Are you fed up with the ever increasing cost of Canon gear?

Yes, canon’s new mirrorless is expensive. But look how far they’ve come with the technology in such a short time. They need to recover some of that R&D. I love my R6 and would like to keep it a while. The RF 35mm 1.8 and RF 85mm F2 are excellent for their lower prices versus L lenses. Some gripe about AF but I’ve had a fine experience with them. I like my cheap RF 50mm 1.8 mainly to go with my smaller RP body.  I will be keeping my Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 and 70-200 2.8 G2 for a while. The RF L series equivalents are too pricey. If I could afford the RF 50mm 1.2 I would be happy for a long time I think. If I was budget conscious (which I am having upgraded the past 5 years as business could afford me to upgrade from older uses gear), I would strongly consider Sony because of the great priced A7III and their third party lens offerings.

Steve W wrote:

The issue with EF and RF is the same in trying to support both a $800 to $7000 (EOS R1) with the same family of lenses. Without real third party partners Canon has gotten themselves stuck trying to support three tears of lens quality and only has resources for two and for money that just doesn’t cut it. And its a shrinking market on top of that.

This is not a problem Sony has. Nikon chose another approach with trying to deliver a really nice f/1.8 and f/4 family from the start. It’s actually the same approach Sony took at the start of their full frame development and with five more years of lead time it payed off and they enlisted third parties. They have at least 7-9 partners.

So Canon is mostly producing Premium+ and budget IMHO. Not what a large diverse base needs with an RP, R, R6, R5, R3 and next year an R1 maybe. Som even say they want to introduce a body below the RP.

Well said!

Steve W wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

Steve W wrote:

The issue with EF and RF is the same in trying to support both a $800 to $7000 (EOS R1) with the same family of lenses. Without real third party partners Canon has gotten themselves stuck trying to support three tears of lens quality and only has resources for two and for money that just doesn’t cut it. And its a shrinking market on top of that.

This is not a problem Sony has. Nikon chose another approach with trying to deliver a really nice f/1.8 and f/4 family from the start. It’s actually the same approach Sony took at the start of their full frame development and with five more years of lead time it payed off and they enlisted third parties. They have at least 7-9 partners.

So Canon is mostly producing Premium+ and budget IMHO. Not what a large diverse base needs with an RP, R, R6, R5, R3 and next year an R1 maybe. Som even say they want to introduce a body below the RP.

—
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

"Third party partners"? That's not the way Canon sees them. "Third party parasites" would be closer to their view. They want to keep lens sales to themselves, not donate that profitable business to others. They don't see not having them as a problem, they will see Sony having them as very much a problem for Sony when it comes to trying to make their business profitable. 7-9 "partners" would be Canon's idea of absolute hell.

And that is why Canon is a more expensive system. In today’s business climate you really need to take a pro-active approach to managing your business relationships. Sonys been able to use its partners to move from lower than 5th to 2nd in digital camera space with the approach they took. Not something to take lightly. It certainly has Canon’s attention for sure.

Whereas Canon's approach has allowed it to remain No 1 in the global market, actually increasing the gap, and most importantly, staying profitable, so they stay in the camera business.

Which approach works better - the best, or the second best?

Of course Canon will be paying attention to Sony, but their last 30 or so years has been the story of them reacting to other manufacturers in a very distinctly Canon way, not by copying what other manufacturers do. That way they've managed to retain volume AND margin, rather than stupidly giving away margin through not selling so many lenses.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

Steve W wrote:

The issue with EF and RF is the same in trying to support both a $800 to $7000 (EOS R1) with the same family of lenses. Without real third party partners Canon has gotten themselves stuck trying to support three tears of lens quality and only has resources for two and for money that just doesn’t cut it. And its a shrinking market on top of that.

This is not a problem Sony has. Nikon chose another approach with trying to deliver a really nice f/1.8 and f/4 family from the start. It’s actually the same approach Sony took at the start of their full frame development and with five more years of lead time it payed off and they enlisted third parties. They have at least 7-9 partners.

So Canon is mostly producing Premium+ and budget IMHO. Not what a large diverse base needs with an RP, R, R6, R5, R3 and next year an R1 maybe. Som even say they want to introduce a body below the RP.

—
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

"Third party partners"? That's not the way Canon sees them. "Third party parasites" would be closer to their view. They want to keep lens sales to themselves, not donate that profitable business to others. They don't see not having them as a problem, they will see Sony having them as very much a problem for Sony when it comes to trying to make their business profitable. 7-9 "partners" would be Canon's idea of absolute hell.

