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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 18, 2021)

> The Canon EOS R system launched on September 5, 2018, and began hitting the streets in October of the same year. Commemorating the 3-year anniversary of the new system, Lensrentals.com has done a nice article on the progression of the system.
> What Canon has accomplished in 3 years is pretty remarkable when everything the system has to offer is broken down. I would think the system would be even further along if not for all of the challenges that the pandemic has had on labour, manufacturing and logistics.
> If we just look at EOS R...



Continue reading...


----------



## peters (Oct 18, 2021)

I would like to see how the Sony E mount Lense collection looked like 3 years after release. Does anyone have a lineup?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE.


Sure, sure. I mean, it's not like there was an adapter that allows use of any of the >80 EF lenses.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 18, 2021)

I think Canon blew it by not starting with exactly everything I wanted first.


----------



## entoman (Oct 18, 2021)

Products I’d like Canon to launch next:

RF 180mm F5.6L macro with OIS
R7 - APS-C with 30MP
Better batteries for R5, R6 etc
RF 500mm F5.6L

Firmware updates I’d like soon:

Exposure bracketing with electronic shutter on R5
5fps and 10fps with electronic shutter on R5


----------



## John Wilde (Oct 18, 2021)

In the mean time, Canon continues to ignore M development, because it's a low-margin system.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In the mean time, Canon continues to ignore M development, because it's a low-margin system.


Is it? You could say the same about $399 Rebel kits but Canon made a fortune on the volume.

Could it be that as far as most M purchasers go the system fulfills their needs and doesn't need radical investment or marginal 'improvements'?


----------



## unfocused (Oct 18, 2021)

"But my glass is 10% empty!" 

Love this forum. It never disappoints.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 18, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In the mean time, Canon continues to ignore M development, because it's a low-margin system.


Well, they have come out with low margin lenses


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Is it? You could say the same about $399 Rebel kits but Canon made a fortune on the volume.
> 
> Could it be that as far as most M purchasers go the system fulfills their needs and doesn't need radical investment or marginal 'improvements'?


At the very least Canon needs to remove the 30-minute recording limit from both systems to keep up with the competition.
Less of a crop in 4K on the mid-tier models would go a long way as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Is it? You could say the same about $399 Rebel kits but Canon made a fortune on the volume.
> 
> Could it be that as far as most M purchasers go the system fulfills their needs and doesn't need radical investment or marginal 'improvements'?


Now, now…some people would rather sell one luxury item with a $500,000 margin than one million cheap widgets with a $1 margin. Math is hard.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> "But my glass is 10% empty!"
> 
> Love this forum. It never disappoints.


Yes but allowing for the crop factor that would be 13.846% in imperial units, nobody actually knows what it might be in metric.


----------



## BigShooter (Oct 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think they screwed up the lens rollout.
> 
> They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigShooter (Oct 18, 2021)

" The problem, instead, is that NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE."

Garbage. The R was released with an EF adapter and I still use an EF200 f/2 IS L USM with mine. THere are literally dozens of Canon lenses available to use on the R system and has been since day 1.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 18, 2021)

Not to mention the filter and controlring adapter adding function to the existing EF lenses.  

The R system also improved the AF of my third party EF glass.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes but allowing for the crop factor that would be 13.846% in imperial units, nobody actually knows what it might be in metric.



With wikipedia, we can translate 13.846% into any units desired, Chinese or Russian traditional...we might even be able to take a stab at Indus Valley Civilization units.

Or I can just give you the answer off the top of my head, and I am sure PBD knows why and how...


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think they screwed up the lens rollout.
> 
> They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.
> 
> ...



They didn't screw up the lens rollout; they screwed up the underfeatured body. One reason why the R sold at all in the beginning was because of the RF 50L, the RF 28-70L and the RF 35. It sold better the next year, once the f/2.8 trinity appeared along with 85 f/1.2s. Not many people jumped into the EOS R because of the R; I sure didn't.

I wasn't planning on jumping on the R bandwagon when it came out, but I saw deals on it that fall, so I did. I tried the R, when a Canon team visited a local camera store. It wasn't categorically better than the 5D4, but it had its advantages. For the next 1-2 years, I used a 5D4 and the R together. After firmware updates, the R was a better tool for portraits, but the 5D4 was still better for sports because the R's EVF was so laggy. I started swapping EF lenses for RF lenses, but I had a large swap after I replaced the 5D4 with the R5. The R5 was THE camera that convinced me to ditch DSLRs, and I haven't looked back since.

