# The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 30, 2022)

> One of the most important things in the gear world for value conscience buyers, are third-party lenses. Sigma and Tamron became pretty big players in the EF market when they both changed direction and brought their lenses up market, but still aggressive price wise when compared to similar Canon offerings.
> The rollout of third-party lenses for the RF mount has been extremely slow, and we only have Rokinon and Viltrox making autofocus lenses for the RF mount, but they use the EF protocols and not the latest and greatest from the RF mount.
> Samyang at one point made RF mount lenses, but that abruptly stopped without any public reason why.
> I have now been told through a third party that Viltrox, a smaller manufacturer of lenses has been told by Canon that they cannot make RF mount lenses and to stop selling any such products. Did the same thing happen to Samyang (who makes Rokinon)? Are...



Continue reading...


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 30, 2022)

Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 30, 2022)

Tamron just announced a 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 for the Nikon Z mount, surely a Canon RF version can't be too far behind.









Detail






www.tamron.eu


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 30, 2022)

It’s really hard to believe this way of business!
First Samyang... now Viltrox!
To good that I bought the 85 f1.8... before 1-2 months.
This is a really bad politic move of Canon to stop those alternatives to lenses where nearly no one is by Canon (600€ 85 2.0 vs Viltrox 300€ 85 1.8... and the ~600-800€ Samyang 85 f1.4)

I was told by a Sigma employee that they won’t build anything until it’s allowed and supported by Canon itself... with algorithms etc.! Because they don’t want to re-engineer again (like for EF).

It feels like Canon is aiming their “Canon” to others which are trying to walk through their garden/market....


----------



## nunataks (Aug 30, 2022)

Honestly, this made me choose against getting the R10. I'm not going to wait forever for Canon to finally make another RF-s lens.


----------



## ag25 (Aug 30, 2022)

This is good and bad news.

Canon needs inexpensive options as it continues to dive into mirrorless APSC. Surely they know this though.


----------



## EOS (Aug 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


I have half a dozen camera apps on my iPhone that have improved functionality in various ways over the stock camera app, but don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 30, 2022)

For me, Canon cameras and lenses are my work gear and literally every previous third-party lens I've owned presented some sort of issue at one point or another that rendered the lens useless for a period of time or it had some strange issue develop. My Sigma Art primes are still terrific lenses and because I only have my remaining "niche" primes of 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 that I don't use as often as my 50mm and 85mm, they're not going anywhere. But I certainly can't afford to have a lens in my bag that could be rendered useless overnight because of a firmware update - that has been the case with some Tamron and Sigma lenses I've owned.

With all that said, this is a truly unfortunate blunder from Canon. Third party lens options are one of the primary elements that helped the success of the EF mount. I know when I was an up-and-coming teenager I could only afford a few Canon lenses and filled in what I could with Sigma stuff. I would eventually only rely on Canon lenses in my work kit, but that took a long time to fully be able to afford. This is very bad news for the countless thousands of aspiring photographers that want to shoot Canon are will have to either adapt an out of production EF lens, or use one of the many JUNK cheap-o RF lens options on the market right now. And yes, I said JUNK because for the prices they're selling for, you could have a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 zoom that crushes it and Canon knows that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2022)

Canon locked up as much of the RF mount lens interface as possible with patents and are apparently enforceing them. I noticed the detail and careful way they were writing the patents for the RF interface in the years before it was released. There are possibly some behind the scenes features that are protected by laws from being duplicated or decoded.

The decision to open a interface to 3rd parties seems to be one of $$$. RF lenses are a huge profit item for Canon, they've mentioned that in their financial reports which underlines just how important it is to them to restrict poaching of any patents.

Nikon, on the other hand, does not appear to have the same leverage over their mirrorless lenses and 3rd parties are able to compete.

If Canon were a near monopoly, then laws would come into play that required opening up to competition. I don't think the governments see cameras as falling into a area needing more regulation.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


I always felt Canon where the Microsoft of cameras with their enormous market share and that there are more 5-series cameras out in the wild than even a all the models of Nikon and Sony combined. Nikon always felt like the Apple of cameras with the lower market share but emphasis on quality.


----------



## dolina (Aug 30, 2022)

I think Canon wants 1st crack on any sale of RF lens.

3rd parties will eventually be allowed to sell a few years from now.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 30, 2022)

The problem is that with mirrorless cameras, Canon has much more power over third party lenses, because the third party manufacturers need the support of Canon in order for lens corrections applied directly in the EVF. If only Canon lenses are corrected and Sigma lenses are not, Sigma lenses will look very bad against Canon lenses unless Sigma makes their lenses so good that they hardly need any correction. The Canon RF 14-35 f/4 for example has quite an extreme distortion, although it costs $1,800. However that distortion is hidden from the user because it already is corrected in the EVF. Sigma and Tamron have it much harder. I hope that competition authorities will force Canon to open the system for others. 

I wonder if third party manufacturers also need Canon support in order for the IBIS to work well with those lenses. It would be easy for Canon to make third party lenses look even worse by making sure that IBIS performs poorly with them. Especially when a third party lens is already stabilized. I wonder how well existing third party EF lenses work on an RF body. I for example own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and love that lens very much. I would like to continue using it with an RF camera instead of spending $2,800 on a Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8. Only when it comes to longer focal ranges, Canon is still leading. For everything below 100mm, third party manufacturers usually have a much better and cheaper option. Also Sigma offers mount conversion for $100 or so. That might be very helpful if you switch to another camera brand.


----------



## shawnc (Aug 30, 2022)

A wide price and quality range of lenses increases the appeal of a brand. If Sony, Nikon, others allow this complete ecosystem but Canon restricts theirs, it will be at Canon's expense.


----------



## knight427 (Aug 30, 2022)

This is very frustrating. I got into this as a hobby about 6 years ago. Canon seemed like a great option given the immense library of EF lenses, both first and third party (used and new). I'm too deep into it now to sell everything and switch, so I'm here for the duration. But if I was entering the space now, I would look at this and almost certainly choose Sony for the same reasons I chose Canon 6 years ago.


----------



## Curahee (Aug 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


And is Apple very successful? Do they have great success selling Macs and iphones?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2022)

Why did many of us buy and pay a significant premium for Canon EF lenses over third party ? Better build or better optics ? Or because the AF worked properly. With me it was (is) certainly the latter. 
If third party RF lenses focus anything like adapted third party EF lenses on R bodies then all those AF accuracy worries are gone for the consumer, and begin for Canon.
So I can see why Canon are going to get twitchy over Tamron or Sigma lenses in the RF mount.


----------



## entoman (Aug 30, 2022)

I don't blame Canon at all for wanting control over the mount, as there can be compatibility problems with 3rd party lenses, and these incompatibilities will become more frequent and more troublesome as the electronic interactions between bodies and lenses become more complex.

Canon has already worked hard to ensure that there are plenty of lenses available for the budget RF market, as well as for the exotica L glass, and we can expect more specialised lenses to appear in the next year or two.

But as I've said before, the gap between these extremes is IMO too wide, and I believe there's a lot of demand for a limited range of third tier optics.

Meanwhile if they can screw a RF licensing fee and in exchange provide the full RF protocol to licensees, that has to be good for Canon and their customers, and also helps third party manufacturers to avoid incompatibility issues.


----------



## Curahee (Aug 30, 2022)

ag25 said:


> This is good and bad news.
> 
> Canon needs inexpensive options as it continues to dive into mirrorless APSC. Surely they know this though.


Perhaps they will, the APSC have just been announced. Look how long it took to get FF lenses and a continuing supply chain issue. These are not as it was in the past.


----------



## angelisland (Aug 30, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading.
> 
> 
> entoman said:
> ...


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 30, 2022)

dolina said:


> I think Canon wants 1st crack on any sale of RF lens.
> 
> 3rd parties will eventually be allowed to sell a few years from now.


I think this is likely. But I think it is a bit more like, Canon *needs* 1st crack on any sale of RF lenses. Nobody here knows or seems to consider how much R&D money went into developing the RF mount and the new RF lenses. So nobody knows how many cameras and especially lenses Canon needs to sell before they recoup that money. A year's worth? 3 years? 5 years? I have no idea, but from a business point of view, Canon would be stupid if they if they allowed competitors to make profits on RF lenses when they were the ones who spent all the R&D money.

On another thread I compared this scenario to when a new drug comes to market. The developer of the drug has a 6 year exclusivity window to sell their product before generic drugs can be sold by others. The reason for that window is obvious, it's there so the maker of the drug can recoup their R&d costs. Otherwise, why would any drug company develop a new drug? I've been in that situation of having to spend $700 a month for a drug while waiting for the generic version to come to market. Luckily I had health insurance that kicked in after my $1800 deductible. Many aren't so lucky. 

But the point is, nobody has to buy the Canon RF lenses - either because they find the higher end versions to be too expensive or because they find the consumer grade lenses lacking in some way. Nobody. Not one person. Want cheaper alternatives? There is an entire lineup of EF lenses, made by numerous companies. The used market is overflowing with very affordable EF lenses. All you need is a $99 adapter.

I understand people want cheaper alternatives. I understand people who visit forums like this are even more impatient because they want the latest gear. 
You can of course express your anger and your frustration on forums like this. Better yet, you can express your anger and frustration by not buying RF lenses, or even buying cameras and lenses from other brands. * Or you can be patient and wait to see what happens*. Unlike with generic drugs, nobody will suffer serious consequences by not being able to buy a third party RF lens. Nobody needs to buy an RF lens at all.


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 30, 2022)

Canon and greed. Sad mix


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> On another thread I compared this scenario to when a new drug comes to market. The developer of the drug has a 6 year exclusivity window to sell their product before generic drugs can be sold by others. The reason for that window is obvious, it's there so the maker of the drug can recoup their R&d costs. Otherwise, why would any drug company develop a new drug?


I missed the prior comment, but usually the exclusivity for new drugs is much longer. You're talking about _regulatory_ exclusivity, meaning the FDA won't approve a generic replacement for at least 6 years (and for some indications longer, as a further incentive). Patent exclusivity is for 20 years – even though a chunk of that patent life is burned during the drug development process, in general new, branded drugs have 12-14 years on the market before generic competition begins.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Canon and greed. Sad mix


Sad for you, perhaps. Did you miss the point that Canon is a for-profit company, not a charity?

Consider that if they consistently fail to make a profit, they disappear. That would be sad for me, as I'm quite pleased with the Canon gear I use in my hobby.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 30, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't blame Canon at all for wanting control over the mount, as there can be compatibility problems with 3rd party lenses, and these incompatibilities will become more frequent and more troublesome as the electronic interactions between bodies and lenses become more complex.
> 
> Canon has already worked hard to ensure that there are plenty of lenses available for the budget RF market, as well as for the exotica L glass, and we can expect more specialised lenses to appear in the next year or two.
> 
> ...


That is why Sony issued licenses to 3rd parties so they aren’t compatibility issues so pros/enthusiasts can rely on their gear.

Even Samyang who do reverse engineer emount have improved the AF performance of their lenses and where issues do arise they are good at issuing firmware to resolve them. Again the real issue is choice.

Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.


I missed the announcement of you being appointed spokesperson for the photography market. A hearty, belated congratulations!

I rather suspect most buyers don't really care all that much about 3rd party lenses. Particularly now, when the bottom end of the market has dropped off (and the market that remains for low-cost, entry-level gear seems to still be buying DSLRs since they represent about 1/3 of the cameras shipped so far this year).

Although 3rd party lenses EF were made by many manufacturers, Canon never licensed their lens protocols to 3rd parties. Both Sony and Nikon did so, for their DSLRs and MILCs. Canon has led the ILC market for 20 years, and dominates it today with ~50% market share. That shows the lack of importance of officially supported 3rd party lenses, at least as far as what people actually buy. 

A handful of people on the internet are complaining. I doubt Canon cares.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> That is why Sony issued licenses to 3rd parties so they aren’t compatibility issues so pros/enthusiasts can rely on their gear.
> 
> Even Samyang who do reverse engineer emount have improved the AF performance of their lenses and where issues do arise they are good at issuing firmware to resolve them. Again the real issue is choice.
> 
> Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.


Are you saying this in earnest?
Canon's reputation tarnished because they are not silly enough to let Sig & Tam take advantage of their R&D costs, and, generously, provide competition with all the necessary algorithms, thus losing lens sales? Better keep looking for Mother Teresa Optical Co.
Or is it simply because you want them to copy Sony? Just funny.
As Neuroanatomist just wrote, Canon is - fortunately - a well-managed profit company.


----------



## Juangrande (Aug 30, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem is that with mirrorless cameras, Canon has much more power over third party lenses, because the third party manufacturers need the support of Canon in order for lens corrections applied directly in the EVF. If only Canon lenses are corrected and Sigma lenses are not, Sigma lenses will look very bad against Canon lenses unless Sigma makes their lenses so good that they hardly need any correction. The Canon RF 14-35 f/4 for example has quite an extreme distortion, although it costs $1,800. However that distortion is hidden from the user because it already is corrected in the EVF. Sigma and Tamron have it much harder. I hope that competition authorities will force Canon to open the system for others.
> 
> I wonder if third party manufacturers also need Canon support in order for the IBIS to work well with those lenses. It would be easy for Canon to make third party lenses look even worse by making sure that IBIS performs poorly with them. Especially when a third party lens is already stabilized. I wonder how well existing third party EF lenses work on an RF body. I for example own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and love that lens very much. I would like to continue using it with an RF camera instead of spending $2,800 on a Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8. Only when it comes to longer focal ranges, Canon is still leading. For everything below 100mm, third party manufacturers usually have a much better and cheaper option. Also Sigma offers mount conversion for $100 or so. That might be very helpful if you switch to another camera



Do you mean mount conversion from
Say Nikon to Canon EF? I don’t see how they could convert EF to RF. 
I own a Sigma 135 Art lens adapted to the R5 with the EF to RF adapter and my Sigma has never had any updates either (I don’t have the necessary dock) and it seems to work quite well, I think the performance is the same as it was on my 5D mark 4.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Patent exclusivity is for 20 years – even though a chunk of that patent life is burned during the drug development process, in general new, branded drugs have 12-14 years on the market before generic competition begins.


20 years from filing.

When I worked for a pharma company (making insulin), they said that in reality, it was 5-7 years of effective market protection as the time to do all the phase 1/2/3 studies etc took so long to complete and get approved.

As insulin molecules are much larger and more complex than most drug molecules, this may be a factor.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Are you saying this in earnest?
> Canon's reputation tarnished because they are not silly enough to let Sig & Tam take advantage of their R&D costs, and, generously, provide competition with all the necessary algorithms, thus losing lens sales? Better keep looking for Mother Teresa Optical Co.
> Or is it simply because you want them to copy Sony? Just funny.
> As Neuroanatomist just wrote, Canon is - fortunately - a well-managed profit company.


I’m discussing this issue on here, DP Review and over at Fred Miranda forums and I have seen a fair few comments where people have either; said they will switch away from Canon, advise others to choose a different system and are very disappointed with Canon. Yes Canon’s reputation is taking a hit in the eyes of many. Whether it’s significant enough to affect sales or change Canon’s plans is another matter. 
Tamron’s announcement that their 1st Z mount lens is on the way hasn’t helped either.

As for 3rd parties taking advantage of Canon’s R&D costs, this were businesses can negotiate terms and conditions that are acceptable to all parties. If Canon choose not enter such negotiations that is their right. Customers have the right to complain and or vote with their wallets accordingly.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2022)

kaihp said:


> 20 years from filing.
> 
> When I worked for a pharma company (making insulin), they said that in reality, it was 5-7 years of effective market protection as the time to do all the phase 1/2/3 studies etc took so long to complete and get approved.
> 
> As insulin molecules are much larger and more complex than most drug molecules, this may be a factor.


Novo Nordisk? If so, an admirable company.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

kaihp said:


> 20 years from filing.
> 
> When I worked for a pharma company (making insulin), they said that in reality, it was 5-7 years of effective market protection as the time to do all the phase 1/2/3 studies etc took so long to complete and get approved.
> 
> As insulin molecules are much larger and more complex than most drug molecules, this may be a factor.


Most of my experience is with small molecules, but across the industry timelines are getting shorter to the extent possible, as a way to stretch the revenue-generating portion of that 20 year period. The current average from NDA to patent expiry is 10-12 years. For biologics the regulatory exclusivity in the US is 12 years, much longer than for small molecules.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 30, 2022)

Good performance with the current mirrorless camera technology requires coordination between body and lens. Achieving and maintaining that coordination requires effort and money on both the lens design side and the body design side. At this point, Canon seems to be addressing those issues in a manner different than other camera makers. That could change.

I suspect Viltrox's apparent method of reverse engineering a solution that reports their lens as a Canon EF lens led to Canon's actions. Deception isn't an acceptable approach.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I’m discussing this issue on here, DP Review and over at Fred Miranda forums and I have seen a fair few comments where people have either; said they will switch away from Canon, advise others to choose a different system and are very disappointed with Canon. Yes Canon’s reputation is taking a hit in the eyes of many.


So you're talking about a handful of people on a few internet sites. Canon sold 680K ILCs last quarter and estimates they'll sell 2.8 million this year. Your 'many'...isn't. At all.



SNJ Ops said:


> As for 3rd parties taking advantage of Canon’s R&D costs, this were businesses can negotiate terms and conditions that are acceptable to all parties. If Canon choose not enter such negotiations that is their right. Customers have the right to complain and or vote with their wallets accordingly.


They sure do. And as I stated, Canon holds ~50% of the global ILC market, a share that's risen over the last few years. Seems the vote isn't going your way, and you're making up some fake news that's easily disproven by available facts. I have a feeling I've seen something like that recently in a non-photography arena.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Novo Nordisk? If so, an admirable company.


Yes, but in the Medical Device business. As with 95% of all their devices, it got canceled before it reached the market (this was a few years after I left them in '08).


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2022)

I'm not going to pull any punches here: this is a rotten policy by Canon, and one which *will* financially hurt them in a market this competitive. Their main competitor, who desperately wants that #1 slot, has an open mount. And while not all competing mounts are open, nobody else seems to be taking steps to hinder 3rd party lens development.

I've dragged my feet on mirrorless for my primary kit because my current kit does everything I need with stunning IQ. But sooner or later I'm going to want or need to upgrade. And I'm not going to want to upgrade to a closed mount with no 3rd party lens options. Especially today with so many up-and-coming 3rd party lens manufacturers. If Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang/Rokinon, Viltrox, etc. are all going to throw their lens design expertise and manufacturing capability behind other mounts, then why would I want to be on the closed mount? And what am I supposed to say to new photographers? Why would I recommend Canon knowing it will limit their choices? I don't think I can.

This is the first time I've thought to myself that Sony _will take_ the #1 sales spot. This is one of those stupid policies that sounds great to a boardroom full of people who are clueless about the existence of second order effects, but fails horribly in the marketplace.

All I can do is submit feedback (already have) telling Canon this is a dead end policy. And hope that so many people do the same that Canon reverses course before I decide to overhaul my kit.


----------



## noncho (Aug 30, 2022)

I just bought RF 85 1.8 from Yongnuo and I have positive first impressions. Half price, less weight.
So positive, that I'm going to sell my RF 85 2.0. The only advantage is the 0.5x macro, but I have another dedicated macro lens.

Sorry Canon, but I want to use the best available lenses for MY needs.
And I like the new Tamron 50-400, Samyang 75 1.8, Sigma 85 1.4 DN, Tamron 35-150...
Oh, and maybe not F11 affordable supertelephotos.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> They sure do. And as I stated, Canon holds ~50% of the global ILC market, a share that's risen over the last few years. Seems the vote isn't going your way, and you're making up some fake news that's easily disproven by available facts. I have a feeling I've seen something like that recently in a non-photography arena.


Up until now nobody thought Canon was going to outright block 3rd party lenses. Canon is going to hold onto that 50% share when Sony, Nikon, etc. have twice as many lens options as Canon? When new users are looking at an expensive Canon lens or a just-as-good Tamron on Sony for 2/3rds the price? I've shot Canon for two decades. If I had a B&H cart filled with RF equipment today, this news would be enough to make me stop and reconsider. What are new users going to do?


----------



## cayenne (Aug 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


Apple doesn't attempt to sue people making 3rd party software or even hardware for an Apple computer....


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Apple doesn't attempt to sue people making 3rd party software or even hardware for an Apple computer....











Apple sues Mac clone maker Psystar


Apple is suing Psystar, the computer maker that has been selling Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed, accusing the company of copyright and software licensing violations.




www.computerworld.com


----------



## cayenne (Aug 30, 2022)

I thought it was possible, and legal for companies to create 3rd party parts for just about ANYTHING out there, as long as they started with a clean room reverse engineer...?

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Aug 30, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> Apple sues Mac clone maker Psystar
> 
> 
> Apple is suing Psystar, the computer maker that has been selling Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed, accusing the company of copyright and software licensing violations.
> ...


That's a bit different situation. They were illegally using Apple created software sold on those machines.

If they were selling ONLY the hardware without OSX, they'd be fine. 

In modern times, my analogy was more like someone selling Capture One, 3rd party software that is not Apple but can be freely installed on an Apple computer.

Hope that helps clear things a bit.

cayenne


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Up until now nobody thought Canon was going to outright block 3rd party lenses. Canon is going to hold onto that 50% share when Sony, Nikon, etc. have twice as many lens options as Canon? When new users are looking at an expensive Canon lens or a just-as-good Tamron on Sony for 2/3rds the price? I've shot Canon for two decades. If I had a B&H cart filled with RF equipment today, this news would be enough to make me stop and reconsider. What are new users going to do?


New users will do what most Canon users have always done – buy Canon lenses, usually in a kit with the body they purchase.



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have now been told through a third party that Viltrox, a smaller manufacturer of lenses has been told by Canon...


Read that again. CRguy was told by someone not at Viltrox that Viltrox was told by Canon. Ummm, ok. Sounds like double-hearsay to me. Going to take that with a house-sized chunk of salt.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 30, 2022)

cayenne said:


> That's a bit different situation. They were illegally using Apple created software sold on those machines.
> 
> If they were selling ONLY the hardware without OSX, they'd be fine.
> 
> ...



I think the better analogy is that Apple maintains a closed environment in its iOS App Store, only allowing software it personally vets and allows on a platform (iOS) that could just as easily support other software it hasn't vetted. This is like Canon with the RF system.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2022)

Viltrox Says Canon has Demanded They Stop Selling RF-Mount Lenses


There are no third party RF AF lenses on the market.




petapixel.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> Viltrox Says Canon has Demanded They Stop Selling RF-Mount Lenses
> 
> 
> There are no third party RF AF lenses on the market.
> ...


That's better than the double-hearsay in the main post, thanks! At least a bit better. Not sure about the authenticity, after all the information came from EJ Fudd. 




Maybe Canon is the Wascally Wabbit in this scenario...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I think the better analogy is that Apple maintains a closed environment in its iOS App Store, only allowing software it personally vets and allows on a platform (iOS) that could just as easily support other software it hasn't vetted. This is like Canon with the RF system.


In the earliest days of Apple, they kept strict control of software that it had to be up to their standards and used a uniform set of commands etc, which made it so intuitive and user friendly compared with other PCs. This is not like Canon with the RF system - they allow(ed) and encouraged non-Apple software as long as it was up to standard. The Apple Store iOS differs in that Apple takes a cut of the sale price etc.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's better than the double-hearsay in the main post, thanks! At least a bit better. Not sure about the authenticity, after all the information came from EJ Fudd.
> 
> View attachment 205383
> 
> ...


This has been quite extensively discussed and this evidence presented in the past few days on FM and dpr. We are coming in late here, and I think petapixel picked it up from dpr.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Not believable


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

I don't believe any of this. Canon can not prevent a company from manufacturing lenses.


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 30, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem is that with mirrorless cameras, Canon has much more power over third party lenses, because the third party manufacturers need the support of Canon in order for lens corrections applied directly in the EVF. If only Canon lenses are corrected and Sigma lenses are not, Sigma lenses will look very bad against Canon lenses unless Sigma makes their lenses so good that they hardly need any correction. The Canon RF 14-35 f/4 for example has quite an extreme distortion, although it costs $1,800. However that distortion is hidden from the user because it already is corrected in the EVF. Sigma and Tamron have it much harder. I hope that competition authorities will force Canon to open the system for others.
> 
> I wonder if third party manufacturers also need Canon support in order for the IBIS to work well with those lenses. It would be easy for Canon to make third party lenses look even worse by making sure that IBIS performs poorly with them. Especially when a third party lens is already stabilized. I wonder how well existing third party EF lenses work on an RF body. I for example own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and love that lens very much. I would like to continue using it with an RF camera instead of spending $2,800 on a Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8. Only when it comes to longer focal ranges, Canon is still leading. For everything below 100mm, third party manufacturers usually have a much better and cheaper option. Also Sigma offers mount conversion for $100 or so. That might be very helpful if you switch to another camera brand.


Sigma EF lenses already support in-body corrections on Canon cameras. These work as intended on the R5 in my experience. The Samyang RF (autofocus) ones do/did offer in-cameta corrections too.

The Viltrox lens identified itself as a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (possibly using copied firmware, which may have been their issue). This led to corrections being applied but not ones appropriate for that actual lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2022)

antonio_s said:


> Sigma EF lenses already support in-body corrections on Canon cameras. These work as intended on the R5 in my experience. The Samyang RF (autofocus) ones do/did offer in-cameta corrections too.
> 
> The Viltrox lens identified itself as a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (possibly using copied firmware, which may have been their issue). This led to corrections being applied but not ones appropriate for that actual lens.


This could indeed have been the reason, seems logical.


