Canon Japan to increase pricing on 65 imaging products starting November 4

Sony has 3rd party options. That is the difference.

MILCman
You are refering to an article from February 2022 which references increases in September 2021 & February 2022.
You are being very misleading in your wording which suggests that Canon has increased prices in the USA twice in the last 5 months, which is incorrect.

You also ignore that both Nikon & Sony have also increased prices multiple times.
Its a reflection of the economic conditions created by the pandemic and the inflationary pressures the whole world is facing at the moment.

Its not some grand conspiracy by Canon.

In fact the Canon USA website has specials on a number of lenses at the moment

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/lenses?p=2

@KZ7 - "You are refering to an article from February 2022"

i'm replying to the blatantly false claim that canon did not raise camera prices in the usa: "...all we have seen here in the US is a Major Sale on many of their[Canon] lens, not a price Increase"

you need to work on those canon gear insecurity issues... this dpr article is about canon, no other company, you can't change that fact with mindless attempts at thread hijacking.

@Thecylon - "Sony has 3rd party options. That is the difference."

exactly, and since they keep bringing up sony...

sony supports an open mount system, so e-mount owners have choices instead of suffering under multiple price hikes that they can't avoid.

"Again folks, all we have seen here in the US is a Major Sale on many of their lens, not a price Increase."

Nobody is claiming that Canon hasn't had prices increases. Nor have with not seen prices increases from other Camera Brands. So Some folks need to understand the difference between stating that some Canon lens have seen a price decrease as opposed to anyone stating there was No price increases on any Canon Lens. Big Difference.

What's is truly is SAD, is how one has to break down every little post just so that the narrative isn't changed to something that was never the Point, to begin with. So nobody was trying to mislead anyone on Canon Lens prices.

Regardless, Sony has a Ton of Third party options which likely, most buyers really could care less about. An I really don't blame them.

MILC
There is no mention in this article about price increases in the USA.

"As it stands, these price changes only affects the Japanese market, but a Canon representative tells us other regional subsidiaries reserve the right to adjust their prices accordingly as well."

Currently there are specials on the Canon USA website which I linked to in my previous post (thats reduction in prices not increases in case you missed it).

You posted this earlier "For example, the EOS R5 is currently available in Japan for 460,000 yen (about $3,068), which will increase to 520,000 yen (about $3,468.59)."

That USD conversion even after the increase is less than the R5's price of $3899 on release (a price it still sells for on the Canon USA website and B&H).

MILC is falsely claiming intent of my initial post. He is also making claims to whom folks are. That needs to be dealt with.

@Backtonature
To be fair I changed my user name from KZ7 to my real name a few months back. MILC just likes to bring it up when he doesn't have anything else to say.
Its not somthing that bothers me, he can address me as KZ7 or Myles.

No, what MILC is doing, even after I clarified my statement for those who might have misunderstood, MILC is continuing the same False narrative. To clarify it even further, neither was my focus on non RF lenses. But it would be of interest to see how those prices are compared to when they were first released also.

My statement applied to exactly what I meant, not how you wanted to take or refuse to take it. But I could see how others might not see that clearly. Especially after MILC started a different narrative then what was the intent. There is nothing wrong with my initial statement other than those that might not get what I really stated upon further clarification.

I am talking from the perspective of when this article was written, not some past articles that predates current pricing of this announcement. Which lens have seen prices increases since this announcement as opposed to being on sale. In the United States. Which is were I live.

@mikegt
At this time I own the Canon RF16 f2.8, 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f2 & 24-105 f4.
I also have my old EF & EFS lenes that work flawlessly for me with the EF/RF adaptor.
I plan to buy the RF 100-400 the next time it is on special where I live (currently its still selling at its release price).
Those lenses are all I want / need.
I'm tempted to pick up the RF600 or 800 f11, but I don't have a pressing need for one.
Its hardly like Canon is ahort of options and there is always the huge catalouge of EF lenses (both Canon & 3rd party) that can be adapted, which despite your claims to the contrary in previous posts work extremly well on the R bodies.

@mikegt
I'm glad that Sony lovers, love their system so much, it just makes it all the more confusing when they get all angsty about what Canon is doing. If you love the system you are using so much, why does it matter?

@MILC
Ypu clearly don't understand the OPs point even though he has clarified it for you several times.
This article is about Canon raising prices in Japan now, with no price rises in the USA mentioned. In fact Canon has gear on the Canon USA website that has been reduced in price.
The article you keep refering to references price increases in September 2021.
All you are trying to do, with the way that you have worded your responses is infer price increases in the USA within the last 5 months.

@mikegt
The problem is you have no objectivity when discussing Canon. If you did you would acknowledge that Canon is not alone in having raised prices or announced pending rises in prices, Sony, Nikon & Fuji have all done the same this year and whats more, given the current economic climate its hardly surprising that they have felt the need to.
Canon makes decisions that I don't necesarily like, e.g. the 3rd party lenses, but I do understand the rationale behind it, even though I would like to see some of those Tamron lenses in RF mount.
Unfortunatly you come across more like a disgruntled former Canon employee and that rather clouds your points, even when you bring up valid ones.

> The problem is you have no objectivity when discussing Canon

Being lectured by the former KZ7 on objectivity - how utterly hilarious. I am actually pretty objective about things - you just can't see it because of your own bias.

