Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

sportyaccordy wrote:

Jonathan Thill wrote:

2010 the Camera market was 120 Million Cameras sold world wide.

2020 That number dropped to just 9 Million.

The drop off for ILCs- where 3rd party lens makers operate- was nowhere as bad. 20 million to 6 million.

Do you not think that a reduction in market size from 20 million to 6 million is significant or may influence the decisions of camera manufacturers?

In 2021 the Camera market was broken down like this:

1. Canon = 47.9%
2. Sony = 22.1
3. Nikon = 13.7%
4. Fuji = 5.6%
5. Panasonic = 4.4%
6. Other = 6.3

While it is true Sony is the leader in Mirrorless Camera sales, Canon is closing the gap and is still the largest player in this segment. This is important because the current addressable market still includes a large install base of DSLR users and that market is not as limited as the MILC in terms of lens offering from 3rd parties.

Canon isn't addressing or even acknowledging DSLR shooters though. The last 5D was released in 2016. The last 1D was released in 2020. The last EF lens was released in 2018 IIRC. Canon has been discontinuing DSLR lenses for a while now and I think Sigma and Tamron have too.

Plus DSLR sales have fallen off a cliff... in 2022 MILCs outsold DSLRs 3 to 1 IIRC. There was a time that ratio was flipped.

I think Canon is addressing DSLR users by providing options in the MILC market from the R50 all the way up to the R3 and providing a pathway for them to continue using their EF / EFS lenses.

The basic math is when you look at the fact that MILC is the only segment of the ILC/MILC market that was still growing as of 2021.

And as you said Canon is not the leader in the only space that matters.............

Canon has made significant inroads into that market.

Canon "Blocking" 3rd parties may only have a limited impact on the bottom line at Sigma and Tamron right now because they can still sell their legacy portfolio to a large install base of DSLR users. As that install base ages out or goes to MILC the 3rd parties will feel the pinch more and more.

Sigma and Tamron implemented their no-Canon contingency plan long ago. Per CIPA the same ~5 million FF lenses were sold in 2022 as in 2010. And Sigma & Tamron both have substantially larger and more expensive FF lens libraries today than they did back then. I don't think it's unreasonable to say 3rd party lens makers have gained market share over the last decade. The growth in 3rd party offerings and prices speaks to that IMO.

If the same amount of lenses are being sold in 2022 as 2010 & you suggest that 3rd parties have gained market share (do you have any data on that?) then the OEM's are fighting over a smaller share of the pie. Why would Canon want to give away even more of that share?

IMO Canon did the math and said

"Nope, we cannot afford to allow someone else to eat our dog food".

It now looks like Nikon has also done that math and I would not be at all surprised to see more restrictions on the Sony systems in the future.

Allowing another company to pouch your sales is not the way to stay in business.

This has been stated over and over again in everyone of these this silly threads on this subject.

• SONY worked with 3rd parties lens makers NOT because they are the NICE guy, they did it because they could not compete in a market dominated by Canon and Nikon.

Mini disc and Beta max are a couple great examples of Sony.

Agreed, at the beginning of E mount Sony ran to 3rd party brands because their own optics were garbage. Frankly, so were a lot of the early Zeiss partnership lenses. But that was then.... now Sony lenses are pretty much at the forefront, even with the "small mount".

Nikon did the math and figured out that leveraging 3rd party brands was wise. Granted Nikon is in a more vulnerable position than Canon, but sometimes you need to lose your pride to make good decisions.

Canon has also done the math and feel their approach is better. Do you have any numbers that suggest they are wrong & Nikon is right?

You are right that allowing other companies to poach your sales isn't wise. Which is why Canon's penny wise pound foolish approach to 3rd party lenses is so confusing. They have the market base and pricing power to easily leverage licensing, enabling them to profit handsomely from every 3rd party sale for minimum effort and investment. As well as focus the lens releases that benefit them the most, rather than having to try to do it all.

Again, in the end, who wins? Certainly not the consumer. Its bizarre to me to see so many people defending a company leveraging their brand's power to the consumer's disadvantages. How exactly does Canon limiting lens choices for their gain benefit you as a customer and photographer?

The consumer has a choice not to use Canon. No-one is forcing them to choose the R system. Canon, for their own reasons have chosen to enforce their patent protections. Is that a bad thing for a company to do, or should they allow a free for all? They have also, at this time, not licensed any 3rd parties to make af lenses for the RF mount. That decision would have been taken based on their data and what they feel is best for the company. If you, as a consumer, don't like that decision, then buy another brand. If sufficient people do that, then the financial calculations will change & maybe Canon will license 3rd parties.

Complaining about it on a camera forum wont change what Canon is doing, only sales, or lack thereof will.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/