The Canon EOS R system turns 3 and Lensrentals.com gives us a breakdown of its progression

[unfocused]

They didn't screw up the lens rollout; they screwed up the underfeatured body...

Canon didn't screw up anything. The R remains a great camera and great bargain.

It was a general purpose camera and as a first introduction, that's exactly what it should have been. It sells for nearly $1,000 less than the R6, but has more resolution. It is well under half the cost of the R5, but if you aren't shooting sports or birds in flight you may not miss many of the features of the R5 (And, I say that as an owner of both bodies). It is still more than $1,000 less than the 5DIV. I bought the R primarily for the silent shutter, but after a few weeks using it, it became my preferred camera and the 5DIV became a backup.

 

[Etienne]

Canon has done an amazing job, with some truly unique offerings and a lot of promise for the future.
But, and it's a big "but," Sony has done better... in every category except some specialty lenses like the new dual fish eye and the f/2 zooms.

It's Canon playing catch up now. And I am a Canon fan.

 

[Random Orbits]

Canon didn't screw up anything. The R remains a great camera and great bargain.

It was a general purpose camera and as a first introduction, that's exactly what it should have been. It sells for nearly $1,000 less than the R6, but has more resolution. It is well under half the cost of the R5, but if you aren't shooting sports or birds in flight you may not miss many of the features of the R5 (And, I say that as an owner of both bodies). It is still more than $1,000 less than the 5DIV. I bought the R primarily for the silent shutter, but after a few weeks using it, it became my preferred camera and the 5DIV became a backup.

You are forgetting that it came out at $2300 and dropped to $2000 after 7 months. The R6 is still listed for $2500 after a year after its introduction, so which camera has retained its value more? Besides the higher MP count of the R, the R6 is better. And don't forget the original firmware that shipped with the R at introduction. AF was much worse back then (servo AF, face detection, etc.). So,I disagree, at launch, it was not great nor was it a bargain -- the large drop in price is due to the fact that its feature set was not competitive against its competitors nor its sibling, especially the R6. So you would take the R at 2300 versus the R6 at 2500? Really?!

 

[unfocused]

You are forgetting that it came out at $2300 and dropped to $2000 after 7 months. The R6 is still listed for $2500 after a year after its introduction, so which camera has retained its value more? Besides the higher MP count of the R, the R6 is better. And don't forget the original firmware that shipped with the R at introduction. AF was much worse back then (servo AF, face detection, etc.). So,I disagree, at launch, it was not great nor was it a bargain -- the large drop in price is due to the fact that its feature set was not competitive against its competitors nor its sibling, especially the R6. So you would take the R at 2300 versus the R6 at 2500? Really?!

One can argue past pricing all day, but that's not relevant to the claim that the R was a "screw up."

Three years after introduction it remains a very competitive and high quality camera that was critical to the successful launch of the R series. I'm sure Canon would like to have more "screw ups" like that.

 

[Random Orbits]

One can argue past pricing all day, but that's not relevant to the claim that the R was a "screw up."

Three years after introduction it remains a very competitive and high quality camera that was critical to the successful launch of the R series. I'm sure Canon would like to have more "screw ups" like that.

Price is highly relevant because it is the value that the R system provides that causes people to adopt it and value is based on features and price. The R launched at 2300, the Z6 launched at 2000 and the Z7 launched at 2600. At 2300, it was an overpriced "screw up". They dropped the price to 2000 about half a year later. You think that was Canon's original plan, or do you think that they realized they priced it too high and had to discount it?

After 3 years, it is not a competitive camera, unless you factor in it's reduced price, but then you say pricing is not relevant to this discussion, so which is it? I had hoped that Canon would have had something closer to the R5/R6 at launch rather than the R given it's experience in developing the EOS M system. I think the R and RP were stopgap measures because Canon did not have the tech ready. Also notice the wonky "R" and "RP" names that are separate from the more established 1, 5 and 6 series. Canon would have done even better if it could launch the EOS R system with a better offering than the R. Canon was also correct in releasing the f/2.8 zoom trinity in 2019, shortly after the R was launched unlike what Nikon did with mainly leading with their f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms. So yes, I think it was the RF glass that sold the R camera. The RF glass was the strength of the EOS R ecosystem, not the launch camera. People did not praise Canon for the R for its higher price than its competitors, lack of IBIS, touch bar or ORIGINAL AF performance. I love using the RF glass, I never loved using the R.