> you would acknowledge that Canon is not alone in having raised prices

An excellent example where your perception of things is affected by bias. I invite you to do a search of all the comments made here by me; you will not find any criticizing Canon's price increases in general (I did criticize a $600 increase on one lens). I agree with you that inflation is affecting everyone and we can expect price increases from all the camera companies.

I have criticized Sony on occasion (for example their lens prices are too high), but I also have stood up for them when "TRU" was relentlessly bashing them. Here is where you can test his objectivity: Ask Mr. "TRU" to say something critical about Canon. He simply cannot bring himself to do it.

Mikegt
In comments on this article about Canon raising prices in Japan you have, critisised the price of Canon lenses, their 3rd party lens policy, the lenses themselves (the RF 85 f1.2) their cameras (the R7 & R10) the adaptability of EF lenses to RF and insulted anyone who disagreed with you. Until your last comment, prompted by me, you had not even mentioned the actual article itself or addressed what is written in it and now you want me to get involved in your personal disagreements with TRU. That's what I mean about you lacking objectivity.
Instead of just ranting about everything you dislike about Canon, at least try to stay on topic.

mferencz: Better the highway than being locked into the Canon "R" eco-system, having to pay Canon's sky-high prices for "RF" lenses, like for example the RF 85mm f1.2 which is just the EF version with an RF mount, with the distance scale removed, and priced $600 higher ($2,600 vs $2,000 for the EF version that Canon has discontinued !)

In contrast, Sony for example works closely with third-party lens makers to make sure they are compatible. My Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 works with all of Sony's focus modes, and is less than half the price of the Sony equivalent.

@Thoughts R Us - "...even with Sony"

that is at least the 3rd time that you've tried to derail the conversation to be about sony, when this dpr article is strictly about canon price hikes.

i know it's hard for you to control your canon gear insecurity issues... what you should be asking yourself is how these seemingly endless canon price hikes will affect canon market share failures in japan, which was their strongest market:

"Sony becomes top market share holder for mirrorless cameras in Japan, while Nikon and Fujifilm are nowhere to be seen.

Sony has overtaken Canon as the number one seller of mirrorless cameras in Japan...

The results may be somewhat surprising, since Sony hasn’t released a new camera since the Sony A7 IV in October 2021. Both Fujifilm and Canon have had more recent releases, with the Fujifilm X-H2S and the Canon EOS R10 and the Canon EOS R7..."
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sony-overtakes-canon-for-market-share-and-om-system-olympus-holds-onto-third

@mikegt: you are sorely wrong about the Canon RF 85 f1.2. It is an entirely new and improved lens than the EF 85 f1.2, with faster AF, and among other improvements, the Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics, which didn't even exist when the EF version was designed.

In fact the RF 85 f1.2 is viewed as an almost optically perfect lens, and easily the most advanced 85 f1.2 on the market, from the company that invented the 85 f1.2.

Here's a review by Chris and Jordan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdt7uAyGCJw

BTW, mike, you should admit the error you made since it's rather a major one. I won't hold my breath waiting for it but it would be the right thing to do.

@Thoughts R Us - vignetting on the rf 85/1.2 is worse than vignetting on the ef 85/1.2, but at least it's not a huge difference, unlike what canon did with the two different 50/1.2 lenses... it seems that the larger diameter rf-mount does nothing to improve vignetting, contrary to all the overblown hype:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1418&Camera=1221&LensComp=397

Canon RF 85: Looks like Canon improved the coatings and inserted a BSR element. So I'll acknowledge that it is not completely identical to the EF version, but certainly not optimized for mirrorless. Instead they kept the basic EF design and just updated the coatings and stuck the BSR element in - unfortunately this added additional weight and made the housing even bigger than the EF version! Chris reported in his review that the RF version is very front-heavy. If Canon had actually done a complete redesign for mirrorless, then they would of used larger diameter rear-positioned elements to balance the lens and it would be considerably lighter and smaller than the EF DSLR version.

mikegt:
"for example the RF 85mm f1.2 which is just the EF version with an RF mount, with the distance scale removed"
Oh boy, you really know nothing. Just tell us, why do you lie that stupidly? EF 85/1.2 and RF 85/1.2 are completely different lenses with literally nothing in common.

Optical design of RF 85/1.2:
https://bit.ly/3eZwStp

Optical design of EF 85/1.2:
https://www.lenstip.com/upload3/2740_can_85_bud.jpg

RF 85/1.2 is completely new lens designed specifically for the RF. Why don't you just take these two lenses to your hands and do not look at them? You would find out in one second what BS you are writing here.

mikegt:
"Instead they kept the basic EF design and just updated the coatings and stuck the BSR element in"

If this was true, the distance between the last optical element of the RF from the sensor would have to reflect the different flange distance of EF mount camera. In other words (so that even you would understand) if the basic optical design of the RF would be same as EF, there would have to be and extension tube built in to the lens to keep the same flange distance. But it is not.
Try to figure out why :-)!

TRU:
These gutless people will never do it.

Come on guys - talk about grasping at straws. The pictures linked by "Canon guy" show the same basic design for both lenses, just with BSR added as I already mentioned along with more empty space between the front elements. You still have the same arrangement of heavy elements in front and tiny ones in back - not optimized for mirrorless at all. Thank-you for proving my point for me. Anything else you folks want to argue about ?

The denial you are expressing so clearly only demonstrates inferiority of understanding what was written.
At that level of intelligence and knowledge a bike and a truck are also the same design.
So yes, on your level of understanding you are right.

