The Sad Truth About Canon's Future?

[LSXPhotog]

Has Canon officially lost the youth market in photography? I think they have...

I recently had the privilege of covering one of the coolest races I've been wanting to shoot since I first heard about it - TX2K. This is a race that involves a lot of exotic cars going head-to-head in an elimination ladder - many breaking 215mph with a Nissan GTR breaking 237mph this year. Anyway, this was not my typical group of photographers I get to work with...most of the people out there shooting weren't professionals working for any publications, so I got to see a lot of new faces. Most of the photographers there were between the ages of 18-25, judging by the looks of them, and upwards of 90% of them were shooting on Sony. Canon was very poorly represented...but Nikon even more so.

I was told over 90 people were given official media access (get to be trackside with a vest) and if I had to guess, only 8-10 photographers were on Canon and maybe half of those were on Canon mirrorless. I personally saw only 3 people using Nikon. Literally everyone else was shooting Sony mirrorless.

Eventually I found myself chatting with several of them and I brought up the fact a lot of them were shooting Sony. Do you know what several of them they told me? Lenses and price. Several months ago, I made a post about how Canon would lose the market of up-and-coming photographers if third party manufacturers were left out of the RF mount. It was very interesting to see this on display.

I said this because I can still remember what it was like to be an up-and-coming photographer that eventually became a full-time professional. Along the way, I could only afford a Canon L-series lens here and there. I bought the best body I could realistically afford, and then I bought the best lenses I could afford. This allowed me to stay within the Canon ecosystem and grow into it. Right now...I don't see that as an option for photographers looking to buy new cameras. I know Canon always says people can adapt EF mount lenses but that is NOT something people want to do. Sure, that makes the transition easier for a lot of us since we can still use our older lenses as we migrate over, but "fresh" photographers going out and buying a Canon R6 or EOS R seldomly do so with the intention of adapting lenses and they can't really afford ANYTHING on the Native RF mount.

This is a very big deal in my opinion and I don't see it working out very well for Canon in the long run.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you believe that the professional sports photographer market is critical to Canon's future, your premise is sound. However, photography as a vocation has fallen on hard times, especially photojournalism. Nor does it really matter what gear those folks are seen using, since most media is consumed on screens to small to even guess what cameras are being used by journalists covering the events (especially now that Sony has copied Canon's white lens paint).

From their financial statements, it seems that Canon is aiming more toward the enthusiast market than the professional market, and that is likely a wise choice given the dwindling professional market and the greater affluence of the enthusiast market.

I don't think your observations have the significance you believe they have.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sony used to make DLSRs, but stopped doing so because they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, and instead decided to compete with Panasonic and Olympus in the MILC market, where the NEX line became a huge success.

Recall that Sony moved to FF MILCs when Canon entered the mirrorless arena with the EOS M in 2012, and Sony deprioritized then terminated the NEX line and while they continued making APS-C MILCs, their focus was on FF.

Canon entered the FF MILC market in 2018 and has steadily gained market share. For 2022, Canon surpassed Sony as the #1 MILC brand in Japan, ending Sony's long tenure in that spot. From that perspective, Canon's future is the opposite of sad.

I do wonder about Sony...they went from DSLR to APS-C MILC to FF MILC to escape the 800 lb Canon gorilla slowly following them into each new market. Where will Sony go now?

 

[kubelik]

canon will be fine. I remember when nikon users agonized over the sea of white lenses at the olympics, and sometimes it goes the other way. the bigger issue is photography as a whole losing the youth market. I don't think folks are investing heavily into body+lens systems as a whole anymore. but as long as it exists I feel confident that Canon will be around for it.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

If I were to assemble a new photography kit, with the current market options, I wouldn't pick Canon.


I'm gonna give you an example...

I bought recently my Tamron EF 70-200 f/2.8 G2, second hand.

My plan was to buy the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 this year. The decision was made, I was waiting for the best time to buy the lens.

But naturally, in the meantime, I kept searching and comparing options.

Now I already wrote that I bought the Tamron EF-mount, and you wanna know why?

Because I did the math, and realized that it would be cheaper to sell my R6, and all my lenses, except for the two Sigma Art I own, and buy a Sony camera body, Tamron zoom lenses, and a Sigma MC-11 — everything brand new — than to buy the RF 70-200mm f/2.8. That's when I changed my mind.


I'm not looking to replace my R6 anytime soon (not in a year, nor two years, nor three), but my investment in Canon-branded glass has stopped indefinitely. If they keep going this way, most likely, my next camera body is not gonna be Canon.

