Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[David - Sydney]

For the past couple of years, the RP + 24-105 kit has frequently been in the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan (and often it's the only FF camera there). It was #8 in August and #10 last month. That suggests that the RP is probably still selling pretty well (no doubt the price drop helped).

Although the R8 is out and better than the RP, it is still 50% above the RP price at USD1500. No brainer to get the RP as a second ff body.
Much has been made about the release price of USD1300 vs the R8 release price but 9 months later the RP dropped to USD1k and has been there or lower for almost 3 years now. I can't imagine that the R8 will follow that trajectory.

Another single purchase but Canon maintains a significant price lead where the cheapest Sony ff is A7ii @ USD1400 and Z5 for USD1300 (on special).
... and we all know that ff is "better" than APS-C from this thread
page #26 now

 

[Del Paso]

Good point! Windshield wipers and filters? I don't know...

I've got a better car analogy: Canon = Toyota, Sony = Lada

 

[AlanF]

Insane? Sure!
Insanely rich.
These tyres are, according to Michelin, good for 2000 km maximum (that's a lot, without irony...)

Insane environmental vandalism - all those rubber-plastic particles polluting lungs and food chain as well as the fuel consumption etc.

 

[AlanF]

I've got a better car analogy: Canon = Toyota, Sony = Lada

Hey, my Toyota dealer treats me far better than Canon. My Prius warranty gets extended to 10 years for being a loyal customer but Canon boots me out of CPS. These car analogies just don't work!

 

[Del Paso]

Insane environmental vandalism - all those rubber-plastic particles polluting lungs and food chain as well as the fuel consumption etc.

Fortunately, there are not many on the road.
Cars are often a revelator of human stupidity...
Unlike cameras, so, no car-camera analogy here...

 

[Del Paso]

and don't forget the electronic view finder.. on the R it was.. cringy... but the R5 is superb.. It really showed what is possible.

The R's EVF, lack of IBIS and electronic level are my main points of criticism. And the reason why I'm waiting impatiently for a successor, R3 or R5 II.
Otherwise, a very good camera at a very good price and high reliability. It sure doesn't deserve the way it got treated by the Youtube Sony groupies.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Although the R8 is out and better than the RP, it is still 50% above the RP price at USD1500. No brainer to get the RP as a second ff body.
Much has been made about the release price of USD1300 vs the R8 release price but 9 months later the RP dropped to USD1k and has been there or lower for almost 3 years now. I can't imagine that the R8 will follow that trajectory.

Another single purchase but Canon maintains a significant price lead where the cheapest Sony ff is A7ii @ USD1400 and Z5 for USD1300 (on special).
... and we all know that ff is "better" than APS-C from this thread
page #26 now
View attachment 212087

The RP is around $600/£600 used, a real bargain if you don't care about 4K video.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Hey, my Toyota dealer treats me far better than Canon. My Prius warranty gets extended to 10 years for being a loyal customer but Canon boots me out of CPS. These car analogies just don't work!

Yeah, that's bad but maybe it's a numbers game. Toyota is huge and sells millions of cars yearly. Probably can afford more freebies like extra warranty, etc.

 

[koenkooi]

The RP is around $600/£600 used, a real bargain if you don't care about 4K video.

The RP has 4k video, it just lacks useable autofocus in that mode.

 

[Walrus]

The RP is around $600/£600 used, a real bargain if you don't care about 4K video.

Agreed; I paid 612€ shipped for an ex demo camera from a German shop, less then 3000 actuations, invoiced with 36 months warranty from the shop. Real bargain, and perfect as a backup body. Never used for video as today, but I know its 4k is not on pair with competitors, and the DPAF doesn't work in 4k.

 

[snappy604]

The R's EVF, lack of IBIS and electronic level are my main points of criticism. And the reason why I'm waiting impatiently for a successor, R3 or R5 II.
Otherwise, a very good camera at a very good price and high reliability. It sure doesn't deserve the way it got treated by the Youtube Sony groupies.

sadly there is a reason it is at that price point.. the features listed cost as it is not just software, but hardware too. I wouldn't expect that feature set at the price point of the R. .well not for a while at least, maybe if they get the costs down.