It also explains why you failed completely in responding to questions you were asked. You have no clue what were you asked.

@Thoughts R Us - "@mikegt: you owe us all an apology for literally putting out incorrect statements"

as opposed to your blatantly false claim that the a7r5 costs more than the a7r4?
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4592413050/canon-japan-to-increase-pricing-on-65-imaging-products-starting-november-4?comment=8886404915

we await YOUR apology

Are you applying that old not working not bright method of repeating nonsensical claims in a blinded hope they will become true :-)?

Or you are really so deeply lost to think RF 85/1.2 is smaller and lighter than EF 85/1.2? Same with couple others lenses I mentioned in my below reaction to your false claims.

Is RF 16/2.8 really optically better than Sigma 14/1.8 (closest equivalent)?
Does RF 85/2 really focus faster than Sigma 85/1.4?
Is EF 70-200/2.8 II (III) anyhow "compromised" in its behavior on R6/5 when it actually performs better than it ever did on any DSLR?

Is the real troll someone who just sees thing without any bias and is able to differentiate or the one who claims "only RF is better than anything else" :-) ?
Wake up.

MILC man:
"modern milc lenses are better than old dslr lenses in just about every possible way; that applies to all brands."

Do you really think RF 85/2 focuses faster than any non-RF fullframe 85mm lens? Then you should compare it side by side with a 30 years old (!!!) EF 85/1.8. You will be very surprised. Not even mentioning Sigma 85/1.4....

Or you think RF 14-35/4 vignetts and aberrates less than Sigma 14-24/2.8 which is for the same price although it is f/2.8 lens?

Don't be blindfolded.

@Canon_Guy - "Do you really think RF 85/2 focuses faster than any non-RF full frame 85mm lens?"

i quoted the r5 manual, which makes what i said factual information; it's not debatable and opinions don't matter.

people who actually own rf-mount gear would know that already, but you go ahead and tell canon that they are wrong, if you must :-)

You've got lost a bit. If you read my posts again, with focus and slowly, you will not see any single word negating what the R5 manual says.

What I wrote is that your claim "modern milc lenses are better than old dslr lenses in just about every possible way; that applies to all brands" is just false as it can be. And to make your learning of the very basics easier I gave you couple of clear examples why your claim is false.
Take those lenses I wrote about, put them on your R5/6 camera, learn what you are missing so far and then you can come back here to acknowledge my words.
You have the homework to do.

Canon_Guy: I guess we shouldn't expect unbiased opinions from someone who calls himself "Canon_Guy".

I said that mirrorless lenses are "generally" smaller and lighter than their DSLR equivalents. Obviously this is not guaranteed, Canon is free to go the opposite direction if they want.

I'm very glad you brought up the 85mm/F1.2, since Canon is doing something pretty nasty with this lens. First, they stopped making the EF version which was priced around $2,000. They introduced the RF version which if you compare them is just the EF version with an RF mount - and the focus scale has been removed! So there are no distance markings on the RF version; and the price has been jacked-up an additional $600 above the now-discontinued EF version.

This is the kind of stuff Canon can get away with since they blocked third-parties from making RF lenses. What Canon is doing is bad for their customers; I'm sorry you are too biased to see it.

mikegt:
Wrong guess, sorry :-) .
If you would read (and understand) my posts, you would see I am actually quite negative to some RF lens and do favor Sigma lenses...
So your barking is pointless again.

Canon_Guy:

We have another nail in the "just use EF glass on your RF camera" coffin: Canon is rapidly discontinuing their EF line of lenses. Only a fraction of the EF catalog is still currently available to buy new; in a couple of years it will be down to just a handful like what happened with Sony "A" mount DSLR lenses (only five models left for sale on B&H as of today).

> Sigma

There are no Sigma lenses available designed for the RF mount. They have five heavy EF-mount models bundled with EF-to-RF adapters; I have already explained to you why adapted lenses are compromised on the RF mount.

> So your barking is pointless again

It's time for you to acknowledge what everyone else has already figured out: What Canon is doing is bad for consumers.

mikegt:
"Canon is rapidly discontinuing their EF line of lenses."
Nothing surprising. This was very likely to happen sooner or later and it is quite logical.

"They have five heavy EF-mount models"
Wrong again. Sigma has 25 EF full frame lenses.

"I have already explained to you why adapted lenses are compromised on the RF mount."
So far you only stated couple of nonsensical claims. Read below why you are wrong in them. You are just being broken record with no experience and argument.

"It's time for you to acknowledge what everyone else has already figured out: What Canon is doing is bad for consumers."
Not relevant for me. Canon gave me an R6 which is a fantastic camera. I use it with various RF and EF lenses (canon and Sigma) and the whole system just suits me perfectly. So big kudos to Canon, I am very satisfied.

You should be more happy too. The way you are hopelessly trying to "get me" while having no knowledge, experience, arguments, is partially sad and partially laughable.

> big kudos to Canon, I am very satisfied.

Canon_Guy: Suffering a bit from Stockholm Syndrome, are we ?

No one is liking or supporting your ranting. Give it up already.

@Canon_Guy - "If you would read (and understand) my posts"

the things you are saying don't make sense, you are apparently from eastern europe so there is most likely an english translation problem.

@Canon_Guy - "Not relevant for me"

we are discussing a news story about canon, it's not an article about "Canon_Guy".

mikegt:
You ran out of any topic and argument so started to be personal :-)? That is also typical.