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 30, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I’m discussing this issue on here, DP Review and over at Fred Miranda forums and I have seen a fair few comments where people have either; said they will switch away from Canon, advise others to choose a different system and are very disappointed with Canon. Yes Canon’s reputation is taking a hit in the eyes of many. Whether it’s significant enough to affect sales or change Canon’s plans is another matter.
> Tamron’s announcement that their 1st Z mount lens is on the way hasn’t helped either.
> 
> As for 3rd parties taking advantage of Canon’s R&D costs, this were businesses can negotiate terms and conditions that are acceptable to all parties. If Canon choose not enter such negotiations that is their right. Customers have the right to complain and or vote with their wallets accordingly.


OK, but you can find people on forums saying anything. I saw people saying Canon would artificially cut off compatibility with EF lenses in one of these threads.

Average Joes who buy cameras will probably make the same decision as before. Working professionals will too.

Most people who choose Canon today do so because of the lenses available. The RF 85mm f/1.2 is a unique lens, for example. Lots of pros love Canon supertelephoto lenses. And so on. You also have seamless compatibility with the EF lens library, which is noticeably better than adapting EF to Sony cameras (and, frankly, EF lenses are better than ever on the R-series. I love using the Sigma 135 without having to think about microadjustments!).

There are definite merits to the Sony and Nikon systems. I can certainly imagine reasons to choose them. And they each have some glass you can't get on the other systems.

Canon has never been a fan of third-party glass, but I expect to see some come out and stay on the market within 2-3 years. I personally mainly look forward to Sigma doing this.

In the meantime, I'm not in a rush. I enjoy using my Sigma EF lenses. And my Canon RF lenses. I go and take pictures with them instead of worrying. I recommend that.

Those who prefer Sony or Nikon --- by all means I hope they enjoy using their stuff to get some great shots too.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're talking about a handful of people on a few internet sites. Canon sold 680K ILCs last quarter and estimates they'll sell 2.8 million this year. Your 'many'...isn't. At all.
> 
> 
> They sure do. And as I stated, Canon holds ~50% of the global ILC market, a share that's risen over the last few years. Seems the vote isn't going your way, and you're making up some fake news that's easily disproven by available facts. I have a feeling I've seen something like that recently in a non-photography arena.


The non-fake news that has sparked this discussion was posted on DPR. Someone has even asked Canon about this and their response was supposedly “We have no comment at this time”

It started off as just a forum post on 1 website. Within less than 2 days DP Review, PetaPixel and Canon Rumours addressed this with articles, its being discussed with the Canon Rumours forum, DPR forums and Fred Miranda forums and in the case of FM and DPR its being discussed on both the Canon AND Nikon boards. We are free to speculate how much or how little impact this will actually have but 1 thing is clear. This isn’t a positive PR for Canon whatsoever.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2022)

Here we go again, turning a rather trivial fact (no Viltrox for RF) into Big Drama.
Frankly, I don't care.


----------



## robotfist (Aug 30, 2022)

I don't like this at all. The RF mount has been out since 2018 (when the EOS-R was released) and yet we still don't have a full set of matching, pro quality RF primes. The absence of third party glass has really become apparent with RF. It's fine if Canon wants to restrict the RF mount, it's their patent and they can do with it what they wish, but if you're going to keep others from manufacturing lenses for your cameras, then you should at least have a full set of lenses available for consumers to purchase. I can only imagine that the reason they're keeping 3rd parties from selling RF glass at this stage, is because Canon hasn't finished their full lens lineup yet and they don't want customers stocking up on 3rd party glass over Canon glass. People tend to invest in one brand and stick to it. So if new customers flock to Sigma for their RF needs, due to the lack of available Canon glass, they'll likely continue to purchase matching Sigma glass from that point on.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Here we go again, turning a rather trivial fact (no Viltrox for RF) into Big Drama.
> Frankly, I don't care.



Some of us do, which is why we're here in this thread.

If one of the biggest players in the professional camera market has decided to make it difficult for 3rd parties to get lenses onto the system, it's a big deal, and there's no sense in pretending it isn't just because you personally aren't interested.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


Every rumor here has not been true. And 3rd party manufacturers make and sell apple parts and accessories.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2022)

For a _slight _diversion....

I presume the data here are accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-M_lens_mount

===============================================================
So it is (apparently) true that there is exactly one auto-focus third-party _zoom _EF-M lens...the Tamron 18-200...introduced in *2014 (!)*.
===============================================================

One can imagine a number of reasons for the paucity of zoom AF EF-M lenses...but what should be fun to speculate about on a rumor site is whether or not this fact, for whatever reason, contributed to the demise of EF-M.

I don't know the answer to this 'question', but neither do most (all?!) of those who post here. But for sure corporate Canon has played a role in this sort of thing.

And I do find it interesting that, for years, commenters on this site and others have lamented the paucity of EF-M mount lenses!

Now there are posts here and elsewhere stating, basically, that they want a diversity of choices in their RF lens options...and some of these folks are posting that their whole 'decision' about the RF mount is dependent on this very thing!!!

I have no reason to disbelieve those who express these views...but as far as EF-M lenses are concerned...I always found Canon's options sufficient for the way that I (and my family) use M-mount cameras.

A necessary fact (no snark): in my family, we have acquired about 20K images with EF-M cameras and lenses--the format has played at least some role in our daughters' continued use of their Ms, along with the iPhones, when they travel.

But I'm inclined to lean _slightly _(55%-45%?) in the direction of those who think Canon is shooting themselves in the foot if in fact they are clamping down on third-party RF lenses.

And my view has always been that the EF-M format has always sort of been Canon's 'test bed' for mirrorless.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

robotfist said:


> I don't like this at all. The RF mount has been out since 2018 (when the EOS-R was released) and yet we still don't have a full set of matching, pro quality RF primes. The absence of third party glass has really become apparent with RF. It's fine if Canon wants to restrict the RF mount, it's their patent and they can do with it what they wish, but if you're going to keep others from manufacturing lenses for your cameras, then you should at least have a full set of lenses available for consumers to purchase. I can only imagine that the reason they're keeping 3rd parties from selling RF glass at this stage, is because Canon hasn't finished their full lens lineup yet and they don't want customers stocking up on 3rd party glass over Canon glass. People tend to invest in one brand and stick to it. So if new customers flock to Sigma for their RF needs, due to the lack of available Canon glass, they'll likely continue to purchase matching Sigma glass from that point on.


Just because its posted doesnt make it valid. CR has been wrong many times. Its a rumor site


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> For a _slight _diversion....
> 
> I presume the data here are accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-M_lens_mount
> 
> ...


Dont believe everything you read. You posted one single manufacturer. There are Sigma, Zeiss, Rokinon, and other third party manufacturers of Canon lenses.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

However, Sigma CEO stated that Sigma is working on a Canon RF mount lens to be released this year or early 2023. Canon has no control of what Sigma does.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

Tamron representatives have said Canon and Nikon lenses are on the way.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2022)

Tamron reps have said Canon and Nikon lenses are on their way. Supply chain issues are not unique to only Canon.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2022)

The laziness of this site and every other site that purports to be covering the photo industry is beyond me.

This topic has been the subject of discussion for quite some time on another thread (https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/sigma-will-address-the-rf-mount-in-2022-cr3.40984/) and today we get a new thread that basically regurgitates what forum reader @LogicExtremist posted several days ago. It is now being reported on this new thread as though it were some big scoop, when it's really just a way to add some clickbait to up the revenue stream, without adding a single bit of new or reliable information. 

Why is it that no one who runs these sites can be bothered to pick up a phone and, you know, actually spend a couple hours doing some real reporting?


----------



## navastronia (Aug 30, 2022)

unfocused said:


> The laziness of this site and every other site that purports to be covering the photo industry is beyond me.
> 
> *Why is it that no one who runs these sites can be bothered to pick up a phone and, you know, actually spend a couple hours doing some real reporting?*


From the PetaPixel article written by Matt Growgoot 2 days ago:

"A Canon representative tells _PetaPixel_ that it has 'no comment at this time.'"


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Some of us do, which is why we're here in this thread.
> 
> If one of the biggest players in the professional camera market has decided to make it difficult for 3rd parties to get lenses onto the system, it's a big deal, and there's no sense in pretending it isn't just because you personally aren't interested.


Have Canon ever declared they don't let Sigma and Co. into the RF system, or is it just the usual internet conveyed belief?
I've never read such an official statement by Canon, but many by "knowing"forum members...
I still don't consider it to be a big deal if Viltrox is excluded, there are many more 3rd. party lens companies.
As to the "no comment at this time", only Canon know what this means. It's not a "no chance", so, let's beware of interpretations...


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 30, 2022)

Canon has never licensed their mount interfaces to any 3rd party. Sigma, Tamron, etc... have all had to reverse-engineer the mount for their lenses to operate, and that hasn't always been 100% successful. I remember users having to send their lenses to Sigma to be "re-chipped" when Canon introduced a new body that was just incompatible enough with the reverse engineering to cause issues. It got to the point where Sigma's newest EF lenses have a base station available to reprogram them when Canon breaks something. I can see this being an even harder exercise with the RF mount.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 30, 2022)

I've been around this forum for about 4 years and the one constant is that people irrationally attack as well as (somewhat more sadly) irrationally defend Canon and its decisions.

In response to these rumors and developments, we see people doing both in this thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> The non-fake news that has sparked this discussion was posted on DPR. Someone has even asked Canon about this and their response was supposedly “We have no comment at this time”
> 
> It started off as just a forum post on 1 website. Within less than 2 days DP Review, PetaPixel and Canon Rumours addressed this with articles, its being discussed with the Canon Rumours forum, DPR forums and Fred Miranda forums and in the case of FM and DPR its being discussed on both the Canon AND Nikon boards. We are free to speculate how much or how little impact this will actually have but 1 thing is clear. This isn’t a positive PR for Canon whatsoever.


These forums have active membership numbering in the hundreds or low thousands. Canon sells millions of cameras and lenses a year. These ‘discussions’ are irrelevant.

Before you argue that polling samples only a small fraction of the relevant population, keep in mind that polling depends on _random_ sampling of the relevant population. Photo forums, particularly gear-oriented ones like this, are not representative of the broader camera-buying population.

Canon knows how many bodies and lenses they’ve sold, and I’m certain they have an excellent estimate of the unit volumes of 3rd party lens makers. If Canon is choosing to block 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they aren’t doing so capriciously or out of spite. They are choosing to do so because their financial analysis indicates it will be more profitable for them than allowing such lenses to be made. The fact that you and a handful of other people aren’t happy about that is meaningless to Canon. 

Yes, they could be wrong. But it’s far, far more likely that you’re wrong. Analysis by a global multibillion dollar corporation that dominates the market and has led it for two decades, or a few people whining on niche Internet forums. I know where to place my bet.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2022)

jam05 said:


> However, Sigma CEO stated that Sigma is working on a Canon RF mount lens to be released this year or early 2023.


It's possible that Canon asked Viltrox to stop making their RF lenses for a specific reason and that this does not indicate Canon will interfere with properly reverse engineered lenses in the future. ("Properly" meaning both legally clean and functionally correct.) I sincerely hope that's the case. But if that's the case, Canon should clear the air about this incident ASAP.



> Canon has no control of what Sigma does.


I haven't reviewed the patents to try and determine if Canon is trying to lock out 3rd parties via patent law. Or if they are 'legit' in the sense that Canon needs to protect IP from Sony/Nikon/etc, regardless of the impact on reverse engineering.

It's true that if Sigma properly reverse engineers the protocol then Canon cannot win in court. Canon could still try though, and that would cost Sigma money and raise uncertainty because courts are not perfect. Same for everyone else.

It's a ridiculous position that never works out well for a manufacturer in a competitive market. Canon would be better off to license the mount and welcome 3rd parties.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 30, 2022)

WoodyWindy said:


> Canon has never licensed their mount interfaces to any 3rd party. Sigma, Tamron, etc... have all had to reverse-engineer the mount for their lenses to operate, and that hasn't always been 100% successful. I remember users having to send their lenses to Sigma to be "re-chipped" when Canon introduced a new body that was just incompatible enough with the reverse engineering to cause issues. It got to the point where Sigma's newest EF lenses have a base station available to reprogram them when Canon breaks something. I can see this being an even harder exercise with the RF mount.


The Sigma dock is used for all the different mounts (not just EF) to update firmware, and apply a variety of AF customisations. I don't think it's got anything to do with 'evil Canon'.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 30, 2022)

I think the background to this is around Canon looking for another paid income stream in licensing the software running the RF mount interface. Others have mentioned that Nikon and Sony have taken an 'open source' attitude to this type of mount software over the years (in contrast to Canon), but that probably reflects that those companies have business models that assume their lens line-ups will be filled out (and updated) by 3rd parties. Canon is taking a different approach. 

Personally, I'd rather have a lot more 3rd party options - I've had good experiences with smaller makers such as Samyang and Laowa in the past, and the ability of those (affordable and good) lenses to properly access AF (and EXIF data in Laowa's case!) would be great. But we live in a capitalist world, and a company such as Canon is as big as it is for a reason.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 30, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem is that with mirrorless cameras, Canon has much more power over third party lenses, because the third party manufacturers need the support of Canon in order for lens corrections applied directly in the EVF. If only Canon lenses are corrected and Sigma lenses are not, Sigma lenses will look very bad against Canon lenses unless Sigma makes their lenses so good that they hardly need any correction. The Canon RF 14-35 f/4 for example has quite an extreme distortion, although it costs $1,800. However that distortion is hidden from the user because it already is corrected in the EVF. Sigma and Tamron have it much harder. I hope that competition authorities will force Canon to open the system for others.
> 
> I wonder if third party manufacturers also need Canon support in order for the IBIS to work well with those lenses. It would be easy for Canon to make third party lenses look even worse by making sure that IBIS performs poorly with them. Especially when a third party lens is already stabilized. I wonder how well existing third party EF lenses work on an RF body. I for example own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and love that lens very much. I would like to continue using it with an RF camera instead of spending $2,800 on a Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8. Only when it comes to longer focal ranges, Canon is still leading. For everything below 100mm, third party manufacturers usually have a much better and cheaper option. Also Sigma offers mount conversion for $100 or so. That might be very helpful if you switch to another camera brand.


I don’t know if you’ve posted this before, but I know I’ve seen it. It’s just not true. Sigma lenses are corrected just fine in the viewfinder on all 3 of my Canon RF-mount bodies. So this assumption is incorrect. My Adapted EF-mount Sigma lenses are corrected for distortion and peripheral illumination.


----------



## Tom W (Aug 31, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Has anybody actually asked Canon about this, and gotten a reply? I'd be interested in their take.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 31, 2022)

Jethro said:


> The Sigma dock is used for all the different mounts (not just EF) to update firmware, and apply a variety of AF customisations. I don't think it's got anything to do with 'evil Canon'.


First, I never said that this made Canon "evil". They are totally within their rights not to share their Intellectual Property, or to do so under any terms they so desire. I simply mentioned the rechipping as something Sigma had to deal with for many years.

Second, I don't deny that the dock can be used for lots of other things - but to your point about "update{ing} firmware", many (most?) firmware updates are to rectify compatibility issues of one kind or another. It is a whole lot easier to do this way than by sending the lens back for upgrades, regardless of the manufacturer.

Finally, all of this is purely conjecture - though highly educated conjecture. We can be sure that Canon runs their numbers, Nikon and Sony run theirs, Sigma and Tamron run theirs, and so on with the other vendors. If it makes financial sense for them to support one another, they will. If it doesn't, they won't.

I'll buy the camera system that I can afford, feels good in my hands, and gives me the lens options I need to take the pictures I want. Historically, that's been Canon. I've owned Canon lenses, Tamron lenses, and Sigma lenses. If they do the job, I'm happy. My next camera will probably be mirrorless. And probably Canon. 

But I AM open to change.


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> That is why Sony issued licenses to 3rd parties so they aren’t compatibility issues so pros/enthusiasts can rely on their gear.
> 
> Even Samyang who do reverse engineer emount have improved the AF performance of their lenses and where issues do arise they are good at issuing firmware to resolve them. Again the real issue is choice.
> 
> Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.


Sony's long term strategy was to be 1st to market with their full frame mirrorless E-mount that first appeared in 2010. To attract more users and yet not invest R&D money on thin margin lenses they needed to license 3rd parties to develop on their platform a year later in 2011.

That strategy appeared to work as early as May 2019 Sony took the #2 spot away from Nikon.







For 2018 & 2019 Sony is #1 in full frame system cameras. I'm lazy to find data for 2020-2022 but on BH Photo Sony's full frame mirrorless SKUs number at 10. While Canon has 6 & Nikon just 5.






These camera makers are all competing in an ever shrinking digital still camera market that was eaten up by smartphones.

What is relatively unscathed would be full frame & highly specialized cameras.

Last 6 years worldwide shipments of digital still cameras.


Year201720182019202020212022 forecastTotal Cameras24,978,48619,423,37115,216,9578,886,2928,361,5217,850,000Point & Shoot13,302,7978,663,5746,755,4673,578,6433,013,2502,560,000Total SLR & Mirrorless11,675,68910,759,7978,461,4905,307,6495,348,2715,290,000SLR7,595,7086,620,9994,504,9872,374,5692,241,772-Mirrorless4,079,9814,138,7983,956,5032,933,0803,106,499-

I would not be surprised that before 2029 total cameras shipped worldwide would drop to under 6.7 million annually.

By comparison In 1999 worldwide shipment of cameras was 5,088,207 with a worldwide population of 6 billion. This jumped to 10,342,084 in year 2000.

Year 2022 population is 8 billion.

About 6 years ago someone on FredMiranda forecasted that digital still camera sales will drop back to year 1999 levels. It sounded preposterous but today... not that unbelievable.

That's enthusiasts with extra $$$ for a dedicated still camera + working photogs who derive income for providing professional photo services.

An indicator of how desperate digital still camera makers are to create new/expand markets is their introduction of bird & animal specific autofocus modes.

- Canon
- Nikon
- Sony

None of these companies did that prior to the last 2 years.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

Am I missing the issue here?
Canon must retain EF compatibility for their users' installed base of lenses. Junking our current EF lenses would be a major strategic error.

All EF/EF-S lenses ( including 3rd parties) work as well or better on R mount than EF.

RF lenses (in general and yes there are exceptions) bring something additional to their closest EF counterparts offering a premium product line, a more affordable EF option and then EF 3rd party lenses.

Canon makes nothing out of opening up the RF protocols for free. If they sold a license to a 3rd party then it would be very expensive as Canon would need to retain their R&D profits.

Sony ff mirrorless had no option but to open up their protocols. They had zero lenses for their mirrorless and needed metabones adapters etc for Canon EF lenses. These had all sorts of issues but mostly worked. They needed compatibility to encourage switchers. Their strategy worked. 
The EF-R mount adapter has none of these issues and is cheap.

Is there a 3rd party lens that is not available in EF which would be seen as a must-have for the R mount?


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Am I missing the issue here?
> Canon must retain EF compatibility for their users' installed base of lenses. Junking our current EF lenses would be a major strategic error.
> 
> All EF/EF-S lenses ( including 3rd parties) work as well or better on R mount than EF.
> ...


Canon never dropped support for EF mount lenses on their RF mount bodies.

The concern or clickbait is about 3rd parties not being able to sell 3rd party RF lenses today.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 31, 2022)

David,
I think you get it. Canon should offer all the benefits that RF lenses bring for the same price as EF, and provide for little or no cost whatever 3rd parties need to sell their lenses as well.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> These forums have active membership numbering in the hundreds or low thousands. Canon sells millions of cameras and lenses a year. These ‘discussions’ are irrelevant.
> 
> Before you argue that polling samples only a small fraction of the relevant population, keep in mind that polling depends on _random_ sampling of the relevant population. Photo forums, particularly gear-oriented ones like this, are not representative of the broader camera-buying population.
> 
> ...


I'm certain that somebody from Canon's marketing research team checks in here from time to time. We're certainly not important but "irrelevant" is probably overstating the case. The people on this forum are gear heads and almost certainly spend much more on equipment than the average buyer. Of course, we're a very small sample, one of many samples, and there are a lot more average buyers.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Canon had the reputation for regarding third party lens manufacturers as parasites. I see no reason to believe that they feel differently now.

The problem with stating opinions about why Canon is acting the way they do is that there are dozens of possible reasons and everybody here is just guessing.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A handful of people on the internet are complaining. I doubt Canon cares.


A handful are complaining, the rest are selling their gear and swapping to a brand that does allow them to use modern third party lenses lol


----------



## jam05 (Aug 31, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I think this is likely. But I think it is a bit more like, Canon *needs* 1st crack on any sale of RF lenses. Nobody here knows or seems to consider how much R&D money went into developing the RF mount and the new RF lenses. So nobody knows how many cameras and especially lenses Canon needs to sell before they recoup that money. A year's worth? 3 years? 5 years? I have no idea, but from a business point of view, Canon would be stupid if they if they allowed competitors to make profits on RF lenses when they were the ones who spent all the R&D money.
> 
> On another thread I compared this scenario to when a new drug comes to market. The developer of the drug has a 6 year exclusivity window to sell their product before generic drugs can be sold by others. The reason for that window is obvious, it's there so the maker of the drug can recoup their R&d costs. Otherwise, why would any drug company develop a new drug? I've been in that situation of having to spend $700 a month for a drug while waiting for the generic version to come to market. Luckily I had health insurance that kicked in after my $1800 deductible. Many aren't so lucky.
> 
> ...


Did my own research. This is from a coppied post from DPReview. Not even legitimate. B&H Photo in the USA is and will continue to sell its 3rd party Viltrox Canon lenses and have more on their way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> A handful are complaining, the rest are selling their gear and swapping to a brand that does allow them to use modern third party lenses lol


That’s been happening for years, as people routinely claim here. Yet somehow, Canon keeps on dominating the market lol


----------



## jam05 (Aug 31, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm certain that somebody from Canon's marketing research team checks in here from time to time. We're certainly not important but "irrelevant" is probably overstating the case. The people on this forum are gear heads and almost certainly spend much more on equipment than the average buyer. Of course, we're a very small sample, one of many samples, and there are a lot more average buyers.
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Canon had the reputation for regarding third party lens manufacturers as parasites. I see no reason to believe that they feel differently now.
> 
> The problem with stating opinions about why Canon is acting the way they do is that there are dozens of possible reasons and everybody here is just guessing.


And the information posted was actually copied from a posted comment on DPReview. Country of origin unknown. B&H photo USA is still selling and receiving shipments from the said lens manufacturer.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon never dropped support for EF mount lenses on their RF mount bodies.
> 
> The concern or clickbait is about 3rd parties not being able to sell 3rd party RF lenses today.


I get the angst but there is no real issue for Canon only that users can't get cheaper lenses in R mount.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> A handful are complaining, the rest are selling their gear and swapping to a brand that does allow them to use modern third party lenses lol


I see that you have a R/RF system... on what basis are you making your comment? 
If you were switching then let us know and feel free to leave the forum. 
If you any data to share about others then feel free to share it for us.


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 31, 2022)

Jethro said:


> I think the background to this is around Canon looking for another paid income stream in licensing the software running the RF mount interface. Others have mentioned that Nikon and Sony have taken an 'open source' attitude to this type of mount software over the years (in contrast to Canon), but that probably reflects that those companies have business models that assume their lens line-ups will be filled out (and updated) by 3rd parties. Canon is taking a different approach.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather have a lot more 3rd party options - I've had good experiences with smaller makers such as Samyang and Laowa in the past, and the ability of those (affordable and good) lenses to properly access AF (and EXIF data in Laowa's case!) would be great. But we live in a capitalist world, and a company such as Canon is as big as it is for a reason.


Sony charges fees to license their protocols. The difference is that Canon never licensed the EF protocols, as they've said (even for a fee). But Sigma reverse engineered them very well, especially with GV, where they got even in-camera corrections working!


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I get the angst but there is no real issue for Canon only that users can't get cheaper lenses in R mount.



2nd best option would be RF body to EF lens adapter for any EF lens.

Give Canon & Nikon at least 6 years to recoup their investment.

Can't wait? Move to Sony


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2022)

Well, third party might be an "ok" option. I know this: the Canon RF 50/85 f/1.2L lenses are tack sharp wide open. Not just a little bit sharp. I don't particularly appreciate lenses rated at f/1.8 that aren't sharp until f/2.8 or more. That's no bargain.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2022)

So...to summarize:

No one *knows* anything. 

Canon *may* be taking or threatening to take actions to protect their proprietary technology.

Has Canon *ever* licensed its technology to third-part competitors?

Have third parties *ever* been deterred by having to reverse engineer lens mount technology?

Is any Canon customer who already owns an R series camera *selling* that camera because they can't get cheap third-party lenses?

Is Canon *likely* to make a bad business decision that will hurt their sales?

If Canon determines that aggressive protection of their rights is* hurting* sales or causing them to lose market share, would they *continue* down an unprofitable road or would they *revisit* that strategy?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> These forums have active membership numbering in the hundreds or low thousands. Canon sells millions of cameras and lenses a year. These ‘discussions’ are irrelevant.
> 
> Before you argue that polling samples only a small fraction of the relevant population, keep in mind that polling depends on _random_ sampling of the relevant population. Photo forums, particularly gear-oriented ones like this, are not representative of the broader camera-buying population.
> 
> ...


Its not irrelevant at all, the fact that this topic is even being discussed on Nikon Rumours and Nikon forums is significant. 

While some have claimed to not care that 3rd party options are scarce on RF mount how many Canon shooters would complain if Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang all announced that they are all going to release RF mount glass in agreement with Canon to ensure the best possible performance?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Canon makes nothing out of opening up the RF protocols for free. If they sold a license to a 3rd party then it would be very expensive as Canon would need to retain their R&D profits.


