Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[neuroanatomist]

you just made my entire argument. thanks.

you picked all third party lenses that if they were available natively for the RF mount would provide capable options for this that cannot afford Canon RF OEM. Why not use an adapter - there's a lens balance issue there as well, those lenses were designed to be balanced on a EF camera body, you are moving the grip, and center of gravity 20mm out further than the designers intended. and if you don't think that's important, there's a bazillion patents on it.

Why are we forced to use an adapter - again, you proved my point. These lenses could be made natively with the EF protocol on the RF mount, without any possible IP infringement. So why aren't they?

I get you that you siding with Canon here, that's great. I've been using Canon for 40 years. I do as well. I spent 5+ years reporting on Canon stuff each and every day. You don't think I want to side with Canon here?

All this stuff should be available natively on the RF mount. It's not. Not everyone can afford Canon's balancing of factors ie: cost to equip their kit.

Yes Canon is a business. Guess what? So are Sony, Fuji, Nikon, et all.

And also; I'm concerned once we do get third party options coming - how are we to tell the officially licensed products versus ones that are not?

and finally you griped about why am I writing up about this now. I covered it - there's a new rumor that Canon will officially open the mount up sometime next year. Craig things it's hogwash, but that is why I'm STILL bringing this up.

I’m not ‘siding with Canon’ (or against them). As I said in my first reply in this topic, I don’t have a horse in this race. I can afford the OEM lenses, they’re generally of better quality and/or offer better features (e.g. I doubt 3rd party RF lenses would have a control ring).

I certainly get that not everyone can afford the OEM options, and would like mainstream (i.e., AF) 3rd party lenses to be available. Perhaps I haven’t yet shared with you what me ol’ Irish Da used to say: “Wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.” The point I’m making is that this is up to Canon. They hold all the cards here.

Yes, Sony, Nikon and Fuji are businesses, too. The market share of all three of them combined is still less than Canon’s. I’m not sure why you seem to think Canon should have a similar strategy as the others regarding 3rd party lenses. Canon’s dominance of the market (and even bigger dominance in terms of installed base) means the business case for doing so is weak. That may change, time will tell.

It’s amusing when people state, ‘Canon abandoned me,’ as if it’s some sort of personal affront. If your needs aren’t met by Canon, switch brands. I live in New England, Subarus are great cars for winters here. But when we needed an 8-passenger car with a second row that can fit three car seats (when expecting our third child), Subaru didn’t have one. I didn’t blog about how Subaru was failing me by not offering a vehicle that met my needs, or claim that they were d00med because they were ignoring an enormous segment of the market. We simply bought a Honda Pilot, and drove it for the next 9 years.

Back to ‘siding’, the only side anyone should be on is their own. Buy what meets your needs or wants, regardless of brand. Just don't expect your choices to affect Canon.

 

[Jayk0607]

No comparison is going to be perfect. Nobody said any is. And quite frankly since most of the investment is in lenses, switching camera bodies is extremely painful. I won't say it's more or less painful than changing operating systems as that depends entirely on other factors such as what software you use and how many lenses you have.

So it's not really a good comparison. Because people usually can start fresh with photography, whereas in OS, people usually know which OS to pick based on their usage. On a side note, rolling out a different brand laptop, let alone OS is a painful process. My employer did a company wide laptop swap to a different brand, and even though the OS is same (Win10), some software doesn't work correctly. We are having to keep the old one in case we need it and until our IT finds the solution (fortune 500 company IT can't figure this out for over a year now...) You may have better working knowledge than me since you are a former MS engineer.. But my background is in accounting/finance/business consulting and planning, which brings to...

None of the reasons you mentioned have translated into benefits for the consumer. The RF mount remains very expensive compared to it's predecessors and competitors. Their offerings are less complete than other systems. And ultimately having fewer lens choices harms what people can do. Of course you can take nice photos with the R7, any modern camera can take wonderful photos. However you can do a lot more with almost every other crop system on the market (Nikon is similarly limited). Which makes RF-S a bad investment for anyone who isn't buying it as a gateway to FF (a dubious concept but that's a separate debate).