Why don't you rather name specifically which aspects of EF 70-200/2.8 II are "compromised" on an R6? Name one by one and be specific. Make me laugh again :-).

MILC man:
"the things you are saying don't make sense" - what specifically? Able to use any argument?

"we are discussing a news story about canon, it's not an article about "Canon_Guy"." - it seems you are not able to discuss about the article if you discuss about me only now....

Sort your thoughts better :-).

@Canon_Guy - "if you discuss about me only now...."

no, that is wrong, YOU brought up you when you said, and i quote:

@Canon_Guy - "Not relevant for me Canon gave me an R6 which is a fantastic camera"

the article we are discussing isn't about you or what gear you own, it's about canon policies in general, which you don't seem to understand.

@mikegt - "We have another nail in the "just use EF glass on your RF camera" coffin: Canon is rapidly discontinuing their EF line of lenses."

for example, Canon_Guy, see the mike quote above; you can't admit that it's bad for canon owners.

MILC man:
You see - still you write about Canon_Guy only having nothing relevant to say... :-D . So clever...

Be my guest and feel free to continue ;-) .

@MILCman

'the r5 manual clearly states that most 1st-gen ef-mount lenses can't do 12fps on the r5 with the mechanical shutter'

The Canon R5 advanced user guide (starting at page 913) shows 38 Canon EF / EFS lenses that can shoot at 12fps.

Considering the the EF mount goes back 35 years, its hardly surprising that some 1st gen lenses can't shoot at that speed.

@Myles Baker - "The Canon R5 advanced user guide"

the r5 manual clearly states that most 1st-gen ef-mount lenses can't do 12fps on the r5 with the mechanical shutter.

that's a fact, it's not arguable, and i'm laughing over seeing the "Myles Baker" aka "KZ7" account posting within two minutes of the "Thoughts R Us" account ;-)

@MILC man: I'm laughing over you seeing some conspiracy theory in a discussion on camera brands among a few people. Who would have thought?!

@Thoughts R Us - two minutes have gone by, isn't it about time that we heard from the other account? lol

@mikegt: Ooooh...aaaahh...I'm so scared. It's such an insult to state the truth and call someone a "cheerleader for Sony?" Haha.

Please...grow up.

"Thoughts ARE NOT Us" - the moderators have asked us not to fight, otherwise I would come down on you like a ton of bricks as you so richly deserve. Instead, I'm going to go through your recent posts and report all your trolling to the moderators. With luck they will delete your posts as they have done so often in the past.

I guess we'll just have to put up with the 38 ef / efs lenses listed by Canon that can shoot at 12fps.
Luckily I have some of them (although not much use on my RP) & I'm not really surprised or worried that my 30 year old ef 50 f1.8ii can't shoot at 12fps, although it actually focusses better adapted on my RP than it did on my SLR's or DSLR's, but still a slow focussing, noisy little beast :)
Still, I got a lot of use out of it over the years, so can't complain.

Also if you think I have more than one account, feel free to report it to the administrators, rather than making baseless insinuations.

@Myles Baker: some take this stuff so seriously they imagine a conspiracy theory behind everyone who disagrees with them.

I've been accused of having multiple accounts, of being paid by both Canon and Nikon, you name it...

Again the problem is that they feel so invested in their desired brand that will distort their thinking because they can't accept the idea that others genuinely disagree with them. So that means there must be this conspiracy against their favored brand.

Fuji_Guy_XS10: You made the right choice, and ended-up with the better camera. After all, everyone knows that the R7 is a mediocre melange of recycled parts from older Canon cameras (ancient FSI sensor from the xxD series, seven year-old EVF from the "M" series, etc.). In comparison the Fuji line features modern BSI sensors and modern higher-res EVFs.

So you can wake up now and check out for example Sigma's 14-24/2.8, 14/1.8, 20/1.4, 40/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/1.4, 135/1.8....

All superb lenses equal (sharpness) or better (vignetting, aberrations, buld quality) than RF for much lower price than Canon. Some of them not even having any RF counterpart...

Suddenly TRU is back when there’s a negative Canon story.

And if they don't make their users happy, things may change in ways they may not like....

Very well managed company. They sure know how to maximise profit and reduce costs…

'They sure know how to maximise profit and reduce costs'
Kind of a minimum requirement in a well manged company isn't it?

No, that’s exactly how you don’t run a company.

@Pantunes
You really think maximising profits and minimizing costs is not a good way to run a company?
I'm glad my bonus doesn't rely on your business acumen.
I work in a highly competitive market, we not only have to provide excellent facilities, service and levels of care to survive & thrive, but we have to provide a return on the substantial investment that our shareholders have made and continue to make and that means finding ways to maximise profits and minimize costs, so that we not only can provide that return but have enough left over to reinvest in the business and provide improved services and levels of care for our patients and expand the business further. A company providing the best product or service in the world will fail if it makes a loss providing it.

What if a company puts its short term profits ahead of costumer satisfaction?

Canon appears to be selling a lot of cameras and lenses, that implies that more than a few people are satisfied with the products they are bringing to market and their price point. Of course not everyone is satisfied, but thats also the case with any company.
If enough people are not satisfied, then they change their strategy or lose business its not rocket science.
It's funny, I don't recall all this angst when Sony & Nikon raised prices in Japan earlier in the year, but then I don't frequent their forums so maybe there was and I missed it, given your strong feelings on this I'm sure you must have been equally as vocal about them, or maybe not.
Personally, I am satisfied with the camera & lenses I have from Canon, but thats just me, a sample size of one.
For anyone who isn't, there are plenty of other options out there and if you believe the comments sections on DPR there are plenty of people who are happy to switch systems whenever the mood takes them.

