Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

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.
I removed the post, don't want to cause a ruckus.

A lot of Canon's patents on IBIS were in the later part of 2018. it was certainly being thought of during the release of the R/RP but most of the work was done well before then. RF mount was designed in 2016/2017 from my recollection.

Canon had to do ALOT for the R5/R6 release including get their new fab lines working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I removed the post, don't want to cause a ruckus.

A lot of Canon's patents on IBIS were in the later part of 2018. it was certainly being thought of during the release of the R/RP but most of the work was done well before then. RF mount was designed in 2016/2017 from my recollection.

Canon had to do ALOT for the R5/R6 release including get their new fab lines working.
Ruckuses are fine (within reason) :D

The R and RP were stopgap bodies on the way to the R5 and R6 - as always its hard to tell how many were actually sold, so whether they were successful in a business sense is impossible to know unless you're in Canon Head Office. They introduced the R mount by adapting existing sensors etc, with a few mainly trophy lenses, without the full package of features like IBIS which were still being developed. They were never an end in themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Ruckuses are fine (within reason) :D

The R and RP were stopgap bodies on the way to the R5 and R6 - as always its hard to tell how many were actually sold, so whether they were successful in a business sense is impossible to know unless you're in Canon Head Office. They introduced the R mount by adapting existing sensors etc, with a few mainly trophy lenses, without the full package of features like IBIS which were still being developed. They were never an end in themselves.
The main reason for me for not getting an R was because it like the Z7 didn’t have the AF that Sony had shown was possible. @neuroanatomist had reported that he was finding BIF difficult with the R. The R5 was the great breakthrough by Canon, breaking the AF barrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Ruckuses are fine (within reason) :D

The R and RP were stopgap bodies on the way to the R5 and R6 - as always its hard to tell how many were actually sold, so whether they were successful in a business sense is impossible to know unless you're in Canon Head Office. They introduced the R mount by adapting existing sensors etc, with a few mainly trophy lenses, without the full package of features like IBIS which were still being developed. They were never an end in themselves.
I don't want to open another discussion within a discussion in which there are already various hot topics, but just one dash related to the quality of the EOS R in relation to the R6, or rather the poor quality of the R6... Very soon after the original R came out, I bought it . Since it proved to be a great camera through my work, a year later I bought another one. A little over two years ago, I decided to buy an R6 so that it would be my primary body for photography, and the two R's would be used almost exclusively for video work. However, already at the start R6 shows its poor build quality and numerous bugs - the main dial "skips", the right audio channel has completely random drops in the sound, occasional random freezes, semi-freezes for a few seconds after a video clip is recorded (if a video is recorded parallel on two cards), creaking of the card cover, a completely different color profile compared to any other Canon I had the opportunity to use (especially in video), etc... Someone will say that these are faults that should have been resolved through service , but there were so many of them that I decided to get rid of that camera - otherwise I keep my cameras for quite a long time, maybe above average. The R5 came as a replacement for the R6, and it's a completely, completely different story compared to the R6 - a truly top-notch camera in terms of build quality, reliability and performance characteristics, the kind of build I'm used to from Canon. I just recently sold my oldest R as it was almost 5 years old and replaced it with an R6 Mark II. I wanted to give Canon another chance to "fix what they did to me" with the R6. What I want to say is that very often we look at the equipment only on paper and very often after studying it only virtually. I myself am sometimes not immune to such actions. In reality, and especially those who have the opportunity to use some equipment in the long run, often see that the characteristics on paper are less important, and the ones brought by reality are much more important. Now a couple of analogies with cars immediately come to mind (because I worked in the car industry for too long), but I will refrain because supposedly as soon as a car is mentioned, the discussion goes to *****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The main reason for me for not getting an R was because it like the Z7 didn’t have the AF that Sony had shown was possible. @neuroanatomist had reported that he was finding BIF difficult with the R. The R5 was the great breakthrough by Canon, breaking the AF barrier.
R may not be good for BIF, I don't know for sure because I don't shoot BIF (but I believe you that it is so even though maybe you haven't tried it yourself in that kind of shooting), but for B&G it's great - trust me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
R may not be good for BIF, I don't know for sure because I don't shoot BIF (but I believe you that it is so even though maybe you haven't tried it yourself in that kind of shooting), but for B&G it's great - trust me.
I don’t need to trust you. I had a 5DIV with the same sensor, and it is good for BIF. So, for action the R is a step down. Same with Nikon. Their D850 is super for BIF but their Z7 with the same sensor not nearly as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The R5 came as a replacement for the R6, and it's a completely, completely different story compared to the R6 - a truly top-notch camera in terms of build quality, reliability and performance characteristics, the kind of build I'm used to from Canon.
Well, for build quality they're basically the same camera, and photo/video resolution apart, 95% of the camera functions are the same.
I have never tested the R5, but considering they were presented together, and they share 95% of their functions, I find strange that you could have found such pivotal differences, as my R6 has always been perfect.
But I bought it more then 1 year after it come to the market, so maybe all the bugs had already been fixed with the most recent firmwares at the time of my purchase.
 