I tried the R when it first came out. It was ok, it was not categorically better than my 5D4. I kept the 5D4 for another 2 years after getting the R, and I used both. I got the R in 2018 to use the RF lenses, and I got the lenses that launched with the R because I could find them at a discount to MSRP shortly after launch. Otherwise, I would have waited for the first price drop. How often are discounts offered from something that just came out like that (weeks after launch)? I used the R for portraits, and the 5D4 for travel (GPS and longer battery life) and sports. The R did drive the fast EF primes much more accurately than the 5D4, which is why I favored it for portraits. I replaced the 5D4 with the R5. The R is a backup to the R5, but I haven't used it except to take video (while I'm using the R5 for stills) since I got the R5. The R5 feels like the true successor to the 5D4 while the R felt more like a younger brother to the 5D4 (two years younger with similar tech and slower frame rates).

 

[Aussie shooter]

Only 3 years!!!! TBH what they have produced in that time is nothing short of mind boggling.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You think that was Canon's original plan, or do you think that they realized they priced it too high and had to discount it?

Many manufacturers price new items high to reap more profit from early buyers, then plan to drop the price to increase volume.

Canon recently raised prices on a bunch of RF lenses. What does that say? Yes, supply is short. But demand is high.

Or consider the EOS M. Dropped early to fire sale prices in the US. So did Canon screw up the M line? By your logic, they did. That system is now the best-selling MILC camera line.

 

[Czardoom]

You are forgetting that it came out at $2300 and dropped to $2000 after 7 months. The R6 is still listed for $2500 after a year after its introduction, so which camera has retained its value more? Besides the higher MP count of the R, the R6 is better. And don't forget the original firmware that shipped with the R at introduction. AF was much worse back then (servo AF, face detection, etc.). So,I disagree, at launch, it was not great nor was it a bargain -- the large drop in price is due to the fact that its feature set was not competitive against its competitors nor its sibling, especially the R6. So you would take the R at 2300 versus the R6 at 2500? Really?!

Yes, it is quite possible that you and some others considered the R a mediocre camera at launch, but that is not the way I remember it. Pre-launch - as almost all Canon offerings at that time, the reaction on forums and the internet was negative as it did not compete with Sony specs. After launch - from those that actually bought it, I recall the reaction was very favorable. It was closer to a 5D IV than a 6D II - at a much lower price than the 5D IV. So, yes, many of us did consider it a good price at the time - if not exactly a bargain. There was no R6 anywhere on the horizon, so comparing the price to it is irrelevant.

No one is saying that you had to like the camera or that you and others didn't think it mediocre. But I think you are very wrong in your assessment of what the general Canon buyers reaction to the R was.

 

[Czardoom]

I think the vast majority of products they've made have been discounted after some amount of time.

And again, I'd suggest that the discounting was needed in part because the initial rollout was exclusively targeted at current EF users, due to requiring EF glass no matter what the use case, because (back to my initial complaint) there's no kind of user who could use just RF lenses from Day 1. (And no-one in their right mind would move to Canon RF-mount, buy the R, and buy EF lenses they'd have to use an adapter with; does anyone know of a single such person?)

If instead the R had been introduced with the trinity zooms, you'd have some sales--maybe not huge, but sales--to people who aren't coming from EF. And with additional sales, would you need to have discounted it quite as fast? Probably not quite so fast.

From Day 1 when I bought the R, I had only one lens, the RF 24-105. So you are wrong on that count.

After I bought the R, I bought no less than 4 EF lenses to use with the adapter. So you are wrong about that also.

 

[John Wilde]

You think that was Canon's original plan, or do you think that they realized they priced it too high and had to discount it?

Pricing high and then dropping the price is a widely used plan. It's called Price Skimming.

Price Skimming: Definition, How It Works, and Limitations

Price skimming is a strategy in which a company will list a product as high as possible, gradually reducing the price until it meets a market average.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Random Orbits]

Pricing high and then dropping the price is a widely used plan. It's called Price Skimming.

Price Skimming: Definition, How It Works, and Limitations

Price skimming is a strategy in which a company will list a product as high as possible, gradually reducing the price until it meets a market average.

www.investopedia.com

Yes, so what other Canon FF digital camera dropped its price after 7 months or less? Yes, it's price skimming, but perhaps they priced it too high initially relative to its competition. After all, the R5 and R6 have been out longer now, and there haven't been any price drops on those bodies. It comes down to supply and demand, and the demand for the R must not have met expectations, otherwise why drop the price afer 7 months?

 

[Random Orbits]

Many manufacturers price new items high to reap more profit from early buyers, then plan to drop the price to increase volume.

Canon recently raised prices on a bunch of RF lenses. What does that say? Yes, supply is short. But demand is high.

Or consider the EOS M. Dropped early to fire sale prices in the US. So did Canon screw up the M line? By your logic, they did. That system is now the best-selling MILC camera line.