In a competitive market this is false. Opening the mount...or at least not interfering with 3rd party lenses produced via reverse engineering...will retain a certain number of users/sales, as well as capture a certain number of new users/sales. Preventing 3rd party lenses will lose a certain number in both categories.



David - Sydney said:


> Is there a 3rd party lens that is not available in EF which would be seen as a must-have for the R mount?


Is Canon moving to RF or not? If so, then "well it's on EF" won't last forever. Eventually Sigma, Tamron, etc. will stop making those lenses. And if they can't make them for RF, they will focus all of that engineering talent and manufacturing capacity on other mounts.


----------



## SnowMiku (Aug 31, 2022)

Perhaps Canon want all of the third parties to pay a license fee to develop lenses for the RF mount? Unfortunately this would mean that the third parties will have to increase prices. I wonder if the third parties will be given the official code to run the RF protocol and information on firmware updates once paying the licensing fees? Or if they would still have to reverse engineer the code? I think buying a third party lens for RF would be quite risky at this stage due to the more frequent firmware updates.

Either that or Canon wants the third parties to stay away from RF so everyone buys the Canon lenses.

Does anyone here own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens for EF-M? I was thinking of buying that so I was wondering if anyone has had any problems with it? It will be used on an M5. I have considered the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM but I would rather save the money and get the Sigma.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2022)

jam05 said:


> And the information posted was actually copied from a posted comment on DPReview. Country of origin unknown. B&H photo USA is still selling and receiving shipments from the said lens manufacturer.


Viltrox has removed their RF lenses from their site and store.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 31, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> Perhaps Canon want all of the third parties to pay a license fee to develop lenses for the RF mount? Unfortunately this would mean that the third parties will have to increase prices. I wonder if the third parties will be given the official code to run the RF protocol and information on firmware updates once paying the licensing fees? Or if they would still have to reverse engineer the code? I think buying a third party lens for RF would be quite risky at this stage due to the more frequent firmware updates.
> 
> Either that or Canon wants the third parties to stay away from RF so everyone buys the Canon lenses.
> 
> Does anyone here own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens for EF-M? I was thinking of buying that so I was wondering if anyone has had any problems with it? It will be used on an M5. I have considered the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM but I would rather save the money and get the Sigma.


Licensing (and this is all speculation) would probably involve getting access to software allowing the lensmaker to (for eg) take advantage of the capabilities of all 12 connection pins in the RF mount (as opposed to rolling forward some of the 3rd party manufacturer's back-engineered software from 8 pin EF mounts). Others have mentioned the advantages of full access to IBIS integration, and in-camera image enhancement.

It would, absolutely, represent an additional cost to the 3rd party maker, BUT, they would then not have to back engineer anything (assuming that was even possible for the RF mount) which in itself is costly and time consuming. Plus, they would be able to produce a superior product which would justify a higher price.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s been happening for years, as people routinely claim here. Yet somehow, Canon keeps on dominating the market lol



Canon sales have been staying strong but Nikon’s have been going down and Sony’s has been rising. Plus you’ll find photography forums have really died down in activity compared to maybe 5 years ago. Now people use stuff like IG and Reddit which I see a lot of swapping. 



David - Sydney said:


> I see that you have a R/RF system... on what basis are you making your comment?
> If you were switching then let us know and feel free to leave the forum.
> If you any data to share about others then feel free to share it for us.


Actually had, just sold everything and swapped to Sony for the lenses 2 weeks ago  I think the R6 is arguably a better body than the A7IV, but the lens pricing and range is too much to overlook.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 31, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Novo Nordisk? If so, an admirable company.


I remember hearing phrase- Pharma companies exist to make profit from selling drugs and not to improve health of their consumers.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So...to summarize:
> 
> [..]
> Has Canon *ever* licensed its technology to third-part competitors?
> [..]


IIRC the Zeiss EF lenses had a proper license .


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its not irrelevant at all, the fact that this topic is even being discussed on Nikon Rumours and Nikon forums is significant.
> 
> While some have claimed to not care that 3rd party options are scarce on RF mount how many Canon shooters would complain if Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang all announced that they are all going to release RF mount glass in agreement with Canon to ensure the best possible performance?


I don't think it matters whether we complain or not.

What's in it for Canon? Canon wants to sell Canon lenses. Giving a competitor the keys to the system is risky.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most of my experience is with small molecules, but across the industry timelines are getting shorter to the extent possible, as a way to stretch the revenue-generating portion of that 20 year period. The current average from NDA to patent expiry is 10-12 years. For biologics the regulatory exclusivity in the US is 12 years, much longer than for small molecules.


Seems to be so, neuro. Aripiprazol was developed by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Phase III started 1995, it entered the Market in USA in 2002, US Patent expired in 2014 and the FDA anounced the first generic in 2015. At this time the anual sale was around $7 billion.


----------



## HMC11 (Aug 31, 2022)

robotfist said:


> I don't like this at all. The RF mount has been out since 2018 (when the EOS-R was released) and yet we still don't have a full set of matching, pro quality RF primes. The absence of third party glass has really become apparent with RF. It's fine if Canon wants to restrict the RF mount, it's their patent and they can do with it what they wish, but if you're going to keep others from manufacturing lenses for your cameras, then you should at least have a full set of lenses available for consumers to purchase. I can only imagine that the reason they're keeping 3rd parties from selling RF glass at this stage, is because Canon hasn't finished their full lens lineup yet and they don't want customers stocking up on 3rd party glass over Canon glass. People tend to invest in one brand and stick to it. So if new customers flock to Sigma for their RF needs, due to the lack of available Canon glass, they'll likely continue to purchase matching Sigma glass from that point on.


I guess Canon probably think they had time to develop the set of pro quality primes as EF equivalents can be adapted easily and perform at least as well on EF bodies. The supply chain issues did not help either. However, your point is well taken. The slew of fast RF primes patents that have been coming out seems to indicate that they are, in fact, looking to address it.


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 31, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Every rumor here has not been true. And 3rd party manufacturers make and sell apple parts and accessories.


My whole point is that Canon's actions mirror Apple's in that they prefer the walled garden approach with first party products only, and that it seems to have been quite beneficial and profitable thus far.

One can find plenty of accessories for Canon cameras as well like lens hoods, flashes , body skins, batteries, etc etc all without official licensing from Canon just like with Apple.

Lenses are integral to the camera so it is not an accessory, it is the other half of the product. That is like the equivalent of someone manufacturing a different camera module or screen for the iphone without Apple's consent.

And from software example side, rather than claiming appstore allows 3rd party developers, it is more akin to a 3rd party making addon code that fundamentally replaces a piece of the OS, which I am sure Apple would not allow for.

Also, there is a certain perceived cache to having an Apple product because it is expensive and "exclusive", so the same translate to things like the L primes.

With Sony and 3rd party lenses, yes there is AF compatibility but there are a string of asterisks like the change in focus box size and modes, fps, etc etc... So while I am an Android guy, I like my camera to just work and function without worrying about all the caveats 3rd party lenses bring with.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I remember hearing phrase- Pharma companies exist to make profit from selling drugs and not to improve health of their consumers.


I have personal experience of working with several ethical Pharma companies and seen first hand that they generally try to improve health and make a healthy profit. There are several exceptions of course, some terrible, who just have a profit interest and do everything to exploit the system, and the opposite AstraZeneca who sold their COVID vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. I know the owner of an important Indian pharma company who fought successfully like a tiger to force the sale of HIV drugs cheaply to Africa and other areas that could not afford the high prices in the wealthy countries.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> In a competitive market this is false. Opening the mount...or at least not interfering with 3rd party lenses produced via reverse engineering...will retain a certain number of users/sales, as well as capture a certain number of new users/sales. Preventing 3rd party lenses will lose a certain number in both categories.


There is no law against reverse engineering. If the 3rd parties are infringing on patents then that is a different story.
"certain number of users" is the key issue. Given Canon's dominance and ongoing profitability for their shareholders, I don't see them being worried about a few users that they lose vs the potential new EF/RF lenses that they can sell. Canon cannot be everything to everyone and doesn't attempt to do so albeit their EF plus RF lenses cover a huge range of niches.



dtaylor said:


> Is Canon moving to RF or not? If so, then "well it's on EF" won't last forever. Eventually Sigma, Tamron, etc. will stop making those lenses. And if they can't make them for RF, they will focus all of that engineering talent and manufacturing capacity on other mounts.


Canon are migrating to RF. The R mount has only just hit its 4th anniversary and yet people are suggesting that the R system isn't good enough and will move to Sony etc because they have 3rd party lenses.

Clearly Canon they are putting their R&D effort into new bodies and RF lenses. EF has been here since 1987 and Canon said they sold 100 million lenses up to 2014 alone. Some have been updated over time, others have been put to pasture but I don't see a wholesale end-of-sale notices for EF lenses for years to come. Why would Canon do that as virtually all the R&D costs have been amortised and it is only current manufacturing capacity which would be an issue IMHO.

Sigma, Tamron etc will stop making EF lenses when sales drop or it is uneconomical to contain. Neither of which has happened yet.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Canon sales have been staying strong but Nikon’s have been going down and Sony’s has been rising. Plus you’ll find photography forums have really died down in activity compared to maybe 5 years ago. Now people use stuff like IG and Reddit which I see a lot of swapping.


Not sure how forum activity correlates with sales... DPR's comments are a cesspool of fanbois with no real added value. I read the articles but the comments are a waste of time.
IG is slowing down but Flickr keeps going somehow... maybe it will come back! 



dlee13 said:


> Actually had, just sold everything and swapped to Sony for the lenses 2 weeks ago  I think the R6 is arguably a better body than the A7IV, but the lens pricing and range is too much to overlook.


A valid (single) data point then...
What lens(es) wasn't available to you that prompted you to switch?


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2022)

jam05 said:


> However, Sigma CEO stated that Sigma is working on a Canon RF mount lens to be released this year or early 2023. Canon has no control of what Sigma does.


Source?


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2022)

jam05 said:


> I don't believe any of this. Canon can not prevent a company from manufacturing lenses.


Probably not, but Canon can stop a company manufacturing lenses which infringes Canon's intellectual property (and perhaps in a few other situations as well). At least generally, Canon can also stop other people selling a lens which infringes Canon's intellectual property even if the seller wasn't the person who manufactutured the lens.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Tamron representatives have said Canon and Nikon lenses are on the way.


Source?


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Did my own research. This is from a coppied post from DPReview. Not even legitimate. *B&H Photo in the USA is and will continue to sell its 3rd party Viltrox Canon lenses and have more on their way*.


Evidence?


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I see that you have a R/RF system... on what basis are you making your comment?
> If you were switching then let us know and feel free to leave the forum.
> If you any data to share about others then feel free to share it for us.


I see DLee13 has responded to say he has swtiched from Canon to Sony recently. I don't see any reason why that means he should have to leave CR though.

Not quite switching systems (which is what DLee13 was talkding about), but for what it is worth I have shot Canon for 20+ years and in the last couple of years I have recommended to anyone getting into full frame photography to go with Sony, not Canon, unless they had some very specific use case which pointed to getting Canon (eg a very strong reason to shoot with the RF 28-70 f/2L). As it has turned out, all of the people I know who have moved into full frame photography in the last couple of years (admittedly only a few people) have gone with Sony, and all are happy. (And yes, if you are wondering, a switch from Canon to Sony in the not-too-distant future is on the cards for me - primarily because of the lack of third party AF lenses (particularly Sigma and Tamron lenses, and to a lesser extent Samyang lenses) for the RF mount. I just have other priorities right now.)


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 31, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I see DLee13 has responded to say he has swtiched from Canon to Sony recently. I don't see any reason why that means he should have to leave CR though.


While this is a single example, I have seen other comments like this on other forums. Again I fully acknowledge in the grand scheme of things it probably won’t show up in future earnings reports. But I imagine Canon are aware of the discussions and the mainly negative perception the news from Viltrox has had.


----------



## Chig (Aug 31, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not going to pull any punches here: this is a rotten policy by Canon, and one which *will* financially hurt them in a market this competitive. Their main competitor, who desperately wants that #1 slot, has an open mount. And while not all competing mounts are open, nobody else seems to be taking steps to hinder 3rd party lens development.
> 
> I've dragged my feet on mirrorless for my primary kit because my current kit does everything I need with stunning IQ. But sooner or later I'm going to want or need to upgrade. And I'm not going to want to upgrade to a closed mount with no 3rd party lens options. Especially today with so many up-and-coming 3rd party lens manufacturers. If Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang/Rokinon, Viltrox, etc. are all going to throw their lens design expertise and manufacturing capability behind other mounts, then why would I want to be on the closed mount? And what am I supposed to say to new photographers? Why would I recommend Canon knowing it will limit their choices? I don't think I can.
> 
> ...


Well Sony didn't even develop the A-mount but instead bought the Minolta SLR camera division (although they developed the E mount variant ) and Canon has become the #1 camera maker since first developing their advanced EF mount and eos auto focus system back in 1987 and now spent vast sums developing their R mount system.
Hopefully Canon will continue to be make enough profit to continue developing more wonderful Cameras and lenses and I personally prefer to buy their own lenses and consider them worth paying a bit extra for.

I don't think Sony or Nikon are much of a threat to Canon but the successful take over by the smartphone industry of the photography market certainly is and the lack of modern software interfaces in cameras is what Japanese camera companies need to address if they hope to survive


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm certain that somebody from Canon's marketing research team checks in here from time to time. We're certainly not important but "irrelevant" is probably overstating the case. The people on this forum are gear heads and almost certainly spend much more on equipment than the average buyer. Of course, we're a very small sample, one of many samples, and there are a lot more average buyers.
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Canon had the reputation for regarding third party lens manufacturers as parasites. I see no reason to believe that they feel differently now.
> 
> The problem with stating opinions about why Canon is acting the way they do is that there are dozens of possible reasons and everybody here is just guessing.


I think Canon's reason to visit CR is to check what new rumor got leaked to the press, again.

Depending on their wanted outcome they can further muddy the waters and say a *EF* 800mm Series 2 will come out in 2020 or provide clarification so people reading this site wouldn't be all tied up in knots

For me I look at the business case why X does not do Y when Z does Y.


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So...to summarize:
> 
> No one *knows* anything.
> 
> ...


> No one *knows* anything.

Likely

> Canon *may* be taking or threatening to take actions to protect their proprietary technology.

More likely

> Has Canon *ever* licensed its technology to third-part competitors?

EF mount? Very unlikely

> Is any Canon customer who already owns an R series camera *selling* that camera because they can't get cheap third-party lenses?

If $ is a concern then odds are RF body to EF lens adapter is likely the solution. If you're on a budget buy a low mileage EF body that was owned by a GAS collector that babies & shoots sparingly but wants the latest toys.

> Is Canon *likely* to make a bad business decision that will hurt their sales?

Not to offend but all the camera brands are hedging against smartphones by going up market.

3rd party lenses is counter to that plan.

You can see it by the 2 APS-C RF bodies & 6 full frame RF bodies Canon has prioritized for production.

You can even see that with the number of RF L vs RF non-L lenses released since 2018.

If you're on a budget... stick to the dozens of EF bodies and the hundreds of EF lenses.

> If Canon determines that aggressive protection of their rights is* hurting* sales or causing them to lose market share, would they *continue* down an unprofitable road or would they *revisit* that strategy?

Does Canon want to be a loss leader or profitable?

If I was a shareholder I rather be profitable than to give people a subsidized lunch.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure how forum activity correlates with sales... DPR's comments are a cesspool of fanbois with no real added value. I read the articles but the comments are a waste of time.
> IG is slowing down but Flickr keeps going somehow... maybe it will come back!


Well I was replying to someone who said people claim they are switching on this forum but Canon keeps dominating, my reply was to them that the amount of users/registered users is much lower compared to sites like Reddit. 
It would be great for Flickr to come back but I think they'd really need to redevelop their app to have a lot better functionality/design if they want people to swap back. Being a paid service might stop some from using it too. 



David - Sydney said:


> A valid (single) data point then...
> What lens(es) wasn't available to you that prompted you to switch?


Well it's not so much just about availability, but the overall quality as well. For example if I wanted a 35mm f/1.4 I could either stick with the f/1.8 which is a great lens in every way but AF (thanks to the STM motor) or if I wanted f/1.4 lenses, my options were

35GM - $1899 AUD / $1399 USD
35L II - $2800 AUD / $1999 USD (much older, heavier lens in an old mount)
35mm DN Art - $1299 AUD / $749 USD

So I went with the 35GM of course. The for 85mm the f/2 is a decent lens but as it isn't full 1:1 and only 85mm it's not a great macro lens. At f/2. it leaves a bit to be desired for portraits/street so that would leave me with the RF85L which is absurdly expensive here so my options were

EF85L - f1/.4 $2299 AUD / $1599USD
RF85L - $3888 / $2699 USD
85mmGM - $1774AUD / $1798 USD
85mm DN Art - $1299 AUD / $1199 USD

Once again Sony had the better, cheaper, smaller option so I went with the 85mm DN Art. Then for a UWA zoom which I often use as a general purpose, especially for travel so prefer something smaller/lighter but not too slow like the new RF 15-30mm I had a few options too which were

EF16-35Lf/4 - $1799 AUD $1299 USD
RF14-35L - $2499 AUD / $1649 USD
FE PZ 16-35 - $1580 AUD / $1198 USD (released this year but still cheaper than RF/EF options)
Sigma DN 16-28mm f/2.8 - $1189 AUD / $899USD

Considering I originally bought the EF13-35 f/4L for only $1000 AUD years ago, I don't see the point in paying so much for an old lens in an old mount that requires an adapter. The Sigma 16-28mm and Sony 16-35mm were my best options and I ended up getting the latter for only $1400 AUD on sale (brand new of course)

Now if Sigma's 85mm DN Art and 16-28mm were available on the RF mount I could happily live with the RF 35mm as I honestly think it's comparable to the Sony 35GM in IQ, the UWA zoom, 85mm Art and many other third party lenses available on Sony were too good to resist. 



SNJ Ops said:


> While this is a single example, I have seen other comments like this on other forums. Again I fully acknowledge in the grand scheme of things it probably won’t show up in future earnings reports. But I imagine Canon are aware of the discussions and the mainly negative perception the news from Viltrox has had.


One thing to keep in mind too is the used market which is very strong in photography. When you buy a body brand new and sell it in good condition, it can often have multiple different owners from there one which would never count towards any manufacturers sales. 



jd7 said:


> I see DLee13 has responded to say he has swtiched from Canon to Sony recently. I don't see any reason why that means he should have to leave CR though.


Thank you 


jd7 said:


> Not quite switching systems (which is what DLee13 was talkding about), but for what it is worth I have shot Canon for 20+ years and in the last couple of years I have recommended to anyone getting into full frame photography to go with Sony, not Canon, unless they had some very specific use case which pointed to getting Canon (eg a very strong reason to shoot with the RF 28-70 f/2L). As it has turned out, all of the people I know who have moved into full frame photography in the last couple of years (admittedly only a few people) have gone with Sony, and all are happy. (And yes, if you are wondering, a switch from Canon to Sony in the not-too-distant future is on the cards for me - primarily because of the lack of third party AF lenses (particularly Sigma and Tamron lenses, and to a lesser extent Samyang lenses) for the RF mount. I just have other priorities right now.)


Well for me I actually had a 550D, 6D, 6DII then swapped to Sony for the A7III, back to Canon for the R6 for a few years now Sony again. I wouldn't consider myself a brand loyal person and use whatever offers the best value at the time. 2 years ago the Canon system was more compelling to me and now Sony is. You'll find each brand has their unique aspects that the competition doesn't have. Sony have zebra highlights which Canon still haven't added for some reason and Canon has the bulb timer which is one of the greatest things that Sony doesn't have. 

To me a camera is only as good as the lenses available for it and Sony does have great options thanks to the third parties. Canon Australia really need to adjust their pricing too which is a whole other story but hopefully with Nikon coming to their senses and working with third parties, Canon will too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its not irrelevant at all, the fact that this topic is even being discussed on Nikon Rumours and Nikon forums is significant.
> 
> While some have claimed to not care that 3rd party options are scarce on RF mount how many Canon shooters would complain if Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang all announced that they are all going to release RF mount glass in agreement with Canon to ensure the best possible performance?


Obviously it's significant enough to engender discussion on the internet. The point is, it's insignificant and irrelevant to Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Canon sales have been staying strong but Nikon’s have been going down and Sony’s has been rising. Plus you’ll find photography forums have really died down in activity compared to maybe 5 years ago. Now people use stuff like IG and Reddit which I see a lot of swapping.


People have been complaining about Canon's decisions and predicting Canon's d00m on this forum, on DPR and elsewhere for well over a decade. During the time, Canon has gained market share and continues to dominate the market. What does that say about the impact of complaints here and elsewhere on the internet?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have personal experience of working with several ethical Pharma companies and seen first hand that they generally try to improve health and make a healthy profit. There are several exceptions of course, some terrible, who just have a profit interest and do everything to exploit the system, and the opposite AstraZeneca who sold their COVID vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. I know the owner of an important Indian pharma company who fought successfully like a tiger to force the sale of HIV drugs cheaply to Africa and other areas that could not afford the high prices in the wealthy countries.


Here in the US, there is only one source for black widow antivenin. The company that produces it has a small farm in New Jersey (I've been there, it's also an executive meeting site) where they raise spiders, extract their venom, inject it into horses and produce the drug from the serum. The company loses money on the drug (it's a labor-intensive process and there are only a small number of bites each year, with the drug generally provided to children and the elderly; the cost for a dose is ~$40), but they keep making it and have no plans to stop.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 31, 2022)

Chig said:


> Canon has become the #1 camera maker since first developing their advanced EF mount and eos auto focus system back in 1987


How true!! But Canon was replacing the (new) FD mount, which was small and mechanically complex. (I owned FD cameras from 1975 to 1997.) Both Nikon and Minolta tried half measures to implement autofocus with the focusing motors in the camera body and that didn't work out well. Now, _everybody_ uses the Canon strategy of putting the focusing motor in the lens. The thing that amazes me the most is how extendible the EOS protocol is.

When Canon introduced the FD system in 1971, they were already the largest Japanese camera manufacturer.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> People have been complaining about Canon's decisions and predicting Canon's d00m on this forum, on DPR and elsewhere for well over a decade. During the time, Canon has gained market share and continues to dominate the market. What does that say about the impact of complaints here and elsewhere on the internet?


Those people who claim they are ******* are often not even Canon users. Also I never said they’re ******* or will go bust, I’ve simply stated the fact that their pricing and strategy of blocking third parties is making many users unhappy. 

This is also a Canon site so there will always be a level of bias, just like if the same kind of topic was asked on a Sony or Nikon forum.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Aug 31, 2022)

Canonrumors... you guys need to remove that "Third Party Lenses for RF" article. It is fully misleading in terms of expectation. I've bought my RP because of that article. Now I have RP + 35, 50 and 85 for RF mount. I need 100-400 and 24. Existed two lenses are not good. So I have to buy $3k 100-500 and 15-35 2.8 or switch to any other system. As you understand this is already exceeds my expenditure for this hobby. I will not sell my current setup because it do what I want from it, but there is no future in it. You should not give a good faith in canon for people that might want to buy their first camera or smth. 

Maybe I would find a new job and wouldn't care for such expenditure. But I'm not a professional so I don't have any excuse for purchasing L lenses.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 31, 2022)

If These are “third party” lenses, what are “second party”? Home made?


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 31, 2022)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If Canon were a near monopoly, then laws would come into play that required opening up to competition.


Tell me you’re not a lawyer without…

Which countries’ laws? What would say that you can’t have a system with two parts and sell both parts under limited term patents?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> This is also a Canon site so there will always be a level of bias, just like if the same kind of topic was asked on a Sony or Nikon forum.


I think that there is an assumption that contributors have some Canon gear so there will be a level of bias. Various contributors try to keep the discussion somewhat sensible and stating evidence where possible to make an assertion and there can be robust debate about it. We also share our experiences to improve everyone's knowledge... building up together rather than denigration


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 31, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I see DLee13 has responded to say he has swtiched from Canon to Sony recently. I don't see any reason why that means he should have to leave CR though.


True but it is easy to see through people trolling who are from other ecosystems. It is fine to keep track of the overall market and trends though.



jd7 said:


> Not quite switching systems (which is what DLee13 was talkding about), but for what it is worth I have shot Canon for 20+ years and in the last couple of years I have recommended to anyone getting into full frame photography to go with Sony, not Canon, unless they had some very specific use case which pointed to getting Canon (eg a very strong reason to shoot with the RF 28-70 f/2L). As it has turned out, all of the people I know who have moved into full frame photography in the last couple of years (admittedly only a few people) have gone with Sony, and all are happy. (And yes, if you are wondering, a switch from Canon to Sony in the not-too-distant future is on the cards for me - primarily because of the lack of third party AF lenses (particularly Sigma and Tamron lenses, and to a lesser extent Samyang lenses) for the RF mount. I just have other priorities right now.)


Can you list the lenses that Canon can't meet from their EF/RF system?
I have the Samyang 14mm/2.8 as Canon's 14mmL is stupidly expensive and poor coma and I don't need auto focus for astro-landscapes. The Samyang is the right price for my usage and budget.


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 31, 2022)

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.


RF crop bodies just came out a few months ago. You make it appear that they have been released starting in 2018


----------



## chasingrealness (Aug 31, 2022)

Well I guess I’m just glad I got a hold of the Samyang 85mm when I did. I love that lens. What I would really like to see is someone working alongside Canon the way that Tamron and Sony are pairing up to provide adjacently but not directly competitive alternative lens options (28-75, 70-180, 35-150, etc). 