This probably has been beaten to death on every Canon and third party lens discussion... Canon is a for-profit business. Their goal is to maximize the shareholder value. Can't really argue against their business decision. They have to maintain good balance of number of their business metrics. This includes understanding the market(share) and customer needs, while maximizing their profit. Their approach, as the industry leader, is different from Sony or Nikon.

I think RF-S lenses and bodies are very well priced, compared to Sony and Nikon, so to say it's a bad investment (it's not really an investment, since you don't expect camera gears to appreciate in value over time) is not correct. I think this comes from Canon's market study based on people who purchases R50/R100 and R10. They are more likely to be content with more affordable kit lenses. For R7 shooters who wants superior lenses, you can either go RF or use the adapter.

Serious question: You said you have R7 so obviously you purchased it knowing there are limited lens choice and now not happy about the lens choices. What made you purchase R7 over other brands?

 

[neuroanatomist]

This probably has been beaten to death on every Canon and third party lens discussion... Canon is a for-profit business. Their goal is to maximize the shareholder value. Can't really argue against their business decision.

Sure you can, people here do it all the time. Of course, ‘arguing against’ is not the same as ‘successfully arguing against’ or ‘intelligently arguing against’.

Even then, some people will trot out Kodak and Nokia. I guess because they think two failures among thousands of successful companies proves their point.

 

[Richard CN]

This probably has been beaten to death on every Canon and third party lens discussion... Canon is a for-profit business. Their goal is to maximize the shareholder value. Can't really argue against their business decision. They have to maintain good balance of number of their business metrics. This includes understanding the market(share) and customer needs, while maximizing their profit. Their approach, as the industry leader, is different from Sony or Nikon.

Canon is neither all-wise nor infallible - Hell, they developed the EF-M and then the RF mount as being completely incompable with each other - in EITHER direction. Canon is maximizing revenue and operating profit by expanding its business lines and focusing far less on cameras than it has in the past. While a significant amount of their operating profit comes from imaging, imaging is also expanding to include surveillance cameras and the like. Cameras now make up around 25% of Canon's total sales.

Even though Canon leads - Canon leads ONLY by overall camera units. Canon as a market leader was built really on the EF system and surprisingly still the EOS-M system. The RF system when you think of the total mount marketshare of the EF system is still vastly larger than the RF. What we don't know is how exactly the RF on it's own is doing. But yes, Canon obviously does. So when we hear about canon's mirrorless marketshare, that's not just RF, that includes the EOS-M which is heavily sold in Asia at least. I don't have USA sales totals.

Sony for instance, has 15% more sales revenue from their camera section than Canon does theirs in a last reportable quarter by quarter comparison (141 to 161 billions of yen).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even though Canon leads - Canon leads by units. Sony for instance, has 20% more sales revenue from their camera section than Canon does theirs.

True. Canon has a stated goal of hitting 50% market share by units, and that’s typically how the industry ranks manufacturers.

More important than units or revenue is profit. Neither company provides granularity to show profit for just cameras. Canon’s imaging division comprises digital cameras and network cameras, and had double-digit profit growth last year and projects the same for this year. For Sony, cameras are in the entertainment technology and services division, that had 4% profit growth last year.

 

[RobbieHat]

Which third party lenses do you want?

Sigma 14mm f 1.8 Art, Sigma 14mm f1.4 Art, Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art, Sigma 20 mm f1.4 Art And I could go on. Canon has never served the astro market and the best options were always third party lenses. I will continue to adapt my EF lenses but it would be nice if Canon opened the RF standard to Sigma so that they could better take advantage of the RF mount and update their fast UWA primes and zooms. You can tout Canon all you want for lots of lens options and superiority of optics for portrait, wedding zooms, big whites, etc. but they have always trailed in the fast UWA primes and zooms. I do love the 11-24 f4 but it is a little too slow for Astro even with the improved handling of higher ISO by the RF sensors.

