Despite strong start, the EOS RP faltered after just over a month in Japan; Sony's a7iii leapfrogs

[D13H4RD]

Looks like this period is going to be a rough one for Canon's imaging division. 

After reporting a mere 81% fall in operating profits versus last year owing to a 23% dip in overall camera sales, it seems that the sales of the EOS RP, Canon's most affordable interchangeable-lens camera with a 35mm sensor, has seemingly taken on a nosedive in its home market of Japan, ultimately finishing at a 14% share on early April. By comparison, the Sony a7iii finished at a 42% share on the same period. 

Quote

Its initial performance was very promising, with the camera outselling all competitors in its class, securing almost 35% of all full-frame mirrorless sales upon its Japanese launch on 14 March. Indeed, Canon's latest financial report notes that sales of the RP “got off to a flying start". 

 

However, those figures did not sustain in Japan. After just a week it had been leapfrogged by the Sony A7 III, with its share dropping to 25%, and despite a brief mid-month uptick it ultimately finished the month with just a 14% share – still second among all full-frame mirrorless cameras.

 

After a month, the A7 III had rocketed to a 42% share with the RP only slightly above the EOS R (whose sales had incrementally grown over the same period) – a far cry from Canon's strategy of securing the top slot in the full-frame category. 

An interesting thing to note is that the share of the A7iii is higher than the EOS R, RP and Nikon Z6 combined, which isn't exactly a great first outing for each company's respective 35mm mirrorless offerings. Note that the figures for Panasonic's new S1 camera are not in the list, owing to the model's recent announcement and launch. 

Quote

BCN+R concluded that, while the EOS RP's low price gave it an advantage, ultimately pricing is not as important to customers buying full-frame mirrorless cameras. A much more critical factor is the lens ecosystem – and, with only four native RF lenses available, the RP faltered next to the A7 III's rich selection of optics. 

Given these events, alongside Canon's faltering profits, it would be interesting to see where the DSLR giants head on from there, as the mirrorless market may prove to be unforgiving. 

 

Note that these figures apply to the Japanese market. It's likely that the EOS RP may perform better in other territories. 

 

Personal take 

Spoiler

I think a primary reason as to why the EOS RP may have underperformed so soon after launch is its limited appeal. Now that might sound strange given its affordable entry price point, but it's also worth noting that this applies to the body itself only. Adding the kit glass that comes with the 6D II alongside the EF adapter brings it up to $1599, still not a bad price for a full-frame. But if you want native glass, the 24-105 f/4L will bting it all the way up to a7iii territory, at which point the EOS RP's limited capabilities become more apparent. 

 

To be frank, the people most likely to get the EOS RP will usually be current EOS users either on DSLRs with a range of EF glass that can be adapted or early mirrorless RF adopters who already have a few RF-mount glass. First-time buyers of full-frame cameras won't really reap the full pricing advantage given the high cost of RF lenses (and their limited range due to it being so new), and it's a double whammy when Sony's a7iii exists in the market. 

 

The RF mount still has potential over time, especially when a professional-oriented body arrives alongside a range of lower-priced RF glass but as of right now, the mirrorless is kind of a tough nut to crack. 

Source: Digital Camera World

[That Franc]

I am not surprised, because I personally don't see any reasons to choose any of those cameras over the a7 III except for religious - it's affordable enough, it's got enough decent lenses made for it, and it's the most no-compromise, feature packed camera out of all mirrorless full frames (correct me if I'm wrong because I might be; and yes, I know about a9, but it costs a fortune), and if you don't need a full frame sensor, Fujifilm and Olympus have got us covered.

[porina]

I wonder if Canon's biggest competitor is Canon. The chart would be more interesting if they also put in DSLRs. I know, it was comparing mirrorless, but I have to wonder how legacy DSLR is selling.

 

I haven't been into photography seriously for some years now, but the last time I looked, Canon's DSLR business was bigger than all of mirrorless combined (inc Canon). I don't know if that is still the case today.

 

All credit to Sony for jumping in early into mirrorless, which they had nothing to lose by doing as they weren't going anywhere with the former Minolta business in DLSRs.

