Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[neuroanatomist]

Canon had the largest installed base coming from the EF mount by far of any manufacturer. They would have had to screw up to epic proportions not to be the leader once they finally did the transition. Did they make it because of their ability to quick pivot to faset DPAF AF, eye focus and class lead IBIS - in other words in spite of obvious problems such as this?

Indeed. Assuming a 5-year camera lifespan, their installed base is 70-80% of the ILC market.

It seems clear that blocking 3rd party AF lenses was not a big problem for Canon. Their recipe for success seems to be solid product offerings at good prices, combined with higher end gear and a service reputation to meet the needs of working pros

 

[Jethro]

Will Canon make a lot of RF-S lenses, or would there be people who would love Sigma or VIltrox's lenses on the RF mount? There's a huge potential demand, and let's face it Canon still needs people to buy into the system and the gateway drug is still APS-C.

I don't remember there ever being all that many third party EF-S lenses - why would that be any different with RF-S? The reality, as others have mentioned, is that most buyers of APS-C mount cameras tend to stick with the kit lens/es. The higher end users (eg of the old 7D series) also adapted FF lenses onto them.

 

[Richard CR]

You may wish to look up the marketshare of the M line, the M50 alone was nearly 15% of the market for a while. That's enormous by any standard, and larger than many other camera manufacturers in their entirety.

Yes correct. The M50 outside even in the USA every other Canon camera, including the RF cameras in one major US retailer that I had privy to sales data when I was running canonnews.

The M line for a while held up Canon's marketshare numbers into the high-40's during the lull between the EF and RF transition.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

We are free to agree or disagree with the decision based on our personal biases, but we should recognize that this was a considered decision with a business case behind it, and taken because Canon believes it’s in their best interest.

 

[Richard CR]

I don't remember there ever being all that many third party EF-S lenses - why would that be any different with RF-S? The reality, as others have mentioned, is that most buyers of APS-C mount cameras tend to stick with the kit lens/es. The higher end users (eg of the old 7D series) also adapted FF lenses onto them.

there was I think 8? I think? while not many. the sigma's and viltrox's were well used. would you rather have some or 0? In theory with a larger RF mount focus, third party APS-C lens manufacturers would be more likely to port lenses to the mount.

 

[AlanF]

While I wouldn’t mind a couple good third party options, I really don’t see anything unusual about a company blocking competitors in this manner. Microsoft keeps making me find creative ways to never have to use Bing in windows. It’s irksome, but by no means an unreasonable affront. Part of the argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that having allowed competing EF lenses somehow obligates them to do so with RF. That logic seems faulty. Whether it’s good or bad for business, I couldn’t say.

Microsoft was once fined €731M for not allowing browser choice on Windows. The law fights against monopolies despite what some here mistakenly seem to think is reasonable.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When reading the Canon Annual report sometime close to the roll out of the R series, it noted that lenses made up a large part of the profit. Apparently, the camera bodies had a slim profit. I don't know if that's true any longer as far as profits on bodies, but the profits on lenses are likely still pretty large. I think it's a matter of Canon doing whatever they can to protect those profits. If someone is making a lens that does not compete and is willing to pay a fee for each one sold, then it's a boost in profits because sales are not affected.

 

[Jethro]

there was I think 8? I think? while not many. the sigma's and viltrox's were well used. would you rather have some or 0? In theory with a larger RF mount focus, third party APS-C lens manufacturers would be more likely to port lenses to the mount.

Sure, obviously more is better, and I'd very much like to see 'full function' 3rd party RF lenses of all types.

 

[Richard CR]

You're quit right, all of that is speculation.

What always surprised me was that nobody seemed to come out with RF mount lenses with the old EF protocols included - which obviously work because Canon EF lenses can be adapted onto RF mounts. Is that maybe because the Canon EF/RF adaptors somehow introduce some sort of intermediary electronic adaptation which changes the EF output on the adapted lens into something the RF body can read properly? And without that intermediary step, third party makers can't simply include EF protocols in an RF mount lens free of the Canon adaptor?

no it's a straight pass through sans one pull up resister I believe, which could easily be incorporated.

Canon actually patented the switching of protocols and that all occurs on the camera body.

When Samyang first did an RF lens, I believe it was the 85mm - I do believe that was using the EF protocols. All the features of the EOS-R RF lenses were missing, and the camera acted as if an EF lens was attached. And in reality, why wouldn't they? all these manufacturers still support the EF mount, and still make EF firmware chips and electronic designs for their lenses.