Yes, I would say Canon misread and priced the original M incorrectly in the US, which is why you had the fire sale. Oh, and it was so successful in the US that they didn't bother selling its successor here... I got the M during the fire sale and had to purchase other lenses from other markets. The original M was not designed for the US market, and it wasn't marketed/priced well. They fixed that with later models, but I wouldn't say the first 2 M's in the US market were a success.

 

[koenkooi]

Yes, it is quite possible that you and some others considered the R a mediocre camera at launch, but that is not the way I remember it. Pre-launch - as almost all Canon offerings at that time, the reaction on forums and the internet was negative as it did not compete with Sony specs. After launch - from those that actually bought it, I recall the reaction was very favorable. It was closer to a 5D IV than a 6D II - at a much lower price than the 5D IV. So, yes, many of us did consider it a good price at the time - if not exactly a bargain. There was no R6 anywhere on the horizon, so comparing the price to it is irrelevant.

No one is saying that you had to like the camera or that you and others didn't think it mediocre. But I think you are very wrong in your assessment of what the general Canon buyers reaction to the R was.

I didn't consider the R mediocre, but I did consider it not good value for money for my situation. They I got layed off with a nice amount of money to not protest the not-quite-legal way they did it, so the R because attractive to actually buy.
That was just after the RP launched and a nearby camera store had an offer where you could rent an R or RP, plus the RF50L and RF24-105L for free, and I picked the RP+50+24-105. The idea was that if I hated it, I could try the R after that. I liked the RP so much that I bought one halfway of the rental period and when returning it I bought an EF100L, which was less than the price difference between the R and RP.

A few months later I rented an R to see if the RP was the right choice and I didn't like how the R handled. And to add insult to injury, the R added shutter shock to my IS lenses when used at 1/160s with fully mechanical shutter (for the f/1.2 lenses I rented, forgot to switch back to EFCS). The RP doesn't have MS, only EFCS and doesn't suffer from that. So I still think the RP beats the R, for my use, which consist of my kids and macro.

 

[YuengLinger]

Good summary of the beginning of Canon FF mirrorless. The initial lenses were exactly right for me, and they were what led me to buy the R. I enjoyed using the R and knew that it was just a stepping stone. I sold it when the used market spiked back up about two months ago so I could buy, um, more EOS R-system gear.

I'm not sure if it is boredom, or just an unusual hobby, but jumping online to fantasize about how an outstanding roll-out (interrupted by a pandemic) could have been perfect "if only Canon had consulted me first," seems more boring than reading assembly instructions of furniture I never plan to buy.

 

[Random Orbits]

Yes, it is quite possible that you and some others considered the R a mediocre camera at launch, but that is not the way I remember it. Pre-launch - as almost all Canon offerings at that time, the reaction on forums and the internet was negative as it did not compete with Sony specs. After launch - from those that actually bought it, I recall the reaction was very favorable. It was closer to a 5D IV than a 6D II - at a much lower price than the 5D IV. So, yes, many of us did consider it a good price at the time - if not exactly a bargain. There was no R6 anywhere on the horizon, so comparing the price to it is irrelevant.

No one is saying that you had to like the camera or that you and others didn't think it mediocre. But I think you are very wrong in your assessment of what the general Canon buyers reaction to the R was.

Thanks for your response. I had hoped that the R could replace the 5D4 for all my use cases, but it could not. It did lose on specs to the Z6, Z7 and Sony's alpha at the time by you are correct that it was priced below the 5D4. Canon was probably hoping that people would compare it to the 5D4 and see the R as a bargain, whereas some of us compared it to its competitors that had a larger feature set AND were priced lower. By the time the R came out, the 5D4 also seemed overpriced for what it offered.

I agree that the initial reaction on forums and internet reviews were negative on the R body, but Canon had hits with its lenses. The RF 35 f/1.8 was cheaper, had better max magnification and had a larger max apertures than the EF 35 f/2 IS, the RF 50L performed so much better than the EF 50L, and the RF 28-70 f/2 was something new. In 2019, the RF 85 f/1.2Ls were released along with the f/2.8 zoom trinity. The RF 85s seemed like the true successors to the EF 85 f/1.2L II and not the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. Shortly after a year after launching the EOS R platform, Canon had a range of excellent lenses that generated a lot of positive buzz from reviewers. Meanwhile Nikon had a bunch of f/1.8 zooms that cost 600-850 each and some f/4 zooms for its Z system (along with the manual focus 58mm noct lens for 8k).

