For sure, there will be a small percentage who jump ship, but selling and replacing a complete system is a very expensive move.
R mount allows a transition to RF lenses over time which is a big benefit and why I migrated to R mount but I could have easily done the same to Sony using Metabones adapted EF lenses and then migrating to Sony lenses over time. Adapted EF lenses on R mount is seamless and better than the Sony option but ultimately still replacing a complete system over time. Complicating the migration for me was the cost of a new underwater housing which is another USD1700 so moving to Sony/Nikon was line ball for me cost-wise. My old 5Div housing is still unsold after a year on the market. Covid has definitely affected this.
Canon users would not have jumped to Sony for 5 years if not for Metabones/etc adapters allowing EF lens usage.
Every new camera from Sony, Nikon and Canon will for a while offer something unique, or have some performance gain over the competition, but within a year or so that advantage is usually lost, as the various brands play catch up.
True, but Canon was quite late to the mirrorless party as Sony’s A7/A7R had a 5 year time advantage for users to switch. Even now, the RP/R bodies were and still are a hybrid DLSR/mirrorless offering by reusing 4-5 year old sensors. Although the RP/R were released 2-3 years old there are multiple replacement rumours and are clearly priced lower than respective 6Dii/5Div bodies even though they are arguably better in many aspects. The “year or so” advantage may be truer now but certainly wasn’t for 5 years.
So I believe that most people will stay with their existing brand, and transition gradually from their DSLR glass to native mirrorless glass. In some cases Canon users probably retain their EF glass indefinitely –
I believe that there will be at least 10 years of RF and EF lenses used on R bodies. RF lenses are generally priced higher but have some unique advantages over their EF counterparts. I wouldn’t replace my EF16-35mm/4 lens with the RF14-35mm/4 simply due to the increased cost.
e.g. there’s little point in getting the RF 400mm F2.8L or the RF 600mm F4L if they already own the EF version, because the lenses are identical apart from the mount.
Not quite identical. Yes, the welded adapter provides additional rigidity but there are other advantages:
– compatibility with RF 1.4/2x teleconverters
– increased CIPA image stabilisation
– R mount connectivity allowing faster AF by delivering more power to the AF motors
but I agree that optically there is no benefit to upgrade if you currently have the EF version
The extra resolution of the A1 and Z9 are certainly tempting, but I think Canon users who are spending that amount of money will just be patient and wait for the R1.
We are assuming that the R1 will be high res/8k. I think that it would be a mis-step for Canon not to have this resolution but traditionally the 1D series never had high res sensors.
Many current 1D users will jump to the R3 for its obvious benefits over the 1Dxiii but will they then buy the R1?
I’m surprised that the A1’s price has not deterred popularity especially as the A9ii’s price is so much cheaper if the target audience is only sports/photojournalists.
It isn’t clear to me what the R1’s market niche will be. It may be a R5 on steroids ie combining high res/sports AF/global shutter/16 bit monster that we can only drool over due to the high price