 

[EricN]

Microsoft was once fined €731M for not allowing browser choice on Windows. The law fights against monopolies despite what some here mistakenly seem to think is reasonable.

I haven't been paying attention but there's been somethings with Google as well. One thing was similar to Microsoft in pushing Android phones to be sold with chrome as the default web browser.
I don't tend to feel good about multinational companies, but we don't really have a choice to support small camera manufacturers that operate only in our countries.

 

[Jethro]

no it's a straight pass through sans one pull up resister I believe, which could easily be incorporated.

Canon actually patented the switching of protocols and that all occurs on the camera body.

When Samyang first did an RF lens, I believe it was the 85mm - I do believe that was using the EF protocols. All the features of the EOS-R RF lenses were missing, and the camera acted as if an EF lens was attached. And in reality, why wouldn't they? all these manufacturers still support the EF mount, and still make EF firmware chips and electronic designs for their lenses.

Thank you.

All of which is even weirder, because in that case the 3rd party makers could include the same (presumably back-engineered) protocols they use in past and current EF mount lenses in new RF mount lenses, which would work identically. Why not do so?

If there was only one of them, I could imagine a bargaining tactic with Canon (ie to get a licence to use their RF protocols) would be to refuse to make RF mount lenses using the old EF protocols - on the basis that this would negatively effect the uptake of the new RF bodies. But, the longer that tactic goes on, the longer the 3rd parties cost themselves money by missing out on sales of lenses for the growing number of RF bodies. And the sheer number of 3rd party makers (including Samyang and Laowa) would mean surely one of them would release such lenses, even if the larger makers (like Sigma) were holding out for a licence.

You're right about the early Samyang lens (I forget exactly which one), but even that was from memory pretty quickly withdrawn. All of which suggests to me that there is some sort of deliberate action by Canon to restrict them.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Canon has been really indecisive in RF AF 3rd party lenses. Canon clearly know what lenses we need. And with Canon's limited production power, they can't make all RF lenses themselves.
Canon has only 2 choices: do nothing and lets competition to take over(right now), or let some lens for Sigma Tamron Samyang&CN manufactures to relief the situation.

I'm not hoping the 3rd party f2.8 zoom trinity and 35-150 available in RF immediately. But at least get the RF UWA primes sorted out. If Canon isn't bringing 24L/35L f1.2, Sigma f1.4 will do. And I don't see Canon plans to have something between RF16 and RF24. That makes Sigma 20mm f1.4 viable; the EF Art version was v.good already and didn't compete with Canon's, so an RF version will be very welcome.

 

[Birdshooter]

Can I get a honda engine in a Ford, or will GM retro fit a cheap Chinese engine into my American automotive.... lol
Why shouldn't Canon, Nikon or Sony protect their own line up? Maybe we can also get some cheap Chinese cameras to start flogging the market from Amazon for all the people that want to buy cheaper glass. Maybe Sigma will make a better camera for their lenses and everyone will be happy... hahaha

 

[AlanF]

Can I get a honda engine in a Ford, or will GM retro fit a cheap Chinese engine into my American automotive.... lol
Why shouldn't Canon, Nikon or Sony protect their own line up? Maybe we can also get some cheap Chinese cameras to start flogging the market from Amazon for all the people that want to buy cheaper glass. Maybe Sigma will make a better camera for their lenses and everyone will be happy... hahaha

Since when do family cars come with exchangeable engines? It’s actually illegal in Europe for car manufacturers to prevent third parties making spare parts or to void guarantees for repairers using them.

 

[EricN]

Canon has been really indecisive in RF AF 3rd party lenses. Canon clearly know what lenses we need. And with Canon's limited production power, they can't make all RF lenses themselves.
Canon has only 2 choices: do nothing and lets competition to take over(right now), or let some lens for Sigma Tamron Samyang&CN manufactures to relief the situation.

I'm not hoping the 3rd party f2.8 zoom trinity and 35-150 available in RF immediately. But at least get the RF UWA primes sorted out. If Canon isn't bringing 24L/35L f1.2, Sigma f1.4 will do. And I don't see Canon plans to have something between RF16 and RF24. That makes Sigma 20mm f1.4 viable; the EF Art version was v.good already and didn't compete with Canon's, so an RF version will be very welcome.

I don't think Canon is worried about competition taking over. It's often been said that most people only buy a kit lens with their camera. Something like 1.6 lenses per camera. Even on Canon Rumors, where probably all of us have bought more lenses and intend to buy more in the future, we aren't all in agreement about this.
I'm sure Canon will get to at least one of those wide L primes in the next six months.

