Opinion: The difficulty facing Canon (and everyone else)

[dbcooper]

I’m a professional and cannot shoot with a smart phone. My hobby is macro and wildlife and can’t shoot with a smartphone either.

I have already switched from FD to EF last century. That was a no brainer for most of us. The advantages were massive, and obvious, and immediate

The changes from EF to RF are not so drastic. I prefer the 5D Mk4 because it gives me longer battery and less strain in my eyes using the viewfinder. The weight and size are perfect. Canon are making life harder with locking down the RF mount for third party manufacturers. Introducing a new hotshoe and the mess this creates. They also have way too many camera bodies overlapping each other. Meanwhile RF lens lineup is lacking.

I’m not a happy Canon user anymore.

 

[Kit.]

I carry gripped R5 with RF 14-35 and EF 100-400 II (plus a Lenovo laptop, a powerbank and a set of spare batteries) in my (non-photo) Deuter Gigant backpack as carry-on on my vacation trips. That normally weights below 7 kg.

If there were Powershot G5X III with DPAF, I'd buy one and carry it, too, but I guess I'm in the minority here as well.

 

[Walrus]

I think most of the market nowadays are professionals and those with gear acquisition syndrome.

Exactly this; I would slightly change it to "professional and rich amateurs".

I see canon appealing to the rich amateurs (and rich pro) with all those gorgeous f2.8 zooms, the amazing 28.70 f2, the L primes, the supertelephoto lenses.
And I can see Canon appealing to the casual (but I would say, still with money in their pockets, as those lenses are uber expensive for what they offer) users with 15-30, 24-105 STM, 100-400 and 24-240 zooms.

Where I see Canon not appealing to is the average, "standard" professionals; they generally cannot justify the prices of the RF L lenses, and generally cannot work with the dark apertures of the low end RF zooms.
I would say they can somewhat appeal to the average "studio photographer", because if I shoot f5.6/f8 then the 16/24/35/50/85 STM's primes are perfectly fine quality as the most expensive L's, decently bright and they're acceptably priced.

But surely where I don't see any love is the event/ceremony/wedding/location photographer, where you need low light capabilities; the only two lenses brighter then f1.8 are the 50 L and 85 L, they are gorgeous and with an unmatched quality (...the 85 yes, the 50 not so much, my 40 Art is better and cost a third), but they cost WAY more then the competitive solutions, which is adapting Sigma 40/50/85 Art primes or the EF 85 f1.4 L, we're talking about one third to two thirds of the price for the alternative, just to (maybe, barely) see the RF advantage just pixel peeping at at 100%...not so many pro's, if they're not rich, can afford that.

I'm fine for now adapting EF primes, but I won't adapt for eternity; when you see Sigma DN primes or the Tamron 35-150 (a real weapon for ceremonies) in E-mount, I honestly start thinking that yes, I LOVE Canon camera handling, UI an UX, but there's a limit to that, even for someone who uses Canon since 1999 with my first Eos 300 film camera, and have never experienced any other brand...hope I won't need to start thinking about it.

 

[Snapster]

When I read some Canon exec's comment how they want to "surprise their customers" I just inadvertently burst out laughing. Maybe it was a thoughtless slip or a joke you had to be there for.

Surprising the customer with a retro style R camera (i.e. something cool but not necessary) is great! Surprising them by pushing gear they need into 2028 or never, not so much. Especially when RF has such glaring holes in the lens line-up, would be nice to know what the focus is and what's coming next'ish. Or what's not coming, like high quality midrange lenses between ultra high-end and entry level. Being able to pack two 500g 1.4 primes that benefit from new mirrorless design instead of one L labeled bazooka into your carry-on luggage is relevant. It's not all bad of course - the RF 70-200 f/4 L is a wonderful piece of equipment that comes with me everywhere.

I'll be positively surprised if the next generation STM lenses have better and internal focusing motors and some level of weather sealing.

 

[Walrus]

some level of weather sealing.

I think for Canon weather sealing has the same rationale of lens hoods: either you pay a (super) plus for an L lens, or you change system

Unfortunately weather sealing (which personally, and i really mean PERSONALLY, I don't mind at all, I don't find it a factor at all in my choices) is not something we can buy on Aliexpress for 5€$£ like we do with lens hoods.