By your logic, Canon should have mirrored Nikon with its emphasis on 1.8 primes, but how has that served them? 600-800+ plus for a single f/1.8 lens? And I remember the Z6 and Z7 receiving better reviews than the R (and rightfully so), but where is Nikon now with the Z system? Leading Canon.... nope! Leading with sports lenses made no sense because the R did not do sports well -- the 5D4 was still a superior camera for that genre. NIkon had the perfect opportunity to pass Canon with the introduction of the R/Z ecosystem, and they blew it.

So, thank you Canon, for having launching with the mediocre R. Initial demand was low enough that was I able to get the initial RF lenses at a discount along with the control ring adapter -- objects that became scarce once people saw the value of the R system. I bought the 24-105 with the body as a kit, but I got good deals on the other 3 lenses. And thanks to CanonRumors/CanonPriceWatch I was able to source the subsequent RF lenses without much issue.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think they screwed up the lens rollout.
> 
> They should have, from day one, offered a viable MILFF-native line for SOME kind of shooter,.
> 
> ...



The lens rollout was done the correct way. Higher-margin, lower yield lenses. You don't start with a bunch of lenses that you need to sell a ton of to make it worthwhile when there is basically one camera body coming to the market that can use them. The true amateur market was not and still isn't the target market for the EOS R lineup. We'll see that come to pass once manufacturing woes improve and they announce replacements for the EOS RP and EOS R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2021)

I have no idea why some people persist in the belief that Canon’s primary target market for higher-end gear is users of other brands. That would be pretty foolish, if for no other reason than the fact that the majority of ILC users have already bought Canon.

So, a comment like ‘Canon blew it by not having every popular lens available in a native mount at EOS R launch’ is asinine, because most EOS R buyers already owned their chosen set of EF lenses that were readily adapted.


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 19, 2021)

They should release the R3 now for the 3rd Birthday ;P!

And also some really nice lens upgrades of old popular lenses.... like a compact and sharp 135 f1.8 IS (maybe with 1:2 macro?!)
There are so many options...and not used opportunities... like a 120-300 2.8 etc.. or 300-800 5.6 ;P


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

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 (Oct 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 Its Limitations


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




www.investopedia.com


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 19, 2021)

John Wilde said:


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


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 (Oct 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

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 (Oct 19, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

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 (Oct 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 19, 2021)

John Wilde said:


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


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 (Oct 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 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. 



rontele7 said:


> 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.



rontele7 said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 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.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.



A lot of the switchers on this forum switched from not actually owning Canon, to not actually owning S*ny.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> 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.


I've long tried to explain that the market ultimately sets the price. If Canon sets the price of a product too high the price will come down. A classic example would be the non-L EF 24, 28, and 35mm lenses that were introduced at very high prices and eventually Canon cut the prices of each lens substantially. Prior to the pandemic-induced shortages, the traditional pattern with Canon cameras was a high initial price in the first year, followed by rebates and price cuts in the ensuing years as the cameras floated to a level that reflected the market. 

It's misleading for someone to use the prices of lenses and cameras over the past two years as indicative of general market trends, because we are in a bubble where supplies are short and demand is high. If supplies eventually return to normal levels, we can expect the traditional pattern of price cuts to follow.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 19, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> 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.


Never heard the term "skimming" used that way until this thread. I thought it as a form of first degree price discrimination, but then it's been 20+ years that I took microeconomics.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


I considered switching because the new mount meant transitioning eventually. I did not want to consider Sony because of bad experiences with DLP TVs and their Tough cards, but Sony was considered... as was Nikon. I did get out of the EOS M system because it wasn't being used. Hopefully, Canon handles APS-C going forward better than Nikon. Maybe it will stay with the EOS M, but the M made more sense before the EOS R was introduced.


----------



## John Wilde (Oct 19, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> 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.


"Price Skimming" is a term used by business professionals. There is nothing pejorative about the term. Google it.


----------



## Talys (Oct 19, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> "Price Skimming" is a term used by business professionals. There is nothing pejorative about the term. Google it.


Skim Pricing, which means the same thing, sounds less sinister to those not familiar 

Everyone in tech uses skim pricing. I mean, EVERYONE. All it means is that you start out with the highest price that people who are willing to pay more for it when it comes out early (and when demand is usually highest)... then lower the price a bit at a time until it hits the sweet spot on the price /profit curve, where profit is maximized in the medium/long term.

Unfortunately, skimming sounds like they're stealing off the top or cutting street drugs to make a higher profit 

Edit: by the way, the opposite of skim pricing is penetration pricing. Skim pricing is most effective when you don't have enough product to meet demand anyways.


