Updated ship dates for the new Canon lenses

[Surab]

For many years, Nikon was a pretty close second to Canon in terms of market share. Yet Nikon lost >20% market share over a 7 year period starting in 2015, and that share went to Sony while Canon remained stable. Seems there's more involved than just customer inertia.

Indeed there is but at the same they are coming back strong right now. I'm curious were Canikony are headed.

I'm assuming, pure speculation, that it's got to do with video and the rise of YouTube as a review platform. Canons were way better than Nikons for video and had also solid DPAF to back up the live view/video.

So they got deservedly hyped for video creators and additionally Canon users exploring video didn't need to jump ship and could endure using their DSLR.

Further the RF AF stayed distinctly ahead of the Z bodies until the Z9, so Canon kept staying strong and looking better.

Obviously I'm oversimplifying things.

 

[EricN]

Obviously you don't live in the US. Lots of people here have no idea what a continent is, where Europe or Australia are located on a map, what a vowel or a verb is, and many other things that used to be common knowledge. Obviously I am generalizing, but George Carlin was correct and it has nothing to do with politics. Apparently you still get some sort of education in the UK.

I've seen some segments showing things like that on the late-night shows, but they don't tell us how many people couldn't answer those questions (and it's possible they were feigning ignorance for the show or their own sense of sarcastic replies to the question which I have done when I felt insulted by questions).

 

[Surab]

I don't think anyone here constantly claims Canon does everything right. Right now, I can think three things almost everyone agrees are not great: UK pricing, ability to only partially use TCs on the 100-500mm (and some other lenses not at all), requirements for CPS membership.
Personally, I have yet to purchase any of these narrower lenses, but after seeing other people posting wonderful shots with them I definitely consider them as good value products. As far as I know, no other company is offering 400mm at under $1000 (with the additional advantage of low weight and short MFD) or 800mm under 2000 (let alone the prime under $1000).

Although I mentioned George's joke about half of people, I also heard in a psychology lecture the idea that there is a tendency for people to consider themselves to be the same as most people... For example, if I like strawberry ice-cream it's likely I will think most people also like strawberry ice-cream.

That's fair but I've been reading here a while and sometimes the apologist energy burns strong.

But I personally am very much happy the RF 100-400 exists since I won't be able to afford neither the 100-500 nor the 200-800 for a few years. So l will have to complement the 24-105 with the 100-400 for the time being (and I'll use that time to gauge if I want raw IQ or much more range).

 

[EricN]

Indeed there is but at the same they are coming back strong right now. I'm curious were Canikony are headed.

I'm assuming, pure speculation, that it's got to do with video and the rise of YouTube as a review platform. Canons were way better than Nikons for video and had also solid DPAF to back up the live view/video.

So they got deservedly hyped for video creators and additionally Canon users exploring video didn't need to jump ship and could endure using their DSLR.

Further the RF AF stayed distinctly ahead of the Z bodies until the Z9, so Canon kept staying strong and looking better.

Obviously I'm oversimplifying things.

I remember seeing test where the Z9 failed to catch AF but the R3 could.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Indeed there is but at the same they are coming back strong right now.

Nikon? Lol. Here's their market share for the past several years:

• 2017 – 24.9%
• 2018 – 20.2%
• 2019 – 18.6%
• 2020 – 13.7%
• 2021 – 11.3%
• 2022 – 11.7%

After losing 14% over 5 years, a gain last year of 0.4% is 'coming back strong'? That's not oversimplifying things, that's just ridiculous.

 

[EricN]

That's fair but I've been reading here a while and sometimes the apologist energy burns strong.

But I personally am very much happy the RF 100-400 exists since I won't be able to afford neither the 100-500 nor the 200-800 for a few years. So l will have to complement the 24-105 with the 100-400 for the time being (and I'll use that time to gauge if I want raw IQ or much more range).

My advice to you is to stick with those lenses and keep an eye on the used and refurbished prices of the lenses you're interested in. Someone here will post about sales and Cpricewatch helps a lot too (you can make a request for specific items and the website will email you when there is a deal). With used, I would not go for anything with moisture or fungus, but scratches on the lens are not as bad as we think. I was careless and dropped my ef 100-400mm on a stone. The front element looks horrible, but it still delivers good images. I've thought about repairing it, but I like the fact that it shows something I didn't expect about how lenses function.

You can get a ef 400 5.6 for under $800 They are old and heavy, but if you live somewhere that has a good return policy, it might be worth testing.

 

[EricN]

Nikon? Lol. Here's their market share for the past several years:

• 2017 – 24.9%
• 2018 – 20.2%
• 2019 – 18.6%
• 2020 – 13.7%
• 2021 – 11.3%
• 2022 – 11.7%

After losing 14% over 5 years, a gain last year of 0.4% is 'coming back strong'? That's not oversimplifying things, that's just ridiculous.

