p.18 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Some people don’t like facts. Especially when they are brand fanboys. Sure I shoot Nikon right now, but I appreciate what Sony has brought to camera technology, and what Canon has done in the past.
I don’t know what you’re criticizing me for - all I’ve pointed out is how short-sighted Canon’s decision is. I certainly have not advocated for my Canon friends to switch brands.
ramage wrote:
This is a blood bath
@jwolfe@ you might want to stop while you have some credibility left.
p.18 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
I don’t know what you’re criticizing me for - all I’ve pointed out is how short-sighted Canon’s decision is. I certainly have not advocated for my Canon friends to switch brands.
In a shrinking market it makes sense to enforce legal moats when you're #1.
Many forget that the digital still camera market a decade ago in 2012 of 121+ million is not the same as today.
In terms of global shipping volume we're between 1999's 5+ million and 2000's 10+ million.
p.18 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Sony doesn’t have to make money with their camera division. They are enormous. Canon and Nikon have to.
Both Sony and Canon are diversified businesses. For the record:
Sony annual revenue for 2021 was $84.594B, a 11.32% increase from 2020
Canon annual revenue for 2021 was $31.972B, a 7.63% increase from 2020
I could not find Nikon's annual revenue stated in dollar terms for 2021 (likely between 4.5-5B), but it is a much smaller company than either Sony or Canon. However, Nikon has shown improving revenue in the last two years.
p.18 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Some people don’t like facts. Especially when they are brand fanboys. Sure I shoot Nikon right now, but I appreciate what Sony has brought to camera technology, and what Canon has done in the past.
I don’t know what you’re criticizing me for - all I’ve pointed out is how short-sighted Canon’s decision is.. I certainly have not advocated for my Canon friends to switch brands.
jwolfe wrote:
Some people don’t like facts.
Yet you are being beating to death with facts. Very little of what @dolina has presented could be or should be considered brand "fanboys" emotional rhetoric.
jwolfe wrote:
all I’ve pointed out is how short-sighted Canon’s decision is..
Correction - You have posted how YOU feel Canon is being short-sighted as if it was an objective fact. For this I will criticize your position because other than feels there is nothing to back up it, yet.
Time may prove you are right but not today.
I stand by my statement that you might want to stop. If your goal is to be the advocate for all those Canon users that have been unjustly harmed by the actions of Canon your not representing them well.
p.18 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Great Top Gun meme. Well done.
ramage wrote:
Yet you are being beating to death with facts. Very little of what @dolina@ has presented could be or should be considered brand "fanboys" emotional rhetoric.
Correction - You have posted how YOU feel Canon is being short-sighted as if it was an objective fact. For this I will criticize your position because other than feels there is nothing to back up it, yet.
Time may prove you are right but not today.
I stand by my statement that you might want to stop. If your goal is to be the advocate for all those Canon users that have been unjustly harmed by the actions of Canon your not representing them well.
p.18 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
How awesome was that movie!!!!
I was so worried when they were going to make it. My first "real" date was with a girl from my grade 7 class that I had overheard talking about airplanes and seeing the The Canadian Forces Snowbirds at Expo 86 we had dinner and a movie on May 16th 1986 I was just 12 years old.
We went to see Top Gun on opening night!!!
I took that same girl to see Top Gun Maverick on opening night after 25 years of marriage. No idea how she has put up with me this long.
p.18 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Actually Dolina is just focusing on total sales of cameras and mainly DSLR’s when this discussion is about third parties on Mirrorless which is what Jwolfe is discussing and the correct one.
Dolina also keeps trying to claim Sony is ahead purely due to how old their mount is. That plays a small advantage but in those 12 years they weren’t always seen as one of the top brands and they could have easily kept their mount closed, releasing a few 1st party lenses only each year and got nowhere so age doesn’t tell the whole picture.
They changed the game with the release of the A7III in 2018 and showed Mirrorless was the present and future. Jwolfe is also correct that even if they do sell a bunch of DSLR’s, Mirrorless is what’s important and if Canon keep their lineup being either average and slow budget lenses with overpriced but excellent L lenses, people will move to another brand when swapping to Mirrorless all because they have much more options of all prices ranges on Sony and soon to be Nikon too.
ramage wrote:
Yet you are being beating to death with facts. Very little of what @dolina@ has presented could be or should be considered brand "fanboys" emotional rhetoric.
Correction - You have posted how YOU feel Canon is being short-sighted as if it was an objective fact. For this I will criticize your position because other than feels there is nothing to back up it, yet.
Time may prove you are right but not today.
I stand by my statement that you might want to stop. If your goal is to be the advocate for all those Canon users that have been unjustly harmed by the actions of Canon your not representing them well.
p.18 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I love how some people want to turn Fred Miranda into CNBC. As a photographer, I don’t care, and I’m surprised the 3 people on here actually do. As a photographer, I want lens options, and that’s why this decision is irritating and why I would hesitate to recommend Canon over Sony anymore, which is a big switch for me. Does it make Canon more money? Sure. Do I care? No, I’m a photographer, not a shareholder.
Canon already gave up the video market, after a huge head start. I hope they don’t do the same with the stills market.
p.18 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
Actually Dolina is just focusing on total sales of cameras and mainly DSLR’s when this discussion is about third parties on Mirrorless which is what Jwolfe is discussing and the correct one.
Dolina also keeps trying to claim Sony is ahead purely due to how old their mount is. That plays a small advantage but in those 12 years they weren’t always seen as one of the top brands and they could have easily kept their mount closed, releasing a few 1st party lenses only each year and got nowhere so age doesn’t tell the whole picture.
They changed the game with the release of the A7III in 2018 and showed Mirrorless was the present and future. Jwolfe is also correct that even if they do sell a bunch of DSLR’s, Mirrorless is what’s important and if Canon keep their lineup being either average and slow budget lenses with overpriced but excellent L lenses, people will move to another brand when swapping to Mirrorless all because they have much more options of all prices ranges on Sony and soon to be Nikon too.
Those that are attacking Canon not for their justifiable defense of IP and or Patents but because they do not like the way Canon is doing business seem to be putting a lot of stock in future adoption or transitions from DSLR's to Mirrorless. The data that @dolina has shown that includes both DSLR's and MILC is that the market has and is continuing to contract. Safe to say this means there are fewer and fewer adopters and users transitioning into MILC systems.
Canon sees the same numbers and must know that sharing any profits in an ever decreasing market segment will lead to investor dissatisfaction.
Reach and Image Quality (which is decreasing generation after generation of smart phones) are the last areas of true advantage our Cameras have in the still imaging space.
The age of the smart phone and the increased quality it offers users who just want to take some photos means that the entry level DLSR and MILC are just about dead. Users that are used to getting easy and yet awesome images with their smart phones will be left disappointed in a cheap MILC and kit lenses if they deliver the same results we see today.
I predict the future of MILC is going to look a lot like the past of ILC where owning this gear will be purely a luxury item like Mechanical watches. In a market place like that users will demand only certified 1st party items.
Canon appears to be betting the market is moving towards a model of fewer owners willing to pay more for quality. This might all end as another Kodak which is always possible when a company loses touch with the winds of change. We will have to wait and see.
One last thing.
I see this statement or statements like it all the time in regards to Canon's RF line up and just shake my head.
"overpriced but excellent L lenses"
The continued propagation of a verifiable falsehood about the price of Canon's glass is getting old. Yes it is expensive but so is other first party glass.
Yep, I agree Aussies are getting screwed. No question.
In Australia you are at the mercy of the increased cost of Canon glass and bodies because they only offer 5 year warranties.
Having looked into the cost of adding 3 more years of warranty to the Sony FE 24-70 GM II to match the warranty offered on the Canon I feel your pain.
The most I was able to make the Sony was just under $3000 AUD by adding 3 more years of aftermarket warranty. The same Canon RF 24-70 is $3600 AUD after a $200 rebate. I am curious if the price gap was always this high or was this a result of the changes in 2019?
The price gap is crazy and while you do not need or require my permission to be pissed at Canon, you have it 100%!!!!
Putting that aside lets talk about pricing in the US.