Ok, be honest... Is this the direction you want canon to go? Blocking third party lenses, being more expensive than other brands, still not offering a flagship mirrorless camera, no mid range lenses, etc?

Are you satisfied with that?

mikegt:
The answer to that question is a clear no. People with R cameras can freely buy any EF lens an use it with no limitations. Being forced to something means having no other choice. Which is not the case here.

And the claim that "To get the best performance from your "R" camera you need native AF & AE glass designed for mirrorless" is also as wrong as it can be.

Actually EF lens (Canon or 3rd party) behave better on R camera than they did on a DSLRs. Mainly due to a snappier faster a more precise AF. EF lenses also tend to be a bit sharper on my R6 then they were on 5D mk III.

From what you wrote it seems you have no experience with EF lenses on R cameras.

Context missing / disingenuous at best.

Tamron and sigma are no longer making EF lenses. For RF LENSES...there are no 3rd party AF options. that sweet 30-150 zoom? Fuggedabout it. No EF version.

That also means some lenses that could have been bought new are/will no longer be available through normal channels.

Just get it used..? Yeah, some go that route, some don't.

So you're not really helping by acting with head in the sand responses.

Sigma is currently making 25 models of EF mount lenses for FF nad 4 models of APS-C lenses with EF mount.
Check it on their official web site.

Canon_Guy: Using a DSLR lens with an adapter is NOT the same as native RF glass, as anyone who knows anything about lenses will tell you. First, DSLR lenses are generally heavier and bigger than their mirrorless counterparts. In regard to AF, the motor of a DSLR lens is optimized for quick point to point movements but slows down when the points are changing rapidly as they do on a mirrorless camera. Mirrorless lenses have AF motors that are designed to be constantly moving and adjusting based on changing information from the sensor.

MIrrorless cameras also support new optical designs not possible with DSLR (EF) mount lenses; they can be smaller and rear-weighted and often include large diameter rear-positioned elements. The larger rear-element optical design of mirrorless lenses reduces the angle of light rays in the image circle periphery, and bending light to a lesser degree leads to improved image quality, especially with better-corrected aberrations.

@Canon_Guy, let me rephrase my question, for you.

How many 3rd party companies are producing lenses for Canon EOS R mirrorless cameras?

Canon Guy is being intentionally misleading. This conversation is therefore useless.

This is all RECENT news and knowledge, so I dont get what's his point/agenda. Specific omitting of facts in supposed factual statements is close enough to lies at it can get.

There are better conversations being had in the comments, I'll keep my eye out for those. Cheers all.

Edward
How is Canon guy being misleading?
You said 'Tamron and sigma are no longer making EF lenses.'
He replied by saying that they are advertising EF mount lenses on their websites. Which they are, you can check for yourself.
It's your statement that is clearly misleading.
A more accurate statement might have been that they are not making new lenses for EF mount (have either company actually stated that?).

Google is your friend.

+ No one is 'primarily' discussing EF mount. He brought it up as a red herring.

There are no new lenses being made/designed for EF mount. What is so hard about that to understand? Even canon still manufactures a small range of EF mount lenses.

Sigma also released a list of lenses no longer available/being produced. Both companies has made announcement regarding the winding down of DSLR lenses in the last few months. To use EF mount as a 'solution' is nonsensical, ESPECIALLY because the discussion is RF.

Cmon.

Edward Artiste:
Before claiming someone from misleading, you should better start at yourself by expressing your thoughts much clearer :-) . There is a huge difference in meaning of "Tamron and sigma are no longer making EF lenses." and what Myles Baker corrected you perfectly to "There are no new lenses being designed for EF mount.".

The first is completely untrue, since Tamron and Sigma actually are MAKING EF lenses. The latter is true, since Tamron and Sigma is unlikely to present NEW models of EF lenses.

So yes, Cmon... :-D.

mikegt:
OK, so one by one :-) :

"DSLR lenses are generally heavier and bigger than their mirrorless counterparts."
Well, RF 85/1.2 vs EF 85/1.2 or RF 50/1.2 vs EF 50/1.2 or RF 15-35/2.8 vs EF 16-35/2.8 are good examples, right :-)? But yes, there also examples where RF really is smaller and lighter than EF couterparts. But is it not due to the different mount but due to the plastic vs metal and also compromised IQ in vignetting and aberrations. Good example is RF 14-35/4 vs EF 16-35/4, where the EF vignetts less, aberrates less and has far better IQ at 35 mm.

"the motor of a DSLR lens is optimized for quick point to point movements but slows down when the points are changing rapidly as they do on a mirrorless camera."
Who told this to you, boy :-D? You should not believe to every blah random person tells you. Does my EF 70-200/2.8 II "slow down" when I shoot my erratically capering Viszla? No by any means. And the hit rate compared to 5D mkIII is way better on my R6.(to be continued)

mikegt:
(continuation)
For sure there are some awesome RF lenses totally unprecedented before: 28-70/2 is just fabulous lens, 70-200/2.8 as well, 85/1.2 even not to speak, etc. Same as there are some average lenses. It only needs to be able to see things without bias.