 

[Jayk0607]

Canon is neither all-wise nor infallible - Hell, they developed the EF-M and then the RF mount as being completely incompable with each other - in EITHER direction. Canon is maximizing revenue and operating profit by expanding its business lines and focusing far less on cameras than it has in the past. While a significant amount of their operating profit comes from imaging, imaging is also expanding to include surveillance cameras and the like. Cameras now make up around 25% of Canon's total sales.

Diversifying business is nothing new.

Even though Canon leads - Canon leads ONLY by overall camera units. Canon as a market leader was built really on the EF system and surprisingly still the EOS-M system. The RF system when you think of the total mount marketshare of the EF system is still vastly larger than the RF. What we don't know is how exactly the RF on it's own is doing. But yes, Canon obviously does. So when we hear about canon's mirrorless marketshare, that's not just RF, that includes the EOS-M which is heavily sold in Asia at least. I don't have USA sales totals.

They don't release the sales number but they seem to be doing good. Excerpt from Q2 report:

In the Imaging Business Unit, as for the interchangeable-lens digital cameras, unit sales increased due to steadysales of the EOS R6 Mark II full-frame mirrorless camera, EOS R7 and EOS R10 APS-C size mirrorless camerasreleased last year. The new entry-level EOS R50 and EOS R100 models, launched this year, were also wellreceived in the market. The market demand for some models even surpassed production capacity. Unit sales oflenses surpassed those of the same period of the previous year thanks to strong sales of RF-seriesinterchangeable-lenses.​

​

Sony for instance, has 15% more sales revenue from their camera section than Canon does theirs in a last reportable quarter by quarter comparison (141 to 161 billions of yen).

Not sure why you are bringing in financials to this discussion but have different results than you. These are from Canon and Sony's last earnings release (imaging sector. In Billions Yen)

Canon: Q2 ended June 30: Sales 219 / Operating Income 35​

Sony: Q1 ended June 30: Sales 293 / Operating Income 13​

​

I believe Sony's imaging and sensor sector includes mobile sensor sector as well. But then, it's not an apples to apples comparison, since Canon uses US GAAP and Sony's IFRS.

 

[Richard CN]

Canon: Q2 ended June 30: Sales 219 / Operating Income 35​

Sony: Q1 ended June 30: Sales 293 / Operating Income 13​

​

I believe Sony's imaging and sensor sector includes mobile sensor sector as well. But then, it's not an apples to apples comparison, since Canon uses US GAAP and Sony's IFRS.

I was looking at the specific camera sections of both, not the divisions.

 

[Richard CN]

Sigma 14mm f 1.8 Art, Sigma 14mm f1.4 Art, Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art, Sigma 20 mm f1.4 Art And I could go on. Canon has never served the astro market and the best options were always third party lenses. I will continue to adapt my EF lenses but it would be nice if Canon opened the RF standard to Sigma so that they could better take advantage of the RF mount and update their fast UWA primes and zooms. You can tout Canon all you want for lots of lens options and superiority of optics for portrait, wedding zooms, big whites, etc. but they have always trailed in the fast UWA primes and zooms. I do love the 11-24 f4 but it is a little too slow for Astro even with the improved handling of higher ISO by the RF sensors.

there are also issues with adapting fast ultra wide lenses, because you have 2 extra mount surfaces, and the precision can be a bit lax - where this won't effect normal and telephoto lenses, on UWA's you can get a loss of resolution if something is misaligned slightly.

While adapters are okay for most purposes, they aren't the strategic answer either.

 

[Jayk0607]

I was looking at the specific camera sections of both, not the divisions.

They don't have separate camera section. Camera's lumped into imaging. Nevertheless, can't compare US GAAP to IFRS.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Really?

On Canon:
Tokina 16-28/2.8 for EF - $699
Sigma 24-70/2.8 for EF - $1299
Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 for EF - $1299
EF mount adapter - $129
= $3426

Tokina weighs - 950g
Sigma weighs - 1020g
Tamron weighs - 1500g
= 3.4kg

vs the setup I mentioned

Sigma weighs - 420g
Tamron weighs - 550g
Tamron weighs - 810g
= 1.7 kg

Many would happily pay the extra $161 for newer lenses, that don’t need an adapter, that are much smaller and weigh combined half as much.