I think Canon is doing a great job on the glass they’ve made for RF so far. I hope they pick up the pace, though. In my humble opinion, they need to roll out an L-quality wide/super wide prime (preferably something good for group shots _and_ astrophotography) and some L-quality APS-C lenses in the pipeline asap.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> True but it is easy to see through people trolling who are from other ecosystems. It is fine to keep track of the overall market and trends though.
> 
> 
> Can you list the lenses that Canon can't meet from their EF/RF system?
> I have the Samyang 14mm/2.8 as Canon's 14mmL is stupidly expensive and poor coma and I don't need auto focus for astro-landscapes. The Samyang is the right price for my usage and budget.


Yes, sure, I can list lenses for the Sony system which are substantially more to my liking than what I can currently get in the Canon EF/RF system. In fact, I have done it before:






Canon’s roadmap includes 32 new lenses by 2026 according to Canon’s CEO


Sounds like you picked the wrong stores. Start with A or B, and you get one every time. Perhaps you missed the reference to the .nl domain (Netherlands). If you read posts from contributors in Europe you would see that many of them have a much more difficult time getting new releases that...




www.canonrumors.com










Sigma: Hopefully One More Mount in 2022


I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to...




www.canonrumors.com





Or to give another example, take the situations with ultra wide zoom lenses. With the Sony system, I can choose between the relatively traditional Sony 16-35 f/2.8 which is highly regarded or lenses such as the small and light Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 and Sigma 16-35 f/2.8. In the Canon system, if I want an RF lens (which ideally I would want), I choose between an extremely expensive (and not exacxtly small and light) f/2.8, a still very expensive f/4, or a rather slow aperture 15-30. If I go with an EF mount lens, I have more options and price points, but nothing very small or light (and the adapter doesn't help in that regard) or even really that cheap. No doubt the EF 16-35 f/4 is an excellent lens, but I would rather take my chances with the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 or Sigma 16-35 f/2.8 given they are lighter, smaller, cheaper and a stop faster. (Yes, I know there are optical trade offs required to make the lenses smaller and lighter, and yes, I'm sure I could get by just fine with max f/4 on an UWA zoom. However, as I say, I'm more excited to take my chances with a smaller, lighter and cheaper f/2.8 lens.)

To be clear, these are my personal preferences taking into account size, weight, cost, etc. I am not saying Canon doesn't make good gear. Much of it is excellent, and even the gear I'm critical of (eg the RF 35 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2) is not actually bad gear. I am, however, unimpressed with Canon, taking into account the package of image quality, size, weight, cost, etc. With Sony, I can get a relatively small and light system with at least pretty good image quality, and (probably) not have to sell a kidney to get it. The EF/RF system doens't offer that. (You can use EF gear and pay less compared with RF gear, but a lot of it still isn't exactly cheap and it doesn't allow for small and light.) I know the RF system still hasn't been around that long, but if there were third party manufacturers making RF lenses, there is a greater chance someone would be making the sort of lenses which appeal to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.


OMG, a camera format that is a couple of months old is already dead because Canon only released two native lenses at launch. I mean, it's not like RF lenses can work on it or the dozens of EF and EF-S lenses can work on it with a simple adapter or anything, right?

Hey chicken little, the sky isn't falling.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.


Your post is simply ridiculous, sorry.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> Canonrumors... you guys need to remove that "Third Party Lenses for RF" article. It is fully misleading in terms of expectation. I've bought my RP because of that article. Now I have RP + 35, 50 and 85 for RF mount. I need 100-400 and 24. Existed two lenses are not good. So I have to buy $3k 100-500 and 15-35 2.8 or switch to any other system. As you understand this is already exceeds my expenditure for this hobby. I will not sell my current setup because it do what I want from it, but there is no future in it. You should not give a good faith in canon for people that might want to buy their first camera or smth.
> 
> Maybe I would find a new job and wouldn't care for such expenditure. But I'm not a professional so I don't have any excuse for purchasing L lenses.


What makes you say the existing RF 100-400 and RF 24/1.8 are not good? One of our highly respected forum members, who has shot with great white lenses and has the RF 100-500L, also has and sings the praises of the RF 100-400.

As for system cost, for FF you can get a set of three zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for $1500, or if you swap the 16/2.8 for the 15-30, you can cover UWA to telephoto for $1250. IMO, that's a bargain for a FF system.


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 31, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> IIRC the Zeiss EF lenses had a proper license .


There was no licensing of technology on those lenses. Zeiss said it themselves. They were fully manual anyway. Canon also has a page on their site saying there are no third-party licensed EF lenses.


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There is no law against reverse engineering. If the 3rd parties are infringing on patents then that is a different story.
> "certain number of users" is the key issue. Given Canon's dominance and ongoing profitability for their shareholders, I don't see them being worried about a few users that they lose vs the potential new EF/RF lenses that they can sell. Canon cannot be everything to everyone and doesn't attempt to do so albeit their EF plus RF lenses cover a huge range of niches.
> 
> 
> ...


Canon has stopped manufacturing a number of EF lenses, especially ones with a direct RF replacement. Supply chain, plus there are copious numbers in the wild already of basically all of them.
Sigma for one is still selling all their EF lineup and even marketing the HSM DSLR lenses (on mirrorless bodies too, either in the E versions or on the Canon/Nikon adapters --- I mean, see their promotional blog, which has posts about using the DSLR lenses in the field made recently). I actually think Sigma is going to keep making EF lenses for a bit longer than Canon.
Obviously one day they will stop. I'm actually pretty sure they'll be making RF lenses by then. And considering how they have kept even every superseded DSLR lens on the market, I think really they're a long way off from discontinuing them.


----------



## amorse (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you list the lenses that Canon can't meet from their EF/RF system?
> I have the Samyang 14mm/2.8 as Canon's 14mmL is stupidly expensive and poor coma and I don't need auto focus for astro-landscapes. The Samyang is the right price for my usage and budget.


I think that's my biggest concern here - not necessarily affordability, but the fact that these manufacturers wouldn't be filling niches that aren't lucrative for Canon to fill going forward. For instance, there are EF versions of off brand lenses that Canon just aren't likely to make in RF. Some examples - the Sigma 14mm f/1.8, 14-24 f/2.8, 105mm f/1.4, and the Laowa 24mm probe - for me, all of those are interesting lenses. All of those are available for EF and can be adapted today so the pathway to use them remains, but my fear is that over time these new small niche lenses no-longer get released in a format which can be used on RF. I'm sure the people leaving for lack of these lenses is a drop in the bucket (by definition of being niche lenses) compared to what Canon stands to gain by building walls around the ecosystem, so I understand the decision, but as a user it does concern me.


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> Canonrumors... you guys need to remove that "Third Party Lenses for RF" article. It is fully misleading in terms of expectation. I've bought my RP because of that article. Now I have RP + 35, 50 and 85 for RF mount. I need 100-400 and 24. Existed two lenses are not good. So I have to buy $3k 100-500 and 15-35 2.8 or switch to any other system. As you understand this is already exceeds my expenditure for this hobby. I will not sell my current setup because it do what I want from it, but there is no future in it. You should not give a good faith in canon for people that might want to buy their first camera or smth.
> 
> Maybe I would find a new job and wouldn't care for such expenditure. But I'm not a professional so I don't have any excuse for purchasing L lenses.


May I recommend the Sigma 100-400C and 24mm prime. These are both readily available and will work like a charm on your RP. There are many improvements using them on the R-series vs. a DSLR.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2022)

antonio_s said:


> There was no licensing of technology on those lenses. Zeiss said it themselves. They were fully manual anyway. Canon also has a page on their site saying there are no third-party licensed EF lenses.


OK, but they are not _fully_ manual, they have electronically controlled apertures.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 31, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.


Wild guess: They will port most or all of the M-mount lenses to RF within two years. I'd like the 11-22 as well but I imagine that, for most people, the 18-150 will be good enough.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Aug 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you say the existing RF 100-400 and RF 24/1.8 are not good? One of our highly respected forum members, who has shot with great white lenses and has the RF 100-500L, also has and sings the praises of the RF 100-400.
> 
> As for system cost, for FF you can get a set of three zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for $1500, or if you swap the 16/2.8 for the 15-30, you can cover UWA to telephoto for $1250. IMO, that's a bargain for a FF system.


I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day. Sigma on the other hand is not. Sigma starts to struggle on 400mm. I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount. 

On youtube you would find a review for 24mm 1.8. It has god awful coma and this is deal breaker for me. Again I can adapt any other EF lens, yes. But I'm new to the system and the rf mount is fresh as well. I can wait for a proper lens and I did. 24 1.8 not worth the money. With no 3rd party I'm no longer considering to invest in RF mount.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day. Sigma on the other hand is not. Sigma starts to struggle on 400mm. I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.
> 
> On youtube you would find a review for 24mm 1.8. It has god awful coma and this is deal breaker for me. Again I can adapt any other EF lens, yes. But I'm new to the system and the rf mount is fresh as well. I can wait for a proper lens and I did. 24 1.8 not worth the money. With no 3rd party I'm no longer considering to invest in RF mount.


For the particular lens you are after options exist on L and E mounts from Sigma in the form of the newly released 20mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 DG DNs. Canon may make lenses in that category but they haven’t yet and they would cost a lot more while not necessarily being a lot better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day.


So a lens costing $2900 is sharper than a lens costing $550. I'm shocked. Simply shocked. I get that many people want L-series performance at inexpensive prices. As me ol' Irish Da said, wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day.


I regularly use both the RF 100-500mm and (2 copies of) the RF 100-400mm on my R5 and R7 and can tell you first hand that they do not differ like "night and day". The RF 100-500mm is better, but the RF 100-400mm is damn good and pretty close to the EF 100-400mm II. There is a thread here on it: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm-first-impressions.40938/ Also look at these shots of Dragonflies in Flight: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/page-77#post-940673

I really wish people wouldn't propagate judgments on what they haven't seen first hand. (ps, look at the measured sharpness across the field from 200-400mm https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm-lens-review-36026/performance )


----------



## ColinJR (Aug 31, 2022)

Maybe I am being too generous toward Canon, but I have to believe that some part of this is not just a money grab but a quality control thing—they don't want bad lenses making their cameras look bad. However, this is a solved problem: 3rd party lens makers ought to be able to have Canon 'certify' whatever they want to release for the RF mount. Call it 'Made for Canon' or something like that. They should be able to certify (and collect royalties) on the sale of 3rd party lenses. Would this mean that a Sigma lens will be more expensive on RF than on E-mount? Yes, but for the most part Canon's lenses are already higher in price than the competition, so... ‍¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I just really want to buy some Sigma primes for my Canon, and not have to adapt the EF versions.


----------



## Chema Photo (Aug 31, 2022)

Also Yongnuo produces RF lenses, I guess soon they won't...


----------



## antonio_s (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day. Sigma on the other hand is not. Sigma starts to struggle on 400mm. I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.
> 
> On youtube you would find a review for 24mm 1.8. It has god awful coma and this is deal breaker for me. Again I can adapt any other EF lens, yes. But I'm new to the system and the rf mount is fresh as well. I can wait for a proper lens and I did. 24 1.8 not worth the money. With no 3rd party I'm no longer considering to invest in RF mount.


I have had no focus issues with the Sigma 100-400 on the R5 and R7 personally.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> For the particular lens you are after options exist on L and E mounts from Sigma in the form of the newly released 20mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 DG DNs. Canon may make lenses in that category but they haven’t yet and they would cost a lot more while not necessarily being a lot better.


According to TDP, the 24mm Sigma is absolutely comatose! TDP hasn't tested the 20mm yet, so to recommend it is risky at least, unless you rely on Youtube reviews or DPReview...which I certainly wouldn't


----------



## dominic_siu (Aug 31, 2022)

I’ve changed to R then R5 simply because I want to use Canon RF lenses and I’m very pleased with the result I got for these 4 years


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 31, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> According to TDP, the 24mm Sigma is absolutely comatose! TDP hasn't tested the 20mm yet, so to recommend it is risky at least, unless you rely on Youtube reviews or DPReview...which I certainly wouldn't





Del Paso said:


> According to TDP, the 24mm Sigma is absolutely comatose! TDP hasn't tested the 20mm yet, so to recommend it is risky at least, unless you rely on Youtube reviews or DPReview...which I certainly wouldn't


The reviews of both the 24mm and 20mm have been largely positive. The 20mm seems to be the better of the 2 from the reviews I have seen.

What do you mean by comatose and which site is TDP?


----------



## rpg51 (Aug 31, 2022)

I wonder if this will stop Laowa's wonderful macro line up for the R mount. Fully manual, so maybe not?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day. Sigma on the other hand is not. Sigma starts to struggle on 400mm. I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.
> 
> On youtube you would find a review for 24mm 1.8. It has god awful coma and this is deal breaker for me. Again I can adapt any other EF lens, yes. But I'm new to the system and the rf mount is fresh as well. I can wait for a proper lens and I did. 24 1.8 not worth the money. With no 3rd party I'm no longer considering to invest in RF mount.


Before buying, read the TDP reviews, they are among the serious ones.
The Sigma 24 F1,4 DG has horrible coma, for instance!


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> The reviews of both the 24mm and 20mm have been largely positive. The 20mm seems to be the better of the 2 from the reviews I have seen.
> 
> What do you mean by comatose and which site is TDP?


A: lots of coma
B: The Digital Picture (one of the few serious review sites)


----------



## Etienne (Aug 31, 2022)

Sony endorses Canon's decision! $$$$$


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 31, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> A: lots of coma
> B: The Digital Picture (one of the few serious review sites)


Yes it has some coma, it mentions in the digital picture review that while he hoped for better coma performance it wasn’t unusual for that class of lens. What level of coma that is acceptable is for individuals to decide for themselves. If someone wants a better lens for coma performance that means getting the 24mm f1.4 GM which is quite a bit more expensive. Nice to have the choice though.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There is no law against reverse engineering. If the 3rd parties are infringing on patents then that is a different story.


That's a fair point. Hopefully this is just Viltrox being sloppy and infringing on something they should not have. Hopefully we will see reverse engineered Sigma, Tamron, Tokina lenses. But this hits home because Sony will license their mount to you and has a rapidly growing 3rd party catalog, while RF is a desert of 3rd party options.



David - Sydney said:


> "certain number of users" is the key issue. Given Canon's dominance and ongoing profitability for their shareholders, I don't see them being worried about a few users that they lose vs the potential new EF/RF lenses that they can sell.



It's not going to be "a few users." And you don't have to lose much more than a few for the lost body/lens sales, marketshare, and word-of-mouth to exceed the profits captured on the other end. See dlee13's post for a real life example. Canon lost body and lens sales. People will now see him shooting Sony. When they ask his opinion, he will recommend Sony 'because of the 3rd party lens options.' Those people will go on to buy Sony.

Canon would be wise to just license the mount.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Yes it has some coma, it mentions in the digital picture review that while he hoped for better coma performance it wasn’t unusual for that class of lens. What level of coma that is acceptable is for individuals to decide for themselves. If someone wants a better lens for coma performance that means getting the 24mm f1.4 GM which is quite a bit more expensive. Nice to have the choice though.


I'll just wait for the Canon RF version...


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 31, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> That's a fair point. Hopefully this is just Viltrox being sloppy and infringing on something they should not have. Hopefully we will see reverse engineered Sigma, Tamron, Tokina lenses. But this hits home because Sony will license their mount to you and has a rapidly growing 3rd party catalog, while RF is a desert of 3rd party options.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Back in June a Sigma UK rep told me that they are waiting on licenses from both Canon and Nikon so that they can release lenses on those platforms. Recent events point to that not only being a good move but also potentially mandatory. Sigma, Tamron and Cosina will know what has happened to Samyang, Viltrox and Yongnuo and have no doubt already researched if reverse engineering is possible from a technical standpoint to which the answer is almost certainly yes but then might have already discovered or been told by outright by Canon that legally it’s prohibited.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> It's not going to be "a few users." And you don't have to lose much more than a few for the lost body/lens sales, marketshare, and word-of-mouth to exceed the profits captured on the other end. See dlee13's post for a real life example. Canon lost body and lens sales. People will now see him shooting Sony. When they ask his opinion, he will recommend Sony 'because of the 3rd party lens options.' Those people will go on to buy Sony.
> 
> Canon would be wise to just license the mount.


You should really tell Canon. Be sure to mention that one person switched over this issue, like an iceberg that is 90% underwater, there must be at least 9 more people switching over this travesty. Maybe they've never even considered licensing their mounts.

You and others on this forum know so much more about the camera business than the company that's dominated it for >20 years, it's really a shame that none of you seem willing to just tell Canon what they've been doing wrong all these years and exactly how to fix it. Speak up, man. The fate of the photography industry and thousands of jobs are all down to you!


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 31, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Your post is simply ridiculous, sorry.


Sorry to hurt your feelings. 
Good look waiting for 02 fast primes in 10 years of R mount.


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 31, 2022)

Chema Photo said:


> Also Yongnuo produces RF lenses, I guess soon they won't...


I doubt, Yongnuo is 100% Chinese, has nothing to lose. 
Unlike Viltrox and samyang which have contracts outside China.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> It's not going to be "a few users." And you don't have to lose much more than a few for the lost body/lens sales, marketshare, and word-of-mouth to exceed the profits captured on the other end. See dlee13's post for a real life example. Canon lost body and lens sales. People will now see him shooting Sony. When they ask his opinion, he will recommend Sony 'because of the 3rd party lens options.' Those people will go on to buy Sony.
> 
> Canon would be wise to just license the mount.


Wisdom is seen in hindsight but I don't think that it is correct today. Canon is more likely to lose long term by licensing the mount now than keeping it proprietary and forcing 3rd party lens manufacturers to use their reverse engineered EF mount. For all we know, Canon may currently be actively selling a license but at a cost that the 3rd parties are not willing to buy at.

I get that users would prefer a native mount but that simply isn't possible for all lens niches. I don't get the concerns against adapting EF. The standout for me is that the EF40mm pancake doubles in size etc when adapted whereas a RF version should be svelte if more expensive.

There will always be some differences between lens ecosystems that may mean switchers but it is expensive to switch and learn a new system. Canon has a lot of unique lenses in EF/RF that would prompt switchers the other way... net adds is the key metric here.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.


Can you tell me where the "dead" comes from? 
There is a gap in UWA RF-S lenses where adapted EF-S lenses is needed for instance but otherwise?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

antonio_s said:


> Canon has stopped manufacturing a number of EF lenses, especially ones with a direct RF replacement. Supply chain, plus there are copious numbers in the wild already of basically all of them.


Can you list the EF lenses that have been made end-of-sale that affected you? Supply chain is affecting everyone so I am not sure it is limited to Canon.


----------



## Kharan (Sep 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I think this is likely. But I think it is a bit more like, Canon *needs* 1st crack on any sale of RF lenses. Nobody here knows or seems to consider how much R&D money went into developing the RF mount and the new RF lenses. So nobody knows how many cameras and especially lenses Canon needs to sell before they recoup that money. A year's worth? 3 years? 5 years? I have no idea, but from a business point of view, Canon would be stupid if they if they allowed competitors to make profits on RF lenses when they were the ones who spent all the R&D money.
> 
> On another thread I compared this scenario to when a new drug comes to market. The developer of the drug has a 6 year exclusivity window to sell their product before generic drugs can be sold by others. The reason for that window is obvious, it's there so the maker of the drug can recoup their R&d costs. Otherwise, why would any drug company develop a new drug? I've been in that situation of having to spend $700 a month for a drug while waiting for the generic version to come to market. Luckily I had health insurance that kicked in after my $1800 deductible. Many aren't so lucky.
> 
> ...


Really? Adding four extra pins and keeping the same physical characteristics of the EF bayonet, with a shorter flange, seem worth millions of dollars to you? If there was one company that didn't need to spend tons of money on their mirrorless transition, that was Canon, who had pretty much all of the pieces already before the launch of RF. Heck, the overall size of the electronic contact patch on RF is identical to EF! I wouldn't be surprised if the perfect level of integration achieved in adapting by Canon was due to them simply expanding on the EF protocol, instead of rewriting it.

To me, this isn't really an argument. But it's great that you bring up pharmaceuticals, who actually mostly purchase the patents for new drugs from universities and public research institutes for peanuts, and then get six years to stuff their pockets full. Because pharmaceutical companies actually spend a pittance on R&D, the ones who do are governments and nonprofits, and they reap only a tiny part of the profits (because they don't have the infrastructure to mass-produce drugs). Canon are trying the same, make the public believe that they made some big investments in their tech, when they really only spent spare change for their new system, and want the exclusivity to rake in more cash.

I think this sort of short-term thinking will do Canon harm. It's not 2011 anymore. Their imaging division has already been downsized, and it'll be necessarily shrunk further in the future. Canon won't be able to cover all the gaps in RF in 2-3 years, and even worse, the competition is *inventing new gaps* in the meantime with bold, innovative designs. EF lenses are reasonably well adapted on all other mirrorless mounts now, and so the existing, massive EF userbase isn't at all forced to stay with the company if they go mirrorless.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

amorse said:


> I think that's my biggest concern here - not necessarily affordability, but the fact that these manufacturers wouldn't be filling niches that aren't lucrative for Canon to fill going forward. For instance, there are EF versions of off brand lenses that Canon just aren't likely to make in RF. Some examples - the Sigma 14mm f/1.8, 14-24 f/2.8, 105mm f/1.4, and the Laowa 24mm probe - for me, all of those are interesting lenses. All of those are available for EF and can be adapted today so the pathway to use them remains, but my fear is that over time these new small niche lenses no-longer get released in a format which can be used on RF. I'm sure the people leaving for lack of these lenses is a drop in the bucket (by definition of being niche lenses) compared to what Canon stands to gain by building walls around the ecosystem, so I understand the decision, but as a user it does concern me.


EF isn't going away anytime soon and any 3rd party still needs to make money with volume of sales vs R&D cost. I agree that there are some interesting niches out there but they each have their pros and cons. The best part is that there will be a second hand market for these before and even after they go end-of-sale. I have bought a few lenses second hand simply because the new price was too expensive for the amount of time that I use them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.


Does it have the same focus issues when used on DLSR?


----------



## antonio_s (Sep 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you list the EF lenses that have been made end-of-sale that affected you? Supply chain is affecting everyone so I am not sure it is limited to Canon.


The discontinuations haven't affected me (I have a bunch of EF lenses, some Canon, plus a bunch of Sigma). All the lenses that have been recently discontinued (https://www.canonrumors.com/recently-discontinued-ef-lenses/) are readily available second-hand or even still in stock places. Or in some cases there is a superior new lens available (the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 vs. the Canon 135mm f/2, or the RF replacements for a few of these).


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

jd7 said:


> To be clear, these are my personal preferences taking into account size, weight, cost, etc. I am not saying Canon doesn't make good gear. Much of it is excellent, and even the gear I'm critical of (eg the RF 35 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2) is not actually bad gear. I am, however, unimpressed with Canon, taking into account the package of image quality, size, weight, cost, etc. With Sony, I can get a relatively small and light system with at least pretty good image quality, and (probably) not have to sell a kidney to get it. The EF/RF system doens't offer that. (You can use EF gear and pay less compared with RF gear, but a lot of it still isn't exactly cheap and it doesn't allow for small and light.) I know the RF system still hasn't been around that long, but if there were third party manufacturers making RF lenses, there is a greater chance someone would be making the sort of lenses which appeal to me.


Appreciate your explanation. 
Weight/size has not been an issue for me up til now and I guess that my budget has been larger than some others as well. That said, I have bought a few lenses second hand as I couldn't justify the new price and they have worked flawlessly for me.

Canon hasn't subscribed to the mirrorless = tiny dream and I am thankful for someone who has larger hands. But the RP is still very small/light and would only be a backup for me.

What would be fascinating to know is how much R&D money has Sony pumped into their ff mirrorless system. It must have been hemorrhaging money to start with so I wonder when it tipped over into positive territory. Canon certainly made a lot of money from selling Canon EF lenses to early Sony users.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 1, 2022)

What I don't understand is why Canon is so slow releasing new lenses. How can Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, or even Sony release at a faster pace?
For example, Sony released 3 very good wide-angle lenses for APS-C at the same time, something I would never imagine Canon to do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What I don't understand is why Canon is so slow releasing new lenses. How can Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, or even Sony release at a faster pace?
> For example, Sony released 3 very good wide-angle lenses for APS-C at the same time, something I would never imagine Canon to do.


Canon's pace of releasing RF lenses in the first 4 years of the mount was faster than Sony's pace when they launched FF MILCs. Canon previously stated they're planning to release ~8 lenses/year for the next four years.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Back in June a Sigma UK rep told me that they are waiting on licenses from both Canon and Nikon so that they can release lenses on those platforms. Recent events point to that not only being a good move but also potentially mandatory. Sigma, Tamron and Cosina will know what has happened to Samyang, Viltrox and Yongnuo and have no doubt already researched if reverse engineering is possible from a technical standpoint to which the answer is almost certainly yes but then might have already discovered or been told by outright by Canon that legally it’s prohibited.


Properly done, reverse engineering for interoperability is legal. But it can be difficult, costly, and then costly to defend in court. Best case is Canon licenses the mount, and does so soon. Acceptable case is they just don't interfere with properly reverse engineered lenses. Worst case is they actually fight 3rd party participation, which will only erode their marketshare and profits over time.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You should really tell Canon. Be sure to mention that one person switched over this issue, like an iceberg that is 90% underwater, there must be at least 9 more people switching over this travesty. Maybe they've never even considered licensing their mounts.


The "you're too small of a sample" argument is completely irrelevant here. When you would throw that at people complaining about DR there was years of relevant sales data to show that it was not negatively affecting Canon's sales. This is new. People were noticing the absence of 3rd party RF lenses, but until now it was easy to blame the pandemic and supply chains. Given the existence of a few, nobody was expecting Canon to all of a sudden try and block them. Everyone was expecting Sigma and Tamron and Tokina lenses "any day now."

