Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[AlanF]

This is true, but only for engines they don't want to produce themselves, for reasons of cost, volumes, experience etc...
If I'm not mistaken, you're never given the choice between the original -brand engine and the competitor's in the same c.c. and output category.
So, no competition like in the camera industry between OEM and 3rd. party.

We all use analogy as a form of argument but it is basically unsound because situations are rarely, if ever, truly analogous. And, the more the dissimilarity, the poorer the analogy argument. A car is sold with an engine that is not intended to be exchanged by its owner. So a conventional car has some analogy to a camera with a fixed lens, not to a camera with an interchangeable lens when it comes to choice of interchangeable lenses vs engines. Where there are similarities, is that a car manufacturer has by law to allow any other manufacturer to make an engine that will fit their car if the rival wanted to.

 

[Del Paso]

We all use analogy as a form of argument but it is basically unsound because situations are rarely, if ever, truly analogous. And, the more the dissimilarity, the poorer the analogy argument. A car is sold with an engine that is not intended to be exchanged by its owner. So a conventional car has some analogy to a camera with a fixed lens, not to a camera with an interchangeable lens when it comes to choice of interchangeable lenses vs engines. Where there are similarities, is that a car manufacturer has by law to allow any other manufacturer to make an engine that will fit their car if the rival wanted to.

Right!
But spares, like air filters, brake calipers, even pistons, turbo-chargers can, by law, be made by anybody.
As long as they meet OEM specs, customers are allowed to use them without any restrictions. Even if car makes often try to convince us they are lower quality. (Often true for oil filters and brake-pads, as tests performed by my company's lab have proven, and confirmed by the parts makers). Doesn't mean those differences are actually relevant...

 

[Walrus]

OK, I will try this another way. EV represents light intensity per unit area, and as you say, the numbers will look the same re f stop, speed, and ISO but here is the difference. If I use a 20 MP FF it will have pixels 2.5 times the size (area) of the pixels on a 20 MP APS-c (Canon) so each pixel will have more than a full stop of extra light to integrate than the APS camera. You will need make the aperture about 1-1/3 stops smaller on the FF to have the same amount of light hitting each pixel on the FF as you had before on the crop frame camera (you also have to turn up the ISO by 1-1/3 stops) At that point, magically, you will also have the same depth of field (and signal-to-noise) as you had with the larger aperture and lower ISO setting on the crop camera. Look up equivalency and read and read again until you understand what is going on. It is not intuitive until you take all the variables into account, but when you do, it is obvious and it really works.

The FF does come out ahead with high MP cameras because equivalently high MP crop cameras challenge lenses much more both in terms of design limits and diffraction limits. Shoot with an M6 II, a 90D or an R7 for while and you will see what I mean.

Guys, you all are overcomplicating this.

You are right. All of you.

But you're not listening what I'm saying.

Last time, then really, for mental sanity of all of us, I'm not answering anymore; everybody will be happy with its own idea.

I'm in a church, shooting the groom waiting for the bride; exposure is f2 1/125s 1600iso.
My colleague, that was outside for bride arrival, now enters the church for shooting bride entering, and asks me "man, what's the exposure in here?"
I answer "dude, exposure is f2 1/125s 1600iso", without caring what camera he has, what lens, etc.
He sets the exposure, starts shooting.
If needed, maybe he adjust f1.4 1/250s 1600iso if wants faster time for the entrance? Or he has a good camera at high iso, so goes f2 1/250s 3200iso?
Or maybe he just uses what I told him the EV was.
End of it.

The EV of the scene never changed. NEVER. He may have altered the triangle, but the exposure is still the same.

No one really cared about DR, SNR, perspective, etc. That's educational stuff. We're not doing a conference.
We're working.
What's the EV in here?
EV is as follows.
We work.
End of it.

The dot pitch of my sensor is totally irrelevant in the field, God almighty won't change light intensity in that church according to which one of us is shooting with which camera.
We use the same setting, he has an Aps and I have FF, so his SNR is worse then mine? Who cares, he needs to take a sharp, in focus and non-motion shot of the bride entering the scene, what do I or he care if his shoot has a little more noise?

Guys, really?