Feel free to whine (or whinge, in your case) about having to use an adapter, but the fact is that a 3rd party f/2.8 trinity is readily available for Canon R bodies, and it is actually cheaper than your suggestions for Nikon or Sony.

I’m not whinging, its called having a debate.

So with Canon, you get a relatively inexpensive slow/variable aperture trinity covering 15-400mm for $1500, the 3rd party f/2.8 trinity above covering 16-200mm for $3400, an OEM f/4 trinity covering 14-200mm for $3900, or an OEM f/2.8 trinity covering 15-200mm for $6700.

But there is less choice with Canon. Oki-dokie, whatever lies you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

That $1500 kit will be great for one type of user but not for many enthusiasts and professionals. If they need and want to build a native mounting professional grade kit to support their passion and or business but can’t afford OEM prices then Canon is likely not an option if they want mirrorless.
Even if Canon aren’t going to open up the RF mount to 3rd parties then I make the suggestion that they make their own non L f2.8 trinity like what Tamron have done that would still be OEM but have a lower cost.

 

[David - Sydney]

Something else I mentioned when this issue was initially discussed – Canon has mountains of data on their own lens sales and 3rd party lens sales, matched with what camera(s) the buyers own and their demographic info. Canon didn’t decide to act to prevent 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount capriciously. They made an informed business decision with access to data that none of us have.

Canon have lots of data about their own sales/retailer/region. Grey market sales they could estimate.
"Warranty card" returns would have widely varying success rates. I'm not sure if they have options to include 3rd party lenses or not. The data quality would be average.
CPS also applies very differently per country/region so data quality would vary widely. CPS Australia is only for professionals (with significant income from photography) before applying and must quote a business tax number. Even their website only lists 1/R3 and "5D" bodies so if you don't use the best, don't think about jointing the club. I am not sure that you list your 3rd party gear on it though.

It is unclear to me how much (even reasonably) accurate data they have about 3rd party EF lens sales per region. Maybe they can estimate from public disclosure documents but it would be hard to split by mount I think.

There will always be some level of churn to other systems (and also back to Canon). If you bought and then sold to switch then Canon still won with sales in the past so it is only future sales at risk.

It would seem to me that if Canon has no roadmap to make a particular RF lens and Sigma/etc suggest that they fill that "gap" for a price/royalty etc then I can't see a good business reason not to and would improve a perceived customer limitation. Frankly, it seems that it is similar to the "overheating" claims ie now it is the "limited lenses/no 3rd party lens" mantra

 

[David - Sydney]

2) I'm not bitter. I'm disappointed. I shouldn't have had to switch. A better company would have created paths for people like me. If there is any bitterness at all it's that perhaps I wasted my time starting with Canon rather than Fuji or Sony. Not because Canon makes bad cameras of course, but because they don't seem to respect their users. When I first bought my M50 a professional friend of mine warned me to go Sony or Fuji and I ignored them because the M50 seemed like such a good deal. And it was...so long as it's the only camera you ever wanted. Once I had to switch I had to switch everything since, well, EF-M lenses were abandoned. When I did make the switch I asked that friend their opinion and they said if I preferred crop to go Fuji, if I preferred FF go Sony and neither would ever abandon me without options. They were correct.

We need to keep in mind that the M system was always meant to be small, cheap and self contained. Yes, there was a EF-EFm adaptor to add longer EF lenses but the eco-system was very specific including the diameter of the lenses. It was never meant to be (and physically couldn't be) a gateway to R mount. Supporting 3 different mounts with EF + EFm + R mount systems wasn't sustainable for the long term so they made a call. The vast majority of M mount users would never buy outside their kit lens bundles and even maxing out their EF-M lenses/bodies is still a "relatively" inexpensive system to buy - and of course - switch out from.

Canon has provided a crop future in R mount without imposing compatibility limitations from EF/EF-S. That is their strategy and although missing UWA RFs lenses, the range of APS-C bodies is generous. I am assuming that they will flesh out the RF-S lens range in the near future but crop sensor bodies in R mount is still quite recent.