Comparing prices in USD of 1st party glass at BH Photo shows things as:
They are all pretty close with Sony offering the bast bang for you 1st party buck but it might surprise people to know that Canon is the second best value. Nikon and their overpriced but excellent Z lenses
I think a better statement would be "overpriced but excellent L lenses, when compared to the amazing value of excellent 3rd party native mount glass"
p.18 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Good post.
I have been saying for years that Leica shows us the future of cameras. You are right that cameras are going to become something you own because you want to. Nikon and Canon have huge brand recognition. Although Canon is known much more for sports photography. Sony does not. And for people like me, price is really irrelevant. But there’s a ton of people out there where price does matter.
But I think there are certain market segments that will always need cameras. An iPhone can’t shoot football and certainly can’t take the place of a birding setup. Maybe 15 years from now, but certainly not anytime soon.
On Canon’s pricing - the thing Canon is missing is affordable options. Sure a Nikon 24-70 2.8 S is $2400, but they also offer the 28-75 2.8 at $1,000. Sony is similar in its lineup. And then there is a whole tier below that of 3rd party options. That’s the problem with Canon’s strategy - the cost of entry into the system is too high at the moment compared to its peers.
Now as things develop that may change. Canon will release more lenses and someday may allow 3rd party lenses.
Canon has great bodies but is behind on lenses. Nikon has great lenses but is behind on bodies. And Sony has a lot of everything (too much) but lacks a good low end option like the R7 (for sports and birds). Frankly the A1 is amazing but it’s out of reach for most people.
ramage wrote:
Those that are attacking Canon not for their justifiable defense of IP and or Patents but because they do not like the way Canon is doing business seem to be putting a lot of stock in future adoption or transitions from DSLR's to Mirrorless. The data that @dolina@ has shown that includes both DSLR's and MILC is that the market has and is continuing to contract. Safe to say this means there are fewer and fewer adopters and users transitioning into MILC systems.
Canon sees the same numbers and must know that sharing any profits in an ever decreasing market segment will lead to investor dissatisfaction.
Reach and Image Quality (which is decreasing generation after generation of smart phones) are the last areas of true advantage our Cameras have in the still imaging space.
The age of the smart phone and the increased quality it offers users who just want to take some photos means that the entry level DLSR and MILC are just about dead. Users that are used to getting easy and yet awesome images with their smart phones will be left disappointed in a cheap MILC and kit lenses if they deliver the same results we see today.
I predict the future of MILC is going to look a lot like the past of ILC where owning this gear will be purely a luxury item like Mechanical watches. In a market place like that users will demand only certified 1st party items.
Canon appears to be betting the market is moving towards a model of fewer owners willing to pay more for quality. This might all end as another Kodak which is always possible when a company loses touch with the winds of change. We will have to wait and see.
One last thing.
I see this statement or statements like it all the time in regards to Canon's RF line up and just shake my head.
"overpriced but excellent L lenses"
The continued propagation of a verifiable falsehood about the price of Canon's glass is getting old. Yes it is expensive but so is other first party glass.
Yep, I agree Aussies are getting screwed. No question.
In Australia you are at the mercy of the increased cost of Canon glass and bodies because they only offer 5 year warranties.
Having looked into the cost of adding 3 more years of warranty to the Sony FE 24-70 GM II to match the warranty offered on the Canon I feel your pain.
The most I was able to make the Sony was just under $3000 AUD by adding 3 more years of aftermarket warranty. The same Canon RF 24-70 is $3600 AUD after a $200 rebate. I am curious if the price gap was always this high or was this a result of the changes in 2019?
The price gap is crazy and while you do not need or require my permission to be pissed at Canon, you have it 100%!!!!
Putting that aside lets talk about pricing in the US.
Comparing prices in USD of 1st party glass at BH Photo shows things as:
They are all pretty close with Sony offering the bast bang for you 1st party buck but it might surprise people to know that Canon is the second best value. Nikon and their overpriced but excellent Z lenses
I think a better statement would be "overpriced but excellent L lenses, when compared to the amazing value of excellent 3rd party native mount glass"
p.18 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
It’s not so much there’s fewer adopters, it’s just not everyone upgrades regularly and all these stats are for brand new sales only, a lot of people only buy second hand which is a huge area that can’t be easily measured. The stores here don’t even have DSLR’s on display, I have friends in other countries who have told me the same too.