 

[Richard CR]

I think you’re making too much of the carry-on limits. The domestic airlines here in Australia have often enforced the 7kg limit, as well as a size limit, for carry-on, going back at least 10 years. It’s nothing new, and I managed to travel with a 1Ds Mk III and multiple lenses. The kit for my upcoming trips will be the R3 + 100–500 + EF 24–70 f/4 IS + adapter + 77mm C-POL and then either the EF 16–35 f/4 IS + adapter or the 1Ds Mk III. This is either 4.17kg or 4.9kg. My Crumpler bag is 1.6kg.

People need to revise their idea of a lightweight kit. I see kits including a 600mm f/4 described as lightweight. Is a laptop really needed, or could the images just sit on cards until you get home?

Before covid, I did get stopped often in latin america and also asia. and a few times I had to talk fast, but they let me through. I've noticed in all my trips in the last 10 or so months post covid - not so much anymore. I never fly the cheapest seats, etc either. I don't think I look any more shifty or shady either. lol

If the airline has options for additional carry on luggage (some do), there are ways around this. but those do add up fast. usually additional 3kg is the same price as 20kg of checked baggage (for the one airline off the top of my head that offers it here)

My laptop is used for other things, so for me, it's not an option not to carry.

So all this comes down to the PITA (pain in the ass) factor if you will.

You make that decision the first time to leave it at home, and every subsequent time becomes that much easier. If the person ONCE has a bad experience at the airport (who hasn't seen someone frantically repacking bags at the checkout counter - we all think .. that poor bastard, glad it's not me), they will be less inclined to come close to the limit again.

Sure, I can bring fewer lenses - I can pack a lens (and I have done this in the past) or two in my checked baggage and stress the entire flight about it, I can even carry a few kilos' in my pockets up to the check-in counter (been there, done that - and you do look quite strange with a jacket loaded out in 50C weather, but I digress).

And your carry on is never just limited to that, there are some things that you atypically pack or bring that have to be or should be in carry on that add to the weight, depending on how long your flight is, etc.

Also .. the damned scales are not always accurate, but that's a story for another day.

 

[Richard CR]

When I read some Canon exec's comment how they want to "surprise their customers" I just inadvertently burst out laughing. Maybe it was a thoughtless slip or a joke you had to be there for.

That started this article off. the first 10 or so revisions were pretty nasty.

Surprise their customers. sure. that's what they call it..

They should look at adding hardware and software to our cameras that make it easy to get photos to other people or sites.

Thank you for your thoughts, I'm going to snip this out but I liked your entire response, so forgive me.

I always thought that Canon (or SOMEONE) should step in with Samsung, Apple or really ANYONE and create mobile 5G data capable grips.

or frankly just damned well design your own grip that allows for the adding of a SIM card and go.

I get not adding it to the camera body - but there should be no reason some straightforward functionality can't be added a grip - even if you have to create different grips for regional use. Even if it just uploaded a JPEG image to the cloud, which would then do a series of automated tasks based on a new image uploaded.

Sort of like Zapier for our image ingestion.

 

[E_ATL]

Welcome. One request. If you're going to use an abbreviation throughout an entire article, you're need to establish what it means from the start. I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years and I had to look up what ILC stands for.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Exactly this; I would slightly change it to "professional and rich amateurs".
Where I see Canon not appealing to is the average, "standard" professionals; they generally cannot justify the prices of the RF L lenses, and generally cannot work with the dark apertures of the low end RF zooms.

According to the US bureau of labor statistics, there are about 47,000 photographers in the US with a mean annual income of $50K. Income for the 90th percentile (top-earning ~4700 photographers) is $82K. Photography is not a lucrative profession in the US, and I doubt it’s more so elsewhere in the world.

Quite possibly Canon is intentionally not serving that market because that market is no longer profitable to serve.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Welcome. One request. If you're going to use an abbreviation throughout an entire article, your need to establish what it means from the start. I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years and I had to look up what ILC stands for.

I agree, it’s standard practice when writing to define an abbreviation at the first use. But I can’t help pointing out the irony of you posting this with your username.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've travelled in the Far East on Air Asia flights to Borneo for a birding safari, and they actually do check your baggage weight!

i’m glad that didn’t happen on my recent trip to Italy. The Peak Design backpack I used as a carry-on weighs 2 kg empty, and just the little pouch with my lithium batteries weighed 1 kg (not due to the three LP-E17 spares for the R8, but to the battery packs for dive photography lights). The total load with camera, lenses, laptop, and change of clothes was north of 13 kg.

 

[hollybush]

Quite possibly Canon is intentionally not serving that market because that market is no longer profitable to serve.