And that is why Canon is a more expensive system. In today’s business climate you really need to take a pro-active approach to managing your business relationships. Sonys been able to use its partners to move from lower than 5th to 2nd in digital camera space with the approach they took. Not something to take lightly. It certainly has Canon’s attention for sure.

Whereas Canon's approach has allowed it to remain No 1 in the global market, actually increasing the gap, and most importantly, staying profitable, so they stay in the camera business.

Which approach works better - the best, or the second best?

Of course Canon will be paying attention to Sony, but their last 30 or so years has been the story of them reacting to other manufacturers in a very distinctly Canon way, not by copying what other manufacturers do. That way they've managed to retain volume AND margin, rather than stupidly giving away margin through not selling so many lenses.

The first 15 years of those 30 years there was no sensor tech involved.

When it comes to sensor tech and volume I know who's the winner. Maybe Sony simply doesn't have to sell so many lenses as the bodies themselves are more profitable due to better spread R&D costs as it comes to sensors.

tenordrum wrote:

no, I am not fed up.

Some of the newer RF lenses offer good value to me. My R6 is worth what I paid for it every time I snap a pic of the fast moving grandkids.

The RF lenses are invariably far too expensive, the "cheap" ones are much more expensive than the EF equivalent and the performance is often not as good as the EF version.  Canon keep fitting the slow STM motors for video people thereby compromising the lens for people who want to use their camera for actual photography e.g. the EF 35mm f/2 seemingly beats the RF 35 /1.8 at everything except the mount.

The RP is great, the 3rd party lenses will arrive, it will just take time.  Samyang make an an RF 85mm AF, more will come.

thunder storm wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

Steve W wrote:

The issue with EF and RF is the same in trying to support both a $800 to $7000 (EOS R1) with the same family of lenses. Without real third party partners Canon has gotten themselves stuck trying to support three tears of lens quality and only has resources for two and for money that just doesn’t cut it. And its a shrinking market on top of that.

This is not a problem Sony has. Nikon chose another approach with trying to deliver a really nice f/1.8 and f/4 family from the start. It’s actually the same approach Sony took at the start of their full frame development and with five more years of lead time it payed off and they enlisted third parties. They have at least 7-9 partners.

So Canon is mostly producing Premium+ and budget IMHO. Not what a large diverse base needs with an RP, R, R6, R5, R3 and next year an R1 maybe. Som even say they want to introduce a body below the RP.

—
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

"Third party partners"? That's not the way Canon sees them. "Third party parasites" would be closer to their view. They want to keep lens sales to themselves, not donate that profitable business to others. They don't see not having them as a problem, they will see Sony having them as very much a problem for Sony when it comes to trying to make their business profitable. 7-9 "partners" would be Canon's idea of absolute hell.

And that is why Canon is a more expensive system. In today’s business climate you really need to take a pro-active approach to managing your business relationships. Sonys been able to use its partners to move from lower than 5th to 2nd in digital camera space with the approach they took. Not something to take lightly. It certainly has Canon’s attention for sure.

Whereas Canon's approach has allowed it to remain No 1 in the global market, actually increasing the gap, and most importantly, staying profitable, so they stay in the camera business.

Which approach works better - the best, or the second best?

Of course Canon will be paying attention to Sony, but their last 30 or so years has been the story of them reacting to other manufacturers in a very distinctly Canon way, not by copying what other manufacturers do. That way they've managed to retain volume AND margin, rather than stupidly giving away margin through not selling so many lenses.

The first 15 years of those 30 years there was no sensor tech involved.

When it comes to sensor tech and volume I know who's the winner. Maybe Sony simply doesn't have to sell so many lenses as the bodies themselves are more profitable due to better spread R&D costs as it comes to sensors.

Yes, there's probably quite a lot in that. Certainly shows why it's completely unrealistic to expect the same strategy to work for two totally different companies.
I don't have current data, but I do know that Canon used to make more margin on lenses than cameras, and that on average, buyers bought two (extra? total? Not sure) lenses per body. Those figures might have changed, but they do explain why Canon have always been keen to retain lens sales, even at the expense of not making some body sales.

jimbrobb wrote:

It seems everything is increasing in price. OK if you bought 2 years ago and now selling but for the majority, like myself, I am puting off buying.

Canon can charge what they want in these scarce times and still make nice profits!

I predicted long ago that we would start seeing substantially higher prices for cameras and lenses due to fewer people buying. Gone are the days where point and shoots subsidized more serious equipment. As the market continues to shrink the prices will continue to rise.