TRU... pointing out facts is not "trash talking".
Maybe you can answer my question, since nobody else could?
"How many 3rd party companies are producing lenses for Canon EOS R mirrorless cameras?" This would be a challenge for you, good luck. ;)

TRU ..funny how you are constantly bashing Sony while the news is strictly about Canon. All your posts are the same, and after bashing, you complain that users defend their brand in a Canon news. Seriously, get over it, enjoy your brand and avoid other brand bashing. But I guess being a toxic troll is your main hobby. So sad.

Why are they not an option for wild life anymore ?

Most Canon RF mirrorless lenses don't focus internally and the barrel extends making a buzzing noise, resulting in a non weather sealed lens construction, noisy AF (specially during video) and focus hunting kinda like Panasonic DFD but slower.

Watch some reviews of RF 16 24 50 85 and it's clear.

@Paisly Park
You might want to rethink your choice of lenses if you are contemplating using the 16, 24, 50 & 85 primes for wildlife.

1987 called wanting it's AF back.

Internal AF? Yeah, nikon and everyone drove the AF from an internal motor, then in 1987 Canon changed that by putting an AF motor in every lens. Every single manufacture changed their first AF design to Canon's. Minolta did too, and presto, Sony buys Minolta around 2001 and now has AF motors i the lenses.

Therein the problem with the Japanese currency in free-fall against USD playing havoc with their plans. USD at 150 Yen blows away the advantages of assembling in Asia. Canon for example may regard US market more important than domestic Japanese home market. Then there is China now making cheaper lenses that people on a budget might prefer. Not sure if Japanese cameras assembled in China exempt from 30% US trade tariffs; exempt like APPLE? APPLE transferring all iPhone production out of China to INDIA. Things got cheap because of China; so that day is well and truly over. USD exchange rate killing international trade

@BackToNature: as I said: high tech became cheaper and cheaper, we, the customers, demanded that and technology as well as (very) questionable ways of producing and distributing these items made this possible.
In my mind this is no healthy development, it just does not fit: if we all agree that cost of labor increases, that we have to spend more for environmental protection and all that stuff, well, then it does not make sense to get these items cheaper and cheaper…

It's all about volume. Camera shipment has been shrinking year by year. No wonder price goes up.

@Tonyc - it is volume on one hand. On the other hand cameras like R3/5 have never been sold in super big quantities (opposed to Rebel cameras), so that’s probably only a part of the explanation.
I guess we consumers have to accept that ever shrinking prices are a thing of the past

The issue with increasing prices due to a reduction of sales is often the sign of a death spiral for a business. It is most commonly seen on failing stores, where they see a reduction if customers and instead of addressing the competition taking customers away, they instead look at how many customers remain, and decide that they need to charge more to maintain net income. The issue with that flawed thinking is it leads to ruin, since it leads to a cycle of ever increasing prices that drives more and more customers away.

Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make than DSLRs, but but the entry level has doubled in price since moving to mirrorless. There is only so far you can gouge before the market that would have purchased the entry level, get sticker shock and thing to themself "I guess I will make due with the smartphone camera".

Image sensors have gotten cheaper to make since over the years, wafer yields have greatly improved from modern chip fabs. Basically prices per square mm have steadily dropped though they will sometimes experience short term fluctuations during shortages, the overall trend has been downwards even during recessions.

In a DSLR, the most expensive part is the sensor, the 2nd most expensive is the AF assembly (pellicle mirror, AF sensor, and the physical mechanism to move it out of the way and return after an image is captured.

A mirrorless camera removes the 2nd most expensive component.

As for the viewfinder, a pentaprism is often a little more expensive than an EVF.

Manufacturing costs also declined when you don't need the precision work of the AF assembly.

Overall as BOM costs steadily decreased, camera makers have steadily increased pricing; alienating the entry level and lower mid rage market, while leaving the upper mid range and high end market through attrition.

Razor, I actually sell into this industry :-)
Still, the overall production cost depends on many factors. While, depending on sensor size, the sensor plays a big role, it is too simple to just say Semicon manufacturing got cheaper, so cameras have to.
The first thing to notice is that imaging chips are a complete niche product. Unlike RAM, CPU, GPU, FPGA or whatever these chips are produced in way smaller quantities - which makes them more expensive.
Second we all are not buying sensors but cameras. Take the AF system for example. You argue that it is way cheaper than it used to be compared to SLR‘s. Not so, really - the development of something like deep learning and / or AI takes incredible resources, way, way beyond what a more traditional AF system requires. Now, someone has to pay for that, right? Imagine that Canon or Sony sell some 100000 systems / year, which is really not a lot by industry standards, you can easily see that the price of the AF goes up

I could get on, elaborate on new shutters, that are still very complex electro-mechanical devices, weather sealing, which does not come for free, special cables, which can resist to the constant bend in tilt displays and so on and on. And I am not even touching at computational photography, which customers demand more and more…
Easy to justify for a smart phone, which is produced im millions, but not that easy for a niche like our beloved one.
I need healthy camera companies and that is why I feel cameras are too cheap

The mirrorless cameras took R&D just like the DSLRs did. Since both platforms require R&D, they are constants for both.
Better performance doesn't mean a proportional increase in cost, as if that were the case, a CPU today would cost trillions if dollars if we compare today's prices and performance to that of the 70s.
A $700 CPU can cost less than $70 to make, the high cost is due to the R&D cost as well as the idea that they may only have 2 years to recover the R&D costs and turn enough of a profit to fund the next CPU development as well as provide a ROI to shareholders.