They’re going about it in a very strange way, then. The 28–70mm f/2 seems ideal for a wedding, fashion or portrait photographer, but mainly one with deep pockets and an assistant to hump it to just one or two locations. This is the very opposite of a hobby portrait/family photographer, who usually has to carry their own equipment and will use it in more locations. Money aside, big lenses like that and the f/1.2 primes are just less suitable than the more compact stuff being offered on the Sony mount.

On the other hand, lenses like the 100–500mm f/4.5–7.1 IS L and the 70–200mm f/4 IS L do seem to be aimed at amateurs and fit in with your theory.

 

[AlanF]

i’m glad that didn’t happen on my recent trip to Italy. The Peak Design backpack I used as a carry-on weighs 2 kg empty, and just the little pouch with my lithium batteries weighed 1 kg (not due to the three LP-E17 spares for the R8, but to the battery packs for dive photography lights). The total load with camera, lenses, laptop, and change of clothes was north of 13 kg.

The cheap airlines on which I travel don't weigh carry on - the criterion is you have to be strong enough to haul it up and down the steps and hoist it into the overhead locker. Our 800/5.6 wielding leader here won't have problems!

 

[neuroanatomist]

They’re going about it in a very strange way, then. The 28–70mm f/2 seems ideal for a wedding, fashion or portrait photographer, but mainly one with deep pockets and an assistant to hump it to just one or two locations. This is the very opposite of a hobby portrait/family photographer, who usually has to carry their own equipment and will use it in more locations. Money aside, big lenses like that and the f/1.2 primes are just less suitable than the more compact stuff being offered on the Sony mount.

On the other hand, lenses like the 100–500mm f/4.5–7.1 IS L and the 70–200mm f/4 IS L do seem to be aimed at amateurs and fit in with your theory.

Doesn't seem odd to me. Median and mean incomes are just that, and although I didn't state it explicitly before, personal incomes don't tell the whole story. A wedding/event/portrait photographer with a successful business may not be raking in the take-home bucks, but their business may easily be able to support purchasing lenses like the 28-70/2 or the 50 and 85 f/1.2 primes. The portrait photographers I've booked in the past typically used a 5-series body with a 70-200/2.8, 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 and the inflation-adjusted prices of the RF lenses are not very different from the cost of those old EF lenses when they weren't old. Our wedding photographer used medium format film, but that was a while ago (our 30th anniversary was this year).

The point is that Canon seems to be going after a 'high end' group that includes affluent enthusiasts and (the dwindling number of) successful professionals, and a 'consumer' group that wants affordable lenses. Personally, I'd include myself among the affluent enthusiasts, and I own lenses like the 28-70/2 and 100-300/2.8. As the number of professionals dwindles, those affluent amateurs buying expensive RF lenses become more important for Canon's revenue stream. The other point to consider is that one reason some of these lenses are so expensive is that Canon expects to sell fewer of them. That's basic business. A lens like the 100-300/2.8 costs 14.5x what the RF 100-400 does (and Canon can discount the latter by 25% and still make a profit), but it doesn't cost 14.5x to produce...the margin is higher on the 100-300 because the volume is lower.

Conversely, for someone looking to take great pictures without spending a huge amount of money, lenses like the RF 15-30 and 100-400 offer a lot of IQ for relatively little cash...I'm not aware of any non-Canon OEM or 3rd party options at those price points. I have often asked people here to list a set of three MILC-designed zooms for Sony or Nikon FF bodies that can cover 15-400mm for less than the Canon setup (RF 15-30, 24-105 non-L, 100-400) that lists for $1650 but has been available this year for $1300-1400. The fact that no one has responded with such a list for other brands is rather telling.

Canon has steadily gained MILC market share. Last year they took the #1 MILC spot in Japan away from Sony, and maybe that's true globally (data come out in 4Q). So while their strategy may seem strange to you, it's objectively clear that they know what they're doing.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Take it easy on me in here

Welcome Richard
I was missing the technical and analytic articles on canonnews.com and wondering why your site hasn't had an update in ages.
This probably explains. Welcome Richard. I'm sure you will be an asset for CR.

One fly in the ointment. Why was my comment to your article about new "RF-S consumer lens patents" removed, and I was unable to make new comments? Was it really just because I mentioned that lens-patents for same lenses was posted on CR back in April? I don't think I said anything in a rude way(?) I just pointed to the previous article. Maybe it was just a mistake. I hope so.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’ve done this in the past with bodies that aren’t worth much, with tripods and the chargers.