----------



## Talys (Oct 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> 4I considered switching because the new mount meant transitioning eventually. I did not want to consider Sony because of bad experiences with DLP TVs and their Tough cards, but Sony was considered... as was Nikon. I did get out of the EOS M system because it wasn't being used. Hopefully, Canon handles APS-C going forward better than Nikon. Maybe it will stay with the EOS M, but the M made more sense before the EOS R was introduced.


There's a HUGE difference between Canon adapted lenses and Sony and Nikon, though. You can argue the usability of adapted lenses on FE/Z, but in the vast majority of cases, the adapted lens autofocus works works worse than the original lens on its original mount.

On the other hand, when you put an EF on an RF adapter and mount it to an R, in almost every real-life case, it works better, plus you have nifty options like a control ring or filters. For me, the main reason I'm "transitioning" lenses from EF to RF is either because the RF lens is much smaller and/or lighter without giving much up (like the 70-200/2.8) or because the RF lens does something really compelling, like 28-70/2.

I think that Canon has been very clever with the f/1.2 primes and the 28-70, giving people who (like me) would otherwise say, "well I already have that in EF and it works so well, I'm not going to bother" a reason to open up their wallets. It also sure doesn't hurt either that the new RF lenses are super-duper sharp and have much cleaner CA out of camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

Talys said:


> I think that Canon has been very clever with the f/1.2 primes and the 28-70, giving people who (like me) would otherwise say, "well I already have that in EF and it works so well, I'm not going to bother" a reason to open up their wallets.


Exactly…they had to be. At the risk of perseverating, Canon’s main target for R bodies and RF lenses is owners of Canon DSLRs and EF lenses. That’s why claims of some people here that ‘the Canon 50/1.2 is heavier and softer than the Sony’ or ‘the Sony 70-200/2.8 is (25 g) lighter than the Canon’ are mostly irrelevant.

The RF 50/1.2 is aimed at EF 50/1.2 owners, it’s sharper and has less LoCA. The EF 16-35/2.8 got 1mm wider and image stabilization. The 70-200 zooms got much smaller and lighter. Etc.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Odd use of "garish." Did you mean "extravagant"? 

And I like lens housings that protect the optics by bouncing instead of denting.


John Wilde said:


> "Price Skimming" is a term used by business professionals. There is nothing pejorative about the term. Google it.


not by this business professional. Link your best credible support.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 19, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


I hope you are getting paid by Sony to say that. Otherwise it comes across as though you are saying it in the desperate hope they will notice the comment and give you a free Sd card or something.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> not by this business professional. Link your best credible support.


Sorry, but that suggests some significant gaps in your business acumen.

Here’s a basic intro:








Price Skimming Definition: How It Works and Its Limitations


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




www.investopedia.com


----------



## Darecinema (Oct 20, 2021)

Etienne said:


> 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.


I mean, opinions vary on this. Sony did better primarily on sensor tech in my opinion which is no surprise as they are a world leader in that arena. I’m surprised they did as well as they did on lens design but it’s obvious there was a lot of reverse engineering on Canon lens design going on there, no shame in that either, all the big boys do it. But nothing in a single Sony lens made go hmmmmmm I have to have that until the recent 14mm 1.8. I’m happy Sony has those options for Sony shooters. And I believe at some point we will some of the other must have lenses for pro shooters such as tilt shifts.

My overall opinion is this: if you are in this game purely for sensor tech then you are a fool. Sensor tech doubles every 2 years more or less Moore’s law (?), you either are rich or will go broke bouncing between whatever company is leading at that moment.

Lenses always have been and always will be the determining factor of overall system longevity and investment value. And Canon is still the king of lenses. and not just because of optic design or weather proofing etc but for one factor that Sony doesn’t hold a freaking candle to and which is utterly, crucially, absolutely critical: service.

You simply can’t appreciate Canon service until you’ve had a very expensive lens completely destroyed on a shoot and have sent it in and have it come back as good as new, for free with a service pack, within 3 days.

Image quality is so excellent from any Sony or Canon system that it is often simply that factor of service which makes any company or professional stick with Canon even if their sensor tech needs to catch up, which it will. It wasn’t a Nikon or Sony that sparked the DSLR revolution of which mirrorless is simply the next stage of.