Imementing the technology on a mirrorless camera is cheaper than implementing. It on a DSLR, as it requires far fewer components and it also doesn't require as many high precision manufacturing steps, thus logically speaking, the cost should be lower relative to DSLR production, but instead we saw massive increases that deviate from many other parts of the market.

Another thing to consider is other market segments where they do not have a massive market size.

The cost of oscilloscopes have come down significantly even though the narket is not as large as the camera industry. Most of the changes were on the BOM side where you can get 350-450MHz capable oscilloscope for under $800, where a few years ago, it would have been close to $2000. Once the yields increased for large FPGAs and fewer descrete components were needed.

You don’t get my point, really :-)
I am not talking about the development cost for the platform (which is basically body, shutter, mount, maybe evf, cpu and alike)
I am specifically talking about the development cost of any kind of deep learning / AI technology. My company is developing that kind of stuff for industrial applications and I can assure you that development cost is just an entire different level - it takes extremely long, it requires a lot of human attention and it also requires a lot of testing and fine tuning.
My point is: all things equal this huge development for a rather smallish market (compared to phones, for example) simply require asking for a higher price.
I am no mechanical engineer, but assume that the development of better protection and better heat transfer at the same time also involves a lot of R&D cost…

And really, it is not for the development of a CPU or an ASIC - many building blocks can be purchased by external companies, this is really no issue today and I agree that more performance does not mean a higher price point. At least not automatically so

You completely skipped over the part about no third party support.

Slowly and surely, Nikon is trending well.

@madeinlisboa: "Only very naive people will continue with Canon"

Some people simply know what they want, realize that Canon offers them the best options for their photographic pursuits, and are not really affected by whatever else Canon does.

A person isn't Naive just because they purchase a particular brand, knowing what they're purchasing. Most professionals using Canon are hardly "Naive" about what they're buying - rather they're very adept at ferreting out what brand(s) work best for them and why.

@Thecylon: "It is mostly about hobbyists now.... Most pros use old gear that they are familiar with."

No, it's been about hobbyists and enthusiasts pretty much from day one; the demographic that make up most of the expensive camera and lens sales. Professional photographers have been the smaller demographic for as long as most people have been alive.

I'd say pros generally use gear that works for them and will buy gear that provides an added benefit to workflow or the end product. I'm not going to use old gear just because I'm familiar with it when newer gear will add a decisive benefit to work flow and bottom line.

Frivolous if you are not a coffee drinker maybe. But for those of us who are a particular Peets whole bean I like, Morning Blend, just about doubled in price in a little over two months. Went from $24.00 up to $42.00 and change. But johans81 illustrates a good point. Companies are reporting record profits worldwide, not just a US problem. All while claiming "parts shortages".

@madeinlisboa

Most Prices are not going to go down because essentially, all needed items, not just wants, have gone, way up. An it seems to happen each week. Basic essentials have skyrocketed across the Globe yet you don't seem to get that.

However, a TON of camera Gear has gone on SALE recently, including Canon Gear. Folks need a place to live and transportation to get to their jobs an or get those other essentials. There is no easy fix to these issues.

Over demand or insufficient supply.

My niece in Oklahoma got an $839 electric bilol. More than 3 times last year. That is just outright price gouging. My local utility is warning about skyrocketing gas costs. Look for record profits from them too. The ONLY ones getting anywhere are the billionaires. I am getting tiredc of berzoz blasting his sorryass into space. Yes, us poor wage slaves are paying high taxes so bezoosa can go tax free on his income. He actually hs no income. He just "borrows" from his stock.

A starving breed... Sorry, but those eggs won't hatch.

Maybe we should raise a Kickstarter campaign for Canon. I'm desperately waiting for a 5DM5, too. I'm sick of the mirrorless hype. I don't need more than a 5Dm3 but with recent sensors tech. Even 10fps are good for me, it's no machine gun but a photo tool.

@rawdinal
Get an R5, go to the menu and lower the max frame rate from 12 to 10 and you're good to go or slower if desired. You don't have to use a camera at max speed, a faster camera can always be set slower but a slower can't be set faster when needed. You don't also set the shortest possible shutter speed and leave it there do you?

You don't get why I'm not using mirrorless. This was only an example of the "advantages". I want a real cam, with mirror, no evf and 2000+ shots on one battery. The R5 would be my next choice but it's not a dslr. So. No buy.

Appears like this is all the reasons stated to release the D5M5. Canon listen to the customer and then you may have an outstanding year in profits. I personally refuse to go mirrorless.

If you want the 'real deal' go film and forget digital and get over with it.

It's nothing about "real deal" or "film", it's just about the better cam for some of us. Digital has its merits, and dslrs too. Even mirrorless has advantages (for example video) but I don't like to view television on my EVF or record 8k@240fps.

And Mark my words, a good dslr will be worth something in a few years. Mirrorless will be outspecced by the next mirrorless behind the bushes..

If my 5dm4 or 5dm3 will be worn out I'll move to Pentax. I can adapt ef lenses and have to change the Bajonett anyway. Be wise, Canon!!

Mark my words too - You will turn out to be wrong... Digital SLR's will never get worth a thing, unless its named Leica.