I really do hope they can regain their market share...

 

[Surab]

I remember seeing test where the Z9 failed to catch AF but the R3 could.

Sure, but it's not like it was even during R vs Z6 and R6 vs Z6II times. Companies will catch up, Canon did with their sensors and Nikon will in terms of AF.

It's good times for us users.

Nikon? Lol. Here's their market share for the past several years:

• 2017 – 24.9%
• 2018 – 20.2%
• 2019 – 18.6%
• 2020 – 13.7%
• 2021 – 11.3%
• 2022 – 11.7%

After losing 14% over 5 years, a gain last year of 0.4% is 'coming back strong'? That's not oversimplifying things, that's just ridiculous.

I had the sense things had improved somewhat and I remember their profits and revenue had started to grow again this year.

Though you're definitely oversimplifying and unnecessarily ridiculing my post: While I might have been wrong about this, all my other points as to why it might have come to this are very plausible.

 

[Surab]

My advice to you is to stick with those lenses and keep an eye on the used and refurbished prices of the lenses you're interested in. Someone here will post about sales and Cpricewatch helps a lot too (you can make a request for specific items and the website will email you when there is a deal). With used, I would not go for anything with moisture or fungus, but scratches on the lens are not as bad as we think. I was careless and dropped my ef 100-400mm on a stone. The front element looks horrible, but it still delivers good images. I've thought about repairing it, but I like the fact that it shows something I didn't expect about how lenses function.

You can get a ef 400 5.6 for under $800 They are old and heavy, but if you live somewhere that has a good return policy, it might be worth testing.

I'll keep me eyes peeled thanks for the advice!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I really do hope they can regain their market share...

They're far more dependent on their camera sales than Canon. Sony isn't dependent on camera sales in any meaningful way.

 

[john1970]

I remember seeing test where the Z9 failed to catch AF but the R3 could.

From what I have read and heard from photographers is the Z9/Z8 has the best focusing within the Nikon mirrorless lineup. However, the Canon AF is still a bit more reliable. Moreover, what I like about Canon's approach to AF is that one has a very reliable AF system in an entry-level FF camera such as the R8, which currently sells in the US for $1299.

 

[john1970]

They're far more dependent on their camera sales than Canon. Sony isn't dependent on camera sales in any meaningful way.

A very good point to make.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While I might have been wrong about this, all my other points as to why it might have come to this are very plausible.

Indeed. And you have a great point about people's habits. The fact that Canon has held nearly 50% market share for the past several years as Nikon lost to Sony means Canon's installed base is somewhere in the 70-80% range.

The other factor is that Canon has done a very good job of maintaining a large user base by offering affordable options. You alluded to this, but IMO in a tangential way. It's not that Canon doesn't offer alternatives to f/8-11 lenses like the Nikon PF lenses, but rather that Canon offers OEM alternatives that are actually affordable for many people. As an example, for many years getting a 600mm or 800mm lens meant >$10K or getting one of those cheap Opteka-type lenses or a mirror lens for $200-400, basically crap quality. Nikon offers some very nice 'middle' lenses, but honestly for most people there's zero practical difference between a $12K 600/4 and a $5K 600/6.3 – neither is affordable. OTOH, a 600/11 for $800 is within budget for a much larger segment of the market.

 

[EricN]

Indeed. And you have a great point about people's habits. The fact that Canon has held nearly 50% market share for the past several years as Nikon lost to Sony means Canon's installed base is somewhere in the 70-80% range.

The other factor is that Canon has done a very good job of maintaining a large user base by offering affordable options. You alluded to this, but IMO in a tangential way. It's not that Canon doesn't offer alternatives to f/8-11 lenses like the Nikon PF lenses, but rather that Canon offers OEM alternatives that are actually affordable for many people. As an example, for many years getting a 600mm or 800mm lens meant >$10K or getting one of those cheap Opteka-type lenses or a mirror lens for $200-400, basically crap quality. Nikon offers some very nice 'middle' lenses, but honestly for most people there's zero practical difference between a $12K 600/4 and a $5K 600/6.3 – neither is affordable. OTOH, a 600/11 for $800 is within budget for a much larger segment of the market.

Exactly this. For a long time, most people were limited to paying around $600 for70-300s which typically were not sharp at the long end. canon's giving the option of 1.33/1 for about the same price and 2/1 or 2.66/1 for a bit more. As far as the f/number complaints, diffraction is not a magic brick wall and many people have shown DXO and other noise reductions do wonders. While it may not be popular for Instagram or whatever a grainy monochrome or black & white can create an esthetically pleasing quality

 

[Dragon]

Indeed. And you have a great point about people's habits. The fact that Canon has held nearly 50% market share for the past several years as Nikon lost to Sony means Canon's installed base is somewhere in the 70-80% range.