I typically put my tripod in checked luggage. I've only checked my camera gear once, and that was because I was forced to gate-check it when returning from China. This was over a decade ago, with a 5DII and several L lenses including relatively expensive ones like the 70-200/2.8 II and TS-E 24 II. Fortunately I was prepared since I had traveled with the gear in a Lowepro Flipside 400 with that backpack overpacked in a Storm im2500 carryon hard case. The gear arrived home safely.

The problem these days is whether the checked baggage will get there at all. In DSLR days, I probably wasn’t going to need to charge anyway, but this is no longer true with mirrorless, and that huge R3 charger needs to go in the checked baggage. On the other hand, if my hiking/wet weather gear was in that checked baggage and is lost I would also have a real problem.

Not really a new problem. On that trip too I mentioned above, on the way there the suitcase with my wife's and my clothing was delayed and didn't catch up with us until our second city in China. We brought our niece with us on the trip, and her suitcase was delayed by a couple of days on the way home.

What has changed is the existence of AirTags and similar items. When we went to Italy a few weeks ago, although most of my photography gear was in carryon, my drive housing along with my mask/snorkel were in checked luggage, and that suitcase was left behind at a short connection in Rome as we traveled from Venice to Sicily. It got to Calabria later that night and was transferred to a courier, but the airline couldn't tell me the name of the courier and the phone number they gave for them was a dead line. Fortunately, I was able to get the suitcase location from the AirTag, use Google street view for an image of the courier's storefront where there was a phone number visible, call them and arrange to pick up the suitcase myself, since otherwise it would not have been delivered until after our planned dives.

Side note regarding the R3 charger – personally, I never travel with it. Since the R3 can charge an internal battery via USB-C and I already have the charging brick for my Mac laptop, I just use that to charge the R3's battery. YMMV, I've found that I don't need a spare LP-E19 when I travel, so if you do and need to charge both I can see the need for the charger.

 

[hollybush]

Personally, I'd include myself among the affluent enthusiasts, and I own lenses like the 28-70/2 and 100-300/2.8.

I can certainly think of valid uses for those lenses for amateurs, but I’m curious about the logistics of how you use them. Do you have someone to help you carry them? Do they mainly live in a studio where the sitters/models come to them? It’s one thing to take a 1.3kg 500mm zoom on adventure travel a few times a year, quite another to carry heavy gear to everyday events like parties or school sports.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

They never checked the weight of my jacket so far. If you have a jacket with large pockets, that alone is enough space for a standard zoom or prime lens on each side. That alone could be two kilos extra luggage. Sometimes I hide five or six kilos of excess luggage in the clothes I am wearing. You can also have a camera body without a lens under your jacket. Usually at check-in I have the camera around my neck, but at by back. Unless I turn around, they will not notice it. So a 1.5 kilo camera plus a 1 kilo lens is unchecked extra luggage. Of course that camera is still screened at the security check, but those people there do not care about the weight.

I also have TWO luggage scales with me all the time. One analogue one and one digital one. So I can make sure that I never officially have excess luggage.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can certainly think of valid uses for those lenses for amateurs, but I’m curious about the logistics of how you use them. Do you have someone to help you carry them? Do they mainly live in a studio where the sitters/models come to them? It’s one thing to take a 1.3kg 500mm zoom on adventure travel a few times a year, quite another to carry heavy gear to everyday events like parties or school sports.

Sorry, but LOL. I just put the lens(es) in a bag and bring them along. Usually I use a toploader-style bag for local events, with one lens mounted to the R3 and another in a lens case strapped to the side of the toploader bag. The R3 + 28-70 or RF 70-200/2.8 fits in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 70 AW, and the other lens of that pair fits in a Lowepro Lens Case 11x14. The R3 + RF 100-300/2.8 fits in a Think Tank DH150. If I plan to shoot video as well, I'll bring the Canon Vixia HF G60 camcorder, and put the gear in a backpack like the Lowepro Flipside 300 or 400 with a tripod attached to the side.

 

[cayenne]

One thing that caught my attention in the article...was the mention of how much weight was allowed in carry ons....
In my entire life living in the US, I have NEVER come across or heard of any airline weighing your carry on items?!?!?

Is this done overseas or something?

The only thing I've seen on occasion is if someone tries to bring a carry on that is oversized, ie too bulky....and they then require that to be checked.

But once I check my luggage, I just carry my backpack and camera bag with me and I've never seen any attempts anywhere to "weight" my carryons...

Where exactly is this happening?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne