These are evidence pointing to consumer digital cameras approaching death because of smartphones that shipped last year over 1.2 billion units worldwide vs a little over 8 million digital cameras from CIPA members.
So what we are left that remained relatively unchanged are independents and companies that provide photography as a service & enthusiasts like >50% of Fred Miranda users.
I suspect for the average non-enthusiast buying a mirrorless camera right now, access to third party lenses is probably not a high priority if the manufacturer has options at their desired price point. It's more the enthusiast market, dominant here at FM, that is impacted by Canon's apparent decision to restrict third party options. It limits experimentation with potentially interesting third party lenses and/or price points. Those at the pro/high end may care less as long as Canon has options they want at the performance level they expect. My take from the perspective of the latter is that cheaper third party options don't really make a significant cost impact over the period of time I will use the equipment, which will be depreciated annually. The OEM gear is pretty much guaranteed to be future compatible and will receive service support (plus the benefits of CPS service support). That's not to say third party lenses aren't interesting and potentially address niche uses. But IMO it's fairly rare there isn't also something reasonably similar available from the OEM.
This is the product mix of the RF system as of 2018-today
13 RF Bodies
- 8 full frame priced between $999-5,999
- 5 APS-C priced between $679-1,499
38 RF Lenses from 2018-2022 vs 80+ EF lenses from 1987-2018
- 24 RF L lenses priced between $1,199-19,999
- 11 RF non-L lenses priced between $179-899
- 3 RF-S lenses priced between $299-499
My interpretation above is that Canon is prioritizing users who make revenue from providing photos as a service. Enthusiasts who prioritize spending on cameras.
From today & onward Canon may start filling up a lens release that leans more on enthusiasts.
The impact of Canon's decision really is IMO at the advanced enthusiast level and I don't think it benefits Canon to keep RF indefinitely closed to third party AF/electronic mount products. As we've seen here, it can create animosity towards Canon's brand, risks alienating a subset of existing users and deters some who might otherwise have interest in Canon products if Canon was more third party friendly. All of the brands want to encourage photographers to advance within their respective product categories. IMO it would be shortsighted to support them in the early stages, then as they become more inquisitive about photography equipment options, force them down a rigidly imposed course of product options only available through the OEM. It might be one thing if all the OEMs banned third parties and therefore swathing systems offered no better options (in this regard). But that's not the case thanks to Sony's relative openness to third parties. Canon needs to keep this in consideration and not be excessively dictatorial. People will rebel and move on to other brands they feel those give them the broader options they desire. What we don't know is just how many feel this way and have indeed moved away from Canon. As I suggested in another thread, someone at Canon is taking a calculated risk that the benefits to Canon outweigh those risks, at least for now.
I think Canon wants to enjoy 1st to market advantage for at least the 1st decade of RF system.
In 2011 Sony had little choice but to offer their E system for a no-fee license to gain market share from scratch. The Minolta A-mount they bought into in 2006 did had near zero market share relative to Canon EF & Nikon's F mount. So that was of little help other than for the IPs and other assets Minolta sold to them.
Now Nikon and Fuji have no choice to license out their mounts to select partners and lens SKUs as they are #3 and #4 brands respectively.
As the CIPA numbers above shows digital camera market is shrinking YoY. The best Canon could hope for is to keep to the shipping numbers they have gained so far and let other brands suffer the shrinking market further.
Pentax decided not to join in the migration to mirrorless and digging into dSLR. They even went to put in R&D for future film SLR production.
Fuji had an inspired solution. Create a new mirrorless body system that copies everything Canon/Sony/Nikon are doing but with a 0.79x medium format image sensor. Their price points mirror that of $5999 R3 and RF L lenses. The physical dimension and weights are the Fuji medium format are of the 1-Series & 5-Series bodies and EF L lenses.
So if you are not into sports/wildelife photography then sidegrading to Fuji makes a lot of sense for people photography.
These are evidence pointing to consumer digital cameras approaching death because of smartphones that shipped last year over 1.2 billion units worldwide vs a little over 8 million digital cameras from CIPA members.