The other factor is that Canon has done a very good job of maintaining a large user base by offering affordable options. You alluded to this, but IMO in a tangential way. It's not that Canon doesn't offer alternatives to f/8-11 lenses like the Nikon PF lenses, but rather that Canon offers OEM alternatives that are actually affordable for many people. As an example, for many years getting a 600mm or 800mm lens meant >$10K or getting one of those cheap Opteka-type lenses or a mirror lens for $200-400, basically crap quality. Nikon offers some very nice 'middle' lenses, but honestly for most people there's zero practical difference between a $12K 600/4 and a $5K 600/6.3 – neither is affordable. OTOH, a 600/11 for $800 is within budget for a much larger segment of the market.

And both the 600 and 800 f/11 take some very fine pictures. Price is not the only distinguishing feature. Weight is also key. Those lenses are both very easy to carry almost anywhere and that dramatically increases the number of fine pictures they will capture. I have both the 600 and the 800 and also the EF 800 f/5.6L, which is an excellent chunk of glass, but at 10 lbs., portable it is not. The result is that my collection of long shots and high magnification shots has increased dramatically since acquiring the f/11 lenses. The 200-800 is in the middle from both a weight and (likely) IQ perspective, but it is still quite portable and hopefully I will have a copy in hand in a couple of weeks.

 

[bbasiaga]

I've said before, and reiterate again to support the points made above about Canon providing entry level options, that Canon is really leaning in to what is possible with the R system.

F/11 AF was not possible on most DSLRs. ISO performance associated with shooting at f/11 is greatly improved - I went from a 5D3 to R6, and I'd say the ISO performance is at least 2 stops better to my eye. They are not gate-keeping/cripple hammering the AF systems. Even the cheap bodies have AF as good or better than top pro bodies from just a few years ago. Its really coming together as a great system. The new wide angle lenses are also astounding in size, weight and capability.

Sony could have done this, but they haven't leaned in as far on the lens side. They approached it more from the pro and pro-sumer side. Which is where most forum dwellers sit. The mid range is covered better (at least right now). Nikon as well - with the great offerings in the $5k price range they have that many here with Canon had. But as pointed out, we're the smallest market amongst the customer base, behind lower cost consumers and agencies for whom money isn't an issue.

Brian

 

[blackcoffee17]

I still fail to see why some people persist in thinking they understand the ILC market better than Canon, the company that has led the market for 20 years and dominates it today. But that's the internet for you.

Eh, not sure how much they dominate the market. Seen a recent statistics about the number of lenses sold in Japan and Canon was 4th place, behind Sony, Sigma and Tamron.

 

[koenkooi]

Eh, not sure how much they dominate the market. Seen a recent statistics about the number of lenses sold in Japan and Canon was 4th place, behind Sony, Sigma and Tamron.

Wasn’t that for the best selling lenses for a single vendor in Japan, not for the aggregate lens sales?

 

[Dragon]

Wasn’t that for the best selling lenses for a single vendor in Japan, not for the aggregate lens sales?

Funny how statistics get redefined to meet the need of an argument. If Sony, Sigma, and Tamron all outsold Canon, that would suggest that Sony mount was about 3 times as popular as Canon, since both Fuji and L are tiny and the third parties only make a few Nikon lenses. I didn't see the stat, but sounds like one store that was pushing Sony. Canon is doing a lot of the right things to capture the volume market and tomorrow's elite market will be a subset of today's volume market. Smart play, but then Canon always plays the long game. We will see the missing lenses that folks here are whining about one by one as the EF versions are discontinued. In a shrunken market, it makes no economic sense to duplicate production lines for an overlap period.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Eh, not sure how much they dominate the market. Seen a recent statistics about the number of lenses sold in Japan and Canon was 4th place, behind Sony, Sigma and Tamron.

You need to look more carefully, and then try to comprehend what you read. First off, you have the rank order slightly incorrect for the most recent data, Canon is 5th. But the actual numbers are:

1. Sigma – 18.9%
2. Tamron – 17.8%
3. Sony – 14.5%
4. Nikon – 14.2%
5. Canon – 12.9%

Even more importantly, those values are for one month, in this case October, 2023. So maybe you saw a report about September, when Canon was #4. If you look at August, Sony was #1; Nikon was #1 in March and Canon was #1 in February. The bottom line is that looking at lens sales, there's no one vendor that's clearly dominating the market. Also as you note the data are from only Japan, which accounts ~9% of the lenses shipped globally.

Now, look at worldwidecamera sales for 2022 (full year):

1. Canon – 46.5%
2. Sony – 26.1%
3. Nikon – 11.7%
4. Fujifilm – 5.8%

Canon sold more cameras than the next three manufacturers combined. That's domination of a market.