I own the best cameras of both systems, but all my glass is Canon. Cameras come and go, glass is forever.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> NO TYPE OF BUYER COULD REALLY CONSIDER THE R FOR A YEAR BECAUSE NO TYPE OF BUYER HAD THE LENSES THEY'D NEED AVAILABLE.


Translation: "I couldn't consider the R for a year because there was no lens I needed available because I ain't got no EF gear either."

No type of buyer? Well, you had me until you started putting absolutely everyone into the same basket. Then it got crowded. It was your basket and you had the whole world in there. Nasty.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> C'mon man, I'm just using normal conversational hyperbole. It's like you're just looking for something to complain about.
> 
> I grant I could have written more accurately or clearly, but are you like that any time anyone employs a figure of speech?
> 
> ...


Man, whether I know anyone or not is irrelevant. Anecdotal stuff usually means nothing. The problem becomes even more apparent when guys like you (you say I complain?) run around thinking that their personal anecdotes equate to the real world and then start throwing vast blankets over the whole world... thinking we all see it just like you.

A person with no ef gear buying an R? Who the hell knows???? So what? You are a complaint fest. Guess what? When I started in 2008 I had no gear at all. Did. Not. Stop. Me.

So no, I won't agree that your personal anecdotes = reality.

Claiming "no kind of buyer" is NOT a figure of speech. If you want to express yourself with over the top hyperbole, go ahead. But that ain't no figure of speech. That's too lazy to be specific.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> My point was addressed towards non-EF users, who wouldn't have a bunch of EF glass sitting around and wouldn't be keen to invest in such.


While I think Canon aimed the EOS R at Canon DLSR users, I could still see first time Canon or first time FF buyers jumping into the R and even more so the RP. Somewhere around 90% of ILCs are APS-C. If you just look at Canon's milestone camera and lens sales announcements, there's a lens:camera ratio of 1.4:1, mainly because the majority of camera buyers purchase a body with the kit lens and that's it. Canon had that on day one, EOS R with RF 24-105/4L kit. A few months later they launched the much cheaper RP along with a 24-240mm superzoom.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 20, 2021)

Talys said:


> Skim Pricing, which means the same thing, sounds less sinister to those not familiar
> 
> Everyone in tech uses skim pricing. I mean, EVERYONE. All it means is that you start out with the highest price that people who are willing to pay more for it when it comes out early (and when demand is usually highest)... then lower the price a bit at a time until it hits the sweet spot on the price /profit curve, where profit is maximized in the medium/long term.
> 
> ...


Well, of course I was quite willing to pay a higher price for the 6D2 four years ago when it was new than I would be willing to pay for four-year-old tech now (ignoring the fact that the 6D2 wasn’t cutting edge even back then). “Gee, I think I will wait several more years to get a full-frame camera so I can save several hundred dollars,” is not a thought I ever had. No, I just joined here and kept checking to see when it would finally come out. The compromise I made with my budget was to get the non-L kit lens, a decision I have not regretted. That turned out soon to be an extra $600 (?) I could apply to the 100–400mm, so probably got it a little sooner than I might have otherwise.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 20, 2021)

And “skimming“ still is going to bring to my mind the Mob in Vegas whatever anybody says.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough but how many people really wanted to use an outfit nearly exclusively with an adapter?
> 
> The sales records say: not many.
> 
> ...


I still mostly use EF lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I could still see first time Canon or first time FF buyers jumping into the R and even more so the RP.


That surprises me because I really don't.
The RP was and still is a great entry point into the R system.
Even today, I have a hard time thinking that someone with no gear or past experience with Canon would choose the R over the A7 III.
(Unless they pick both cameras up and go with ergonomics.)


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 20, 2021)

Would it be inappropriate for me to use this analogy: It seems as if we are still talking about hanging chads in the election of 2000?

(Sorry if this is a narrowly USA reference.)


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 20, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Would it be inappropriate for me to use this analogy: It seems as if we are still talking about hanging chads in the election of 2000?
> 
> (Sorry if this is a narrowly USA reference.)


Poor Chad.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 20, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That surprises me because I really don't.
> The RP was and still is a great entry point into the R system.
> Even today, I have a hard time thinking that someone with no gear or past experience with Canon would choose the R over the A7 III.
> (Unless they pick both cameras up and go with ergonomics.)


I would, because Vaio


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That surprises me because I really don't.
> The RP was and still is a great entry point into the R system.
> Even today, I have a hard time thinking that someone with no gear or past experience with Canon would choose the R over the A7 III.
> (Unless they pick both cameras up and go with ergonomics.)


