The Canon EOS R system turns 3 and Lensrentals.com gives us a breakdown of its progression
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Sure, sure. I mean, it's not like there was an adapter that allows use of any of the >80 EF lenses.
Upvote
0
- Jun 22, 2021
- 267
- 280
I think Canon blew it by not starting with exactly everything I wanted first.
Upvote
0
Products I’d like Canon to launch next:
Firmware updates I’d like soon:
- 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
Upvote
0
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'?
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Yes but allowing for the crop factor that would be 13.846% in imperial units, nobody actually knows what it might be in metric.
Upvote
0
" 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.
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.
Upvote
0
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...
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
Similar threads