 

[Del Paso]

sadly there is a reason it is at that price point.. the features listed cost as it is not just software, but hardware too. I wouldn't expect that feature set at the price point of the R. .well not for a while at least, maybe if they get the costs down.

Well, the R wasn't inexpensive when it came out, Euro 3000+, at least in Europe. The most disturbing feature, at least for me as a frequent TSE user, was that ugly intrusive e-level. I'm convinced it could have been designed in a much more discrete way, without any cost incidence. Yet, I still like the R, it never let me down. This is for me THE important feature, with picture quality, of course.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The RP has 4k video, it just lacks useable autofocus in that mode.

I consider the RP's 4K non-existent. It has no useable AF and is heavily cropped.

 

[EricN]

I consider the RP's 4K non-existent. It has no useable AF and is heavily cropped.

It can be used with the manual only third party RF lenses

 

[koenkooi]

I consider the RP's 4K non-existent. It has no useable AF and is heavily cropped.

I agree that that is the most realistic way of looking at it.

 

[snappy604]

Well, the R wasn't inexpensive when it came out, Euro 3000+, at least in Europe. The most disturbing feature, at least for me as a frequent TSE user, was that ugly intrusive e-level. I'm convinced it could have been designed in a much more discrete way, without any cost incidence. Yet, I still like the R, it never let me down. This is for me THE important feature, with picture quality, of course.

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now .. and that alone was a worthwhile upgrade over the R... to me the Electronic View Finder (turn eco mode off) is near a pure optical view finder (quality wise) with additional features/capabilities. There are so many other worthwhile improvements as well (the autofocus is a massive improvement) etc etc. If you have funds likely the upcoming R5 MkII.. .but the R6 MkII again quite a big improvement over the R.

Anyway I'm on a tangent Here about 3rd party lenses. And yes EF mount works, my Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

 

[EricN]

Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

I think they'll come down the road.

 

[koenkooi]

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now .. and that alone was a worthwhile upgrade over the R... to me the Electronic View Finder (turn eco mode off) is near a pure optical view finder (quality wise) with additional features/capabilities. There are so many other worthwhile improvements as well (the autofocus is a massive improvement) etc etc. If you have funds likely the upcoming R5 MkII.. .but the R6 MkII again quite a big improvement over the R.

Anyway I'm on a tangent Here about 3rd party lenses. And yes EF mount works, my Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

My Sigma 150mm macro handles the 45MP with ease, sadly it’s OS doesn’t work well with IBIS.

 

[snappy604]

My Sigma 150mm macro handles the 45MP with ease, sadly it’s OS doesn’t work well with IBIS.

yeah its the IBIS and image stabilization combo sometimes seems to mess up, which is an irk. I use my 150-600 and sometimes find that too or it hunts a bit more than it used to. I wish I could turn IBIS off when IS is enabled on the lens (that didn't sneak in did it?).. there are cases where it is better.

 

[Del Paso]

if you are considering that price point, why not the R6 II? its quite an improvement. I think it has same or better EVF than the R5 now .. and that alone was a worthwhile upgrade over the R... to me the Electronic View Finder (turn eco mode off) is near a pure optical view finder (quality wise) with additional features/capabilities. There are so many other worthwhile improvements as well (the autofocus is a massive improvement) etc etc. If you have funds likely the upcoming R5 MkII.. .but the R6 MkII again quite a big improvement over the R.

Anyway I'm on a tangent Here about 3rd party lenses. And yes EF mount works, my Sigma EFs work just fine and I get quite good results, doesn't mean I don't want native RF mount.

Sure, but the R6 II came much later, and now costs twice as much as the R. But where I do not agree: the R5's EVF is MUCH better than the R6 II's, it has almost twice its definition...and yet, cannot compete with an OVF. The R3 has the best EVF of all Canon cameras, according to my partial opinion. And wonderful ergonomics!
And I'm still not really interested in 3rd party lenses, except Zeiss. Sigmas are optically very good, but for my uses, landscapes, cathedrals and macros, neither adequate (TS...) nor lightweight. I no longer need luminous lenses, since I own many Leica f1,4 Summiluxes- which are lightweight and optically
My next lenses will be exclusively RFs, on an R5 II or R3.
Doesn't mean I don't understand wishes for 3rd party lenses, I was just expressing my very own opinion.