The EOS R is currently $200 cheaper than the a7 III. The RP costs $800 less than the a7 III. I have a very easy time imagining someone would pick a Canon FF MILC over a Sony.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 20, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> ...Even today, I have a hard time thinking that someone with no gear or past experience with Canon would choose the R over the A7 III...


I doubt there are many first time buyers for any full frame camera. Canon is trying to change that with the RP and if an even lower cost entry level camera is introduced that will appeal to some first time buyers. On this forum, we imagine that camera buyers are doing some type of analysis where they check off the various features, but in reality, I suspect most first time buyers look at price and also see what pops up when they plug in a few features and Google serves them up a selection of cameras. A lot of people probably buy Canon because they've seen ads or know someone who has one or they've heard it's the camera that most professionals use.


----------



## entoman (Oct 20, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I doubt there are many first time buyers for any full frame camera.


It really depends on what you mean by a “first time buyer”.

If someone has never bought *any* kind of camera before, or has only used a smartphone camera, then they might find something as apparently complicated as a FF MILC (even an RP) a bit scary, and would be more likely to get a pocketable camera with an integral zoom, such as a Lumix LX100 or a Powershot GX7. On the other hand if they are *upgrading* from a zoom compact to a MILC, they might be more attracted by an RP or a M200.

Most of these “first time upgraders” would probably choose a Canon over a Sony, as Canons are generally perceived to be more stylish and more enjoyable to handle. Features and performance are probably a secondary consideration for them.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 20, 2021)

entoman said:


> It really depends on what you mean by a “first time buyer”.
> 
> If someone has never bought *any* kind of camera before, or has only used a smartphone camera, then they might find something as apparently complicated as a FF MILC (even an RP) a bit scary, and would be more likely to get a pocketable camera with an integral zoom, such as a Lumix LX100 or a Powershot GX7. On the other hand if they are *upgrading* from a zoom compact to a MILC, they might be more attracted by an RP or a M200.
> 
> Most of these “first time upgraders” would probably choose a Canon over a Sony, as Canons are generally perceived to be more stylish and more enjoyable to handle. Features and performance are probably a secondary consideration for them.


I am not so sure about that.
Some people might just assume that the bigger one is better.
I would tend to think that most people would buy the cheapest Canon unless they are a Sony fan.
I do not think the average person even knows that Sony makes cameras but they are more familiar with Sony as a brand.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 21, 2021)

Just a few random thoughts.

I think we on this forum tend to be condescending toward first time stand alone camera buyers, especially smart phone users.

A quick look through Instagram, Tik Tok, Twitter, etc., reveals some very talented people producing incredible stuff with smart phones.

Millennials who are buying a camera to take pictures of their kids and on vacation are a distinctly different group from Gen Z creators who want to step up from the iPhones because they have hit the limits of what they can accomplish. 

Most Gen Z buyers have never owned or even seen a Powershot aside from the one that their parents tried to sell at a garage sale for five bucks. 

While Millennials may be interested in style and experience, recent research shows Gen Z are much less so, having grown up during some pretty rough times. 

Most Gen Z buyers expect that a stand alone camera will be equally usable for both video and still photography, as that what they've come to expect from phones. They also expect it to seamlessly connect to the internet and offer easy uploads of images and video, something that all the camera manufacturers have been late to the party with. 

I think Canon has really struggled over the past decade or so to try to figure out products that will appeal to the next generation of photographers. I've actually been kind of embarrassed for them looking at some of these attempts, which scream "A bunch of us old guys designed this because we think it's something we can sell to these young whippersnappers."

I'm actually optimistic that with the dual fisheye lens, Canon has finally hit on something that Gen Z creators will find useful. I'm hoping that it will be the first in the line of many innovations that will leave me scratching my head, but which will show they finally are starting to get it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I probably wasn't clear about it, but my _entire point_ was that as far as I could see, the R was almost designed to sell exclusively to EF owners, and that it's low sales numbers and early discounting probably tell you more about the lenses Canon offered at the beginning, than any intrinsic fault of the R.


Realistically, the slow uptake of the R series says more about the popularity of mirrorless. In 2018, mirrotless comprised only~38% of the ILC market. They just weren’t all that popular yet, and adoption takes time. Consider also that the most likely Canon customers for the R were 5- and 6-series owners, and the 5DIV and 6DII were only two and one year old, respectively, when the R launched. The (perceived lack of) native lenses was a minor issue, if it was an issue at all.