PERSPECTIVE!!
E mount came out in 2010. After 5 years, Sony had 22 E mount native lenses available covering APS-C and FF. I don't know the number of 3rd party lens native to E mount.

R mount came out in 2018. After 5 years, Canon has 35 native lenses plus all EF and EF-S native leases and 3rd party EF/EF-s lenses. You might say... but you need an adaptor but the adaptor is native and backward compatible unlike a metabones adaptor etc that had variable results.

 

[David - Sydney]

As I have mentioned in other threads Canon is FAR FAR more expensive in Europe and also in Australia from what I hear. US shooters may not care but that is some of where the complaints come from.

yeah, nah... Aussie prices are pretty much in line with the US given exchange rate and 10%GST... and we get a 5 year Canon warranty on top. There does seem to be some volatility with rebates and discounting at times though. Just a matter of making a decision at the right times of the year (end of financial year/christmas etc).

 

[EricN]

I’m not whinging, its called having a debate

What purpose does this debate have? Do you think Canon's going to change it's decision based on what is said here or is it to vent your frustrations which is often termed whining?

 

[David - Sydney]

Why are we forced to use an adapter - again, you proved my point. These lenses could be made natively with the EF protocol on the RF mount, without any possible IP infringement. So why aren't they?

That is a good question but it is a question for Sigma/etc. Similarly, why aren't the 3rd parties releasing new lenses on EF? Should be no issue there and provide a relatively seamless option for existing R mount users... for those that understand why and when to buy 3rd party solutions.

All this stuff should be available natively on the RF mount. It's not. Not everyone can afford Canon's balancing of factors ie: cost to equip their kit.

For some lenses, it would be great for Sigma etc to release RF mount lenses even in manual focus. My particular "focus" at the moment is astro landscapes and no AF is required. Frankly, a cheaper solution without AF motors etc would be even better A bunch of 14mm to 40mm f1.4 lenses would be sweet!

 

[David - Sydney]

Sigma 20 mm f1.4 Art And I could go on. Canon has never served the astro market and the best options were always third party lenses.

This is a particular interest for me at the moment but I recently got the SIGMA 20mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art for EF.... and although the coma is average (especially in the centre) it seems to be best at the moment.

Which Sigma 20/1.4 are you referring to?

 

[David - Sydney]

there are also issues with adapting fast ultra wide lenses, because you have 2 extra mount surfaces, and the precision can be a bit lax - where this won't effect normal and telephoto lenses, on UWA's you can get a loss of resolution if something is misaligned slightly.

While adapters are okay for most purposes, they aren't the strategic answer either.

Can you provide some detail on the issues of UWA lenses with adaptors? I haven't heard of this before.

 

[Snapster]

This seems like a long race forced by Canon. Who caves in first making a licensing deal, Canon or Sigma &co. Who needs the other more? And the customers and photographers are the ones who lose. How far can Canon push it with a greedy lens strategy before enough people start switching systems to make a dent in their bottom line.

Canon easily kept a lot of transitioning photographers from EF, myself included, who came from EF thinking third party RF glass would surely be a thing in a year or two. I did consider going Sony for the mirrorless transition because they were/are ahead, but I like Canon's camera bodies better and trusted Sigma and Tamron would eventually be available just like on Canon's old mount. So I stuck with Canon and accepted that I would have to wait for RF lenses for a year or two. Turns out the wait is much longer and indefinite. So I am disappointed in Canon and switching systems is a real consideration now. I simply don't get the lenses I need. Lenses that already exist. When the upgrade to R5 II becomes relevant next year, I will make the decision whether to jump ship and start over with Sony or Nikon or not, based on the information we will have then.

 

[mpmark]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But, those who are pissed off have an equal right to their opinion and for good reason as well. As I pointed out in the last post, Canon can't do everything they want but are restricted.

What's remarkable is the fact that people feel the need for entitlement for a company to run a business the way they desire. It used to be the case that if you don't like a brand you wouldn't buy it again and would move elsewhere.

But today the unhappy must let the rest of us know exactly how they feel, sorta like that screaming kid in the corner of the classroom.