Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

Grockle said:

The lighter weight, more compact size is why I bought APS-C in the first place, it's the primary reason for me. Lower cost doesn't do any harm. Canon did support the format for EOS APS-C, if only in a small way, and they only need to produce 1 or 2 reasonable spec lenses to support the format in RF-S.

Click to expand...

I used (and still use) the EOS-M system for its size and I severely dislike how much bulkier the M6II is compared to the original M or the Mxxx series. And the EF-M lenses available were good enough for me, with a special mention for the Sigma 56mm f/1.4.

Grockle said:

I'm sure the 24-105 lens on a FF camera is superior, and to be honest an R6 with this is hardly any larger than the R7 with "proposed" RF-S 17-55,

Click to expand...

The R8 is smaller than the R7, especially in thickness, which makes the RF24-105L feel bulky to me. The lens extends below the camera, so it tilts up when you set it down. Adding the EG-E1 grip is needed for me to make it feel good. I don't remember the 17-55 being that bulky, but it's been more than a decade since I used it, and that was briefly on a 20D.
I wanted to have the option to use F/4, otherwise I would've picked the RF24-105STM, actual users seem happy with it and it's noticably smaller and lighter.
But when using the R8 with the RF16/28/50 STM lenses, I find it more pocketable than my M6II, unless I use the EF-M22mm lens.

Grockle said:

but this is missing the point. If I went FF I'd have to swap my 70-200 for a 100-400, and get a new wide angle zoom. More bulky and a significant outlay if you're not making money from it.

Click to expand...

This situation stopped me from upgrading to FF for a long time, till the stars aligned with the release of the RP and nice severance package after being made redundant. Canon allowing camera stores to rent out a R+RP+RF50L+RF24-105 for free lowered the barrier to trying out the new R system even more.
Without that financial windfall I would have solved the 'issue' I was having another way. When using the MP-E65mm I couldn't fit larger insects in the frame. The EF variant of the Laowa 100mm lens had electronic aperture control, so I planned on using that for photographing wasps (larger than APS-C at 1:1) and solitary bees (even at 2:1 you get enough environment to avoid the 'bug in a box' type of framing).

The RF pricing, especially for the non-L lenses still gives me sticker shock. The RF equivalents are more expensive than their EF predecessors, which makes me sensitive to people asking for a 'middle ground' of RF lenses. The STM ones are the middle ground. They are, generalizing here, both more expensive and optically better than their EF counterparts, so I argue that RF is missing a 'lower ground'.

Grockle said:

Like many people, I thought of the R7 as the replacement for the 7DII. I pre ordered and had to wait 4 months to get it. I'm not disappointed by the camera, but now it doesn't seem like a good decision.[...]

Click to expand...

The R7 is, to me, more like a mirrorless 90D or a fatter M6II. I rented it for a week and between the R5 and M6II it didn't have enough features, for me, to make up for its price point. After getting used to the electronic shutter in the R5, the R7 wasn't an improvement for me, IBIS made the rolling shutter worse and the mechanical shutter is the clackiest Canon shutter I've used.
But now that I've sold my R5 and almost exclusively use my R8, I'm temped to get an R7 till I get my hands on an R5II. That extra bit of reach, over twice the pixels per bird at the same distance, makes it very compelling. Especially when the price dropped from €1700-ish to €1200 with an extra €100 cashback on top. I managed to resist, but barely

mimbu said:

And do you know that all of Sony's FF GM glass (except 85/1.4 GM and 100-400 GM), a large portion of their FF G glass, and all of their good APS-C glass (and all of Sigma's and Tamron's good APS-C glass) has come out in the years since Canon released RF mount? Canon people seem to think that Sony had this complete ecosystem created years in advance but it's just not correct.

Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming that it's incorrect to assume Sony started from zero and couldn't be be prefect in five years.

Grockle said:

The lighter weight, more compact size is why I bought APS-C in the first place, it's the primary reason for me. Lower cost doesn't do any harm. Canon did support the format for EOS APS-C, if only in a small way, and they only need to produce 1 or 2 reasonable spec lenses to support the format in RF-S.

Click to expand...

... or they could leave it to Sigma and Tamron, charging them a licensing fee for each RF-S lens sold. Maybe this would give the platform momentum and Canon could maybe sell more APSC camera bodies. My guess is that this would eat into the market share of other manufacturers APSC gear more so than Canon FF.

Grockle said:

I'm sure the 24-105 lens on a FF camera is superior, and to be honest an R6 with this is hardly any larger than the R7 with "proposed" RF-S 17-55

Click to expand...