I'll go silent, if you can't agree on this, there's no point in continuing arguing; with all due respect, we do different things, people don't pay me for good pics, people pay me because I don't get caught changing battery or card during the ring exchange. No bride has ever told me that the SNR of my camera was not of her liking. Maths is a thing, working in the real world is another thing. No one of that is better then the other. But they're different things, still.

 

[EricN]

Take a light reading in a scene, let's say f2 1/250s 100iso, input those values in a medium format, a FF, an Aps and a 1" sensor camera, and see if the exposure value (aka the light intensity in the picture) changes. The sensor/film size is irrelevant to the captured EV of a scene.

How about actually take photos and compare the photos?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Look up equivalency and read and read again until you understand what is going on. It is not intuitive until you take all the variables into account, but when you do, it is obvious.

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

 

[EricN]

No, I don't.

But that's not the point; we're talking EV of a scene, pure exposure; we're not talking SNR.

Sun doesn't care about your camera, nor a strobe set to a certain power will care about your camera and its sensor; the EV of a scene doesn't change with your sensor size.

Actually, that IS the point.

Didn't you notice and wonder why that other person claimed s/he needed a wider aperture for more light, but with more area in focus, BUT also said, "I don't care about noise"? Any normal person would just crank that iso up if they don't care about noise.

 

[EricN]

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

Why take a photo? You can never upload a photo, but make whatever claim you want while ignoring accepted facts. and if people realize what's going on, you can get upset.

 

[EricN]

It's annoying. It wouldn't be so annoying if they produced enough lenses to justify cornering their "RF" mount market if you want to call it that. And look what happens when companies don't allow such innovation and restricting it. They don't, in my opinion, never go anywhere other than people moving away from it. Sony is doing well by allowing 3rd party solutions. People will buy what they want but restricting it I don't think it's beneficial at all.

What's annoying to me is the idea of someone buying a new camera with a new mount before the lenses they believe they need are available and then complaining about the company. I don't think any one was forced at gunpoint to buy an RF camera, but if it happened, you should definitely report the incident.

 

[Del Paso]

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

What did Kodak say?
You press the button, we do the rest.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Any normal person…

To be honest, it’s probably ‘normal’ for people to think they make good decisions**. Should someone question the reasons behind those decisions, many people will simply refuse to acknowledge facts that call their rationale into question. The decision may have worked out well enough, but revisiting it is actively avoided.

Thus, ‘I picked APS-C over FF because it gives more DoF’. Or the other one, ‘I got a Fuji G for when I want really thin DoF.’ Their zooms are the equivalent of f/3.2 on FF, their ‘classic’ portrait prime focal lengths, 63/2.8 and 110/2 (there’s no 135mm equivalent) are effectively slower than the corresponding 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 on FF meaning a deeper DoF, not shallower. The two fastest G series primes, 55/1.7 and 80/1.7, are still equivalent to f/1.3 (rounding down in Fuji’s favor), and wider equivalent focal lengths to boot. So the fact is that if ‘really thin DoF’ is the goal, a FF camera from Nikon with the Z 58/0.95 or Sony with one of the 3rd party f/0.95-1 lenses is the better choice.

But as we’ve already seen, closing one’s mind with, “Don’t tell me what I already know,” is the response when presented with the relevant facts.

**Someone who sold his M50 kit then had to buy it back is probably not the best example of someone who makes good decisions, lol.

 

[Dragon]

Yes - that's how it used to be, with phase-detect AF systems.
I never got very far with the AF calibration system. The issue was a inconsistency, rather than consistent back/front focus issues
But now we have mirrorless cameras where these kinds of focusing problems go away. Chances are, that 2016 Sigma 50 Art you had would have focused perfectly on a mirrorless body.
Which begs the question. Did Canon cut off the 3rd party lens manufacturers once Canon's AF advantage was gone? Hmmm....

DPAF is still a phase detect system and only differs from SLRs in that it doesn't have mechanical/optical errors that can provide misinformation to the lens if the SLR mechanism is not adjusted properly. If the lens is intermittently off focus, the problem is almost always traceable to the mechanical design of the lens (i.e. sticky mechanism, weak focus motors, etc.). The lens is simply not always following the instruction the camera gave it. The exception is CDAF where the camera will keep tweaking the lens until it is happy with the focus. I have several Tamron and Sigma lenses that are slow but accurate in live view mode on the 5DSr (CDAF) but routinely intermittent on any SLR as well as the R5 and R7.