I also think that not many people bought into the system initially with the original firmware. Later firmware drops improved AF a lot. Now, people think that Canon and Sony are comparable in AF with Nikon behind, but when the R first came out, it was Sony, Nikon and Canon's R bringing up the rear. I was able to buy the launch RF lenses at a discount shortly after launch. I paid full price for the R, but my total outlay was less because of the prices I paid for the lenses. I can't imagine doing that today with the new releases. The new RF L lenses are typically backordered and sell for full MSRP. If Canon had launched the R ecosystem with a camera that was closer to the R5 or the R6, I don't think I would have been able to get the R body/RF lenses so quickly nor at a discount. Therefore, I don't think the launch lenses were to blame for not creating enough demand to sell out the launch products; I think it was the original R body. The R5 and R6 have been out for over a year, and it's hard to find those bodies or RF L lenses in stock.

 

[rontele7]

RF is ultimately a pointless move by Canon. The lenses are, with few exceptions, substantially larger, more expensive, and more cheaply built than any in the EF lineup.

Just look at that garish RF 50mm. Extraordinatily large, expensive, and with a cheap plastic shell.

Canon promised not to release any lenses unless they could do something innovative, yet they haven’t even tried to meet that promise. Just look at the 400 & 500mm…they’re exactly the same as EF just with an adapter screwed on…

There’s a reason the 1DxIII and 5D4 are holding their value so well, and EF lenses are too.

 

[privatebydesign]

RF is ultimately a pointless move by Canon. The lenses are, with few exceptions, substantially larger, more expensive, and more cheaply built than any in the EF lineup.

Just look at that garish RF 50mm. Extraordinatily large, expensive, and with a cheap plastic shell.

Canon promised not to release any lenses unless they could do something innovative, yet they haven’t even tried to meet that promise. Just look at the 400 & 500mm…they’re exactly the same as EF just with an adapter screwed on…

There’s a reason the 1DxIII and 5D4 are holding their value so well, and EF lenses are too.

Pointless for who?

From Canon's perspective, making money, the move to RF is great!

Personally I have found engineering plastic lenses stand up to general use and abuse considerably better than painted metal lenses.

You can get very low usage used 1DX III's for well under $5,000. That isn't a good example of holding value!

 

[InchMetric]

Pricing high and then dropping the price is a widely used plan. It's called Price Skimming.

Price Skimming: Definition, How It Works, and Limitations

Price skimming is a strategy in which a company will list a product as high as possible, gradually reducing the price until it meets a market average.

www.investopedia.com

I find "skimming" to be a needlessly perjorative term that refers to the smart and ethical strategy of loading more development costs into early sales to be paid willingly by those customers who value the new developments the most.

 

[neuroanatomist]

RF is ultimately a pointless move by Canon. The lenses are, with few exceptions, substantially larger, more expensive, and more cheaply built than any in the EF lineup.

Most are similar or very slightly larger in size, which translates to somewhat smaller once you factor in the adapter needed for an EF lens. Some, like the 70-200 zooms, are substantially smaller. As a simple example, here are the RF 15-35/2.8 and EF 16-35/2.8 II – same size, but the RF is 1mm wider and has IS.:



Engineering plastic is actually stronger and more shock resistant than the metal alloy used for lens barrels, is less affected by temperature changes, and is lighter. I guess some people think a metal lens barrel is better just because it's metal.

Canon promised not to release any lenses unless they could do something innovative, yet they haven’t even tried to meet that promise. Just look at the 400 & 500mm…they’re exactly the same as EF just with an adapter screwed on…

Have you seen the RF 28-70mm f/2 zoom? The 5.2mm dual fisheye? The 800/11 that is Canon-branded, has very good IQ and is relatively affordable? In fact, consider the 16/2.8, 24-105/4-7.1 and 100-400 – a 3-lens combo covering 16-400mm that at $1350 costs less than most single L-series lenses.

Also, note that Canon explicitly stated they did not initially plan to release the 400/2.8 and 600/4 in RF mounts, but developed them due to customer requests.

There’s a reason the 1DxIII and 5D4 are holding their value so well, and EF lenses are too.

Apparently you haven't looked at used prices lately.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon was probably hoping that people would compare it to the 5D4 and see the R as a bargain, whereas some of us compared it to its competitors...

I suspect most people did compare it to the 5D4 and see the R as a bargain. Despite all the talk on these forums, relatively few people actually switch brands. Investment in a system, familiarity and inertia keep most people in-brand. As I previously stated, the majority of ILC users already shoot Canon, so logically Canon should be aiming their products at Canon users for more than one reason. It's Sony and Nikon that need to be more concerned about inducing customers to switch.

Canon has dominated the market for nearly two decades, sells more ILCs than Sony and Nikon combined, and last year gained more market share than Sony. It's painfully obvious that they know more about the ILC market than you or anyone else on this forum.