If this is Canon's position...and that is still an "if"...the impact has yet to be felt. Come back in three years and tell us whether or not we were too small of a sample.



neuroanatomist said:


> You and others on this forum know so much more about the camera business than the company that's dominated it for >20 years,


Just because Canon _has_ dominated it, does not mean Canon _will continue_ to dominate it. I know that at my next kit overhaul, I will not want to invest in a closed mount with limited options. I know that other people were already complaining about that, before anyone had reason to believe that something more than supply chains were at fault. And I know that unlike DR, lens catalog size and cost is something that serious buyers consider before choosing a mount. That's more than enough for me to speculate that this is a poor decision on Canon's part which may cost them the #1 spot. (Isn't Sony still #1 in FF mirrorless sales? Is lens support already a reason? How long until it impacts total sales?)



neuroanatomist said:


> it's really a shame that none of you seem willing to just tell Canon what they've been doing wrong all these years and exactly how to fix it. Speak up, man.


I've already submitted feedback to Canon that if they really do have a closed mount policy then at my next overhaul I will likely move to Sony.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Wisdom is seen in hindsight but I don't think that it is correct today. Canon is more likely to lose long term by licensing the mount now than keeping it proprietary and forcing 3rd party lens manufacturers to use their reverse engineered EF mount.


Explain how Canon won with dlee13.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> The "you're too small of a sample" argument is completely irrelevant here. When you would throw that at people complaining about DR there was years of relevant sales data to show that it was not negatively affecting Canon's sales. This is new.


Well, that explains how you know exactly what is going to happen, even if poor, benighted Canon does not. The hammer will fall.

Incidentally, the R system seems to have been selling very well for Canon over the past four years, despite the dearth of 3rd party lenses. Canon knows that quite well, even if it's escaped your attention. Enjoy your Sony gear!


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2022)

Kharan said:


> Really? Adding four extra pins and keeping the same physical characteristics of the EF bayonet, with a shorter flange, seem worth millions of dollars to you? If there was one company that didn't need to spend tons of money on their mirrorless transition, that was Canon, who had pretty much all of the pieces already before the launch of RF. Heck, the overall size of the electronic contact patch on RF is identical to EF! I wouldn't be surprised if the perfect level of integration achieved in adapting by Canon was due to them simply expanding on the EF protocol, instead of rewriting it.


There is a website where someone claims to have tested the pins and found that the existing pins in the same positions serve the same functions. The new pins apparently implement a high speed serial interface.

That raises the question of how the existing 3rd party lenses were implemented, because if true it means you could ship an RF lens which relies entirely on EF protocol. And the EF cat left the bag years ago. I wouldn't think Canon would have a legal angle to threaten anyone shipping an RF lens using EF protocol.



Kharan said:


> I think this sort of short-term thinking will do Canon harm. It's not 2011 anymore. Their imaging division has already been downsized, and it'll be necessarily shrunk further in the future. Canon won't be able to cover all the gaps in RF in 2-3 years, and even worse, the competition is *inventing new gaps* in the meantime with bold, innovative designs. EF lenses are reasonably well adapted on all other mirrorless mounts now, and so the existing, massive EF userbase isn't at all forced to stay with the company if they go mirrorless.


Bingo.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

Kharan said:


> Really? Adding four extra pins and keeping the same physical characteristics of the EF bayonet, with a shorter flange, seem worth millions of dollars to you? If there was one company that didn't need to spend tons of money on their mirrorless transition, that was Canon, who had pretty much all of the pieces already before the launch of RF. Heck, the overall size of the electronic contact patch on RF is identical to EF! I wouldn't be surprised if the perfect level of integration achieved in adapting by Canon was due to them simply expanding on the EF protocol, instead of rewriting it.


The physical changes are minimal but please don't discount the R&D effort needed to develop new protocols for the next generation of body/lens combinations. You can get some idea of effort based on open standards for buses in PCs etc. It is easier to do a proprietary interface than getting multiple parties to agree but it still requires effort and imagination for the future.



Kharan said:


> Canon are trying the same, make the public believe that they made some big investments in their tech, when they really only spent spare change for their new system, and want the exclusivity to rake in more cash.


Canon set a new bar in the R5 letting their engineers off their leashes. That was a massive first new R mount body that wasn't using spare parts. It clearly took years to develop only for 3 video setting thermal limitations to overtake the market perception. There is still no other hybrid body can take 8k/30 raw after 2 years.
Kudos for Sony to be able to have better power/performance efficiency in their sensor/processor for battery life in a small body though.



Kharan said:


> I think this sort of short-term thinking will do Canon harm. It's not 2011 anymore. Their imaging division has already been downsized, and it'll be necessarily shrunk further in the future. Canon won't be able to cover all the gaps in RF in 2-3 years, and even worse, the competition is *inventing new gaps* in the meantime with bold, innovative designs. EF lenses are reasonably well adapted on all other mirrorless mounts now, and so the existing, massive EF userbase isn't at all forced to stay with the company if they go mirrorless.


From less than a month ago, Canon has stated that we are at the bottom of the market and for growth after that in the "advanced amateur and pro" segments.
Can you explain why the imaging division will be shrunk in the future? Canon is all in for RF which will set them up in the long term. They have no other option.

Almost all new RF lenses have added new features as well as additional cost premiums. These are innovative in the market and would prompt users to move to Canon if it makes sense. Canon are inventing new gaps as well!
- Premium lenses like the RF50/1.2, 85/1.2 28-70/2, RF5.2mm. 
- RF14-35mm/4 in a 77mm filter thread is another. 
- Getting new users into 600/800mm focal ranges with their cheap f11 lenses was a brilliant move that may get users into the RF100-500 or other big whites.

It was a no-brainer for me to migrate to RF as my EF lens collection kept me in the ecosystem. I didn't believe that adapting my EF lenses to Sony etc was a benefit especially as I knew that new R bodies would come. I am glad that waited and have no regrets now.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, that explains how you know exactly what is going to happen, even if poor, benighted Canon does not. The hammer will fall.


I know what I'm going to do. I know what other people are going to do. And I have a good idea what newbies are going to do as the gap in lenses and lens pricing grows. That's enough for a prediction.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Viltrox just stepped on a patent they shouldn't have, and that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are either already licensed, or already done properly and legally reverse engineering the mount. But if Canon is actually trying to close the mount in a world where everyone else either licenses their mount or at least doesn't block reverse engineered 3rd party lenses, it is not going to end with them holding onto the #1 spot.



neuroanatomist said:


> Incidentally, the R system seems to have been selling very well for Canon over the past four years, despite the dearth of 3rd party lenses.


But not well enough to take the FF mirrorless sales spot from Sony. Again I ask: does lens availability already have something to do with this? And how long until it impacts total sales?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Explain how Canon won with dlee13.


A single data point is still valid but doesn't make a trend or would impact Canon. There will always be switchers to Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Oly and switchers to Canon
Net ads is the real metric which we don't have the data on except to look at overall market share and Canon isn't looking too bad given R mount is only 4 years old.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I know what I'm going to do. I know what other people are going to do. And I have a good idea what newbies are going to do as the gap in lenses and lens pricing grows. That's enough for a prediction.


Wow, you have a really low bar for predictions. If you have two pennies in your pocket, every coin in the world must be a penny.



dtaylor said:


> I hope I'm wrong. I hope Viltrox just stepped on a patent they shouldn't have, and that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are either already licensed, or already done properly and legally reverse engineering the mount. But if Canon is actually trying to close the mount in a world where everyone else either licenses their mount or at least doesn't block reverse engineered 3rd party lenses, it is not going to end with them holding onto the #1 spot.


Lol, yes by all means predict d00m for Canon. People doing that here have such a great track record.



dtaylor said:


> But not well enough to take the FF mirrorless sales spot from Sony. Again I ask: does lens availability already have something to do with this? And how long until it impacts total sales?


There are four 3rd party autofocus lenses in a native EF-M mount, the same number as for the RF mount. The M line is a more budget-conscious market level than FF MILCs where you'd expect 3rd party lenses to have a bigger presence, and the M line is the best-selling APS-C MILC globally. So the dearth of 3rd party lenses clearly isn't an impediment to Canon's success.

Sony has been making FF MILCs for twice as long as Canon, and now has only 5% more of the FF MILC market share than Canon. That's far more evidence of a trend than a couple of people on the internet claiming they have or will someday switch brands. But you seem quite skilled at not letting facts and data influence your opinions.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow, you have a really low bar for predictions. If you have two pennies in your pocket, every coin in the world must be a penny.


And what is your prediction based on? Canon has been #1 for a while so surely that can never change? That's a fallacy in case you did not know.



neuroanatomist said:


> Lol, yes by all means predict d00m for Canon. People doing that here have such a great track record.


#2 spot isn't d00m, but's probably also not where Canon executives and shareholders want them to be.



neuroanatomist said:


> There are four 3rd party autofocus lenses in a native EF-M mount, the same number as for the RF mount. The M line is a more budget-conscious market level than FF MILCs where you'd expect 3rd party lenses to have a bigger presence, and the M line is the best-selling APS-C MILC globally.


The M line sells so well because it fills the gap left by the death of the P&S market. That's why it also doesn't need very many lenses to sell well. It is not a proper point of comparison. What is happening in the prosumer/professional FF market?



neuroanatomist said:


> Sony has been making FF MILCs for twice as long as Canon, and now has only 5% more of the FF MILC market share than Canon.


Think about what you're saying: when Sony started they had practically zero of the FF market. As the market is transitioning from DSLRs to mirrorless Canon has failed to retain the #1 spot. Can Canon get it back by locking out 3rd party lenses? Kinda doubtful.

You can bring up DSLR+mirrorless FF sales, but Canon has to retain those DSLR users as they transition. I don't see how locking out 3rd party lenses helps them do that.



neuroanatomist said:


> That's far more evidence of a trend than a couple of people on the internet claiming they have or will someday switch brands.


The trend right now is Sony landing at #1 in FF after all new sales are mirrorless. If Canon's position is no 3rd party RF glass, do you really think that will help or hurt the trend from their viewpoint? Be honest, don't just cheerlead. 

I guarantee that Sony executives are happy about this dust up. They will do everything in their power to make sure the considerable talent and manufacturing at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are dedicated to E-mount.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 1, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Sorry to hurt your feelings.
> Good look waiting for 02 fast primes in 10 years of R mount.


You're absolutely right! My tender feelings are deadly hurt!
It's scandalous that Canon turns out a new APS/C camera, and that, 4 FULL month later, they don't even have at least 50 new lenses for it!
You have convinced me, I'll jump ship, Canon is d....d.


----------



## 2 cents (Sep 1, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> For me, Canon cameras and lenses are my work gear and literally every previous third-party lens I've owned presented some sort of issue at one point or another that rendered the lens useless for a period of time or it had some strange issue develop. My Sigma Art primes are still terrific lenses and because I only have my remaining "niche" primes of 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 that I don't use as often as my 50mm and 85mm, they're not going anywhere. But I certainly can't afford to have a lens in my bag that could be rendered useless overnight because of a firmware update - that has been the case with some Tamron and Sigma lenses I've owned.
> 
> With all that said, this is a truly unfortunate blunder from Canon. Third party lens options are one of the primary elements that helped the success of the EF mount. I know when I was an up-and-coming teenager I could only afford a few Canon lenses and filled in what I could with Sigma stuff. I would eventually only rely on Canon lenses in my work kit, but that took a long time to fully be able to afford. This is very bad news for the countless thousands of aspiring photographers that want to shoot Canon are will have to either adapt an out of production EF lens, or use one of the many JUNK cheap-o RF lens options on the market right now. And yes, I said JUNK because for the prices they're selling for, you could have a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 zoom that crushes it and Canon knows that.


I am the same. Been a very satisfied Canon user for over 30 years, and pro photographer for over 20 years. I only buy and use, and rely on Canon gear for my work. Yet I also agree that this is a major blunder. But then.... I'm not particularly thrilled with the R system, and its lenses. I bought an R5, but still use the 5D mk4 for work as I find it better in many ways for the work I do. I use the R5 for my personal hobby stuff, like nature and birds. I don't like any of the RF lenses for birds - either way too expensive and heavy, or too slow, or a zoom when I prefer a prime. Nikon make a relatively inexpensive fast 500mm, Sony make a great long zoom - and so do Tamron - and I'd buy one if it was available in RF mount. If Canon won't let them make one, I will not be happy. No, I wont jump ship to Nikon tomorrow, but can't keep excluding that ever happening either. I satisfaction with Canon is waning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> And what is your prediction based on? Canon has been #1 for a while so surely that can never change? That's a fallacy in case you did not know.


Never is a long time, and Canon has led the ILC market for >20 years. That's strong evidence that they make good business decisions. You disagree with this one, that's fine. But suggesting Canon will lose market share over this is not supported by any evidence. Believing your opinion is fact is also a fallacy in case you didn't know.

You are basing your prediction on a handful of statements on the internet. Canon sells millions of cameras a year. Do you honestly believe this forum and others are industry bellwethers? If so, you're willfully ignoring years of evidence to the contrary. Not that I find that surprising, some people still believe the earth is flat, which just goes to show there are plenty of idiots out there.



dtaylor said:


> #2 spot isn't d00m, but's probably also not where Canon executives and shareholders want them to be.


Canon has ~50% of the ILC market share. Sony is in the #2 spot with ~25% of the ILC market. Millions of users need to switch from Canon to Sony to change the ranking. Do you honestly see that happening, and if so, do you honestly think it can happen in just a year or two? And can you honestly say that a lack of 3rd party RF mount lenses will be the reason? If you do, well, maybe you also believe the earth is flat.



dtaylor said:


> The M line sells so well because it fills the gap left by the death of the P&S market. That's why it also doesn't need very many lenses to sell well. It is not a proper point of comparison. What is happening in the prosumer/professional FF market?


Even with the shifts in the market, FF comprise the small minority of ILCs sold (<20%). Yes, FF gear generates more unit revenue, which is why Canon continues to invest there. The fact that their FF MILC market share is only 5% less than Sony is significant.



dtaylor said:


> Think about what you're saying: when Sony started they had practically zero of the FF market. As the market is transitioning from DSLRs to mirrorless Canon has failed to retain the #1 spot. Can Canon get it back by locking out 3rd party lenses? Kinda doubtful.


You can segment the market as much as you like. I recall when Sony did a press release that they were #1 in FF cameras. In one country. For one month. Yay!

My point is that locking out 3rd party lenses is not likely to have a significant impact on market share either way. Many FF DSLR users have not yet switched to MILC, and part of the reason for that is likely that the RF lineup is not fully fleshed out (though at 8 lenses/year, it's getting there pretty fast), and they don't want to switch brands.



dtaylor said:


> You can bring up DSLR+mirrorless FF sales, but Canon has to retain those DSLR users as they transition. I don't see how locking out 3rd party lenses helps them do that.


From 2020 to 2021, Sony gained ~5% FF market share. Canon also gained ~5% FF market share. Seems that Canon is retaining their customer base. The loser here is Nikon. They've had some nice gear launch over the past year, so hopefully they can stem the tide of their dropping market share.



dtaylor said:


> The trend right now is Sony landing at #1 in FF after all new sales are mirrorless. If Canon's position is no 3rd party RF glass, do you really think that will help or hurt the trend from their viewpoint? Be honest, don't just cheerlead.


I honestly don't think it will make much of a difference at all, either way.



dtaylor said:


> I guarantee that Sony executives are happy about this dust up. They will do everything in their power to make sure the considerable talent and manufacturing at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are dedicated to E-mount.


They're probably happy that it's Thursday, too. This 'dust up' is probably about that significant.

You should also consider that Canon executives are satisfied with this decision, after all they're the ones that made it. Once again, you don't like their decision and so you label it a mistake. By doing so, you're ignoring that the decision was made by a company with a long history of making decisions that resulted in gaining a market-leading position and expanding that position to one of domination (having a greater market share than your next three competitors combined qualifies). Could they be wrong? Sure. But they didn't license the EF mount, either, and most likely there were cases where 3rd parties infringed on their IP and Canon took steps to stop it (which is a very common corporate practice, obviously). Quite obviously, that didn't stop them from dominating the ILC market.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2022)

As far as I can tell, Canon didn't claw their way to the top of the market by making bad business decisions. If this is a bad business decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Canon is foolish. So if all the people claiming this will hurt Canon are right, then we will see them take another path. Everything else is just noise.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As far as I can tell, Canon didn't claw their way to the top of the market by making bad business decisions. If this is a bad business decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Canon is foolish. So if all the people claiming this will hurt Canon are right, then we will see them take another path. Everything else is just noise.


If you make a 100 decisions that each cost you 1% of revenue, you've lost almost two thirds of it in the end. And each decision in itself isn't bad enough to need to get reversed.

Anyway, I really hope there will be a lot of 3rd party RF lenses, with at least electronic aperture control. I don't care much about AF for specialist macro lenses. My favourite lens (MP-E 65mm) doesn't even have manual focus


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you tell me where the "dead" comes from?
> There is a gap in UWA RF-S lenses where adapted EF-S lenses is needed for instance but otherwise?


Fast primes for example.
Lets look at the EF-m, just the 22mm f/2 and 32mm 1.4.
EF-s is even more disappointing. 

Sigma, Viltrox and Samyang got us corved with 12mm f/2, 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4, 33mm 1.4, 56mm 1.4.

If you starting do buy L glass for aps-c, you are better of just buy a FF Body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Fast primes for example.
> Lets look at the EF-m, just the 22mm f/2 and 32mm 1.4.
> EF-s is even more disappointing.
> 
> ...


I never really understood the point of using a fast prime on APS-C*. Heck, if you want a fast prime the iPhone 13 Max has f/1.5 for wide and f/1.8 for ultrawide...and a small sensor to go with them.

Compared to APS-C, a FF sensor gathers more light meaning less noise in low light, and gives shallower DoF for the same framing. If not for use in low light or achieving shallow DoF, what's the point of a fast lens? If those are your goals, a FF sensor is a better choice than APS-C.

Ok, so I get that APS-C is cheaper. That's why Canon doesn't bother with many fast primes for APS-C – the majority of the market for cheaper cameras doesn't want or need them.

*Ok, I exaggerate a bit. I have both the M22/2 and M32/1.4, and they are useful in low light when I am only bringing the M system because it's smaller and lighter. But those lenses are good enough for me, and I've not felt the need to get the 3rd party options (plus, I'm a bit lazy and prefer AF in general).


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I never really understood the point of using a fast prime on APS-C*. Heck, if you want a fast prime the iPhone 13 Max has f/1.5 for wide and f/1.8 for ultrawide...and a small sensor to go with them.
> 
> Compared to APS-C, a FF sensor gathers more light meaning less noise in low light, and gives shallower DoF for the same framing. If not for use in low light or achieving shallow DoF, what's the point of a fast lens? If those are your goals, a FF sensor is a better choice than APS-C.
> 
> ...



You can’t even compare a iPhone to APSC, the former is much better. Any mobile sensor falls apart with editing in RAW. Even Apple ProRAW is just them doing a big HDR and passing it off as a single RAW image which it isn’t.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> You can’t even compare a iPhone to APSC, the former is much better. Any mobile sensor falls apart with editing in RAW. Even Apple ProRAW is just them doing a big HDR and passing it off as a single RAW image which it isn’t.


That was my point. If RAW image quality is important, FF is a better choice to pair with your fast prime than APS-C.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 2, 2022)

I guess this is good for Canon as long as they feel they can sell enough cameras and lenses. In some ways it is good for Sony and Nikon right now as it is a good reason for many people starting out to not choose Canon. Currently with the prices of Canon RF lenses I have been telling people go with Sony and try out some Tamron or Sigma lenses as they are almost as good as the Sony ones but significantly cheaper. Currently I have only 1 RF lens and have no plans to get more in the near future as my EF lenses are good enough (both Canon and Sigma). With the rising cost of gear in the last couple of years I can see many people not ever getting further than the kit lens unless they find an relatively inexpensive first jump into "more interesting" glass.


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I never really understood the point of using a fast prime on APS-C*. Heck, if you want a fast prime the iPhone 13 Max has f/1.5 for wide and f/1.8 for ultrawide...and a small sensor to go with them.
> 
> Compared to APS-C, a FF sensor gathers more light meaning less noise in low light, and gives shallower DoF for the same framing. If not for use in low light or achieving shallow DoF, what's the point of a fast lens? If those are your goals, a FF sensor is a better choice than APS-C.
> 
> ...



One point to use a fast prime on an APS-C is for extra equivalent reach for more pixels on bird (7D II, 90D, R7,) Another reason is APS-C bodies and lenses are more affordable. When I first got into photography lots of the advice was to buy a cheaper body and spend more on your lenses. Another reason is some APS-C bodies are faster then FF for the same price or cheaper and for what I do the faster FPS 90D is more suitable for me then the 6D II or RP. You still get the benefits of a shallow DoF and less ISO noise when using a fast prime compared to a slower lens on an APS-C.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> One point to use a fast prime on an APS-C is for extra equivalent reach for more pixels on bird (7D II, 90D, R7,)


Fast primes are generally considered to be in the f/1.2 to f/2 range. While f/4 is a wide aperture for a 600mm lens, I wouldn’t call my 600/4 a ‘fast prime’. 



SnowMiku said:


> Another reason is APS-C bodies and lenses are more affordable. When I first got into photography lots of the advice was to buy a cheaper body and spend more on your lenses. Another reason is some APS-C bodies are faster then FF for the same price or cheaper and for what I do the faster FPS 90D is more suitable for me then the 6D II or RP. You still get the benefits of a shallow DoF and less ISO noise when using a fast prime compared to a slower lens on an APS-C.


Cost and kit size are the main reasons for using APS-C, IMO. But my point still stands – if you are shooting in low light or need shallow DoF, a larger sensor is the better choice. 

Keep in mind that equivalence works both ways. A 24-105/4 on FF is wider, longer and effectively faster than an EF-S 17-55/2.8 on APS-C.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fast primes are generally considered to be in the f/1.2 to f/2 range. While f/4 is a wide aperture for a 600mm lens, I wouldn’t call my 600/4 a ‘fast prime’.
> 
> 
> Cost and kit size are the main reasons for using APS-C, IMO. But my point still stands – if you are shooting in low light or need shallow DoF, a larger sensor is the better choice.
> ...


Yes, you would need a 15-66/2.5 on APS-C to be equivalent to the 24-105/4 on FF. I would like an f/4 or faster telephoto prime for my R7 to take advantage of its tiny pixels for extra reach by giving less diffraction blur, but that's usually for me in the situation when both the APS-C and FF would be cropped to the same size in mm on the sensor and equivalence doesn't come in to the equation.


----------



## 2 cents (Sep 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did you miss the point that Canon is a for-profit company


So is a drug dealer.


----------



## MrVista (Sep 2, 2022)

It is difficult to fault the Canon RF glass except for the price of the L series which places them outside many amateur hobbyists range. The L series are aimed at professionals who, assuming that they are successful, can afford the best and wouldn't buy third party even if available. Canon are trying to make cheaper non L series RF glass for the average hobby photographer and maybe they can do that. They are broadening the body range in price and features so expensive lenses wont appeal to anyone who bought the cheapest Canon RF body, sadly the cheap lenses probably wont deliver. So far the lenses look ok but reviews that pit the L against the non L for sharpness are probably unfair. No weather sealing, no lens hoods, a lot of in camera corrections and general plastic fragility means used EF L with the adapter might be best for most on a budget.
It should be pointed out that the third party autofocus lenses were basically a slightly modified EF lens design and electronics with a mount adapter built in. The Samyang 85 F1.4 and 16 F2.8 had good optical properties with reasonable autofocus and weather sealing ... a fraction of the price anything canon produced in the L series. What are Canon missing ? The Prime lenses for wide aperture and wide angle are not used that much so the amateur can't justify the thousands of $ for a Canon L lens. I feel that Canon want to fill out the range for RF full frame and the APS-C for L and non L and sell enough before allowing third party competitors in. This could take many years so I wouldn't hold my breath. But for me I have halted buying RF lenses to fill niches and will likely sell all my Canon gear and switch to Sony or Nikon where I can buy third party lenses. Anyone else planning to do the same ?


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 2, 2022)

BBarn said:


> I suspect Viltrox's apparent method of reverse engineering a solution that reports their lens as a Canon EF lens led to Canon's actions. Deception isn't an acceptable approach.


Third party lens manufacturers have been doing this for years for EF mount, without any legal action from Canon. E.g. I'm attaching a screenshot of EXIF data presented by ExifTool of a photo I took with a 5DmkII and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM. Note the data says it's a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Or a Sigma lens, probably because it has a focal range of 12-24mm. It is known well enough for DxO and Photoshop to correctly recognize with which lens this photo was taken and choose the appropriate profile, IIRC, for over a decade.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 2, 2022)

cayenne said:


> That's a bit different situation. They were illegally using Apple created software sold on those machines.
> 
> If they were selling ONLY the hardware without OSX, they'd be fine.
> 
> ...


When Apple released the ProDOS for the Apple II, it checked the computer's ROM for the string it displays during startup to see if it was an Apple or a clone. There's a trick here - if the clone did not display a message saying it's an Apple II, ProDOS wouldn't load. If it did, it was fraud. If anyone changed ProDOS to skip the test, it would be "dodging copy-protection technologies Apple uses to protect Mac OS X". Oops, ProDOS.