 

[Dragon]

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

Funny thing is, that is almost exactly what his response was (and he was serious). I rather liked the "one side short of a triangle" post that seems to have disappeared.

 

[AlanF]

Funny thing is, that is almost exactly what his response was (and he was serious). I rather liked the "one side short of a triangle" post that seems to have disappeared.

He’s one side short of a triangle.

 

[Richard CN]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Too bad the facts prove your opinion to be incorrect. As of last year, Canon had grown to become the #1 mirrorless brand. They continue to dominate the overall camera market (which they've led for 20 years). Sony is now a relatively distant second, and though they gained substantial market share in the past few years (Nikon used to be a close second to Canon, now they're a distant third), last year Sony's gains seem to have plateaued (they lost a small bit of market share).

View attachment 212052

That's disingenuous because what you show is total digital cameras including DSLR's and point in shoot.

For 2022 apparently, canon shipped 1.54 million and Sony 1.25 million, while Canon enjoys #1 position in 2022, it's a 38% marketshare and includes EOS-M. A great deal of those mirrorless cameras are EOS-M or cheaper RF-S units, even more than Sony. We can determine that because Sony is ranked #1 overall in camera sales value, while selling 20% freaking percent less than Canon. You do the math on that. You are implying that they were #1 based upon the RF mount. You do realize they were the #1 mirrorless brand in Japan before the RF mount, yes? While we don't know the sales split, we do know that Canon sells ALOT of cheaper cameras.

Why Canon pulled away on your chart isn't because of mirrorless it's because they completely dominate... what's remaining of the dying market of DSLR's .. 1.32 million versus 200k for nikon - and Canon sells a significant amount of cheaper cameras.

In many ways Canon's overall marketshare is foisted up by two dying brands - DSLR's and EOS-M, there is a reason Canon's throwing everything into their cameras, doing firmware upgrades that would make Fuji blush - and it's not because they love us. They can see the writing on the wall as they are trying to roll the hard six on their camera division.

 

[Dragon]

Thanks Alan. Different individual, but same conclusion. A straight line with two sides (you always wind up back at the starting point )

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's disingenuous because what you show is total digital cameras including DSLR's and point in shoot.

There were two separate statements, only the latter was supported by the data shown (which was included because I had the graphic handy). 1) As of last year, Canon had grown to become the #1 mirrorless brand (globally, which I didn't state but should have), and 2) They continue to dominate the overall camera market (which they've led for 20 years). Both statements are true, and while they are related, you are conflating them.

For 2022 apparently, canon shipped 1.54 million and Sony 1.25 million, while Canon enjoys #1 position in 2022, it's a 38% marketshare and includes EOS-M. A great deal of those mirrorless cameras are EOS-M or cheaper RF-S units, even more than Sony. We can determine that because Sony is ranked #1 overall in camera sales value, while selling 20% freaking percent less than Canon. You do the math on that. You are implying that they were #1 based upon the RF mount.

No, you are making the assumption that I am stating that. The statement to which I was responding was, "And look what happens when companies don't allow such innovation and restricting it. They don't, in my opinion, never go anywhere other than people moving away from it." Not 'people move away from mounts', not 'people move away from certain camera models' – the claim was that 'people move away from companies'. The data I posted were in response to that claim, and they show it to be false.

You are free to parse what is stated any way you want. But in doing so, you're creating a straw man – suggesting I was making a point that I did not, then arguing against it.

You do realize they were the #1 mirrorless brand in Japan before the RF mount, yes?

No, I don't realize that at all. Are you basing that claim on something other than BCN's annual rankings? If so, can you share those data? Here are the BCN market share data for MILCs in Japan from 2013 to 2017:

2013


2014


2015


2016


2017


I don't see Canon being #1 in Japan in any year before the RF mount (I didn't go back to 2012, but I really don't think they led the Japanese MILC market the year the EOS M launched). Sorry, but if you're going to make statements like that, it's best if you have the data to back them up, yes?

Now, here are the BCN MILC rankings for the year the RF mount came out and following:

2018


2019


2020


2021


2022


Just to be clear, since apparently it's necessary, by posting those results I am not suggesting that Canon became #1 in Japan MILC sales in 2018 because of the RF mount. But it is worth noting that looking at the individual models, as EOS M models dropped down and out of the monthly BCN rankings, EOS R models took their place.