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing special about a DSLR. It is just old technology, based upon a technology that's decades old. Because it has an optical viewfinder a mirror and a pentaprism doesn't make it special in any form or way. The sensor in the end is the media here. And it won't hold anything of value over the years to come. A regular EOS 1Dx is only 10 years old. They run 500 dollars on average on Ebay.

There is value in a SLR because of the fact it uses a different medium, namely film and is fully analogue based. I am sure they will stay more popular than any DSLR to come which need batteries and memory cards that will become obsolete and even unsupported on your computer in the decade to come.

@Name That Camera
I heard such wise words from wannabes when the compact disc arrived and "replaced" vinyl. My vinyl is worth a lot now, CDs are in the trash. I have a fridge full of fuji fortia and portra which I got spended after all left for digital.. It worth hundreds of dollars now. And dslrs will get worn out because of their mechanics. There will be fewer and fewer working on 10 years...
I got them all wrong and there are *a lot* of advantages for dslrs. The battery alone is 6 to 7 times longer lasting. That's critical out in the field or the desert. I guess you never left your home with your gear.

I don't expect to go back to dslrs for all needs, but I expect to update a good dslr like the 5dm4 or nikon d850 to get the latest sensors. The difference between mirrorless and dslrs is only there because they didn't update dslr sensors. The bodies are ace and builds like tanks.

RAWdinal - You are comparing the wrong things to each other. If you compare vinyl to CD's you should also compare analogue SLR's to digital cameras. Comparing two digital devices doesn't make any sense. Its like comparing the CD to MiniDisc... both are worthless today. It won't revive and so won't the DSLR

I still own a Commodore 64. Maybe I hold onto it because I thought it would become worth something over the years... Yet at the same time you can buy one for a few dollars at a thrift store

Your DSLR will stay worthless. It won't revive like analogue photography has, or how vinyl is reviving against digital audio solutions. They revives because because of the analogue component. Because it requires some physical handling from you, like putting the needle on the vinyl and like swapping out the roll of film in the camera, to then have to process that roll of film yourself and where the image appears as magic

The DSLR doesn't have that magic and so won't hold the nostalgia to revive

yeah, that is a big nope.
The "analysis" should have revealed that if you print money out of thin air, just like all western countries did especially during needless printing for the flu, then prices will go up to compensate for this. USA, for example, printed in 2 years about 40-50% of what was available... and predictably (for anyone sane) the consumer and commodity prices followed that as well, including gasoline and even used car prices.

I would also like to see that "analysis" but I fear it might have been done by the very same people who promised us that money printing would not result in huge inflationary spike.

Fact of the matter is this, when prices are rising, companies shouldn't be reporting Record Profits during these dire times for many of the World's consumers. Yet we do know for certain that some companies did exactly that. For example...

"Aug 8, 2022 ExxonMobil went one further, its $17.9 billion in net income was its largest-ever quarterly profit."

So for anyone that's really paying attention, this is 100% correct...

"Discretionary spending is the first casualty of a recession."

I posted several times that a Phone is an essential item for many of the World's Consumers. A dedicated camera isn't.

Your response is very typical of anyone who read my comment and did not grasp what it says/means. This is why, by the way, we are in such a mess.

When currency gets devalued and prices rise, you will get "record profits".... that "record" stems from the fact that each dollar in their "record profit" now represents only 60-70% of the dollar 1-2 years before.

In other words if you measured your weight in units of 1/2 lbs, while still calling "pounds" you could claim that your weight became "record high" and that it doubled.. but in reality it was just a different measuring unit.

This is the direct effect of money printing.
This is the only "fact of the matter"

Fact of the matter is that Companies can HEDGE against currency risks.

You nailed it. From the biz point of view, Canon must milk the user base till the last drop.

Canon will have a great financial year.

In the case of oil profits, it is easily explained. The country is no longer able to meet the demand for oil without importing, this means that there is no true competition, since local companies are already selling every drop they produce.

From a business standpoint, they would be sued by their shareholders for trying to charge less than OPEC, as there would be no additional market share to gain. When prices are effectively fixed, you buy from whoever is closer in order to get faster response times, and suppliers further out are used to pick up the slack.

You only undercut the competition when you have excess capacity to service their share of the market.

What plane ticket, you can buy directly from Japanese camera stores on Ebay or connect with them.
They ship using DHL to the USA and it can take just 2 to 3 days to receive something, even during COVID.

That might be a good indication that the R6 mkII is the next in line to be released, and fairly soon. I mean, they're increasing the price of the RP...

Not necessarily, especailly if the R6 II is released at a slightly higher price point, like $2800 and with the proposed increases that may be the case. Just make the price of the R6 II higher than planned initially, and leave the R6 price alone.

It's almost certainly an indication that, in Canon's judgment, the R6 is facing a tougher competitive environment than most of its other products. They think it's better to accept a lower margin on it, than to raise prices and lose sales.

@sirhawkeye64

The R6II really has the remain competitive with Sony's A7IV. A $300 difference would likely push consumers to Sony unless they were invested in the R system or preternaturally anti-Sony.

If you ditch the box and just carry it like you are a tourist would they even know?

Only when they start wrapping their lenses in Kevlar….

I think a better analogical topic for Canon is not using Leica, but Apple in terms of smartphones. Apple is more expensive, and also using a similar closed ecosystem, however, Apple is by no means a luxury brand like Leica.

@unhappy… are you in the right thread? Forum? Website?