Which is my point - Apple's lawyers have engineered the situation so running OS X on clones would be illegal, in this by adding a clause to the OS X EULA forbidding third party installation.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 2, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm attaching a screenshot of EXIF data presented by ExifTool of a photo I took with a 5DmkII and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM. Note the data says it's a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Or a Sigma lens, probably because it has a focal range of 12-24mm. It is known well enough for DxO and Photoshop to correctly recognize with which lens this photo was taken and choose the appropriate profile, IIRC, for over a decade.



In Sigma's case the statement was true do to the "or Sigma lens" content of the reporting. Viltrox reported the lie that their RF lens was a Canon EF lens. At any rate, it appears Canon is pushing back against 3rd party AF lenses using the RF mount.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 2, 2022)

BBarn said:


> In Sigma's case the statement was true do to the "or Sigma lens" content of the reporting. Viltrox reported the lie that their RF lens was a Canon EF lens. At any rate, it appears Canon is pushing back against 3rd party AF lenses using the RF mount.


The string "or Sigma lens" is not in the raw file. If you look at ExifTool source code, you'll see it has a translation table from a decimal codes in the raw file to strings describing the lens, which the developers came up with themselves. Sigma didn't have its 12-24mm report that it's a Sigma lens. It "reported the lie that their 12-24mm lens was a Canon EF 300mm f/4L".

[You could claim Sigma reported this via the mismatching min & max focal lengths. I'd consider it if you could show that one couldn't tell whether a photo was taken with a Viltrox lens or a Canon lens just by looking at the EXIF data. I doubt that's the case, as it would make it harder for third party photo editors to select the right profile.]

Yes, it does appear Canon is pushing back against 3rd party AF lenses. I doubt the legal basis for this is deception in the Viltrox lens telling the camera its a Canon lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> The string "or Sigma lens" is not in the raw file. If you look at ExifTool source code, you'll see it has a translation table from a decimal codes in the raw file to strings describing the lens, which the developers came up with themselves. Sigma didn't have its 12-24mm report that it's a Sigma lens. It "reported the lie that their 12-24mm lens was a Canon EF 300mm f/4L".


3rd party lenses 'spoof' a Canon lens code. It has caused problems in the past, e.g.:






Dear Canon EOS 6D Mark II, EOS 77D, EOS Rebel T7i, EOS Rebel SL2 Users | SIGMA Corporation of America


SIGMA Corporation of America is a subsidiary of the Sigma Corporation, a Japanese based family owned manufacturer of DSLR cameras, camera lenses and camera accessories. Founded in 1961, Sigma Corporation prides itself on high quality and innovative photographic equipment.




www.sigmaphoto.com


----------



## Tahoejr (Sep 2, 2022)

Sigma & Tamron make some unique multi-purpose lenses that appeal to hobbyists and those new to mirrorless that I doubt Canon will ever bother with. Such as the recent Tamron 50-400, 18-300 and more. Canon still captures the sale of the camera body with hope that the user can eventually move up to Canon glass.


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keep in mind that equivalence works both ways. A 24-105/4 on FF is wider, longer and effectively faster than an EF-S 17-55/2.8 on APS-C.


I understand the DoF equivalence, but does that also apply to ISO? Assuming both are using the same lens and were side by side with the same settings, if an APS-C metered at ISO 400, would a FF meter the same scene at ISO 160? I'm thinking they would be the same ISO but I actually don't know.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 3, 2022)

TTArtisan has just announced a 25mm f2 APS/C lens in Canon RF mount...
(To be read on "Opticallimits").


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I understand the DoF equivalence, but does that also apply to ISO? Assuming both are using the same lens and were side by side with the same settings, if an APS-C metered at ISO 400, would a FF meter the same scene at ISO 160? I'm thinking they would be the same ISO but I actually don't know.


The iso would be the same for both. The iso component of exposure is determined by the shutter speed and the f-number of the lens, and equivalence doesn't come into it. If you have for example on a sunny day a 600mm f/16 on the FF and and a 22mm f/16 on the APS-C and both at 1/100s, the iso would be the same for both, at about 100.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I understand the DoF equivalence, but does that also apply to ISO? Assuming both are using the same lens and were side by side with the same settings, if an APS-C metered at ISO 400, would a FF meter the same scene at ISO 160? I'm thinking they would be the same ISO but I actually don't know.


As @AlanF stated, the metered ISO would be the same. Exposure is determined by light per unit area on the sensor. However, the image noise would be lower on FF, because image noise is determined by total light gathered and a larger sensor gathers more light. So if your scene meters at ISO 400, you could set the FF camera to ISO 1000 and get the same image noise as ISO 400 on APS-C. 

Practically, that means more flexibility with FF. You can have lower noise, or you can have the same noise but stop down 1.3-stops if you want more DoF, or use a 1.3-stop faster shutter speed to stop subject movement. 

The benefit is mainly in challenging situations. With modern NR algorithms, the difference in image noise between FF and APS-C at ISO 400 is imperceptible. Shooting on a sunny day, my EOS M6II delivers results as good as my R3. At ISO 6400, the noise difference is evident. Shooting moving subjects in low light, FF gives a noticeable advantage.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 3, 2022)

Sad. There are a couple of Sigma lenses that I would like to use. Not buying more Canon lenses due to this but also not dropping the system due to transition costs. Maybe my new drone will see more use?


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3rd party lenses 'spoof' a Canon lens code.


That's what I said.


neuroanatomist said:


> It has caused problems in the past, e.g.:


Yes, I remember turning aberration correction in Canon cameras with Sigma lenses (or some combinations of those) would cause circles to appear, because the the aberrations of the Sigma lenses differ from those of the spoofed Canon lenses.


----------



## SteveOLV (Sep 3, 2022)

Probably why there's no 3 party battery grips for the R 5&6..


----------



## MartinVLC (Sep 4, 2022)

I shoot Canon for 15 years and got the EOS RP 1,5 years ago. I was going to get the EOS R succesor when it (I guess) comes out next year and keep the RP as second body. 

But if the news is true and by then there are still no Tamron or Sigma lenses available on the RF mount, I´m going to sell my entire gear and switch to most probably Sony. 

It´s a shame, because I like the Canon ergonomics way better and I like the idea that with canon a photocentric company is a big player in the business and not only huge multinationals like Sony.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 4, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I feel like a sucker buying into the RF system and finding that they're blocking the third party suppliers, and also so slow to deliver the primes I actually want, both "street" primes (50/2, 35/2, 28/2, non-IS non-macro tiny and better image) as well as "purposeful-shooting pro" primes (28/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8) and "halo" primes (35/1, 50/0.7, 135/1.4).
> 
> I can't believe that 5 years after buying my R I'm still carrying an EF adapter around. If you had told me that in 1998 I'd be shooting Sony or Nikon. So congratulations, Canon, you tricked me. I acknowledge it. You won. Your customers lost. Your customers got fucked.


You'd buy both a 35mm f/1 and a 50mm f/0.7? Good for you.


----------



## vignes (Sep 4, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Tamron just announced a 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 for the Nikon Z mount, surely a Canon RF version can't be too far behind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I won’t use Nikon as an example to push bigger companies that have greater market share. Nikon will do anything now to grow their market share. Sony went with working with 3rd party because they were growing their business and required 3rd parties to fill their gaps. Now they’re established but they do have some control over the 3rd parties.

Canon is coming from an established business with a huge market share. They also subject to greater support and quality control as their user demands them to do so. Sony in the other hand was seen as 2nd or 3rd tier product when they started the E mount journey, and many users bought them with low expectation. Now it’s a different case and you can see Sony is a bit more careful with their release by maintaining good quality products.

You can expect Canon to keep their RF mount closed for some time because they’re now trying to establish the MILC business, but I would expect some sort of partnership arrangement in future.

If Canon wants to keep the mount closed, then they should give us more better lower costs lenses options. I simply do not like the non-L RF lens options. I am not impressed with the build quality. Canon should follow Sony's approach where Sony has the GM tier, which is the highest quality tier, but they have G line which is almost as good as the GM but with lower costs price point.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 4, 2022)

This thread is a microcosm of CanonRumors over the ~decade I've been here. I totally get why some people would be upset (if this is true), but too many tip over from "I hate this/it will affect my decisions going forward" to "this will harm Canon". I've heard that before - year after year - and it never materialised. "Past performance does not guarantee future success" sure, but I always ask, why is this the time your d00m-mongering is correct, when it never was before? I've never had a satisfactory response, I won't expect one now.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 4, 2022)

scyrene said:


> This thread is a microcosm of CanonRumors over the ~decade I've been here. I totally get why some people would be upset (if this is true), but too many tip over from "I hate this/it will affect my decisions going forward" to "this will harm Canon". I've heard that before - year after year - and it never materialised. "Past performance does not guarantee future success" sure, but I always ask, why is this the time your d00m-mongering is correct, when it never was before? I've never had a satisfactory response, I won't expect one now.


I’m unaware of any other news coming out regarding this industry that has caused such a negative response. Whether this causes any actual noticeable harm to Canon remains to be seen. What I can say with almost certainty is that if Canon had made an announcement that they are opening up the RF mount to all 3rd parties and that the agreement includes the authority for 3rd parties to build their own teleconverters and no limits on frames per second (which is what Sony do) but in addition lenses will be fully compatible with no affects to AF performance like is the case on emount they would be receiving plenty of praise. Also I plenty of people would be claiming that Canon is about to dominate the mirrorless market and make even Sony a distant 2nd and make Nikon irrelevant.

Nokia used to dominate the phone market but 1 fatal mistake all of their own making destroyed them.


----------



## codym90 (Sep 4, 2022)

I can see how people might be upset about this. Usually after awhile Canon releases some more affordable lenses though. As long as they do that I don't care at all. Heck we can't play Xbox games on Playstation and vice versa. Plus some 3rd party lenses are trash. Definitely not a bad thing as long as Canon drops a lot more lenses soon or maybe only allow the big names to do RF lenses like Sigma etc.
-Cody McCracken
Kingsport Tn Boudoir Photography


----------



## scyrene (Sep 4, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I’m unaware of any other news coming out regarding this industry that has caused such a negative response. Whether this causes any actual noticeable harm to Canon remains to be seen. What I can say with almost certainty is that if Canon had made an announcement that they are opening up the RF mount to all 3rd parties and that the agreement includes the authority for 3rd parties to build their own teleconverters and no limits on frames per second (which is what Sony do) but in addition lenses will be fully compatible with no affects to AF performance like is the case on emount they would be receiving plenty of praise. Also I plenty of people would be claiming that Canon is about to dominate the mirrorless market and make even Sony a distant 2nd and make Nikon irrelevant.
> 
> Nokia used to dominate the phone market but 1 fatal mistake all of their own making destroyed them.


I mean, a good proportion of that negative response - in this thread at least - is you yourself. I have no idea the scale of it more generally, especially as it's mostly conjecture.

Regardless, it's worth remembering that criticism/praise ≠ sales gained or lost. Way too soon to know what, if any, effect this might have.

And naysayers have been citing Nokia (and sometimes Kodak) for as long as I've been here too. Nobody denies a dominant company can lose that position - but you have to explain why Canon is the next Nokia _now_, this time, with more than just "I don't like what they're doing".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I’m unaware


Clearly.



SNJ Ops said:


> I’m unaware of any other news coming out regarding this industry that has caused such a negative response.


Canon was d00med because Nikon had better low ISO DR. Canon was d00med because they were the last to enter the MILC market. Canon was d00med because when they did enter the MILC market, it was with a camera as terrible as the EOS M. Canon was d00med because Sony had a much better lens selection.

Canon has been d00med on these forums for so many reasons for so long that the mods banned the word d00med. Somehow, despite all of those claims, they continue to dominate the market. Think about that.

As for ‘such a negative response’ there is a thread here with a few negative comments (many of which are yours), a thread on DPR (probably with more negative comments, again probably many of them yours although I admit I have not read the thread so I could be wrong about that), and a couple of articles on photo news sites parroting the facts from one another with little or no commentary. That’s comparatively pathetic as far as negative responses go. 

The R5 overheating issue generated far more negative commentary. As did the Sony ‘star eating’ problem. 




SNJ Ops said:


> Whether this causes any actual noticeable harm to Canon remains to be seen.


Noticeable harm as a result of this issue is about as likely as noticeable harm resulting from a butterfly flapping its wings.




SNJ Ops said:


> What I can say with almost certainty is that if Canon had made an announcement that they are opening up the RF mount to all 3rd parties and that the agreement includes the authority for 3rd parties to build their own teleconverters and no limits on frames per second (which is what Sony do) but in addition lenses will be fully compatible with no affects to AF performance like is the case on emount they would be receiving plenty of praise.


It would’ve received plenty of praise from you at least, but also would not have made any difference to Canon‘s bottom line.



SNJ Ops said:


> Nokia used to dominate the phone market but 1 fatal mistake all of their own making destroyed them.


And you think this is Canon‘s fatal mistake? LOL. Feel free to keep riding this personal hobby horse of yours, it’s not taking you anywhere.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2022)

scyrene said:


> IAnd naysayers have been citing Nokia (and sometimes Kodak) for as long as I've been here too. Nobody denies a dominant company can lose that position - but you have to explain why Canon is the next Nokia _now_, this time, with more than just "I don't like what they're doing".


Like many on this forum, @SNJ Ops seems to believe that his/her personal beliefs and desires represent those of the majority. I could be nice and call it hubris, but really it’s just plain foolish.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2022)

I love all the people who denigrate the lower cost Canon lenses when I know that most, if not all, have never come within 100 yards of these lenses. They are such discerning photographers that I'm surprised I've never seen their work in any galleries.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Like many on this forum, @SNJ Ops seems to believe that his/her personal beliefs and desires represent those of the majority. I could be nice and call it hubris, but really it’s just plain foolish.


I haven’t said that my beliefs and opinions represent the majority. What I have said that the visible response to this news has been negative. You might disagree with that and that’s fine.
I fully acknowledge that for many Canon shooters they couldn’t care less if 3rd party lenses are available on RF or not but many do. What proportion that is I don’t know.

My issue is that many defending Canon seem to not understand that different people have different budgets, needs and desires. 

If someone is cross shopping systems and they need/want an f2.8 holy trinity here are 3 possibilities

Canon RF OEM 
15-35 - £2389
24-70 - £2359
70-200 - £2729
R6 - £2399 = £9876

Sony OEM 
16-35 - £1999
24-70 - £2099
70-200 - £2599
A7IV - £2399 = £9096

So Canon is more expensive by just over £700 even OEM vs OEM

No here is a price by going with all 3rd party lenses, all f2.8 lenses 

Sony 3rd party

Sigma 16-28 - £749
Tamron 28-75 - £849
Tamron 70-180 - £1149
A7IV - £2399 = £5149

I personally have nearly all OEM Sony glass but have some 3rd party lenses as well. If someone is on a budget and absolutely can’t afford the OEM glass on any FF platform what are they to do?

£9876 vs £5149


----------



## BBarn (Sep 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I love all the people who denigrate the lower cost Canon lenses when I know that most, if not all, have never come within 100 yards of these lenses. They are such discerning photographers that I'm surprised I've never seen their work in any galleries.


I own seven of the "cheap" Canon RF lenses. Their AF, IS, and IQ suit me just fine in most instances and do so at reasonable prices. Third-party lenses occasionally fill niches left by the OEM offerings but aren't free of their own positives and negatives. Just like OEM lenses they too have their pluses and minuses. More options are fine, but they are no guarantee of getting something better suited to a particular purpose or user.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 4, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I haven’t said that my beliefs and opinions represent the majority. What I have said that the visible response to this news has been negative. You might disagree with that and that’s fine.
> I fully acknowledge that for many Canon shooters they couldn’t care less if 3rd party lenses are available on RF or not but many do. What proportion that is I don’t know.
> 
> My issue is that many defending Canon seem to not understand that different people have different budgets, needs and desires.
> ...



I posted the same thing earlier on but some people are such strong Canon loyalists they would rather spend more for old inferior EF lenses over cheap and better third party options. 

If Canon had a very full RF lineup with all the same options as third parties and had actual reasonable pricing it would be somewhat reasonable to block third parties, but sadly then don’t. 

There are way more but just some of the third party options that could fill gaps in Canon’s lineup

Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DN Art
Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN Art (or Samyang version) or 35mm f/1.2 Art
Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 UMC II
SIgma 85mm f/1.4 DN Art or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 II
Sigma 70mm or 105mm DN Macro
Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, 70-300mm and 150-500mm


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 4, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> I posted the same thing earlier on but some people are such strong Canon loyalists they would rather spend more for old inferior EF lenses over cheap and better third party options.
> 
> If Canon had a very full RF lineup with all the same options as third parties and had actual reasonable pricing it would be somewhat reasonable to block third parties, but sadly then don’t.
> 
> ...


I agree.. I own the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art for emount and while the new GM II equivalent beats it in every way its not to the point where I feel the need to upgrade. The key thing is that choice is available for me to make. If you want a native 24-70mm f2.8 on RF there’s one lens and thats it. 

If someone only wants OEM glass that is their right and choice but some are denying this is an issue because its not an issue for them personally.

I don’t have an issue with Canon protecting their IP, they have a responsibility to do so. They can even choose to never to come to any agreements with 3rd parties but the idea that’s a good thing for everybody is false.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I haven’t said that my beliefs and opinions represent the majority. What I have said that the visible response to this news has been negative. You might disagree with that and that’s fine.


Yes, responses have been negative. I don’t disagree with that at all. What is disagree with is your conclusion that this will impact Canon’s bottom line. You claim that will happen, and you have no data to support that. Canon has been making business decisions since their inception, and over the past 20 years those decisions have overwhelmingly been correct. 



SNJ Ops said:


> I fully acknowledge that for many Canon shooters they couldn’t care less if 3rd party lenses are available on RF or not but many do. What proportion that is I don’t know.


Nor do I. But I believe that Canon has a very good idea of that proportion, with ample data to support decisions they make regarding 3rd party lenses. They didn't achieve market leadership and keep it for >20 years by making poor business decisions 

Moreover, Viltrox isn’t the only 3rd party lens maker. Or even a major one. You may assume that Canon has taken action against others, but there’s no evidence for that. Why did Samyang stop making RF lenses? Maybe they just aren’t selling well, so they consolidated products at their subsidiary, Rokinon.



SNJ Ops said:


> My issue is that many defending Canon seem to not understand that different people have different budgets, needs and desires.
> 
> If someone is cross shopping systems and they need/want an f2.8 holy trinity here are 3 possibilities


I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?

RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 $550

Pair that with an EOS RP and you have an excellent FF kit costing $2500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I don’t have an issue with Canon protecting their IP, they have a responsibility to do so. They can even choose to never to come to any agreements with 3rd parties but the idea that’s a good thing for everybody is false.


Who is saying it's good for everybody? Even as a strawman, that's asinine. It doesn't have to be good for anybody...except Canon. You keep arguing that it's a bad decision for Canon. Other than the fact that it seems to have pissed off you and a few other people, what evidence do you have to support the argument that it's bad for Canon?

As I indicated, Canon has lots of data on who has purchased what lenses from whom. If they have decided to lock out 3rd party AF lenses from Viltrox, why do you think that matters to any significant fraction of customers, or really any entity except Viltrox?

Here are RF Rokinon lenses, many of which have AF and are in stock at B&H/Adorama.









Canon RF


We make it easy to find the best Rokinon lenses online. Browse our entire collection of new Rokinon and XEEN lenses today.




rokinon.com





Is that consistent with your theory of Canon locking out all 3rd party lenses?


----------



## BBarn (Sep 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?
> 
> RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
> RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
> ...


That's sorta where I find myself. The smaller/lighter/lower cost lenses suit me fine for most uses. Many of the faster 3rd party lenses with competitive prices and very good performance are great, but they're simply not something I want to lug around. For someone else, they are a great fit. So while their absence is disappointing to them, others may not miss them at all.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 4, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> I posted the same thing earlier on but some people are such strong Canon loyalists they would rather spend more for old inferior EF lenses over cheap and better third party options.
> 
> If Canon had a very full RF lineup with all the same options as third parties and had actual reasonable pricing it would be somewhat reasonable to block third parties, but sadly then don’t.
> 
> There are way more but just some of the third party options that could fill gaps in Canon’s lineup


EF lenses work as well on RF bodies as they did on EF ones; indeed you get extra benefits with some. The only downside is the extra bulk of the adaptor. Why are they "inferior"? Third party lenses usually have some issues - such as dodgy AF. They are a great option for filling gaps missing in the lineup (for instance I love my Sigma 180mm macro because it has IS which the Canon equivalent lacks) and may be cheaper, but the idea they are intrinsically better is rather skewed. As for the lineup being insufficient - well it's still young, still developing, and they're releasing new lenses at a fair pace. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant... (Incidentally, I don't think anyone is saying they're glad if third parties are being locked out, just that it might make sense from Canon's perspective, and declaring it a bad business decision is likely unrealistic).


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, responses have been negative. I don’t disagree with that at all. What is disagree with is your conclusion that this will impact Canon’s bottom line. You claim that will happen, and you have no data to support that. Canon has been making business decisions since their inception, and over the past 20 years those decisions have overwhelmingly been correct.


I fully admit that I don’t know for sure if this will have any impact on Canon but I speculate that it will. 


neuroanatomist said:


> Nor do I. But I believe that Canon has a very good idea of that proportion, with ample data to support decisions they make regarding 3rd party lenses. They didn't achieve market leadership and keep it for >20 years by making poor business decisions
> 
> Moreover, Viltrox isn’t the only 3rd party lens maker. Or even a major one. You may assume that Canon has taken action against others, but there’s no evidence for that. Why did Samyang stop making RF lenses? Maybe they just aren’t selling well, so they consolidated products at their subsidiary, Rokinon.


In the screenshot that that started this whole discussion the Viltox rep clearly states that they weren’t the only ones to have been stopped from making RF glass. Samyang where quite vague when they pulled their lenses from the market but the speculation at the time was that Canon told them to stop. While there’s no evidence to confirm that, recent events make it very likely. Rokinon isn’t available in Europe, Samyang is but they don’t even mention RF lenses on their website anymore.


neuroanatomist said:


> I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?
> 
> 
> RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
> ...


In my comparison I mentioned f2.8 glass which is what a lot of enthusiasts and professionals would want. That $1500 kit will be perfect for many users on small budgets. Again I ask what about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 5, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I agree.. I own the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art for emount and while the new GM II equivalent beats it in every way its not to the point where I feel the need to upgrade. The key thing is that choice is available for me to make. If you want a native 24-70mm f2.8 on RF there’s one lens and thats it.
> 
> If someone only wants OEM glass that is their right and choice but some are denying this is an issue because its not an issue for them personally.
> 
> I don’t have an issue with Canon protecting their IP, they have a responsibility to do so. They can even choose to never to come to any agreements with 3rd parties but the idea that’s a good thing for everybody is false.



Yeah it’s all about choices which Canon is lacking at this current point in time. The more options available, the more appealing that system is. 

Funny enough I prefer OEM glass too but will go to third party options if they are better or nothing good/affordable is available. Canon have so many holes in their lineup which these third party lenses can fill. People who prefer OEM lenses could simply use them until Canon provides a reasonable priced alternative. 



scyrene said:


> EF lenses work as well on RF bodies as they did on EF ones; indeed you get extra benefits with some. The only downside is the extra bulk of the adaptor. Why are they "inferior"? Third party lenses usually have some issues - such as dodgy AF. They are a great option for filling gaps missing in the lineup (for instance I love my Sigma 180mm macro because it has IS which the Canon equivalent lacks) and may be cheaper, but the idea they are intrinsically better is rather skewed. As for the lineup being insufficient - well it's still young, still developing, and they're releasing new lenses at a fair pace. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant... (Incidentally, I don't think anyone is saying they're glad if third parties are being locked out, just that it might make sense from Canon's perspective, and declaring it a bad business decision is likely unrealistic).



They may work well but they often cost more than third party options (especially here in Australia) and add bulk. Not everyone wants to adapt lenses, they want native ones which is where third party options come in. 

Generally a newer lens will be better than an older one, especially for brands like Sigma and Tamron who have excellent quality products. Dodgy AF is something of the DSLR days, if you used a Sigma DN lens or Tamron one on a Sony body you would say they perform like native as they use the same AF protocols as Sony lenses. A lens that came out this year like the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 is light, faster and cheaper than the RF 16-35mm f/4L so I would call it an inferior lens. Same goes for many other focal lengths when you compare EF to DN or Tamron lenses. 

It’s not so much a rant either, it’s stating facts that Canon are simply hurting their users by blocking third parties when even Fuji and Nikon have come around to open their mounts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Again I ask what about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?


Do you really believe that Canon has not considered that? That seems incredibly improbable. They’re a business, and an extremely successful one as far as the ILC market is considered. Again I ask, do you believe Canon is so stupid or incompetent that they have not considered the consequences of blocking 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses? If you think so, you’re arguing with >20 years of history to the contrary.

If you acknowledge that they considered the consequences, and if it’s true that they have chosen to block 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses, the obvious implication is that Canon believes the consequences of that decision will be either positive or at worst neutral for them. Will they lose customers over this? Quite likely, yes. But most likely they’ve determined, based on data from EF lens vs. 3rd party lens sales, that forcing most users to buy OEM lenses more than offsets the loss of customers due to a closed mount (for AF lenses, at least).

You believe they will suffer negative consequences, Canon does not. Your argument is therefore predicated on your belief that you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Again, hubris would be a kind description of that belief. Blatant foolishness would be closer to the truth.

The answer to your question, “What about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?,” is basically too bad for them*. Sorry if you think that’s harsh. It’s not personal, it’s business. Something Canon obviously knows more about than you.

* Although, as I pointed out earlier, Canon actually has great RF lenses for users on a budget. A $550 OEM FF UWA zoom? Who else has that (and yes, that’s serious alphabet soup!)? An 800mm OEM prime for $900? Who else has that? Seems like you’re just upset because they don’t have the lenses _you_ want at the prices _you_ want. And the response to that is as above – too bad for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> It’s not so much a rant either, it’s stating facts that Canon are simply hurting their users by blocking third parties when even Fuji and Nikon have come around to open their mounts.