Why Canon pulled away on your chart isn't because of mirrorless it's because they completely dominate... what's remaining of the dying market of DSLR's .. 1.32 million versus 200k for nikon - and Canon sells a significant amount of cheaper cameras.

Another straw man. Also, Canon didn't 'pull away' in the camera market at all. They've had 45% ± 4% of the market for well over a decade. What happened was that Nikon used to be a close second (low 40s percent, typically) until several years ago, when they started bleeding buyers to Sony. Canon just remained stable, while Nikon lost and Sony gained.

In many ways Canon's overall marketshare is foisted up by two dying brands - DSLR's and EOS-M, there is a reason Canon's throwing everything into their cameras, doing firmware upgrades that would make Fuji blush - and it's not because they love us. They can see the writing on the wall as they are trying to roll the hard six on their camera division.

YAPODFC. An abbreviation I coined a decade ago, meaning yet another prediction of d00m for Canon. You're implying the Canon is desperately struggling to avoid the demise of their camera division. Remember when they were d00med because they were so late to mirrorless?

No, they don't love us. But they've proven that they're very, very good at predicting the direction the market will take and making choices that will keep them successful. The overall market has shifted to mirrorless, but that's not due to a rise in sales of MILCs. They've been remarkably stable at 3-4 million units/year since CIPA started tracking them in 2012. What has changed is that DLSR sales have dropped dramatically. Frankly, it's impressive that Canon navigated the transition of a camera market that was 4:1 DLSR to MILC to a market that is now 1:4 DSLR to MILC and maintained their dominance of that market, including having become the #1 MILC brand globally (not just in Japan) for the first time last year, taking that spot from Sony.

DSLRs died. The EOS M line didn't die, Canon killed it. Is it possible that was just a mistake and they're now scrabbling to correct it? Sure, but history suggests they know exactly what they're doing. As I stated above, per BCN (with the caveat that the data are from Japan only), as EOS M sales dropped as Canon discontinued model after model, EOS R models took their place in the top 10 of the rankings – the R50, R10 and RP are all in there for last month (the M50 II is at #11).

Time will tell, but it's far more likely Canon is executing an ongoing plan to continue to dominate the market they've led for 20 years, rather than rolling the dice as you suggest.

 

[EricN]

To be honest, it’s probably ‘normal’ for people to think they make good decisions**. Should someone question the reasons behind those decisions, many people will simply refuse to acknowledge facts that call their rationale into question. The decision may have worked out well enough, but revisiting it is actively avoided.

Thus, ‘I picked APS-C over FF because it gives more DoF’. Or the other one, ‘I got a Fuji G for when I want really thin DoF.’ Their zooms are the equivalent of f/3.2 on FF, their ‘classic’ portrait prime focal lengths, 63/2.8 and 110/2 (there’s no 135mm equivalent) are effectively slower than the corresponding 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 on FF meaning a deeper DoF, not shallower. The two fastest G series primes, 55/1.7 and 80/1.7, are still equivalent to f/1.3 (rounding down in Fuji’s favor), and wider equivalent focal lengths to boot. So the fact is that if ‘really thin DoF’ is the goal, a FF camera from Nikon with the Z 58/0.95 or Sony with one of the 3rd party f/0.95-1 lenses is the better choice.

But as we’ve already seen, closing one’s mind with, “Don’t tell me what I already know,” is the response when presented with the relevant facts.

**Someone who sold his M50 kit then had to buy it back is probably not the best example of someone who makes good decisions, lol.

I agree with you that a (and I'll use apostrophes too) 'normal' person can make an impulsive decision based on emotions. Where I disagree is that I think at some point a 'normal' person will finally admit that their decision (which I don't care about except for when a statement like "canon abandoned me" is made) was not thought out with intricacy. I'm not a specialist on thinking in any kind of way, so my thinking could on this could definitely be abnormal.

I had really got a chuckle about the Fuji medium format, because I look into it occasionally (by the way, do you have any thoughts on their coming t/s lenses?). I've concluded that, for now, the reason to buy is if you want 100mp (could be very good if you want to shoot wide and crop, but have not idea how much at the shooting time). Oddly, I didn't notice that mentioned.