[D13H4RD]

45 minutes ago, That Franc said:

I am not surprised, because I personally don't see any reasons to choose any of those cameras over the a7 III except for religious - it's affordable enough, it's got enough decent lenses made for it, and it's the most no-compromise, feature packed camera out of all mirrorless full frames (correct me if I'm wrong because I might be; and yes, I know about a9, but it costs a fortune), and if you don't need a full frame sensor, Fujifilm and Olympus have got us covered.

It's been touted that the a7iii will likely be one of those cameras that will be revered for quite a while, particularly because it's a kind of "Jack Of All Trades" camera, being able to do almost everything really well at a sensible (for a feature-packed full-frame) price bracket. I think the lack of affordable native glass options work against the RP in that regard. 

38 minutes ago, porina said:

I wonder if Canon's biggest competitor is Canon. The chart would be more interesting if they also put in DSLRs. I know, it was comparing mirrorless, but I have to wonder how legacy DSLR is selling.

The entry-level DSLR market is shrinking quickly, but I'd presume that the enthusiast and professional end is largely stable, as it seems that the exodus towards Sony has largely calmed as of now. 

[porina]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

The entry-level DSLR market is shrinking quickly, but I'd presume that the enthusiast and professional end is largely stable, as it seems that the exodus towards Sony has largely calmed as of now. 

That's what I'm wondering about. Photography kit forums (as opposed to content related) have been long discussing Canon's lack of serious presence in mirrorless market, probably in large part due to their ongoing sales of DSLRs.

 

I should add, I have owned 4/3 (not micro), Sony/Minolta alpha, and Canon DSLRs and ended up sticking with Canon due to lens choice. The Sony A7 through its iterations have caught my eye, and often I wondered what if I could use that with Canon lenses. There are AF enabled adapters, but unless things have changed performance was considered not adequate for serious use.

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, porina said:

That's what I'm wondering about. Photography kit forums (as opposed to content related) have been long discussing Canon's lack of serious presence in mirrorless market, probably in large part due to their ongoing sales of DSLRs.

 

I should add, I have owned 4/3 (not micro), Sony/Minolta alpha, and Canon DSLRs and ended up sticking with Canon due to lens choice. The Sony A7 through its iterations have caught my eye, and often I wondered what if I could use that with Canon lenses. There are AF enabled adapters, but unless things have changed performance was considered not adequate for serious use.

Yeah, Canon took it seriously at possibly one of the worst possible times, a time where Sony is already making a killing at the full frame end and where Fujifilm and such are offering very compelling crop options. The EOS M was just too half-hearted. 

 

Regarding adapters, I've heard good things about the Sigma MC-11 and it apparently works quite well though it's really dependent on which glass is attached. Some focus really well while others work quite slowly 

[yolosnail]

Yeah, but you've got to have that 'canon colour' though! At least that's what all the Canon fanboys say. I actually prefer Sony's colour science, it just seems more pleasant to me

[D13H4RD]

29 minutes ago, Tedny said:

it's 2000$ camera with lens, right? 

With the RF 24-105 f/4L, yes. With the EF 24/105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens together with the EF-to-RF adapter, it’s closer to $1600.

27 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

Yeah, but you've got to have that 'canon colour' though! At least that's what all the Canon fanboys say. I actually prefer Sony's colour science, it just seems more pleasant to me

One thing you’ve got to note is that anything about “color science” mostly really applies to SOOC JPEGs. Color science isn’t going to be a big deal to people who deal mostly with developing RAW files in a RAW processor like Lightroom or Capture One.

[porina]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

One thing you’ve got to note is that anything about “color science” mostly really applies to SOOC JPEGs. Color science isn’t going to be a big deal to people who deal mostly with developing RAW files in a RAW processor like Lightroom or Capture One.

The colour filters on the sensor are not all equal, and it does affect how the reconstituted image looks. I don't know if it is still the case, but Canon had historically had weaker red/green separation than Nikon or Sony. I think this allows slightly more light collection, at the cost of slightly worse colour differentiation in that area. The effects are essentially insignificant for normal users, and maybe only affect the most demanding of technical imaging uses. You'd get far more variation from using 3rd party glass for example.