The fact is that Canon cares about profits, not users. Ok, they care about users, but only as the means for them to profit. If hurting a few users will generate proportionately more profit from a larger group of users, that’s the smart business decision to make.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact is that Canon cares about profits, not users. Ok, they care about users, but only as the means for them to profit. If hurting a few users will generate proportionately more profit from a larger group of users, that’s the smart business decision to make.


All of this assumes that Canon actually has made a decision to (somehow we don't understand) block 3rd party lens makers. If that is true, then I suspect their motive for doing so is to (i) maximise sales of their own RF lenses in the ST (and thereby recoup some more of the development costs more quickly), and (ii) shore up their negotiating position to move to some sort of paid licensing arrangement with 3rd parties for the LT (providing a nice ongoing income stream). Both of those make perfect business sense to me.

So, leaving aside hurt feelings over individuals not having immediate access to the particular 3rd party lens they want (in native RF mount as opposed to adapted EF mount), there are actual advantages to the scenario above: (i) Canon is more incentivised to release it's own RF lenses (as it expects to recoup it's fixed costs more quickly), and (ii) for those who can wait, fully licensed 3rd party RF lenses are likely to come - with full software and interface support, meaning they will actually be better than the limited back-engineered versions that we would otherwise have gotten.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact is that Canon cares about profits, not users. Ok, they care about users, but only as the means for them to profit. If hurting a few users will generate proportionately more profit from a larger group of users, that’s the smart business decision to make.


Often in scenarios like this the impact will only be seen once they have lost a lot of traction. Once people swap to another brand they are unlikely to swap back for quite some time, if ever. 

It’s not like giving access to third parties would be pure loss, they’d sell more bodies and get a cut of each third party lens sold too if they are licensing out their AF algorithm so more win win than anything.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2022)

Jethro said:


> All of this assumes that Canon actually has made a decision to (somehow we don't understand) block 3rd party lens makers. If that is true, then I suspect their motive for doing so is to (i) maximise sales of their own RF lenses in the ST (and thereby recoup some more of the development costs more quickly), and (ii) shore up their negotiating position to move to some sort of paid licensing arrangement with 3rd parties for the LT (providing a nice ongoing income stream). Both of those make perfect business sense to me.
> 
> So, leaving aside hurt feelings over individuals not having immediate access to the particular 3rd party lens they want (in native RF mount as opposed to adapted EF mount), there are actual advantages to the scenario above: (i) Canon is more incentivised to release it's own RF lenses (as it expects to recoup it's fixed costs more quickly), and (ii) for those who can wait, fully licensed 3rd party RF lenses are likely to come - with full software and interface support, meaning they will actually be better than the limited back-engineered versions that we would otherwise have gotten.


I think you might be too sensible for this forum. 

There may be something else to consider, though. As far as I know, Canon has never licensed its proprietary designs to third-party lens makers. So, one has to ask: What has changed? Presumably, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (The three major third-part lens makers) have always had to reverse engineer their designs in order not to violate Canon's patents and avoid lawsuits. What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach. 

In addition, why are people assuming that third-party lens makers will never reserve-engineer the RF mount? There are some alleged statements that they want to buy a license. But, we don't know if that is true and we don't know if they will refuse to reverse-engineer the RF mount if they cannot buy a license. 

In short, there is a lot of hysteria on this forum over something that no one really has any real information about. 

I do agree though that eventually this will all work itself out. If Canon can produce a sufficiently broad range of lenses to satisfy most (not all) users there will be no need for third-party lenses. If Canon finds they are losing business by taking an aggressive approach to protecting their proprietary designs, they will modify their course. 

In the end, it will be the market that decides what happens, not Canon and not third-party lens makers.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> [..]What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.[..]


I think it's a smart decision to only design from official specs, it avoids the lens misbehaving when the body gets a firmware update. What I wish is that Canon would license some parts, like the metadata needed for EXIF and iris control for an insignificant fee. They can keep AF, IS and DLO closed and protected by patents if they want to.

I just want Laowa to add (back) iris control to their Canon mount lenses 

I don't like that Canon, allegedly, is using legal posturing to take 3rd party lenses off the market. I don't know how that will impact Canons bottom line, most people I encounter with cameras are, in the original sense of the word, amateurs, like me. Going on a workshop for deer and boars, you'll see mostly 150-600 3rd party lenses, but visiting the mating spot, you'll see a long line of moustachioed dentists with big whites


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you really believe that Canon has not considered that? That seems incredibly improbable. They’re a business, and an extremely successful one as far as the ILC market is considered. Again I ask, do you believe Canon is so stupid or incompetent that they have not considered the consequences of blocking 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses? If you think so, you’re arguing with >20 years of history to the contrary.


In that over 20 year history their EF mount had substantial 3rd party support. Many Canon users assumed that this would continue on RF but it seems that assumption was wrong. Canon may well have made a decision to actively block 3rd parties or the situation is that 3rd parties can not reverse engineer the mount without infringing Canon’s IP and currently they have not issued licenses to anyone. I haven’t said Canon is stupid or incompetent but in my opinion as a consumer I don’t like it and if someone asks me which system I recommend before this news I would have recommended RF but now I will mention it but also make it very clear the the situation regarding the lenses. Instead I would recommend Sony, Nikon or Fuji.


neuroanatomist said:


> If you acknowledge that they considered the consequences, and if it’s true that they have chosen to block 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses, the obvious implication is that Canon believes the consequences of that decision will be either positive or at worst neutral for them. Will they lose customers over this? Quite likely, yes. But most likely they’ve determined, based on data from EF lens vs. 3rd party lens sales, that forcing most users to buy OEM lenses more than offsets the loss of customers due to a closed mount (for AF lenses, at least).
> 
> You believe they will suffer negative consequences, Canon does not. Your argument is therefore predicated on your belief that you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Again, hubris would be a kind description of that belief. Blatant foolishness would be closer to the truth.


I’m just 1 person, not foolish or full of hubris as you have claimed about me but rather thinking of fellow shooters and what this potentially means for the industry as a whole. 


neuroanatomist said:


> The answer to your question, “What about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?,” is basically too bad for them*. Sorry if you think that’s harsh. It’s not personal, it’s business. Something Canon obviously knows more about than you.


Business works both ways, if a company makes a decision that some customers don’t like they’ll vote by spending their money elsewhere. I fully acknowledge that this might end not meaning much at all but we don’t know that yet. Time will tell.


neuroanatomist said:


> * Although, as I pointed out earlier, Canon actually has great RF lenses for users on a budget. A $550 OEM FF UWA zoom? Who else has that (and yes, that’s serious alphabet soup!)? An 800mm OEM prime for $900? Who else has that? Seems like you’re just upset because they don’t have the lenses _you_ want at the prices _you_ want. And the response to that is as above – too bad for you.


Those are great options for those on very tight budgets but again those lenses will not suit everyone. You know full well that a lot of enthusiasts and pros won’t be interested in a variable aperture UWA lens. As for that 800m prime its an F11. If I where to take that to my local nature reserve my ISO would be very high even in daylight and I would have reduced subject isolation in my images which is not acceptable for the images I want to create and others will feel the same.

As for not having the lenses I want at the prices I want I shoot Sony and own mainly OEM glass. My 24-70mm f2.8 however is the Sigma Art because at the time it was the better lens than Sony’s equivalent. Its been bettered by the GM II but not by enough for me that I feel the need to upgrade.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> As for that 800m prime its an F11. If I where to take that to my local nature reserve my ISO would be very high even in daylight and I would have reduced subject isolation in my images which is not acceptable for the images I want to create and others will feel the same.


The noise in your image due to low light is not caused by the iso number but the noise in the amount of light. If you are taking a photo of a duck in your local nature reserve, there will be as many photons hitting the duck at the same shutter speed with an 800mm f/11, 400mm f/5.6 and 200mm f/2.8. So, an 800mm f/11 at iso 1600, 400mm f/5.6 at iso 800 and a 200mm f/2.8 at iso 400 will all have the same shutter speed and the same signal/noise in the image of the duck. Not many complain that 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 100-400 f/5.6 is unacceptable. Those who complain about the isos with the 800mm f/11 are too high to be usable tend to be those who have never actually tried out the lens. Here's a thread with some images going up to very high isos with the RF 100-500mm with the RF 2x at 1000mm and f/14.





Extenders and high iso with the R5


Concerns are frequently expressed about lenses like the RF 100-500mm with f/7.1 being narrow and so the images must surely be noisy because high isos are necessary in dim light? Some claim the 400mm f/5.6 is superior in low light because it is 2/3 of a stop faster (or a 1/3rd faster than the...




www.canonrumors.com




And here are some images taken last month with the 800mm f/11 on the R7 at a distance of 60-120m or so of Bee-eaters, as close as you could get to an extremely rare visit of these small birds to the UK. They are at the limit of resolution, but noisy they are not, and subject isolation was irrelevant at that distance and backgound. The 800mm f/11 is much, much more useful than an 800mm f/5.6 to a vast number of nature shooters who could never afford that lens and those who do have the money but could not carry it.





Ye Bee-eaters of Merrie England


Now, for those who thought it was a typo and were hoping to see photos of those guardians of the Tower of London, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The European Bee-eater is an extremely rare visitor to the UK but this summer a flock of 8 has taken up residence in Norfolk and are breeding in...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think you might be too sensible for this forum.
> 
> There may be something else to consider, though. As far as I know, Canon has never licensed its proprietary designs to third-party lens makers. So, one has to ask: What has changed? Presumably, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (The three major third-part lens makers) have always had to reverse engineer their designs in order not to violate Canon's patents and avoid lawsuits. What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.
> 
> ...


Sony is what has changed.. Sony has an official process where you can apply to make lenses for emount. So Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss and Tamron do not reverse engineer their lenses for Sony bodies which is why there are no compatibility issues. Samyang, Viltrox, Yongnuo and others do reverse engineer as I understand it but again there have been very very few issues with those lenses.

As for 3rd parties waiting for licenses I was told by a Sigma UK rep in June that they are doing just that. Why would they risk reverse engineering a lens if they know that Canon telling other companies to stop. Also consider that reverse engineering RF may infringe on Canon’s IP somehow so it becomes a legal issue rather than a technical one. Even if the legal issue was removed and Canon permitted reverse engineering but it meant that RF versions of lenses didn’t perform as well as their E mount equivalents no one would be happy with that scenario at all.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think you might be too sensible for this forum.
> 
> There may be something else to consider, though. As far as I know, Canon has never licensed its proprietary designs to third-party lens makers. So, one has to ask: What has changed? Presumably, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (The three major third-part lens makers) have always had to reverse engineer their designs in order not to violate Canon's patents and avoid lawsuits. What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.
> 
> ...


I really should stay out of this ... but ... Canon has never licensed its intellectual property to third party lens manufacturers ... and two third party lens manufacturers (Samyang/Rokinon and Viltrox) have released RF mount lenses with AF only for the lenses to disappear off the Samyang and Viltrox websites and to have disappeared from the market in the case of Samyang/Rokinon and be disappearing from the market in the case of Viltrox ... and only one other third party lens manufacturer has released an RF mount lens with AF (Yongnuo) and those lenses are not appearing in stores at least in my neck of the woods ... and you think the evidence is pointing towards third party lens manufacturers changing their approach? On your interpretation of events that means multiple relatively small third party lens manufacturers have been able to reverse engineer an RF mount lens and develop a lens with AF which works without infringing Canon's IP and, despite having spent the time and money to do that they have simply taken, or apparently are taking, their lenses off the market. Does that really seem more likely than that Canon has said it is going to sue them for IP infringement and settled the matter without ever commencing court proceedings (eg Canon could even just have said if you stop now we won't sue and if the other side was concerned it would be found liable if it got sued it might take an offer like that very quickly) and made it a term of settlement that the other side keeps quiet?

Reverse engineering a product means, basically, to pull it apart and work out how it works. Just because you have done that doesn't mean you can start making and selling a product which can operate in the same system as the product you reverse-engineered without breaching the law, in particular intellectual property law. That is because by reverse engineering the product you might now understand how it works, but you still cannot use any relevant IP such as any patented invention, or any software code which is subject to copyright, which you have learned about. Canon could have made it very difficult, perhaps impossible, for someone to make an RF lens with AF which doesn't need to use some item of intellectual property which Canon owns (and given the lack of third party AF lenses except for manual lenses, my guess is Canon owns IP which is relevant to camera-lens communications which third party manufacturers are struggling to find a way around without infringing Canon's IP even once they have reverse engineered the mount). So, for the RF system, it may be that it _is _Canon that will decide what happens (although no doubt it would be influenced by the market), and third party manufacturers will be unable to sell RF mount lenses without making themselves liable for IP infringement unless and until Canon grants a licence, at least until such time as Canon's relevant intellectual property expires.

I do agree though we don't actually _know _what Canon is doing, although given what has happened to third party RF lenses with AF, Canon's silence about third party lenses, and the lack of RF lenses or even development announcements from Sigma and Tamron, I know where I think the evidence points. And if Canon is shutting out third party lens manufacturers, it's possible Canon is willing to blow off some customers and perhaps even reduce its sales volume to chase higher margins, and if so it is posisble that may be that is the best approach for Canon. And if that is what Canon is doing, it may be that, as you say, Canon thinks it will just change tack if and when it ever thinks it needs to (and potentially Canon is a sufficiently big dog that if it did change tack belatedly, third party manufacturers might still jump on board). In the end, there are lots of options for how this could all play out. I can say, though, that _to me_ a Canon system without third party lenses is much less appealing than a Canon system with third party lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Jethro said:


> All of this assumes that Canon actually has made a decision to (somehow we don't understand) block 3rd party lens makers. If that is true, then I suspect their motive for doing so is to (i) maximise sales of their own RF lenses in the ST (and thereby recoup some more of the development costs more quickly), and (ii) shore up their negotiating position to move to some sort of paid licensing arrangement with 3rd parties for the LT (providing a nice ongoing income stream). Both of those make perfect business sense to me.


Agree (and have stated) that locking out 3rd parties remains just an assumption based on one anecdote. This was a chat between a customer and a customer service rep, not a press release or an official statement from a corporate executive on either side of the issue. Customer service reps often say things that turn out to be wrong or complete BS. 

I agree that it might make good business sense, but I’m not certain (ii) will happen. It never happened with the EF mount. Perhaps if RF lenses consistently fail to meet sales expectations (but of course, if that happens it would reduce the value of such a license to 3rd parties). 

A company trying to expand a minority market share is likely to benefit more from opening its platform than a company that already dominates the market. Most of Canon’s RF buyers are EF owners. Canon knows what fraction of those EF owners also owned reverse-engineered 3rd party lenses, and of those what fraction has bought R bodies. Those are the kind of data Canon uses to make a decision like this, and obviously none of us have access to those data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Your attack is utterly unjustified by his comments. Stop being such an asshole.


Thanks for sharing your opinion in such a puerile way. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Often in scenarios like this the impact will only be seen once they have lost a lot of traction. Once people swap to another brand they are unlikely to swap back for quite some time, if ever.


That’s true. However, your comment is merely an echo of a common refrain on these forums.

“_Canon is d00med because they’re doing X, so people will switch to SoNikon._”

“Canon dominates the market and knows how to run a business better than you.”

“_Canon’s d00m is coming, doing X will alienate their users and so many will switch that Canon will suffer. It just takes some time. Remember Kodak. Remember Nokia._”

**a couple of years pass, during which Canon’s market share grows a bit more**

“So, it seems Canon knows more about the camera business than you, and doing X was the right decision.”

—_silence_—

Until…

“_Canon is d00med because they’re doing Y, so people will switch to SoNikon._”

Rinse and repeat.

This has happened many times over the years. It always seems that X or Y, the issue that spells certain d00m for Canon, is an issue that the poster is has a strong personal desire to have. They assume that because it’s important to them, it’s important to a majority of users. I’m still not sure why it’s so hard for people to accept that Canon knows more about the ILC market than they do. But somehow they’re convinced their personal issue is the one that will break Canon. Lol.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Sep 5, 2022)

A couple of years ago there were no agreement between sony and major reporters agencies, because the canon was the main supplier of cameras and lenses. Now canon is rely on its loyal customer more heavily that it was before. It is obvious, they are want to have a customers that would buy r3 like and not rp like me. But the ones who upset about this news are those who would actually buy low budget lenses. We were simply just deprived from that opportunity.

I'm upset that I was waiting for 3rd parties, to have more options in purchase decisions. If I would knew how this would end up I would probably take a7c than rp.

But now its not a problem. a7c + sigma 100-400 performs and costs the same as 100-500 for my rp.


unfocused said:


> If Canon can produce a sufficiently broad range of lenses to satisfy most (not all) users there will be no need for third-party lenses.


the edges and corners in these images are full of satisfactory. </sarcasm> (rf 16mm and rf 24mm)


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, responses have been negative. I don’t disagree with that at all. What is disagree with is your conclusion that this will impact Canon’s bottom line. You claim that will happen, and you have no data to support that. Canon has been making business decisions since their inception, and over the past 20 years those decisions have overwhelmingly been correct.


You also have no data to support that it won't impact Canon's bottom line - this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the scientific thing to say is that we don't know whether their business decision which is revcceiving some negative responses from buyers will result in a negative business outcome! 


neuroanatomist said:


> Nor do I. But I believe that Canon has a very good idea of that proportion, with ample data to support decisions they make regarding 3rd party lenses. They didn't achieve market leadership and keep it for >20 years by making poor business decisions


It's good that you prefaced that statement with "I believe", otherwise as an argument it would be an appeal to tradition fallacy, where it's argued that something will happen in the future because it has happened in the past. Canon has never made this particular decision before, so we have no precedent, but even then, the attitudes of the market, and the economic environment could change things even if it had happened before. 


neuroanatomist said:


> Moreover, Viltrox isn’t the only 3rd party lens maker. Or even a major one. You may assume that Canon has taken action against others, but there’s no evidence for that. Why did Samyang stop making RF lenses? Maybe they just aren’t selling well, so they consolidated products at their subsidiary, Rokinon.


Maybe Samyang didn't, and Canon did take action, both assumptions are equally probable, but the fact that there's no third party AF lenses and the ones that appeared have now disappeared should at least raise some suspicions, rather than a 'nothing to see here' dismissal, like this is a normal situation.. 


neuroanatomist said:


> I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?
> 
> RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
> RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
> ...


Here's an answer, that's a composition and division fallacy which makes the assumption that one part of something will apply to the whole. One special case where a set of three slow aperture lenses covers a specifically wide focal length neither proves or disproves anything about the value of Canon RF lenses nor whether Canon is screwing over its buyers. It just tells us that anyone who needs a very wide range of focal lengths at a relatively dark aperture for whatever reason for around USD $1500 would be reasonably well served in the US! 

I know you're being lax with your reasoning here, not your usual form lol!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s true. However, your comment is merely an echo of a common refrain on these forums.
> 
> “_Canon is d00med because they’re doing X, so people will switch to SoNikon._”
> 
> ...


Well, it works both ways! 

Sony fanboys have been claiming that Canon is _d00med _for myriad reasons for a long time, but that doesn't logically follow that Canon is therefore immune from making mistakes, and will never make a mistake when faced with a novel situation, such as a shrinking market, where camera companies need top reposition themselves to ensure survival and profitability. To conflate the two would be an incomplete comparison fallacy, as this would involve comparing two phenomena that are not really related. A negative response to a negative situation by a company's market (if this is potentially the case) is not the same as a hate campaign from a competing company's fanboys!

Beyond all the competing opinions, there are a few things here which people are ignoring.

The camera market is shrinking as more everyday photographers and newbies gravitate to smartphones, it's becoming more of a niche market and it's gradually moving to mirrorless. How will companies survive, and grow in such a novel market situation that is being experienced the first time?

The most profitable cameras and lenses are in the mid-range and top-tier, a market populated by enthusiasts (who buy often for pleasure) and pros (who only buy when they need to replace gear or can gain a viable cost-benefit from new gear).This is a sector that Canon has stated it's focusing on in the development of the RF platform. Will Canon try to become an exclusive, top-tier like a quasi-Leica company, or will they continue to cater to the mid-range enthusiast market?

The bulk of cameras sold still are cheap, entry level DSLRs, and this puts Canon in number one position, but that market is declining. The mirrorless pro-am market which everyone fusses about here is lead currently by Sony, and has been for a long time. With the ongoing DSLR decline trends we've been witnessing, which company will adopt a business model that will provide the needs of 1. pros and enthusiasts that want IQ at any price? 2. enthusiasts who want reasonable IQ mid-tier gear that's good value for money? 3. travelers and oldies who want lighter gear? 4. beginners who want affordable entry level gear when taking a step up from smartphones? These four groups may indeed be served by four different companies, depending on what happens in the future, and what strategies they adopt to cope with the ever more competitive shrinking market they occupy. 

No one really knows which way this will all go, but in this unpredictable environment, it's natural for people to go into "fear of the unknown mode" psychologically, and start clinging to various mental comforts such as primal tribalism brand loyalty in an irrational emotional attempt to feel they have some control of events in a corporate world they're merely passive observers of (unless they exert influence with their wallets, which might be a better idea)!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> In that over 20 year history their EF mount had substantial 3rd party support. Many Canon users assumed that this would continue on RF but it seems that assumption was wrong. Canon may well have made a decision to actively block 3rd parties or the situation is that 3rd parties can not reverse engineer the mount without infringing Canon’s IP and currently they have not issued licenses to anyone.


They did, all reverse engineered as far as AF goes. That has continued for RF with Rokinon. The assumption is based on a comment to a customer by one employee (or subcontractor) of one 3rd party manufacturer. Probably a low-level employee, since CSRs are generally not part of a company’s leadership team. 



SNJ Ops said:


> I haven’t said Canon is stupid or incompetent but in my opinion as a consumer I don’t like it and if someone asks me which system I recommend before this news I would have recommended RF but now I will mention it but also make it very clear the the situation regarding the lenses. Instead I would recommend Sony, Nikon or Fuji.
> I’m just 1 person, not foolish or full of hubris as you have claimed about me but rather thinking of fellow shooters and what this potentially means for the industry as a whole.


That’s your prerogative. Your individual actions are utterly irrelevant to the ILC market, of course. 



SNJ Ops said:


> Business works both ways, if a company makes a decision that some customers don’t like they’ll vote by spending their money elsewhere. I fully acknowledge that this might end not meaning much at all but we don’t know that yet. Time will tell.


Yes, it will. See my response to dlee13 summarizing how that’s worked out on this forum.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The noise in your image due to low light is not caused by the iso number but the noise in the amount of light. If you are taking a photo of a duck in your local nature reserve, there will be as many photons hitting the duck at the same shutter speed with an 800mm f/11, 400mm f/5.6 and 200mm f/2.8. So, an 800mm f/11 at iso 1600, 400mm f/5.6 at iso 800 and a 200mm f/2.8 at iso 400 will all have the same shutter speed and the same signal/noise in the image of the duck. Not many complain that 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 100-400 f/5.6 is unacceptable. Those who complain about the isos with the 800mm f/11 are too high to be usable tend to be those who have never actually tried out the lens. Here's a thread with some images going up to very high isos with the RF 100-500mm with the RF 2x at 1000mm and f/14.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey Alan, I saw the test results on ephotozine's site and they report that the 800f/11 resolves 3000 LW/PH while the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 at 400mm resolves around 2200 LW/PH @ f/8 and its best of around 2300 @f/11.

Is this consistent with your findings, and is the difference visible to you in the photos in real-world use?









Canon RF 800mm F/11 IS STM Lens Review


John Riley has been putting the Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM through its paces to find out if it's a lens wildlife and sports photographers should be looking at.




www.ephotozine.com












Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM Lens Review


Is the Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM the perfect lens for photographers capturing wildlife and sports images? John Riley has been finding out.




www.ephotozine.com





Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> You also have no data to support that it won't impact Canon's bottom line - this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the scientific thing to say is that we don't know whether their business decision which is revcceiving some negative responses from buyers will result in a negative business outcome!


Not a good week for you. First, your dead wrong in stating there are no 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount. Now, you failed to actually read what I wrote. I did not claim I had data to support the contention that locking out third-party lenses won’t impact the bottom line for Canon. I stated that Canon has such data and they used those data to make their decision.

They have years of data on their buyers’ purchasing decisions including 3rd party EF mount lenses. They have sales data from their own lenses and from the financial reports of their competitors, and probably more detailed data from competitive intelligence.

The point is, if this is in fact a decision that Canon made (which is by no means certain), then it was most likely made with due consideration for the effects, and the decision was most likely informed by the ample relevant data to which Canon has access.

History supports the contention that the decision is likely to Canon’s benefit, since their decisions over the past 20 years have resulted in them dominating the ILC market.



LogicExtremist said:


> One special case where a set of three slow aperture lenses covers a specifically wide focal length neither proves or disproves anything about the value of Canon RF lenses nor whether Canon is screwing over its buyers.


It’s an anecdote, that’s why in at least one case I mentioned it as a footnote. The existence of a 3rd party f/2.8 zoom trinity for the E mount is also an anecdote. However, in general lenses costing <$1K (like Canon’s cheap, slow zooms) will likely sell better than lenses costing >$1K (like Sigma’s f/2.8 zooms).



LogicExtremist said:


> I know you're being lax with your reasoning here, not your usual form lol!


No, there’s nothing lax about my logic, but you seem to be missing the point (intentionally or not). I have routinely claimed that Canon knows more about the ILC industry than anyone on this forum, myself included. If Canon has, in fact, decided to block 3rd party RF autofocus lenses from being sold, it’s because they expect that course of action to benefit them. Could they be wrong? Of course. But history supports the belief they they’re not.