I feel like they're seducing the buyer with absolutely excelent camera bodies, but once you make the purchase, you just fall into a trap with lens options.

 

[davidespinosa]

@m4ndr4ke

"Money" only exists to buy "happy".

If Sony / Sigma / Tamron makes you happier than Canon, go for it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I feel like they're seducing the buyer with absolutely excelent camera bodies, but once you make the purchase, you just fall into a trap with lens options.

Canon has stated that RF lenses are very profitable for them. Given customer inertia, brand loyalty / lock-in, and of course the fact that Canon offers many excellent RF lenses at diverse price points, the ‘trap’ is a pretty nice one that works well for Canon.

 

[Jethro]

If you believe that the professional sports photographer market is critical to Canon's future, your premise is sound. However, photography as a vocation has fallen on hard times, especially photojournalism. Nor does it really matter what gear those folks are seen using, since most media is consumed on screens to small to even guess what cameras are being used by journalists covering the events (especially now that Sony has copied Canon's white lens paint).

From their financial statements, it seems that Canon is aiming more toward the enthusiast market than the professional market, and that is likely a wise choice given the dwindling professional market and the greater affluence of the enthusiast market.

I don't think your observations have the significance you believe they have.

I wonder if that is why the timeframe for the R1 seems to have stretched out? Obviously there have been supply issues, which have pushed everything back, and the fact that a number of other RF bodies have been under development (and released) in the last 18 months.

But the specs of the R3 took up a lot of what would have been predicted for the R1, and it would be fascinating to know what Canon's pro shooters are telling them they want from a new flagship FFM. My suspicion is that their need for a new / updated model has not been so urgent as to motivate Canon to rush it out at the expense of other bodies.

 

[Jethro]

If I were to assemble a new photography kit, with the current market options, I wouldn't pick Canon.


I'm gonna give you an example...

I bought recently my Tamron EF 70-200 f/2.8 G2, second hand.

My plan was to buy the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 this year. The decision was made, I was waiting for the best time to buy the lens.

But naturally, in the meantime, I kept searching and comparing options.

Now I already wrote that I bought the Tamron EF-mount, and you wanna know why?

Because I did the math, and realized that it would be cheaper to sell my R6, and all my lenses, except for the two Sigma Art I own, and buy a Sony camera body, Tamron zoom lenses, and a Sigma MC-11 — everything brand new — than to buy the RF 70-200mm f/2.8. That's when I changed my mind.


I'm not looking to replace my R6 anytime soon (not in a year, nor two years, nor three), but my investment in Canon-branded glass has stopped indefinitely. If they keep going this way, most likely, my next camera body is not gonna be Canon.

I feel like they're seducing the buyer with absolutely excelent camera bodies, but once you make the purchase, you just fall into a trap with lens options.

But haven't you fallen into that 'trap' yourself by buying an EF mount Tammy? Canon's really open strategy on release of the EOS R was that, yes, there were limited RF mount lenses, but they went out of their way to encourage people with EF lenses to still upgrade their bodies. The adaptors they released were pretty cunningly designed: one of them had a facility for drop in filters that a lot of people love. And a lot of users report that their practical experience is that adapted Canon EF lenses are producing better results on R series bodies than they did on the originals. It's a strategy which seems to have worked.

 

[HeavyPiper]

The adaptors they released were pretty cunningly designed: one of them had a facility for drop in filters that a lot of people love. And a lot of users report that their practical experience is that adapted Canon EF lenses are producing better results on R series bodies than they did on the originals. It's a strategy which seems to have worked.

It's like my exiting EF lens are reborn.

 

[Czardoom]

I wonder if that is why the timeframe for the R1 seems to have stretched out? ....

The timeframe for Canon's series 1 cameras has been every 4 years, thus the R1 has probably been on a timeline for 2024 release from the get go. Only rumor sites thought otherwise. Silly to believe what you read on the internet and especially rumor sites.

 

[Czardoom]

Has Canon officially lost the youth market in photography? I think they have...

I recently had the privilege of covering one of the coolest races I've been wanting to shoot since I first heard about it - TX2K. This is a race that involves a lot of exotic cars going head-to-head in an elimination ladder - many breaking 215mph with a Nissan GTR breaking 237mph this year. Anyway, this was not my typical group of photographers I get to work with...most of the people out there shooting weren't professionals working for any publications, so I got to see a lot of new faces. Most of the photographers there were between the ages of 18-25, judging by the looks of them, and upwards of 90% of them were shooting on Sony. Canon was very poorly represented...but Nikon even more so.