Weight-wise, the APSC setup should be lighter. The old EF-S 17-55/2.8 weighed 645 g, while for example the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in Sony E-mount weighs 290g. Mirrorless allows for more compact designs. The FF setup will be higher performance, yes. But an APSC setup should be lighter and less expensive.

AJ said:

... or they could leave it to Sigma and Tamron, charging them a licensing fee for each RF-S lens sold. Maybe this would give the platform momentum and Canon could maybe sell more APSC camera bodies. My guess is that this would eat into the market share of other manufacturers APSC gear more so than Canon FF.


Weight-wise, the APSC setup should be lighter. The old EF-S 17-55/2.8 weighed 645 g, while for example the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in Sony E-mount weighs 290g. Mirrorless allows for more compact designs. The FF setup will be higher performance, yes. But an APSC setup should be lighter and less expensive.

Click to expand...

It maybe Canon offered them a license fee agreement, but it was higher than Sigma and Tamron could agree to, so Canon is waiting for them to decide the market is too good to resist and the third parties are waiting for Canon to to lower their price. I don't think anyone without a NDA knows anything.

AJ said:

... or they could leave it to Sigma and Tamron, charging them a licensing fee for each RF-S lens sold. Maybe this would give the platform momentum and Canon could maybe sell more APSC camera bodies. My guess is that this would eat into the market share of other manufacturers APSC gear more so than Canon FF.


Weight-wise, the APSC setup should be lighter. The old EF-S 17-55/2.8 weighed 645 g, while for example the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in Sony E-mount weighs 290g. Mirrorless allows for more compact designs. The FF setup will be higher performance, yes. But an APSC setup should be lighter and less expensive.

Click to expand...

The weight difference could be explained in many different ways.
Heavier glass types (some glass can be pretty heavy), less light plastics, heavier gauge barrel plastics, more metal, larger lens elements, thicker helicoids etc...
Not to forget the lens' optical design.
Heavier often stands bor increased durability.
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean same or better IQ, but lighter.

Del Paso said:

The weight difference could be explained in many different ways.
Heavier glass types (some glass can be pretty heavy), less light plastics, heavier gauge barrel plastics, more metal, larger lens elements, thicker helicoids etc...
Not to forget the lens' optical design.
Heavier often stands bor increased durability.
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean same or better IQ, but lighter.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! We can all agree technology is improving. However, making things with less mass is not the only way to take advantage of it.

Del Paso said:

The weight difference could be explained in many different ways.
Heavier glass types (some glass can be pretty heavy), less light plastics, heavier gauge barrel plastics, more metal, larger lens elements, thicker helicoids etc...
Not to forget the lens' optical design.
Heavier often stands bor increased durability.
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean same or better IQ, but lighter.

Click to expand...

I’m a big fan of Canons use of what they call “engineering plastics”, but reviewers like Chris Frost hate it, because they equate heft with quality

I believe Canon will license third-party RF-mount lenses at the point where they determine such strategy will add to their bottom line financially, not subtract from their profits. The wait may be inconvenient for many of us, but it’s quite rational for Canon and its shareholders.

reefroamer said:

I believe Canon will license third-party RF-mount lenses at the point where they determine such strategy will add to their bottom line financially, not subtract from their profits. The wait may be inconvenient for many of us, but it’s quite rational for Canon and its shareholders.

Click to expand...

Licensing agreements would be the best case scenario, those should prevent protocol update shenanigans like we’ve seen in the past.

koenkooi said:

I’m a big fan of Canons use of what they call “engineering plastics”, but reviewers like Chris Frost hate it, because they equate heft with quality

Click to expand...

Me too!
On the other hand yet, I appreciate my Leica M lenses are full metal.
But if I had the choice between a metal and an "engineering plastics" Canon lens, it's plastics I'd prefer. It's a matter of volume/weight relationship. The M 1,4/35 Summilux is tiny, compared to the EF1,4/35 L II, and it is manual focus. The EF would simply be too heavy.
Engineering plastics are extremely resistant. But helicoids should better be made of solid brass or stainless steel, not aluminium or plastics. I've had a few old Nikon F lenses, bought used . Aluminium on aluminium helicoids, horrible choice after some years...According to a well known repair specialist in Paris, Nikon was known for "compensating" loose machining tolerances by means of heavy grease use. When the grease was gone...
Very expensive Nikon lenses were much better made.

reefroamer said:

I believe Canon will license third-party RF-mount lenses at the point where they determine such strategy will add to their bottom line financially, not subtract from their profits. The wait may be inconvenient for many of us, but it’s quite rational for Canon and its shareholders.

