued support (though probably Sigma will be responsible for doing the testing).

I guess we'll see, but I expect better maintained compatibility with officially licensed 3rd party lenses for RF. I also expect Canon will allow FF lenses at some point, but they'll probably be selective about which ones they permit.

 

[bn5fg]

I’ve reread this thread and come to the painful realization that Canon really might be a greedy, evil company—unlike the glorious Sony. The future holds no light, only despair. You’re stuck buying these overpriced and underperforming first-party lenses, with no real alternatives in sight.

So I went ahead and ordered the Canon RF 50mm f/1.4L as a lightweight alternative to my RF 50mm f/1.2L. Shame on me.