Upvote 0
Well, for build quality they're basically the same camera, and photo/video resolution apart, 95% of the camera functions are the same.
I have never tested the R5, but considering they were presented together, and they share 95% of their functions, I find strange that you could have found such pivotal differences, as my R6 has always been perfect.
But I bought it more then 1 year after it come to the market, so maybe all the bugs had already been fixed with the most recent firmwares at the time of my purchase.
I am glad that there are those whose experiences are positive with the R6. It is often mentioned that R and RP were some kind of door stoppers, paperweights even, but this is mostly said by those who never tried to work with these cameras or those who used them for situations for which these cameras were never intended. (BIF, sports...). For what I shoot, the R is a very nice camera.
Unfortunately, my experience with the R6 was very negative overall, but the R6 had its positives, without question.
I've never had a Canon camera shorter than that R6. I got rid of it as soon as I could.
And I'll say it again, on paper the R5 and R6 may be very similar, but in reality they proved to me to be two cameras on two different levels.
The R6 Mark II is OK so far, but it's still too early for me to give my final verdict. I don't like how loud the IBIS unit clatters when the camera is turned off to the point that I am very reluctant to take it on any kind of photo walk. But it also has good qualities, so it remains to be seen what time will bring.

P.S.: In addition to the distinct rattling of the IBIS, a bug has been present on the R6II from the beginning - occasionally, without any possibility of recreating the event, it happens that the EVF does not turn on when the camera is raised to the eye. There have been two FW updates since I've had the R6II, but neither fixed that bug. The problem occurs 3-4 times during the day with 3000-4000 photos taken. I have not experienced such a thing with any of the previous cameras that have a proximity sensor on the EVF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I don’t need to trust you. I had a 5DIV with the same sensor, and it is good for BIF. So, for action the R is a step down. Same with Nikon. Their D850 is super for BIF but their Z7 with the same sensor not nearly as good.
I believe that 5D4 is better for BIF compared to R. But the R brought me a huge jump in AF reliability and precision, of course, for what and how I shoot (and compared to any DSLR I've tried up to that point). The precision and reliability of the face and eye tracking alone easily led me to buy the R, and later another, and I've never regretted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I think Canon are just trying to protect their IP with the RF mount. The licensing of the RF mount would be another source of income in a market that's going down due to Smartphones, and could also be a quality check to see if these lenses meet Canon's standards with compatibility with future firmware etc.

From a business perspective Canon don't appear to need unapproved third party lenses to help with sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I don't want to open another discussion within a discussion in which there are already various hot topics, but just one dash related to the quality of the EOS R in relation to the R6, or rather the poor quality of the R6... Very soon after the original R came out, I bought it . Since it proved to be a great camera through my work, a year later I bought another one. A little over two years ago, I decided to buy an R6 so that it would be my primary body for photography, and the two R's would be used almost exclusively for video work. However, already at the start R6 shows its poor build quality and numerous bugs - the main dial "skips", the right audio channel has completely random drops in the sound, occasional random freezes, semi-freezes for a few seconds after a video clip is recorded (if a video is recorded parallel on two cards), creaking of the card cover, a completely different color profile compared to any other Canon I had the opportunity to use (especially in video), etc... Someone will say that these are faults that should have been resolved through service , but there were so many of them that I decided to get rid of that camera - otherwise I keep my cameras for quite a long time, maybe above average. The R5 came as a replacement for the R6, and it's a completely, completely different story compared to the R6 - a truly top-notch camera in terms of build quality, reliability and performance characteristics, the kind of build I'm used to from Canon. I just recently sold my oldest R as it was almost 5 years old and replaced it with an R6 Mark II. I wanted to give Canon another chance to "fix what they did to me" with the R6. What I want to say is that very often we look at the equipment only on paper and very often after studying it only virtually. I myself am sometimes not immune to such actions. In reality, and especially those who have the opportunity to use some equipment in the long run, often see that the characteristics on paper are less important, and the ones brought by reality are much more important. Now a couple of analogies with cars immediately come to mind (because I worked in the car industry for too long), but I will refrain because supposedly as soon as a car is mentioned, the discussion goes to *****.
Not one single bug or freeze with my early series EOS R. It certainly isn't a "features perfect" camera, yet absolutely reliable. When I read about the numerous bug-fixes needed for the following R cameras, I sometimes wonder if the camera industry (not only Canon) hasn't skipped some development steps or if the products have just become too complex to master all (most) algorithms.
I'd certainly welcome a longer production cycle and development time...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Not one single bug or freeze with my early series EOS R. It certainly isn't a "features perfect" camera, yet absolutely reliable. When I read about the numerous bug-fixes needed for the following R cameras, I sometimes wonder if the camera industry (not only Canon) hasn't skipped some development steps or if the products have just become too complex to master all (most) algorithms.
I'd certainly welcome a longer production cycle and development time...
I had only one glitch with R at the very beginning of my work with it - sometimes it would happen that the camera would freeze. But since I was able to reproduce the problem without any problems, I very quickly found the cause of it - the SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS I 128GB. As soon as I switched to ProGrade and Angelbird UHS II cards, the problem never happened again (and the 64GB and 32GB Sony UHS I cards never had any problems either).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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.
Fair point. For example, a few months ago Canon did a PR that they've produced 110 million EOS cameras and 160 million EF/RF lenses. They also state, "[Canon] has maintained the world’s No. 1 share³ of digital SLR cameras over 20 years, from 2003 to 2022." That little ³ footnote is, "In terms of market share by number of units sold. Based on Canon research." I have no doubt that their research is correct (pretty easy to confirm given that they report their unit sales with the financials and CIPA reports total units), but still...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
To me, as a bad, poor amateur photographer, I surely would like to have third party options, priced between the cheap and cheerful ones and the L behemoths. Having choice sounds good to me.
Yes, many mourn and cry for native RF lenses as Avril mourns in her song:

I'm standing on a bridge
I'm waitin' in the dark
I thought that you'd be here by now
There's nothing but the rain
No footsteps on the ground
I'm listening but there's no sound - on 3rd party RF lenses

Just put the adapter on the camera and enjoy excellent EF lenses at ridiculous prices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The R and RP were stopgap bodies on the way to the R5 and R6 - as always its hard to tell how many were actually sold, so whether they were successful in a business sense is impossible to know unless you're in Canon Head Office. They introduced the R mount by adapting existing sensors etc, with a few mainly trophy lenses, without the full package of features like IBIS which were still being developed. They were never an end in themselves.
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).

I recall that I highly doubted Canon would release an APS-C EOS R camera, much less kill off the M series that was the best-selling APS-C MILC line globally. The fact that the R50 and R10 are now regularly in the top 10 (often one or both are in the top 3) on BCN suggests that despite killing off the M line over the past few years, Canon is continuing to have strong sales of APS-C MILCs and is successfully convincing current buyers to purchase entry-level bodies with the RF mount. As I often say, Canon knows more about making and selling cameras than anyone posting on this forum, and obviously that includes me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0