----------



## entoman (Oct 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Realistically, the slow uptake of the R series says more about the popularity of mirrorless. In 2018, mirrotless comprised only~38% of the ILC market. They just weren’t all that popular yet, and adoption takes time. Consider also that the most likely Canon customers for the R were 5- and 6-series owners, and the 5DIV and 6DII were only two and one year old, respectively, when the R launched. The (perceived lack of) native lenses was a minor issue, if it was an issue at all.


I think the R was mainly aimed at people “upgrading” from Rebels and 70/80D DLSRs, rather than 6D/5D series users, as the R simply didn’t offer sufficient plus points over the 5D series in particular, to tempt people away.

The 5D series had twin card slots and was probably *perceived* as having a much tougher build quality than the R, which also may have contributed to a reluctance to switch to the R.

Finally, most of the reviews were pretty critical of the slide-bar thingy on the R, which came across as a badly executed gimmick rather than a useful control.

Of course there were early adopters and even a few pros who added an R just to see how they got on with mirrorless, but I believe that the bulk of Canon DSLR users read the R reviews and decided to wait until Canon had sorted out any potential bugs in their FF entry model. Lack of IBIS probably caused a fair number of potential R purchasers to switch to Sony too.

None of this is meant to imply that the R was a bad camera. It has a good sensor and can produce excellent images, but I decided against getting one for the reasons given above, and I believe many others felt similarly.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 22, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, but just to be clear, how many people _who don't have EF lenses _buy an R camera, maybe one RF lens, and buy several EFs that would be likely to be replaced with RF versions?
> 
> I probably wasn't clear about it, but my _entire point_ was that as far as I could see, the R was almost designed to sell exclusively to EF owners, and that it's low sales numbers and early discounting probably tell you more about the lenses Canon offered at the beginning, than any intrinsic fault of the R.


Weirdly, people were asking for Canon to make a mirrorless camera with an EF mount.
By including the EF adapter, that is pretty much what Canon did.
I find the people who have to absolutely have 100% RF lenses just as odd.
To me, the ability to adapt EF lenses so well is what makes the RF mount so great.
Comparing the RF mount to the E mount just on native lenses seems silly to me.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I think Canon has really struggled over the past decade or so to try to figure out products that will appeal to the next generation of photographers


Canon has done better than anybody.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 22, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, but just to be clear, how many people _who don't have EF lenses _buy an R camera, maybe one RF lens, and buy several EFs that would be likely to be replaced with RF versions?
> 
> I probably wasn't clear about it, but my _entire point_ was that as far as I could see, the R was almost designed to sell exclusively to EF owners, and that it's low sales numbers and early discounting probably tell you more about the lenses Canon offered at the beginning, than any intrinsic fault of the R.


Well, I already answered that that was exactly what I did - bought one RF lens and then bought only EF lenses after that. The fact that the camera could use EF lenses - and actually offered 2 adapters that improved the experience of using EF lenses - made potential buyers not care very much at all about the RF lens lineup. The R became very appealing BECAUSE of the control ring and especially the filter adapter, thus making it even more appealing to buy used, cheaper EF lenses. At least, in my opinion, you have it completely backwards. But then again, I am not a gear-head that needs the latest gear and will pixel peep to see if a new RF lens is 5% sharper than its EF counterpart. 

Seriously, do you really think that very many people, when making the possible decision to switch to mirrorless Canon, didn't understand that it would take many years to create a lens lineup that even came close to rivaling their EF lens lineup? When I bought the R, it was 100% because of the camera.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 22, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That surprises me because I really don't.
> The RP was and still is a great entry point into the R system.
> Even today, I have a hard time thinking that someone with no gear or past experience with Canon would choose the R over the A7 III.
> (Unless they pick both cameras up and go with ergonomics.)


First time ILC buyers are in all likelihood going cheap DSLR. Every time I check Amazon, the cheapest Canon DSLRs are dominating the top of the list, with the M50 also up there. Until the price drops another $300-400, even the cheapes FF is not going to compete.

For first time Full-Frame buyers, however, they might indeed go with the Sony - but I think that has a lot more to do with the way Sony and their fan network have inundated YouTube and the internet with all the positive Sony and anti-Canon and Nikon talk. I remember one post started on some interent forum from a camera newbie looking for advice. They started off by saying something to the effect that "I did a lot of internet research and I guess it's pretty clear that Sony makes the best cameras."

I had to laugh and cry when I read that. Laugh, because having owned (briefly) the first 2 generations of the Sony A7 series, I knew how crappy they were compared to Canon and Nikon, and cry, because propaganda and misinformation works (as if we needed more evidence of that...).