Like you say for the first party trinity Canon and Sony are very similar priced in USD but for someone who doesn’t want to spend that much on either brands first party lenses, they have the option of third parties which they don’t natively on Canon RF.
Even for USD pricing, Canon’s EF primes are overpriced too. For example:
EF 24mm f/1.4L II - $1549 ($2294 AUD at the cheapest)
EF 35mm f/1.4L II - $1999 ($2999 AUD at the cheapest)
EF 85mm f/1.4L IS - $1599 ($2299 AUD at the cheapest)
FE 24GM - $1399 (sells as cheap as $1500 AUD)
FE 35GM - $1399 (sells as cheap as $1799 AUD)
FE 85GM - $1798 (funny enough this lens can be bought for $1560AUD)
And since we are comparing primes and both mounts have a 50mm option,
So as you can see the only lens cheaper in the US is the 85mm lenses although they are significantly cheaper in Australia. The 35/85mm options from Canon are much older so if you are a DSLR user, want new lenses and don’t want third party options, another brand has newer, better and cheaper options.
So considering they are only really competing on zoom prices, my original statement still stands.
ramage wrote:
Those that are attacking Canon not for their justifiable defense of IP and or Patents but because they do not like the way Canon is doing business seem to be putting a lot of stock in future adoption or transitions from DSLR's to Mirrorless. The data that @dolina@ has shown that includes both DSLR's and MILC is that the market has and is continuing to contract. Safe to say this means there are fewer and fewer adopters and users transitioning into MILC systems.
Canon sees the same numbers and must know that sharing any profits in an ever decreasing market segment will lead to investor dissatisfaction.
Reach and Image Quality (which is decreasing generation after generation of smart phones) are the last areas of true advantage our Cameras have in the still imaging space.
The age of the smart phone and the increased quality it offers users who just want to take some photos means that the entry level DLSR and MILC are just about dead. Users that are used to getting easy and yet awesome images with their smart phones will be left disappointed in a cheap MILC and kit lenses if they deliver the same results we see today.
I predict the future of MILC is going to look a lot like the past of ILC where owning this gear will be purely a luxury item like Mechanical watches. In a market place like that users will demand only certified 1st party items.
Canon appears to be betting the market is moving towards a model of fewer owners willing to pay more for quality. This might all end as another Kodak which is always possible when a company loses touch with the winds of change. We will have to wait and see.
One last thing.
I see this statement or statements like it all the time in regards to Canon's RF line up and just shake my head.
"overpriced but excellent L lenses"
The continued propagation of a verifiable falsehood about the price of Canon's glass is getting old. Yes it is expensive but so is other first party glass.
Yep, I agree Aussies are getting screwed. No question.
In Australia you are at the mercy of the increased cost of Canon glass and bodies because they only offer 5 year warranties.
Having looked into the cost of adding 3 more years of warranty to the Sony FE 24-70 GM II to match the warranty offered on the Canon I feel your pain.
The most I was able to make the Sony was just under $3000 AUD by adding 3 more years of aftermarket warranty. The same Canon RF 24-70 is $3600 AUD after a $200 rebate. I am curious if the price gap was always this high or was this a result of the changes in 2019?
The price gap is crazy and while you do not need or require my permission to be pissed at Canon, you have it 100%!!!!
Putting that aside lets talk about pricing in the US.
Comparing prices in USD of 1st party glass at BH Photo shows things as:
They are all pretty close with Sony offering the bast bang for you 1st party buck but it might surprise people to know that Canon is the second best value. Nikon and their overpriced but excellent Z lenses
I think a better statement would be "overpriced but excellent L lenses, when compared to the amazing value of excellent 3rd party native mount glass"
p.18 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I like to think we all agree more than we disagree, the devil is in the details and my wall of text vs your wall of text does not make for a great discussion.
I am confident the majority of those that disagree on the details here and other sites would be more than happy to share a blind or swap stories of their great shots or the missed shots anytime.