So what we are left that remained relatively unchanged are independents and companies that provide photography as a service & enthusiasts like >50% of Fred Miranda users.
I suspect for the average non-enthusiast buying a mirrorless camera right now, access to third party lenses is probably not a high priority if the manufacturer has options at their desired price point. It's more the enthusiast market, dominant here at FM, that is impacted by Canon's apparent decision to restrict third party options. It limits experimentation with potentially interesting third party lenses and/or price points. Those at the pro/high end may care less as long as Canon has options they want at the performance level they expect. My take from the perspective of the latter is that cheaper third party options don't really make a significant cost impact over the period of time I will use the equipment, which will be depreciated annually. The OEM gear is pretty much guaranteed to be future compatible and will receive service support (plus the benefits of CPS service support). That's not to say third party lenses aren't interesting and potentially address niche uses. But IMO it's fairly rare there isn't also something reasonably similar available from the OEM.
This is the product mix of the RF system as of 2018-today
13 RF Bodies
- 8 full frame priced between $999-5,999
- 5 APS-C priced between $679-1,499
33 RF Lenses from 2018-2022 vs 80+ EF lenses from 1987-2018
- 17 RF L lenses priced between $1,199-19,999
- 13 RF non-L lenses priced between $179-899
- 3 RF-S lenses priced between $299-499
My interpretation above is that Canon is prioritizing users who make revenue from providing photos as a service. Enthusiasts who prioritize spending on cameras.
From today & onward Canon may start filling up a lens release that leans more on enthusiasts.
The impact of Canon's decision really is IMO at the advanced enthusiast level and I don't think it benefits Canon to keep RF indefinitely closed to third party AF/electronic mount products. As we've seen here, it can create animosity towards Canon's brand, risks alienating a subset of existing users and deters some who might otherwise have interest in Canon products if Canon was more third party friendly. All of the brands want to encourage photographers to advance within their respective product categories. IMO it would be shortsighted to support them in the early stages, then as they become more inquisitive about photography equipment options, force them down a rigidly imposed course of product options only available through the OEM. It might be one thing if all the OEMs banned third parties and therefore swathing systems offered no better options (in this regard). But that's not the case thanks to Sony's relative openness to third parties. Canon needs to keep this in consideration and not be excessively dictatorial. People will rebel and move on to other brands they feel those give them the broader options they desire. What we don't know is just how many feel this way and have indeed moved away from Canon. As I suggested in another thread, someone at Canon is taking a calculated risk that the benefits to Canon outweigh those risks, at least for now.
I think Canon wants to enjoy 1st to market advantage for at least the 1st decade of RF system.
In 2011 Sony had little choice but to offer their E system for a no-fee license to gain market share from scratch. The Minolta A-mount they bought into in 2006 did had near zero market share relative to Canon EF & Nikon's F mount. So that was of little help other than for the IPs and other assets Minolta sold to them.
Now Nikon and Fuji have no choice to license out their mounts to select partners and lens SKUs as they are #3 and #4 brands respectively.
As the CIPA numbers above shows digital camera market is shrinking YoY. The best Canon could hope for is to keep to the shipping numbers they have gained so far and let other brands suffer the shrinking market further.
Pentax decided not to join in the migration to mirrorless and digging into dSLR. They even went to put in R&D for future film SLR production.
Fuji had an inspired solution. Create a new mirrorless body system that copies everything Canon/Sony/Nikon are doing but with a 0.79x medium format image sensor. Their price points mirror that of $5999 R3 and RF L lenses. The physical dimension and weights are the Fuji medium format are of the 1-Series & 5-Series bodies and EF L lenses.
So if you are not into sports/wildelife photography then sidegrading to Fuji makes a lot of sense for people photography.
Feb 23, 2023 at 04:08 AM
Previous versions of dolina's message #16177893 « First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23 »
People will rebel and move on to other brands they feel those give them the broader options they desire. What we don't know is just how many feel this way and have indeed moved away from Canon. As I suggested in another thread, someone at Canon is taking a calculated risk that the benefits to Canon outweigh those risks, at least for now.