I currently don't even own a Canon camera (but did for over 25 years, and still have a couple lenses) having sold my R and bought a Nikon Z5 and a used Z7 this past year. I also own an Olympus E-M1 II, so I speak with some experience with many of the major brands and not as a fanboy. Unless a buyer was primarily a wildlife and Birds in flight shooter, Sony would be the last brand I recommend. Their AF for moving subjects seems to be top of the line from all I have read and seen, with Canon very close with their newest offerings. Other than that, I can't think of any aspect of the camera that I think Sony competes well with. Ergonomics and ease of use are important in my book, as are little things like dust removal (Sony still has big problems according to many users and a recent article on Petapixel (perhaps?). They are facing a lawsuit here in NY because their shutters are failing far in advance of their spec sheet number of actuations. Their EVFs (while often industry leading in DPI) often just don't look as good as lower DPI EVFs (according to a couple reviews I read that speculate that Sony uses cheaper glass in their EVF, which makes sense.) In my opinion, aside from the AF, and of course the sensor IQ, Sony is more interested in having a spec list that exceeds the other brands, rather than making sure those specs are top-notch quality. And if you want their sensor IQ, than you can always go NIkon, which is one reason I did, as well as because at their price points, the Z5, Z6 and Z7 seem to be to be the best bang for the buck, unless you really need the top of the line AF for BIF.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon has done better than anybody.


Actually, Fuji has done the best. It's Instax quickly became the best selling camera in the world. And, it's not boomers buying it. Not sure you can say Canon has done better than Apple, GoPro or DJI. But yes, between Sony, Nikon and Canon, Canon has done at least as well as the others. But, for Gen Z, that's like saying that one dinosaur is doing better than another.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think the R was mainly aimed at people “upgrading” from Rebels and 70/80D DLSRs, rather than 6D/5D series users, as the R simply didn’t offer sufficient plus points over the 5D series in particular, to tempt people away.
> 
> The 5D series had twin card slots and was probably *perceived* as having a much tougher build quality than the R, which also may have contributed to a reluctance to switch to the R.
> 
> ...


As a 6D user I, I don’t find the R appealing. I do mostly landscapes, but would want a body with IBIS. An R5 is way too expensive, a great camera but for my use a Z7 would be a better value. In reality, I don’t make large prints, so an R6 should be excellent. But I refuse to use adapters and it would give similar results as a cheaper Z6 (orZ6II). So I will just continue to use what I have and hope the 6D lasts a long time. Not that I would not love to go to mirrorless, but, on a fixed income, and no matter what I do, it would be expensive. Not meant as a putdown to any of this mirrorless cameras or lenses (but zero interest in Sony). For now, I will just keep watch the market, see how things develop.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 23, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> As a 6D user I, I don’t find the R appealing. I do mostly landscapes, but would want a body with IBIS. An R5 is way too expensive, a great camera but for my use a Z7 would be a better value. In reality, I don’t make large prints, so an R6 should be excellent. But I refuse to use adapters and it would give similar results as a cheaper Z6 (orZ6II). So I will just continue to use what I have and hope the 6D lasts a long time. Not that I would not love to go to mirrorless, but, on a fixed income, and no matter what I do, it would be expensive. Not meant as a putdown to any of this mirrorless cameras or lenses (but zero interest in Sony). For now, I will just keep watch the market, see how things develop.


“That picture is really nice. I can tell that your camera didn’t have a mirror in it,“ said nobody ever.


----------



## entoman (Oct 23, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> As a 6D user I, I don’t find the R appealing. I do mostly landscapes, but would want a body with IBIS. An R5 is way too expensive, a great camera but for my use a Z7 would be a better value. In reality, I don’t make large prints, so an R6 should be excellent. But I refuse to use adapters and it would give similar results as a cheaper Z6 (orZ6II). So I will just continue to use what I have and hope the 6D lasts a long time. Not that I would not love to go to mirrorless, but, on a fixed income, and no matter what I do, it would be expensive.


Just a few observations that I hope are useful:

I’m an ex-6D user myself. I found it to be an excellent camera with only a few flaws - AF unable to lock onto subjects in poor light, insufficient DR and a tendency for the electronics to go completely haywire in humid conditions in the tropics.

I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses. But having said that, I’ve found that using EF lenses on my R5 poses zero issues, and everything including animal-eye AF works extremely well.