 

I'm not colour blind, but I really don't see the "Manufacturer X has certain colours". If anything, I think that kinda thing is more often thrown at Fuji than Canon. Probably some baggage left over from film era.

[yolosnail]

29 minutes ago, porina said:

The colour filters on the sensor are not all equal, and it does affect how the reconstituted image looks. I don't know if it is still the case, but Canon had historically had weaker red/green separation than Nikon or Sony. I think this allows slightly more light collection, at the cost of slightly worse colour differentiation in that area. The effects are essentially insignificant for normal users, and maybe only affect the most demanding of technical imaging uses. You'd get far more variation from using 3rd party glass for example.

 

I'm not colour blind, but I really don't see the "Manufacturer X has certain colours". If anything, I think that kinda thing is more often thrown at Fuji than Canon. Probably some baggage left over from film era.

I mostly work in Video and you'll find a number of cinematographers that prefer to work with Canon because they prefer the colours, I can barely see a difference, especially once everything is graded

[D13H4RD]

6 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

I mostly work in Video and you'll find a number of cinematographers that prefer to work with Canon because they prefer the colours, I can barely see a difference, especially once everything is graded

Minus the nuances you get from different color filters, whether it's subtle differences in the Bayer filters between the major manufacturers, or bigger ones like Fuji's X-Trans filter, whenever someone mentions "color science", they're usually referring to the color from the SOOC JPEG or video files. Every manufacturer does it in a different manner. Canon and Fuji are regarded as having something more "pleasing" whilst Sony is regarded as being more clinical.

 

These aren't going to be a massive deal for people who shoot in RAW or LOG, as their captured footage will go through a RAW processor and have tweaks done to their respective color balance by the user.

[yolosnail]

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Canon and Fuji are regarded as having something more "pleasing" whilst Sony is regarded as being more clinical.

See, I prefer the more clinical look, it seems more natural to my eyes

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

These aren't going to be a massive deal for people who shoot in RAW or LOG, as their captured footage will go through a RAW processor and have tweaks done to their respective color balance by the user.

I get that, I was just using the colour science as an example to basically take the piss out of the fanboyism that surrounds basically every brand. 

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, yolosnail said:

See, I prefer the more clinical look, it seems more natural to my eyes

It’s ultimately subjective. Which basically makes the whole “color science” argument kinda moot

[yolosnail]

Just now, D13H4RD said:

It’s ultimately subjective. Which basically makes the whole “color science” argument kinda moot

That's exactly my point. I'll stick to using my EyeToy as my main camera because that's the best camera Sony ever made!

[BuckGup]

Then the A7Siii with global shutter and 8K 30 will destroy it whenever that comes out

[BuckGup]

10 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

.... that sounds like a wishlist rumor to me ._.

(then again, the Sony A7 series has been incredible so I would just be mildly surprised if they do give it it 8K of any sort)

Well according to leaked specs for the sensor they are adding the thingys up and down inside of side to side which is only used for global shutters. The 8K is just a rumor based on MP size but I think 4K 60fps 4:2:2 10 bit is more reasonable

[porina]

1 hour ago, BuckGup said:

Then the A7Siii with global shutter and 8K 30 will destroy it whenever that comes out

Why does every new thing have to destroy whatever? It'll have some strengths in some areas but rarely will anything be best at everything. 

[BuckGup]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

Why does every new thing have to destroy whatever? It'll have some strengths in some areas but rarely will anything be best at everything. 

Well if it's better in every way than the predecessor I would say it destroys it. But the 7s is more towards video so it might give up some still features

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Well if it's better in every way than the predecessor I would say it destroys it. But the 7s is more towards video so it might give up some still features

It'll probably be aimed more towards getting the crowd who'd be lured to the GH5S. Canon doesn't really have a proper equivalent 

[BuckGup]

45 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

It'll probably be aimed more towards getting the crowd who'd be lured to the GH5S. Canon doesn't really have a proper equivalent 

That’s the exact audience cannon is shit for video right now