Having spent more time than is good for me looking at both sides of the discussion I am going to attempt to simplify the two positions I see as the most meaningful. I am really over simplifying but I hope the intent is clear.
Position 1 - Canon should allow for good but affordable 3rd party glass so the price of admission is more attainable and holes in the line up are filled quicker.
Position 2 - Canon must protect and control all sales of the RF mount to ensure they are profitable. Canon already has an excellent selection of affordable glass in adapted EF glass and people should not be quick to dismiss this.
I lean more towards Position 2 for a couple reasons.
1.) - I have been lucky to be able to afford all the RF glass I want with the exception of replacing my EF 400 F2.8 Mk III with the RF version. Someone told my wife the RF and EF are the same just with the adaptor added... Just because it is true does not give he who shale not be named the right to tell her.
2.) - As someone that works for a company that is constantly having to defend our IP and Patents I cannot support these 4th party makers that do not care about stealing tech.
I am in favor of seeing Canon license RF to Sigma but am a little more leery of Tamron (person bias based on out dated data but hard to ignore). I would not want this to be at the expense of Canons profits because yes I am a dirty double dipper being a shareholder.
jwolfe wrote:
Good post.
I have been saying for years that Leica shows us the future of cameras. You are right that cameras are going to become something you own because you want to. Nikon and Canon have huge brand recognition. Although Canon is known much more for sports photography. Sony does not. And for people like me, price is really irrelevant. But there’s a ton of people out there where price does matter.
But I think there are certain market segments that will always need cameras. An iPhone can’t shoot football and certainly can’t take the place of a birding setup. Maybe 15 years from now, but certainly not anytime soon.
On Canon’s pricing - the thing Canon is missing is affordable options. Sure a Nikon 24-70 2.8 S is $2400, but they also offer the 28-75 2.8 at $1,000. Sony is similar in its lineup. And then there is a whole tier below that of 3rd party options. That’s the problem with Canon’s strategy - the cost of entry into the system is too high at the moment compared to its peers.
Now as things develop that may change. Canon will release more lenses and someday may allow 3rd party lenses.
Canon has great bodies but is behind on lenses. Nikon has great lenses but is behind on bodies. And Sony has a lot of everything (too much) but lacks a good low end option like the R7 (for sports and birds). Frankly the A1 is amazing but it’s out of reach for most people.
p.18 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I look at this way. If you are a shareholder, do you want the company to be safe and conservative or be bold and innovative. Other than the 600 and 800mm f11’s, Canon hasn’t really created anything new in mirrorless. All of their decisions are safe and conservative. Maybe you’re cool with that, but in a declining market I just don’t see it being a successful strategy long term.
But hey - I’m not a camera executive. I’m in marketing. So what do I know!
Great post again.
ramage wrote:
I like to think we all agree more than we disagree, the devil is in the details and my wall of text vs your wall of text does not make for a great discussion.
I am confident the majority of those that disagree on the details here and other sites would be more than happy to share a blind or swap stories of their great shots or the missed shots anytime.
Having spent more time than is good for me looking at both sides of the discussion I am going to attempt to simplify the two positions I see as the most meaningful. I am really over simplifying but I hope the intent is clear.
Position 1 - Canon should allow for good but affordable 3rd party glass so the price of admission is more attainable and holes in the line up are filled quicker.
Position 2 - Canon must protect and control all sales of the RF mount to ensure they are profitable. Canon already has an excellent selection of affordable glass in adapted EF glass and people should not be quick to dismiss this.
I lean more towards Position 2 for a couple reasons.
1.) - I have been lucky to be able to afford all the RF glass I want with the exception of replacing my EF 400 F2.8 Mk III with the RF version. Someone told my wife the RF and EF are the same just with the adaptor added... Just because it is true does not give he who shale not be named the right to tell her.
2.) - As someone that works for a company that is constantly having to defend our IP and Patents I cannot support these 4th party makers that do not care about stealing tech.