I was told over 90 people were given official media access (get to be trackside with a vest) and if I had to guess, only 8-10 photographers were on Canon and maybe half of those were on Canon mirrorless. I personally saw only 3 people using Nikon. Literally everyone else was shooting Sony mirrorless.

Eventually I found myself chatting with several of them and I brought up the fact a lot of them were shooting Sony. Do you know what several of them they told me? Lenses and price. Several months ago, I made a post about how Canon would lose the market of up-and-coming photographers if third party manufacturers were left out of the RF mount. It was very interesting to see this on display.

I said this because I can still remember what it was like to be an up-and-coming photographer that eventually became a full-time professional. Along the way, I could only afford a Canon L-series lens here and there. I bought the best body I could realistically afford, and then I bought the best lenses I could afford. This allowed me to stay within the Canon ecosystem and grow into it. Right now...I don't see that as an option for photographers looking to buy new cameras. I know Canon always says people can adapt EF mount lenses but that is NOT something people want to do. Sure, that makes the transition easier for a lot of us since we can still use our older lenses as we migrate over, but "fresh" photographers going out and buying a Canon R6 or EOS R seldomly do so with the intention of adapting lenses and they can't really afford ANYTHING on the Native RF mount.

This is a very big deal in my opinion and I don't see it working out very well for Canon in the long run.

If Sony becomes the leader in camera sales it is only because they are the best at marketing and propaganda. (and obviously those two things work). Sony pro level lenses are also expensive. Very little difference between their prices and Canon. And despite what you constantly hear on internet sites like this one, there many affordable Canon RF lenses. Is there any lens that is a better deal than the RF 100-400? Not according to a large number of users based on Facebook responses. Also relatively cheap consumer lenses at 16mm, 24-105, even the RF 24-240 is a good bargain in my opinion. And what the Sony users that you talked too - and again most users here - seem to forget or ignore, is the huge number of inexpensive used EF L lenses available. If the Sony user says lens price is the reason they shoot Sony, well they are just plain wrong. That is what they are led to believe.

The 3rd party issue is another example of how misinformation can be very powerful. Canon has no policy regarding 3rd party lens makers. No policy. But how often have people said or written that Canon will not allow 3rd party lenses. They stopped a couple companies due to patent infringement. That was all they did. Never said they won't negotiate license agreements with Tamron or Sigma or anybody else. Of course, they could have been smarter and immediately come out and said there was no 3rd party ban, that they were always open to negotiating agreements with Sigma and Tamron. So, yes, Canon is not always good at recognizing the power of social media and misinformation and propaganda.

By the way, go onto any Canon Facebook group if you want to see what a wide variety of camera users like or do. Over and over again people recommend new R users look into and possibly purchase EF lenses - or use their existing ones. The response is always overwhelmingly positive. Lots of EF lenses being bought. So, yes, it is something people want to do when they find out that the EF lenses work on RF cameras. Lots of folks will write, "I heard that I need the new RF lenses," or "Someone told me that my old lenses won't work." Wonder who is spreading that misinformation?! I think we all know.

 

[Jethro]

The timeframe for Canon's series 1 cameras has been every 4 years, thus the R1 has probably been on a timeline for 2024 release from the get go. Only rumor sites thought otherwise. Silly to believe what you read on the internet and especially rumor sites.

Well, there were persistent rumours around the lead-up to the 2022 summer Olympics, which obviously didn't come true. There are similar expectations around next year's winter Olympics.

Traditional timeframes have been turned around since the R series was born anyway, and the 1DX III was a pretty minimalist update. The R3, when it was released, represented a new category of bodies for Canon, which while not being the Flagship, covered a lot of the ground that most people might have expected from an R1.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I certainly hope the people within Canon aren't nearly as optimistic as some of you, who seem to only want to see Canon's position favorably. I've been a professional photographer for almost 18 years - right through the earliest days of when digital photography really started fully taking over and replacing work kits. Throughout this time period I've only seen Nikon/Canon essentially neck and neck in the hands of teens all the way up to adults and in the hands of pros. The most interesting observation was witnessing a large percentage of younger photographers potentially not even buying Canon because of price. Most of these guys were shooting on Sigma and Tamron lenses...because they can buy f/2.8 zooms for under $1000. This is not an option for anyone looking to buy a native lens for a Canon RF mount camera.