Having used a multitude of DSLRs and MILCs from Olympus, Sony and Canon, I honestly think IBIS is overrated. With my R5 and EF glass, with IBIS turned off, I still get 2-3 stops of stabilisation from the OIS in the lenses. With IBIS turned on, it adds maybe one extra stop of stabilisation. Using the R5 with RF glass adds about another stop of stabilisation.

For landscape work, you really need as much DR as you can get, in order to capture highlight detail in clouds, and in order to be able to lift shadows without increasing noise or introducing banding. You say you have zero interest in Sony, but cameras such as the a7s, a7iii and a7Riv are ideal for landscape photography.

From an economic standpoint, it would make sense to keep your excellent EF glass, and get a 5DMkiv body, which is superior in every regard to the 6D. Switching to Nikon would be costly as you’d have to replace all your lenses as well as get the new body.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> Just a few observations that I hope are useful:
> 
> I’m an ex-6D user myself. I found it to be an excellent camera with only a few flaws - AF unable to lock onto subjects in poor light, insufficient DR and a tendency for the electronics to go completely haywire in humid conditions in the tropics.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent and very sensible post. It would be costly to switch and that would make it out of the question. I have three lenses with IS and love it and I agree that IBIS would not be all that necessary. I have thought of a 5DIV and and if I need a body quickly, that would possibly be the wisest and most economical quick fix. Thanks again for your excellent response.


----------



## JayLauz (Oct 26, 2021)

Love the R system, how cool would it be if Canon released a program that allowed us to create our own camera systems I need something better than the R6 but not as overkill as the R5  
(I know obviously this is just fantasy, it would certainly not be in Canon's best interest)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors,


I don't mind it.
I need a really good reason to buy the RF version of a lens if I already have an EF version


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses.


I **really like* *using an adapter that lets me drop in nice, small CPL and ND filters behind lenses like my TS-E 17 and 11-24, instead of the front filtering options for those lenses that are, respectively, salad plate- and dinner plate-sized.


----------



## entoman (Oct 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I **really like* *using an adapter that lets me drop in nice, small CPL and ND filters behind lenses like my TS-E 17 and 11-24, instead of the front filtering options for those lenses that are, respectively, salad plate- and dinner plate-sized.


With my current lenses I feel happier having a good quality protective filter on the front, but yes, that isn’t really an option for the 2 lenses you describe, so I can fully understand the value of an adaptor with a slot-in rear filter.

I’m not so sure of the value of the adaptor with the control ring though - it must feel a bit odd switching back and forth between adapted EF lenses with the control ring at the rear, and RF lenses with the control ring at the front. I’m sure there are some people who find the control ring adaptor useful, but on my RF lenses I’ve disabled the control ring as I find that there are more than enough customised dials and buttons already for my needs.

Currently I’m using a mix of adapted EF lenses and RF lenses, and I’m likely to continue using some of my EF lenses (e.g. 24mm TS-E, 100mm IS macro, 180mm macro) for several years. Potentially using adaptors can introduce a small amount of play, and increase opportunities for the ingress of moisture, although I haven’t experienced this myself. At one stage however I did have a 1.4x iii extender which introduced some disconcerting play/wobble when used with my 100-400mm Mkii and 300mm F2.8.


----------



## dcm (Oct 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t think anyone actually *likes* using adaptors, as they add an extra interface with additional electrical connections and also introduce a small degree of play when used with heavy lenses. But having said that, I’ve found that using EF lenses on my R5 poses zero issues, and everything including animal-eye AF works extremely well.



I would say "Some people don't like using adapters". And they are very vocal. I don't have any problem adapting EF lenses to my R or M series cameras when appropriate. I'm in no rush to replace all of my EF glass with RF glass, if ever.


----------



## dcm (Oct 28, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> This is an excellent and very sensible post. It would be costly to switch and that would make it out of the question. I have three lenses with IS and love it and I agree that IBIS would not be all that necessary. I have thought of a 5DIV and and if I need a body quickly, that would possibly be the wisest and most economical quick fix. Thanks again for your excellent response.



Also a former 6D user that moved to the 1DXII at introduction so I could shoot sports and BIF as well. Both of my 6Ds are still going strong as loaners. Given limited funds, I'd stick with the 6D as long as it was meeting my needs. When it breaks, you can decide your next step and save in the meantime. The 5DIV will be there and the R series will keep improving. 

I find R6 is sufficient for my current needs (adapted EF and RF800/RF100-400/RF1.4x) so I'm not rushing off to get an R5 or R3. I can wait to see what other bodies are on the horizon. I will say that I much prefer the R6 to the 6D for my use, even with just EF glass.


----------