Click to expand...

Stop being such a damn apologist realist.

reefroamer said:

I believe Canon will license third-party RF-mount lenses at the point where they determine such strategy will add to their bottom line financially, not subtract from their profits. The wait may be inconvenient for many of us, but it’s quite rational for Canon and its shareholders.

Click to expand...

There is a belief that large companies act rationally, their decisions backed by data and careful analysis. It's a position that Neuro often takes.

I worked for years for a large multinational company, and I can tell you that the decision-making was anything but a rational process. Egos and internal politics tended to drive decision-making. People who brown-nosed and played company politics to their advantage got their projects funded while others did not, irrespective of project economics. We bought high and sold low. Projects that were d00med received continued funding, because of sunken cost and those in charge not willing to face reality. To shareholders, we appeared to be an orderly outfit but behind closed doors it was often chaos. Despite all of this, we managed to complete some technically very complex projects.

I have no idea what goes on at Canon headquarters. But assuming that every decision is rational and for the best may be a tad naive.

AJ said:

There is a belief that large companies act rationally, their decisions backed by data and careful analysis. It's a position that Neuro often takes.

I worked for years for a large multinational company, and I can tell you that the decision-making was anything but a rational process. Egos and internal politics tended to drive decision-making. People who brown-nosed and played company politics to their advantage got their projects funded while others did not, irrespective of project economics. We bought high and sold low. Projects that were d00med received continued funding, because of sunken cost and those in charge not willing to face reality. To shareholders, we appeared to be an orderly outfit but behind closed doors it was often chaos. Despite all of this, we managed to complete some technically very complex projects.

I have no idea what goes on at Canon headquarters. But assuming that every decision is rational and for the best may be a tad naive.

Click to expand...

I've worked for a couple of large (Fortune 100) companies, and generally speaking the strategic decisions were rational even if tactical decisions made by mid-level folks were not always that way. However, those logical strategic decisions were never intended to benefit the customers...and in many cases, quite the opposite (which really sucks since the customers were patients).

AJ said:

There is a belief that large companies act rationally, their decisions backed by data and careful analysis. It's a position that Neuro often takes.

I worked for years for a large multinational company, and I can tell you that the decision-making was anything but a rational process. Egos and internal politics tended to drive decision-making. People who brown-nosed and played company politics to their advantage got their projects funded while others did not, irrespective of project economics. We bought high and sold low. Projects that were d00med received continued funding, because of sunken cost and those in charge not willing to face reality. To shareholders, we appeared to be an orderly outfit but behind closed doors it was often chaos. Despite all of this, we managed to complete some technically very complex projects.

I have no idea what goes on at Canon headquarters. But assuming that every decision is rational and for the best may be a tad naive.

Click to expand...

What you say is true with every large organization I've worked for. And I worked for a bunch, good and bad. Nobody, including Canon, gets it right every time. But those that get it right most often are survivors and often the winners.

neuroanatomist said:

I've worked for a couple of large (Fortune 100) companies, and generally speaking the strategic decisions were rational even if tactical decisions made by mid-level folks were not always that way. However, those logical strategic decisions were never intended to benefit the customers...and in many cases, quite the opposite (which really sucks since the customers were patients).

Click to expand...

Top level strategic decisions can be pretty strange for everyone else (hello Elon/X).

Even a company like AT&T buying a bunch of companies and then spinning them off now as their debt is USD128B seems hard to understand. Those decisions were only made at the top level... yes, middle management - and there is a lot of them in big companies - make all sorts of hard-to-understand decisions. Some are based on a need-to-know from senior management but others in hindsight are questionable.

David - Sydney said:

Top level strategic decisions can be pretty strange for everyone else (hello Elon/X).

Even a company like AT&T buying a bunch of companies and then spinning them off now as their debt is USD128B seems hard to understand. Those decisions were only made at the top level... yes, middle management - and there is a lot of them in big companies - make all sorts of hard-to-understand decisions. Some are based on a need-to-know from senior management but others in hindsight are questionable.

Click to expand...

Mercedes Benz merging with Chrysler.
"A marriage made in heaven" (quote from then CEO Jürgen Schremp).
Cost of divorce: over 65 billion US$

Del Paso said:

Mercedes Benz merging with Chrysler.
"A marriage made in heaven" (quote from then CEO Jürgen Schremp).
Cost of divorce: over 65 billion US$

Click to expand...

They merged so German management would earn US executive salaries so the rumours were at the time. The result was Mercedes quality dropping immediatley to Chrysler ones.

AlanF said:

They merged so German management would earn US executive salaries so the rumours were at the time. The result was Mercedes quality dropping immediatley to Chrysler ones.