 

[LSXPhotog]

canon will be fine. I remember when nikon users agonized over the sea of white lenses at the olympics, and sometimes it goes the other way. the bigger issue is photography as a whole losing the youth market. I don't think folks are investing heavily into body+lens systems as a whole anymore. but as long as it exists I feel confident that Canon will be around for it.

I don't even think you realize you just provided an example of why Canon is not going to be fine. Canon destroyed Nikon on the sidelines and never lost its lead from them. Now Sony TOOK Nikon's spot at #2 and has been gaining share from Canon - based exclusively on ILC sales. So I'm here waiving a red flag to draw attention to Canon losing out on some younger photographers that aspire to be professionals because they can't afford Canon RF lenses.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

But haven't you fallen into that 'trap' yourself by buying an EF mount Tammy?

I fell into that trap when I bought my R6, two years ago

As for the Tamron, yes and no. Fortunately, I was able to buy it at a decent price, for which I think I might be able to sell it later (the same, or almost the same).

Half of my lenses don't have native RF replacements yet, and that's the reason why I'm holding on — but it's been years.
There's no fast (f/2 or larger) RF 28mm, there's no RF 40mm (this one is not very important to me), and there's no RF 50mm 1.4.
If I were to replace my camera body now, I'd jump ship, to get an a7 IV, with a FE 28mm f/2, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a 70-180 f/2.8, and maybe a MC-11 or some other native E-mount prime lenses.

Is there any lens that is a better deal than the RF 100-400?

My Tamron 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter may not be as fast as a 100-400 at focusing, but it is sharper and has a larger aperture, while keeping in the bag the ability to shoot at 2.8 at 200mm.
And the same is probably true for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II and III.
There may not be a better deal for someone who is assembling a new kit from scratch now, but there are very good alternatives for a guy that already has EF glass.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So I'm here waiving a red flag to draw attention to Canon losing out on some younger photographers that aspire to be professionals because they can't afford Canon RF lenses.

You’re sharing an opinion based on your anecdotal observations at a single event.

There were two robins in my back yard yesterday morning, but today there’s only a cardinal. Should I claim that cardinal is (literally) a red flag that spring isn’t coming because the robins have all left?

 

[Del Paso]

I fell into that trap when I bought my R6, two years ago

As for the Tamron, yes and no. Fortunately, I was able to buy it at a decent price, for which I think I might be able to sell it later (the same, or almost the same).

Half of my lenses don't have native RF replacements yet, and that's the reason why I'm holding on — but it's been years.
There's no fast (f/2 or larger) RF 28mm, there's no RF 40mm (this one is not very important to me), and there's no RF 50mm 1.4.
If I were to replace my camera body now, I'd jump ship, to get an a7 IV, with a FE 28mm f/2, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a 70-180 f/2.8, and maybe a MC-11 or some other native E-mount prime lenses.


My Tamron 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter may not be as fast as a 100-400 at focusing, but it is sharper and has a larger aperture, while keeping in the bag the ability to shoot at 2.8 at 200mm.
And the same is probably true for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II and III.
There may not be a better deal for someone who is assembling a new kit from scratch now, but there are very good alternatives for a guy that already has EF glass.

Do you mean in full earnest that your Tamron 70-200 wit 2X extender is sharper than the RF 100-400 ?
No way, not even close !

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you mean in full earnest that your Tamron 70-200 wit 2X extender is sharper than the RF 100-400 ?
No way, not even close !

Well, how can the RF 100-400 be a good lens, given the low cost and lack of red ring? Looks like @m4ndr4ke escaped the RF trap but fell into a different trap.

 

[LSXPhotog]

You’re sharing an opinion based on your anecdotal observations at a single event.

There were two robins in my back yard yesterday morning, but today there’s only a cardinal. Should I claim that cardinal is (literally) a red flag that spring isn’t coming because the robins have all left?

Well, I certainly won’t listen to you. For some reason you parade around this website like a gatekeeper with absolutely zero qualifications to do so. I typically ignore most of your posts because you immediately talk down to everyone. You are not qualified to talk down to me about this because I leave my backyard and travel the country taking motorsports photos. My observations on the dwindling number of young sports photographers using Canon and the rise in the number of Sony shooters is just that - something I’ve observed for several years. The Associated Press, UK’s Press Association, NFL, and countless other organizations and news outlets have switched. By all means, stay in your backyard and assume you’re the gatekeeper for all topics on Canon Rumors. Or just move on and not feel the need to pretend you know more than everyone else on this website any chance you get.