Whether normal or not, after that response to you about "non sequiturs," it was clear to me that there would not be some point of understanding.

Rebuying M50 did seem truly bizarre. I thought it was all amusing and I'll remember it for a while, especially gems like "L lenses are shit' along with 'fuji had lots of dials and buttons.'

Congratulations! I noticed we made it to page 23!

 

[Dragon]

That's disingenuous because what you show is total digital cameras including DSLR's and point in shoot.

For 2022 apparently, canon shipped 1.54 million and Sony 1.25 million, while Canon enjoys #1 position in 2022, it's a 38% marketshare and includes EOS-M. A great deal of those mirrorless cameras are EOS-M or cheaper RF-S units, even more than Sony. We can determine that because Sony is ranked #1 overall in camera sales value, while selling 20% freaking percent less than Canon. You do the math on that. You are implying that they were #1 based upon the RF mount. You do realize they were the #1 mirrorless brand in Japan before the RF mount, yes? While we don't know the sales split, we do know that Canon sells ALOT of cheaper cameras.

Why Canon pulled away on your chart isn't because of mirrorless it's because they completely dominate... what's remaining of the dying market of DSLR's .. 1.32 million versus 200k for nikon - and Canon sells a significant amount of cheaper cameras.

In many ways Canon's overall marketshare is foisted up by two dying brands - DSLR's and EOS-M, there is a reason Canon's throwing everything into their cameras, doing firmware upgrades that would make Fuji blush - and it's not because they love us. They can see the writing on the wall as they are trying to roll the hard six on their camera division.

I think it is appropriate to take many of these numbers with a bit of salt. As far as I can see, neither Canon nor Sony break out consumer cameras in their financial reporting. Sony has professional and broadcast products rolled into the same group and Canon has both cinema cameras and network cameras (i.e. Axis) rolled into their imaging group. Unless you have a really trustworthy source of detailed info for both companies, it is very hard to isolate the dollars related to camera sales. It is easier with Nikon and OM systems who make camera gear primarily, but Canon and Sony, not so much. Sony also has a habit of moving products to different divisions pretty regularly which tends to mess up trend lines, albeit that doesn't seem to have happened in the last couple of years.

It is also interesting and instructive to plug "camera' in the search box on Amazon. Who knew that "Minolta" was still making cameras. Looks like Sony either sold off the name or never got it in the first place (currently being sold in the US by "Elite Brands"). The next twist is to look at best sellers in the P&S category (anybody there you know?). Third, in DSLR best sellers, Canon absolutely dominates (1 Nikon entry in the top 50). Lastly, the mirrorless best seller category is reasonably shared between Sony and Canon, but note that the R6 pops up several times in the DSLR category, so the data sort is somewhat suspect.

On this forum, we have a notion of what a camera is and who makes them, but our view is narrow. We look at Japan industry reporting and think we are seeing the whole picture. AFAIK, there is no consolidated report on cameras made in China/Thailand/Taiwan/whatever and on a worldwide market basis, that number is likely much larger than we might think.

 

[Richard CN]

I think it is appropriate to take many of these numbers with a bit of salt. As far as I can see, neither Canon nor Sony break out consumer cameras in their financial reporting. Sony has professional and broadcast products rolled into the same group and Canon has both cinema cameras and network cameras (i.e. Axis) rolled into their imaging group. Unless you have a really trustworthy source of detailed info for both companies, it is very hard to isolate the dollars related to camera sales. It is easier with Nikon and OM systems who make camera gear primarily, but Canon and Sony, not so much. Sony also has a habit of moving products to different divisions pretty regularly which tends to mess up trend lines, albeit that doesn't seem to have happened in the last couple of years.

yeah that was ALWAYS the problem when trying to write up articles on marketshare was figuring out what was what from the sony, canon, nikon and olympus point of view. The we are #1 press announcements were IMO, even worse. You'd have decipher the lawyer speak to figure out what exactly they were including in that.

 

[EricN]

why do you think Canon threw so much into the R5 and R6? Because the R and RP were duds in japan.

I'm not sure if it was exactly the way I interpret your statement.
My thinking is the original R was basically a 5D4 with a minimum amount of R&D while they concentrated on the R5. I admit it's purely speculation.