I am in favor of seeing Canon license RF to Sigma but am a little more leery of Tamron (person bias based on out dated data but hard to ignore). I would not want this to be at the expense of Canons profits because yes I am a dirty double dipper being a shareholder.
p.18 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
When fewer body sales occurs it also corresponds to fewer lenses sold.
So what little lens will be sold that year will majority benefit 3rd parties?
My worry isn't out of loyalty but rather necessity.
Lower present & future sales will mean after sales support in terms of number of service centers & service level will suffer as there is less revenue to be allocated for operating expense to support it.
With emphasis you do not want to send your gear abroad or the next state to get it fixed.
Smartphones eroding woldwide shipments of point & shoots and consumer ILCs are beyond any digital still camera maker's control.
What is in their control is who will profit from their IPs.
Since the introduction of the a7 & a7R Sony has had the monopoly on full frame MILC camera until 2018 when RF & Z mounts were introduced. That allowed Sony to have 9 full frame MILC bodies today. To me this is the max number of bodies that the present ILC market can support. A possible target for Canon & Nikon to strive for their MILC business.
It is the equivalent of positioning your fast food outlet next to a McDonald's. McDonald's did the R&D work to determine that X location is the most profitable to put up a store.
You may not have a memory of this or even been buying camera gear before 2010 but Sony's A mount that was bought from Minolta in 2006 wasn't #2 much less #1. My guess would be Sony was interested with their IPs and their talent pool of engineers that would end up being repurposed for non-ILC imaging business like selling smartphone camera parts.
When Sony introduced the E mount in 2010 they had no choice but to offer no Fee license to 3rd parties as there was little to no incentive for users to invest in their new system.
You only give a no fee license months after release when you have no choice.
FujiFILM had a choice with their 2012 X mount when they gave a selective license nearly a decade later. I suspect they've hit a wall and they're hoping to attract the next growth user group who are focused on 3rd party lenses.
Nikon had a choice with their 2018 Z mount when they gave a selective license years later. I suspect they did this as they slid to #3.
Canon nor Nikon ever gave a license for EF & F mount. They tolerated 3rd parties because of SLR YoY growth until 2012.
Your last half of your post makes it appear that Canon or Nikon is not in a transition to MILC.
Canon & Nikon started their transition from dSLR to mirrorless in 2018.
I put more importance of how many ILCs are being sold than which company sells the most MILCs as what should be counted should be how many image sensors are sold that is present in all ILCs.
As Canon's #2 in MILCs with a split of production lines between MILC & dSLR then it is reasonable to assume that when Canon halts all production of dSLRs they have the best odds of being #1 MILC maker by that time.
The 1st 4 years of RF lenses were prioritized because they gave the best ROI for Canon because of
- faster inventory
- better profit margins
The next 4 years of RF lenses reflect the next best ROI.
The cheap lenses you want will come out with the next ~32 lenses of the next 4 years.
Another interpretation of Canon's lens release priorities is their market research indicating that most of the current & future Canon MILC users are primarily professional & enthusiasts. Consumers are a secondary or even tertiary concern.
My indicator for this would be how many APS-C MILCs Canon, Sony & Nikon have. When Sony has 9 full frame MILCs they only have 4 APS-C MILCs.
Photosbydlee wrote:
Actually Dolina is just focusing on total sales of cameras and mainly DSLR’s when this discussion is about third parties on Mirrorless which is what Jwolfe is discussing and the correct one.
Dolina also keeps trying to claim Sony is ahead purely due to how old their mount is. That plays a small advantage but in those 12 years they weren’t always seen as one of the top brands and they could have easily kept their mount closed, releasing a few 1st party lenses only each year and got nowhere so age doesn’t tell the whole picture.
They changed the game with the release of the A7III in 2018 and showed Mirrorless was the present and future. Jwolfe is also correct that even if they do sell a bunch of DSLR’s, Mirrorless is what’s important and if Canon keep their lineup being either average and slow budget lenses with overpriced but excellent L lenses, people will move to another brand when swapping to Mirrorless all because they have much more options of all prices ranges on Sony and soon to be Nikon too. ...Show more →
p.18 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
As a shareholder I'd prefer max profit & growth of the company's strengths and improve weaknesses.