Click to expand...

It was also a matter of Schremp's ego, his utopia was to become CEO of the world's most powerful car company.
"We are now number one, but our aim is..."
Egomania in its purest form.
Mercedes (and customers!) suffered and Bob Eaton was rewarded with a golden parachute, employees got a cheap watch to celebrate this financial catastrophe.
And, a few years later it was all over. Mercedes experienced "quality optimization" aka cost reduction...
Sic transit gloria mundi.

koenkooi said:

I used (and still use) the EOS-M system for its size and I severely dislike how much bulkier the M6II is compared to the original M or the Mxxx series. And the EF-M lenses available were good enough for me, with a special mention for the Sigma 56mm f/1.4.

The R8 is smaller than the R7, especially in thickness, which makes the RF24-105L feel bulky to me. The lens extends below the camera, so it tilts up when you set it down. Adding the EG-E1 grip is needed for me to make it feel good. I don't remember the 17-55 being that bulky, but it's been more than a decade since I used it, and that was briefly on a 20D.
I wanted to have the option to use F/4, otherwise I would've picked the RF24-105STM, actual users seem happy with it and it's noticably smaller and lighter.
But when using the R8 with the RF16/28/50 STM lenses, I find it more pocketable than my M6II, unless I use the EF-M22mm lens.

This situation stopped me from upgrading to FF for a long time, till the stars aligned with the release of the RP and nice severance package after being made redundant. Canon allowing camera stores to rent out a R+RP+RF50L+RF24-105 for free lowered the barrier to trying out the new R system even more.
Without that financial windfall I would have solved the 'issue' I was having another way. When using the MP-E65mm I couldn't fit larger insects in the frame. The EF variant of the Laowa 100mm lens had electronic aperture control, so I planned on using that for photographing wasps (larger than APS-C at 1:1) and solitary bees (even at 2:1 you get enough environment to avoid the 'bug in a box' type of framing).

The RF pricing, especially for the non-L lenses still gives me sticker shock. The RF equivalents are more expensive than their EF predecessors, which makes me sensitive to people asking for a 'middle ground' of RF lenses. The STM ones are the middle ground. They are, generalizing here, both more expensive and optically better than their EF counterparts, so I argue that RF is missing a 'lower ground'.

The R7 is, to me, more like a mirrorless 90D or a fatter M6II. I rented it for a week and between the R5 and M6II it didn't have enough features, for me, to make up for its price point. After getting used to the electronic shutter in the R5, the R7 wasn't an improvement for me, IBIS made the rolling shutter worse and the mechanical shutter is the clackiest Canon shutter I've used.
But now that I've sold my R5 and almost exclusively use my R8, I'm temped to get an R7 till I get my hands on an R5II. That extra bit of reach, over twice the pixels per bird at the same distance, makes it very compelling. Especially when the price dropped from €1700-ish to €1200 with an extra €100 cashback on top. I managed to resist, but barely

Click to expand...

Koenkooi's reply is very useful. My mistake was buying the R7 before seeing, usually I take a long time deliberating, as I usually keep cameras for 8 yrs or so (film cameras longer – my AE-1 and A1 still work and the FD lenses are excellent). When I bought the R7 the R6II and R8 hadn't been announced. Now there are a lot of cameras around "better" than the R7. I have to make the decision either to go FF and R6II or change everything to another brand (Fuji?). Both would cost about the same assuming I keep the RF 70-200 and don’t get the RF100-400. For FF the 100-300 f2.8 would suit me best but I'd need to remortgage the house or get it on HP assuming I'll die before paying it off….. There are a lot of reasons for sticking with Canon, legacy and not least DPP which I find very useful. I recently had the 17-55 repaired by Canon UK (it's 16 yrs old) so I'm going to keep using it for a while, fingers crossed to see what turns up….

AJ said:

... or they could leave it to Sigma and Tamron, charging them a licensing fee for each RF-S lens sold. Maybe this would give the platform momentum and Canon could maybe sell more APSC camera bodies. My guess is that this would eat into the market share of other manufacturers APSC gear more so than Canon FF.


Weight-wise, the APSC setup should be lighter. The old EF-S 17-55/2.8 weighed 645 g, while for example the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in Sony E-mount weighs 290g. Mirrorless allows for more compact designs. The FF setup will be higher performance, yes. But an APSC setup should be lighter and less expensive.

Click to expand...

Agreed – an RF version should be lighter, and they could probably extend the range a bit – 16-70 would be excellent. It would also be good if they could keep the same 77mm filter thread.