 

[ReflexVE]

Canon had the largest installed base coming from the EF mount by far of any manufacturer. They would have had to screw up to epic proportions not to be the leader once they finally did the transition. Did they make it because of their ability to quick pivot to faset DPAF AF, eye focus and class lead IBIS - in other words in spite of obvious problems such as this?

This is really the crux of it. I used to be an engineer for Microsoft. Since Windows 8 they have undeniably screwed up over and over, there has not been a universally agreed upon great operating system since Win7. And yet they maintain around 80-95% of the market depending on what one chooses to classify as a PC. They do this despite more restrictive rules on third parties (sound familiar?). They do this despite repeatedly messing with the UI in ways that make it difficult for existing users. They do it despite limiting the hardware severely for the latest releases like Win11 and (soon) Win12. They do juuuuuust enough right that customers accept the drawbacks to stay with what they know.

Market leaders of that size are very tough to dethrone, regardless of how customer unfriendly they are. That does not validate their decisions. No one in this thread can explain why Canon's decisions are good for us, the photographers. All they are doing is explaining why they believe it makes sense for Canon. Why should any of us care about what makes sense for Canon? I want to take great photos. As a crop shooter, they simply don't offer a competitive product anymore unless I want to pair a lower end body (R7) with a lens costing as much or more than the body and with size/weight to match. That's a ridiculous proposition given that Fuji and Sony both offer more both with the bodies and the lenses natively, plus have an open ecosystem on the latter.

Does that mean I think Canon is *DOOOOOOOOMED!!!!* or whatever? No. I worked for Microsoft off and on for 11 years, much of that on Windows itself. I am aware of just how customer hostile a market leader can be and yet maintain their position. But what I will never understand is when the customers respond to the boot on their neck with "Yes daddy, please more!"

Note: I do not hate or even dislike Canon. I actually bought back my old M50 from the friend I sold it to (he's now shooting Fuji after trying mine and loving it). It was my first dedicated camera and I am curious what I can do with it now that I know a lot more about photography. I'm just disappointed that after such a great intro to the system it became clear that maintaining my business was not a priority. Which is fine, it's their choice, but of course I'm disappointed.

 

[ReflexVE]

Since when do family cars come with exchangeable engines? It’s actually illegal in Europe for car manufacturers to prevent third parties making spare parts or to void guarantees for repairers using them.

You always know the discussion is doomed once the car analogies show up...

 

[BBarn]

Canon is being smart by keeping quiet about their approach to 3rd party RF lenses. If they gave their reasons, people would just complain about those instead. This way you can display your own ignorance or direct your efforts toward something more productive.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I’m still trying to understand where the big disappointment is here. Yes, there are a lot lenses I would like to see Canon release though 3rd party solutions are not my thing. Besides, if someone wants a Sigma or some other EF mount, they can use an adapter. I’ve been vocal in the past by my perceived deficiencies especially in the telephoto range for high quality, mid-priced glass. It hasn’t and may never materialize but I wouldn’t look to 3rd parties for the answer. The way I see the landscape, Canon is the #1 in terms of volume and has some of the best performing bodies out there. Yes, Nikon is coming up with some interesting partnerships and lenses though their bodies AF are second rate. Meanwhile, Sony has some high performing bodies but the ergonomics are weak and their lens lineup is weak as well. As far as I see it, Canon is dominating and is well poised to build upon and continue as the market leader.

Sony’s ergonomics may not to be everyone’s liking but to say they have a weak lens line up when emount has by far the largest native mirrorless lens line up is the marketing is factually incorrect. Sure Sony have a few gaps in the lens up but they have considerably less than other systems on the market.

Someone else mentioned previously that Canon have abandoned a large sub set of users and it’s something I believe too. There are a large number of working photographers/videographers who have smaller budgets and simply can’t afford GM/L prices but still beed professional results. On emount however they have the option of building out a kit from Sigma/Tamron for considerably less. Yes adapting lenses is excellent on Canon but the extra weight and length is not ideal for many people especially when newer, smaller, lighter and optically improved versions of the same lenses exist elsewhere. Chief example of this is Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 DG DN which weighs half of what the HSM version does. I have held that lens adapted to an R5 and it wasn’t pleasant at all.

 

[Rudolf_Appel]

I don’t get why people are really pissed at this, it’s their mount, their company. I guess they can do what they want? I purchase rf lenses so I have no issue with this.

I also don’t get these rants. I visit this site for Canon camera and lens news. If I would like to read Samyang news I‘d go to Samyang Rumors, it might not exist and that tells exactly how much third party lenses interest me.