Canon's body & lens IPs are their strengths so why disable them by licensing them out for a worse margin?
jwolfe wrote:
I look at this way. If you are a shareholder, do you want the company to be safe and conservative or be bold and innovative. Other than the 600 and 800mm f11’s, Canon hasn’t really created anything new in mirrorless. All of their decisions are safe and conservative. Maybe you’re cool with that, but in a declining market I just don’t see it being a successful strategy long term.
But hey - I’m not a camera executive. I’m in marketing. So what do I know!
p.18 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Used market sales does not directly help the bottomline of the brands.
See Pentax as a good example who has no plans for mirrorless & the future is dSLR. This is an indicator of a failing business that will soon own 100% of the dSLR market when Canon & Nikon exits around year 2030.
The repeat customers are primarily professionals and secondary are enthusiasts.
Consumer ILC sales was killed off by smartphones.
I've spoken to multiple camera stores and they have stopped ordering any dSLRs. Due to lack of demad they're primarily indent orders that comes in a month or so later.
If you want to feel bad about how much you're spending on your body, lens & accessories go to
Photosbydlee wrote:
It’s not so much there’s fewer adopters, it’s just not everyone upgrades regularly and all these stats are for brand new sales only, a lot of people only buy second hand which is a huge area that can’t be easily measured. The stores here don’t even have DSLR’s on display, I have friends in other countries who have told me the same too.
Like you say for the first party trinity Canon and Sony are very similar priced in USD but for someone who doesn’t want to spend that much on either brands first party lenses, they have the option of third parties which they don’t natively on Canon RF.
Even for USD pricing, Canon’s EF primes are overpriced too. For example:
EF 24mm f/1.4L II - $1549 ($2294 AUD at the cheapest)
EF 35mm f/1.4L II - $1999 ($2999 AUD at the cheapest)
EF 85mm f/1.4L IS - $1599 ($2299 AUD at the cheapest)
FE 24GM - $1399 (sells as cheap as $1500 AUD)
FE 35GM - $1399 (sells as cheap as $1799 AUD)
FE 85GM - $1798 (funny enough this lens can be bought for $1560AUD)
And since we are comparing primes and both mounts have a 50mm option,
So as you can see the only lens cheaper in the US is the 85mm lenses although they are significantly cheaper in Australia. The 35/85mm options from Canon are much older so if you are a DSLR user, want new lenses and don’t want third party options, another brand has newer, better and cheaper options.
So considering they are only really competing on zoom prices, my original statement still stands. ...Show more →
p.18 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
comotionfilms wrote:
I love how some people want to turn Fred Miranda into CNBC. As a photographer, I don’t care, and I’m surprised the 3 people on here actually do. As a photographer, I want lens options, and that’s why this decision is irritating and why I would hesitate to recommend Canon over Sony anymore, which is a big switch for me. Does it make Canon more money? Sure. Do I care? No, I’m a photographer, not a shareholder.
Canon already gave up the video market, after a huge head start. I hope they don’t do the same with the stills market.
We do not want Canon to fail because we do not want an orphaned system or no service center in the city/country I live in.
I've experienced shipping items to HK to have them fixed under warranty. Shipment cost's on me and turn around time is so slow.
p.18 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Round these parts Nikon D850s are still in hot demand.
I don’t think for the foreseeable future that ilc sales are going to continue to fall much more. Seems like it’s about bottomed out. What I do know is there are too many camera companies splitting the pie and some of them need to go away (Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, maybe Fuji). Three large players is probably not sustainable 10 years from now either. But it’s anyones guess who goes under.
dolina wrote:
Used market sales does not directly help the bottomline of the brands.
See Pentax as a good example who has no plans for mirrorless & the future is dSLR. This is an indicator of a failing business that will soon own 100% of the dSLR market when Canon & Nikon exits around year 2030.
The repeat customers are primarily professionals and secondary are enthusiasts.
Consumer ILC sales was killed off by smartphones.
I've spoken to multiple camera stores and they have stopped ordering any dSLRs. Due to lack of demad they're primarily indent orders that comes in a month or so later.
If you want to feel bad about how much you're spending on your body, lens & accessories go to