In the decade-plus I’ve been on this forum, many people have complained about a wide variety of actions Canon has taken or not taken, and predicted a negative impact for Canon. Over that same period, Canon has not lost market share, they’ve gained to the point where they now hold nearly 50% of the ILC market. Logically, all of those dozens of predictions of a negative impact on Canon’s bottom line have been proven wrong. Therefore, it’s logical to predict that this prediction of d00m is also wrong.

Hope I didn’t go too fast for you there…


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not a good week for you. First, your dead wrong in stating there are no 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount. Now, you failed to actually read what I wrote. I did not claim I had data to support the contention that locking out third-party lenses won’t impact the bottom line for Canon. I stated that Canon has such data and they used those data to make their decision.
> 
> They have years of data on their buyers’ purchasing decisions including 3rd party EF mount lenses. They have sales data from their own lenses and from the financial reports of their competitors, and probably more detailed data from competitive intelligence.
> 
> ...


I've been having a great week thanks! Apologies, haven't been following this discussion too much, considering I was talking about this topic weeks before CR and Petapixel posted articles on the topic, so it's old news to me. Just been reading every now and then to see how the cognitive dissonance progresses as the facts progressively clash with tribal fanboy groupthink denial and conformation bias for my amusement. I find human psychology fascinating. The R5 overheating denial was a wonderful demonstration of human irrationality. I love how some people on some forums totally denied the video evidence, claiming they don't believe it to be the case, despite irrefutable evidence. If the world was logical it wouldn't be in the state it is lol! I'm not overly invested in the emotional reactions to the disbelief that some people's favoutite company might possibly screw them over for profits lol! Amusing, but not worth caring about other than trying to keep the discussions logical. You know better than most how the emotional centres of the brain mess with human reasoning lol! Sure the Samyang Rokinon AF lenses you claim to found aren't just old stock on retail sites, or retained posts on manufacturer sites, reports are that you can't buy them. If you can point me to a Samyang RF 85mm AF f/1.4 that I can purchase online, that would be good, I'm considering purchasing one, thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I've been having a great week thanks! Apologies, haven't been following this discussion too much, considering I was talking about this topic weeks before CR and Petapixel posted articles on the topic, so it's old news to me. Just been reading every now and then to see how the cognitive dissonance progresses as the facts progressively clash with tribal fanboy groupthink denial and conformation bias for my amusement. I find human psychology fascinating. The R5 overheating denial was a wonderful demonstration of human irrationality. I love how some people on some forums totally denied the video evidence, claiming they don't believe it to be the case, despite irrefutable evidence. If the world was logical it wouldn't be in the state it is lol! I'm not overly invested in the emotional reactions to the disbelief that some people's favoutite company might possibly screw them over for profits lol! Amusing, but not worth caring about other than trying to keep the discussions logical. You know better than most how the emotional centres of the brain mess with human reasoning lol! Sure the Samyang Rokinon AF lenses you claim to found aren't just old stock on retail sites, or retained posts on manufacturer sites, reports are that you can't buy them. If you can point me to a Samyang RF 85mm AF f/1.4 that I can purchase online, that would be good, I'm considering purchasing one, thanks!


Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point, which was that IF Canon has made that decision, then they have a rationale for doing so and have decided the decision is likely to benefit them. Thus, predictions of a negative impact from such a decision on Canon’s bottom line are more likely to be false than true.

You ignoring that logical argument is also irrelevant to its correctness.

Incidentally…





New Samyang AF 85mm f/1.4 Lens for Canon RF (FREE DELIVERY + 1 YEAR WARRANTY) BecexTech™ | Digital Cameras, Lens, Phones, Tablet Global Premier Retailer







becextech.com


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2022)

Once again Canon's action make a very small group of people angry. They must be oblivious to the needs of the small minority, or they just choose not to care.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Once again Canon's action make a very small group of people angry. They must be oblivious to the needs of the small minority, or they just choose not to care.


And once again, that very small group of people believe they represent a majority of Canon’s users, and claim that Canon is d00med for the decision or inaction that makes them angry.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> And once again, that very small group of people believe they represent a majority of Canon’s users, and claim that Canon is d00med for the decision or inaction that makes them angry.



Even better, I love how certain some of them are that they are making Canon pay dearly by exercising their single data point of choice and choosing another system. Some of them truly seem to feel that Canon will be rocked by this decision of theirs.


----------



## chasingrealness (Sep 5, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.


I for one would love to see a canon ILC module on an Apple product.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Even better, I love how certain some of them feel that they are making Canon pay dearly by exercising their single data point of choice and choosing another system. Some of them truly seem to feel that Canon will be rocked by this decision of theirs.


Far more than that, they’re telling _all_ their friends and _all_ those who seek their advice to eschew Canon as well. Plus _all_ those other people they know who’ve already switched or are about to do so. Plus the fact that they see _lots_ of people not using Canon. 

Canon…you have been warned.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 5, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I fully admit that I don’t know for sure if this will have any impact on Canon but I speculate that it will.
> 
> In the screenshot that that started this whole discussion the Viltox rep clearly states that they weren’t the only ones to have been stopped from making RF glass. Samyang where quite vague when they pulled their lenses from the market but the speculation at the time was that Canon told them to stop. While there’s no evidence to confirm that, recent events make it very likely. Rokinon isn’t available in Europe, Samyang is but they don’t even mention RF lenses on their website anymore.
> 
> In my comparison I mentioned f2.8 glass which is what a lot of enthusiasts and professionals would want. That $1500 kit will be perfect for many users on small budgets. Again I ask what about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?


Where I live (France & Germany), I have never ever seen a single Rokinon lens...not in the last 25 years.
But many from the parent brand, Samyang, still available in RF mount.
And, sorry, you'll even find them on the French and German Samyang websites...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Hey Alan, I saw the test results on ephotozine's site and they report that the 800f/11 resolves 3000 LW/PH while the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 at 400mm resolves around 2200 LW/PH @ f/8 and its best of around 2300 @f/11.
> 
> Is this consistent with your findings, and is the difference visible to you in the photos in real-world use?
> 
> ...


He measured the RF 800 on the 45 Mpx R5 and the RF 100-400 on the 20 Mpx R6 so the results are not directly comparable. Roughly speaking, 2200 on the R6 would be about 3000 LW/PH on the R5. Both lenses are pretty sharp. In my testing on my copies, the 800mm f/11 is similar to the EF 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 800mm and the RF 100-400mm is pretty close to the EF 100-400mm II.


----------



## kten (Sep 5, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Where I live (France & Germany), I have never ever seen a single Rokinon lens...not in the last 25 years.
> But many from the parent brand, Samyang, still available in RF mount.
> And, sorry, you'll even find them on the French and German Samyang websites...


I presume he meant the AF RF versions which have been pulled including here in Europe they aren't listed on the official websites any longer although the MF versions are. I've not seen the AF RF ones for sale for a while now. I'd be interested in where you're seeing them for sale because I did actually look recently and can't find them on official site or official dealers as they seem to be removed from all Euro stores and I'd be interested in picking up an af 14mm RF for one of my kids from the French/German stores you're seeing them in thus asking.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 5, 2022)

kten said:


> I presume he meant the AF RF versions which have been pulled including here in Europe they aren't listed on the official websites any longer although the MF versions are. I've not seen the AF RF ones for sale for a while now. I'd be interested in where you're seeing them for sale because I did actually look recently and can't find them on official site or official dealers as they seem to be removed from all Euro stores and I'd be interested in picking up an af 14mm RF for one of my kids from the French/German stores you're seeing them in thus asking.


Check on "idealo.de" for Samyang AF 14mm f2,8 Canon RF, you'll get a list of dealers.


----------



## kten (Sep 5, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Check on "idealo.de" for Samyang AF 14mm f2,8 Canon RF, you'll get a list of dealers.


thanks for the heads up on that, looks like I may be SOL as ones I can see won't ship to me, had that problem with lot of tools lately with places no longer shipping here with the Brexit paperwork and messing around issues making it not worth their time (I mostly bought from EU suppliers before that no longer ship here, in UK in case wonder). No UK stores or Euro photo stores that still ship here have them and after cheap but AF UWA for his R. I do know friends in Germany who could either ship or bring over when here next year so may go that route.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s true. However, your comment is merely an echo of a common refrain on these forums.
> 
> “_Canon is d00med because they’re doing X, so people will switch to SoNikon._”
> 
> ...



I never said they were *******, I simply said they would lose traction which is entirely possible. Nikon for example sat on their hands for a long time and didn’t really do anything to stand out so they ended up losing a bunch of market share and Sony became number 2. 

Canon likely wouldn’t let themselves go bankrupt altogether, but they could easily drop a huge amount of market share to Nikon and Sony, especially if the former has opened to third parties. I would say the personal issue that some are such strong Canon loyalists and fanboys that they deny what’s clearly best for users which is opening their mount like every other major manufacturer has done 




neuroanatomist said:


> Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point, which was that IF Canon has made that decision, then they have a rationale for doing so and have decided the decision is likely to benefit them. Thus, predictions of a negative impact from such a decision on Canon’s bottom line are more likely to be false than true.
> 
> You ignoring that logical argument is also irrelevant to its correctness.
> 
> ...



So how come they aren’t available widely through any and every major retailer when they were previously then disappeared? How often do you see a lens manufacturer just suddenly decide to stop selling their products? Someone can have the rationale that laying in the middle of a highway to take a nap makes sense, that doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea just like blocking third parties.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 5, 2022)

I think EU and US competition authorities should step in if a manufacturer uses its patents of a mount to keep the competition out. The fact that each manufacturer has their own mount is unfortunate enough for the consumer. The least that should be done now is forcing companies to open their mounts for others.

Canon already was infamous for putting chips into their ink cartridges just to make it harder for their party manufacturers to copy them. Canon ink was always extremely expensive and Canon hated the fact that other companies offered ink for Canon printers for a fraction of the cost.

Of course I can understand that Canon wants to keep the competition out and instead sell its own lenses. So goverments have to step in.
The EU forced manufacturers of electric cars and chargers for example to all be compatible. They all have to use the same plug now. They can have additional plugs of course, but one EU standard plug has to be on all electric cars in the EU and on all chargers. Tesla for example had to add that plug in Europe. The consumer wins. He can now charge any electric car at any charger in the EU. That is something that is not possible in the US, where Tesla and "Electrify America" chargers have mutual incompatible plugs.

The question is if a new camera mount is really an "innovation" that has to be protected or just a standard to keep others out. That would be anticompetitive and third party manufacturers could even sue Canon for compensation.

At the moment consumers have a lot of power. The RF mount is still quite new and many people have not yet bought a Canon mirrorless camera. They are not yet "locked" into the RF system by the amount of RF gear they have already bought. A current Canon EF shooter could easily switch to Sony, EF lenses also work on Sony cameras. Each new Tamron or Sigma mirrorless lens design, that is available for Sony, but not for Canon is another argument for chosing Sony over Canon. For example the Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD. Canon has to be very careful now. If potential Canon RF users hear the new that Canon might want to lock them into their system and they might only be able to purchase expensive Canon lenses, they will lose at least those customers.


----------



## entoman (Sep 5, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> As for that 800m prime its an F11. If I where to take that to my local nature reserve my ISO would be very high even in daylight and I would have reduced subject isolation in my images which is not acceptable for the images I want to create and others will feel the same.


It would be very nice indeed to have an 800mm F8 to let in a bit more light, and I've argued here in favour of one, but it would probably cost at least twice as much, and wouldn't have the advantage of very light weight, which is what makes the F11 lens so popular.

Regarding the 800mm F11, I've owned this lens for several months, and used it for bird photography in the UK, Gambia, Kenya and Peru, with very satisfactory results. It's great to be able to have a lens of this focal length that is truly easy to carry all day long - certainly far more comfortable than lugging my RF 100-500mm around! The stabilisation of the RF 800mm is extremely good, and more than offsets the disadvantage of a F11 lens, because it enables the use of slower shutter speeds.

F11 on an 800mm lens provides *plenty* of subject isolation too.

I find the lens is perfectly usable in overcast conditions, although *not* suitable for use at dawn or dusk. Typically, I'll be shooting at shutter speeds between 1/500 - 1/4000 depending on lighting conditions, and at ISO settings between 400-1600. At ISO 1600, I can still easily crop my R5 images down to 5120x2880 pixels, thereby entirely filling the screen of my 27" 5K Mac. I loathe noisy images, but with this set-up noise just isn't an issue, when using Topaz DeNoiseAI, or even the more basic noise reduction in Lightroom Classic.

It's clear from your post that you're condemning the lens without actually having used one. I'd seriously recommend that you consider getting it. While it won't of course match the sharpness, light-gathering abilities or AF speed of a RF 800mm F5.6, it will definitely enable you to get superb shots in anything but the poorest light.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Never is a long time, and Canon has led the ILC market for >20 years.


Arguing that they will continue to do so, regardless of market changes, simply because they have in the past is a logical fallacy even if they've held it for 1,000 years.



neuroanatomist said:


> That's strong evidence that they make good business decisions.


They do have a history of making good business decisions. That does not render them immune to making bad ones. And I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend they aren't making a bad one simply because they have a history of making good ones.



neuroanatomist said:


> But suggesting Canon will lose market share over this is not supported by any evidence.


Sony's #1 position in FF mirrorless sales would like a word with you. All the people who have switched or are saying this will cause them to switch would also like a word with you.



neuroanatomist said:


> Believing your opinion is fact is also a fallacy in case you didn't know.


When did I claim that one of my opinions was fact?



neuroanatomist said:


> You are basing your prediction on a handful of statements on the internet.


I've repeatedly acknowledged that things may not be as they seem. If Viltrox did not properly, legally reverse engineer the mount and that's why they got legally stomped on, then it may have no bearing on Sigma/Tamron/Tokina who have a history of legally reverse engineering mounts. I can still speculate on the scenario of Canon using lawfare to prevent any 3rd party RF lenses, as that remains a potential scenario. And even if the former scenario is true, I can comment on the stifling impact this is having when their #1 competitor offers a license to their mount.



neuroanatomist said:


> Canon sells millions of cameras a year. Do you honestly believe this forum and others are industry bellwethers?


Stop worshipping management. The history of economics is a history of more businesses failing than succeeding. It's also a history littered with successful companies suddenly failing on bad decisions which were obvious to consumers and competitors while management was blind to the truth.



neuroanatomist said:


> Not that I find that surprising, some people still believe the earth is flat, which just goes to show there are plenty of idiots out there.


Are we resorting to subtle ad hominem arguments now? 



neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has ~50% of the ILC market share. Sony is in the #2 spot with ~25% of the ILC market. Millions of users need to switch from Canon to Sony to change the ranking. Do you honestly see that happening, and if so, do you honestly think it can happen in just a year or two?


Installed base? That would take time. New sales? Yes, I can see Canon falling to #2 rather quickly in this market.



neuroanatomist said:


> And can you honestly say that a lack of 3rd party RF mount lenses will be the reason?


Yes, lens availability and cost is that important. 



neuroanatomist said:


> If you do, well, maybe you also believe the earth is flat.


That sounds like something Canon management believes if they think lens catalog size/cost no longer matters to buyers.



neuroanatomist said:


> Even with the shifts in the market, FF comprise the small minority of ILCs sold (<20%).


Is Canon allowing 3rd party glass on APS-C? Are cost effective solutions less important to APS-C users who typically choose APS-C over...costs?



neuroanatomist said:


> My point is that locking out 3rd party lenses is not likely to have a significant impact on market share either way.


And you have no evidence to back that up. "Canon has been #1!!!" conveniently ignores the fact that while Canon has been #1 Canon EF has also enjoyed the largest 3rd party catalog of lenses. Off the top of my head, without modeling, I cannot tell you how much that 3rd party support played a part in their marketshare position. But you likewise have no basis for claiming that it had nothing to do with it. Your confidence in your predictions is completely unwarranted. At least the people complaining are thinking about what they will do and what their friends are doing. You'll counter that this is a statistical drop in the bucket. But it's at least an indicator. You don't even have that. You just have "past performance." But never in that past, not even in the FD days, was Canon in the position of being the only manufacturer with no 3rd party lens support.



neuroanatomist said:


> From 2020 to 2021, Sony gained ~5% FF market share. Canon also gained ~5% FF market share. Seems that Canon is retaining their customer base.


Everyone has also assumed that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina were coming 'real soon now' based in part on the availability of Samyang and Viltrox. I'm not confident that Canon will continue to retain their base in light of this news.



neuroanatomist said:


> You should also consider that Canon executives are satisfied with this decision, after all they're the ones that made it.


Why should I consider that? Because executives are never wrong? There's a graveyard full of companies that would like a word with you. Start with Kodak.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> I never said they were *******, I simply said they would lose traction which is entirely possible.


Over this issue? LOL. 



dlee13 said:


> I would say the personal issue that some are such strong Canon loyalists and fanboys that they deny what’s clearly best for users which is opening their mount like every other major manufacturer has done


Again, you’re missing the point. Canon deciding to block 3rd parties from making autofocus RF lenses has nothing to do with what’s best for users, and everything to do with what’s best for Canon. 

The other major manufacturers opened up their mounts to attempt to take market share away from Canon, who dominates the ILC market, by allowing a broader range of lenses to be used with their cameras. 

None of this is being done because it’s what is best for users. As I’ve said before, some people here have less business acumen than a bowling ball. 

Obviously more choice is generally better for users. I have bought 3rd party lenses myself. I’m arguing against you, and you take that as arguing for Canon. I’m merely stating facts and logical deductions based on those facts. It’s too bad those facts dispute your opinions, but that’s your personal issue, not mine. 



dlee13 said:


> So how come they aren’t available widely through any and every major retailer when they were previously then disappeared? How often do you see a lens manufacturer just suddenly decide to stop selling their products? Someone can have the rationale that laying in the middle of a highway to take a nap makes sense, that doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea just like blocking third parties.


Do you even realize that the statement to which you’re replying here began with, “Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point…” I guess not, since you went on to argue that they’ve done just that.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As far as I can tell, Canon didn't claw their way to the top of the market by making bad business decisions. If this is a bad business decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Canon is foolish. So if all the people claiming this will hurt Canon are right, then we will see them take another path. Everything else is just noise.


I feel the same way about Kodak. They've got a century of being at the top of the market by making good decisions. If ignoring this digital fad is a bad decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Kodak is foolish. So if all the people claiming that this digital nonsense will hurt Kodak are right, then we will see Kodak take another path. Everything else is just noise.

Oh...wait...what year is it again?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> This has happened many times over the years. It always seems that X or Y, the issue that spells certain d00m for Canon, is an issue that the poster is has a strong personal desire to have. They assume that because it’s important to them, it’s important to a majority of users.


This is not an extra stop of DR or a video codec. This is a lens catalog. Want to know why I went with Canon 22 years ago? Because their lens catalog...3rd party support included...beat Nikon's hands down on cost/performance/options. Someone new to, but serious about, photography might not care that much about a DxO test. They *are* going to care that they can get a reasonably affordable 28-70 f/2.8 on E-mount but not on RF. They are going to care that on RF they have to choose between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a super expensive 50mm f/1.2L, but on E-mount they have their choice of 50mm lenses. I could go on.

Even at the peak of EF development and sales, Canon could not fill every need and price point. Sometimes for politics (why would Canon make a more affordable 50mm f/1.4L to compete with their own 50mm f/1.2L?), sometimes for lack of available resources. How are they going to do that now in a market which is collapsing to 1990-levels of sales and revenue? At this moment they are still coasting on adapted EF lenses. How long can that last? I mean...I could happily shoot my EF collection for the next decade. But how long will new buyers think it's viable to go RF and then have to buy used EF lenses to fill the gaps or fit the budget?



neuroanatomist said:


> I’m still not sure why it’s so hard for people to accept that Canon knows more about the ILC market than they do.


Is this a church? Are we to accept X because God...I'm sorry, Canon executives...knows more about X than we do? Am I to have faith that Canon will have options which match the Sigma ART line or the Tamron SP line on price/performance, real soon now?


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Over this issue? LOL.
> 
> 
> Again, you’re missing the point. Canon deciding to block 3rd parties from making autofocus RF lenses has nothing to do with what’s best for users, and everything to do with what’s best for Canon.


Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that. 



neuroanatomist said:


> The other major manufacturers opened up their mounts to attempt to take market share away from Canon, who dominates the ILC market, by allowing a broader range of lenses to be used with their cameras.
> 
> None of this is being done because it’s what is best for users. As I’ve said before, some people here have less business acumen than a bowling ball.
> 
> ...


And even if they did do that to take share away from Canon they have grown so it’s worked for them. Canon have claimed they want to have over 50% market share and if they opened their mount, they could probably have a even bigger monopoly of the market. 

You say you are stating facts but you are ignoring the FACT that Canon make money from opening their mount. Even companies reverse engineering their lenses, the users need to buy a Canon body to use it so they are still making the money off body sales. If it was a case of they give out their license for free then yes it wouldn’t be beneficial for Canon but they do make money from it so that would irrelevant.


----------



## dcm (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.



It's not necessarily a win win situation. You've got to look at both sides of the equation. Canon is looking at both the number of additional bodies they would sell and the number of lenses they would not sell. But not just the numbers, the revenue/profits from both. So it they get sigificantly less revenue/profits from the increased body sales than the revenue/profits they lose from the reduced lens sales, Canon would consider that a losing scenario.

Also, many of the body sales in your scenario are likely tied to a mixture of Canon and third party lenses, so they would be sold regardless, not just because a third party lens is available. So Canon doesn't get to sell any additional bodies in this scenario and loses lens sales. It is likely a much smaller number of bodies that will be sold for use with only third party lenses that you would count as incremental body sales.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Arguing that they will continue to do so, regardless of market changes, simply because they have in the past is a logical fallacy even if they've held it for 1,000 years.
> 
> They do have a history of making good business decisions. That does not render them immune to making bad ones. And I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend they aren't making a bad one simply because they have a history of making good ones.


I'm not claiming it does. But if you flip a coin 100 times and 96 of those times it comes up tails, do you conclude that the 101st flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails? Personally, I'd conclude there was something not balanced about the coin, and that it was far more likely to come up tails on the 101st flip. In case the analogy eludes you, making mostly right decisions doesn't preclude making a wrong one, but it does suggest that subsequent decisions will be more likely to be correct than not.



dtaylor said:


> Sony's #1 position in FF mirrorless sales would like a word with you. All the people who have switched or are saying this will cause them to switch would also like a word with you.


If you've watched the trend of Canon gaining FF MILC market share, you'll know that Sony remaining #1 in FF MILC sales is not a foregone conclusion.

I like how you state that Canon's history of making good business decisions does not suggest this recent decision was the right one, but then imply Sony's history of being #1 in FF MILC sales means they'll continue in that position. That's sadly hypocritical.



dtaylor said:


> When did I claim that one of my opinions was fact?


For example, when you stated, "I'm not going to pull any punches here: this is a rotten policy by Canon, and one which *will* financially hurt them in a market this competitive." You even emphasized the word 'will'. Guaranteed accurate clairvoyance on your part, or an opinion stated as fact? If you want to claim the former, provide some proof. Good luck with that.



dtaylor said:


> Are we resorting to subtle ad hominem arguments now?


My fault there, sorry. I did not intend it to be subtle at all. But hey, I was just stating my opinion. All's fair, right?



dtaylor said:


> Installed base? That would take time. New sales? Yes, I can see Canon falling to #2 rather quickly in this market.


No, the current numbers of close to 50% market share for Canon and ~25% for Sony are the unit sales from the 2021 calendar year. Given that Canon has had between 40-50% market share in annual unit sales for a decade or more, their installed base is _much_ higher than 50%. Those data aren't available (in part because there's no way to really measure who has stopped using their cameras), but Canon has led the market for >20 years. Canon has averaged ~45% market share over the past 10 annual cycles, and if the useful life of a camera is assumed to be 5 years (which is a guess), Canon's installed base is somewhere north of 80% of the ILC market. Some big assumptions in there, so that number is a rough estimate. Could be 70%, could be 90%. Keep in mind that Sony's gains in recent years have come at the expense of Nikon, not of Canon. I'm not sure who holds second place in installed base, but regardless Sony and Nikon are basically fighting over scraps in that calculation.

So no, neither Canon's rank in annual market share nor especially their installed base are likely to change quickly.



dtaylor said:


> Everyone has also assumed that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina were coming 'real soon now' based in part on the availability of Samyang and Viltrox. I'm not confident that Canon will continue to retain their base in light of this news.


So you think an ~80% installed base will just evaporate because of this one issue? Sure, and that 101st coin flip will land on the edge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.


Next time, think then type. You evidently skipped that first step.

You went to great pains to support the idea that Canon has, in fact, chosen to block 3rd party manufacturers from making RF-mount AF lenses. So, since Canon has already decided to not work with 3rd parties, how do you reconcile that with your statement above that only a fanboy can't understand it's a win-win for Canon? Canon manifestly _doesn't_ think working with 3rd parties is a win-win for them, since they apparently have decided not only to not work with them, but to actively block some of them from making lenses for the RF mount.

So as before, this boils down to you believing you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe something so asinine? Only a @dlee13 fanboy would believe that, and I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there's only one of those in the world.



dlee13 said:


> You say you are stating facts but you are ignoring the FACT that Canon make money from opening their mount. Even companies reverse engineering their lenses, the users need to buy a Canon body to use it so they are still making the money off body sales. If it was a case of they give out their license for free then yes it wouldn’t be beneficial for Canon but they do make money from it so that would irrelevant.


*fact* \ ˈfakt \ _noun_
1: something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Read the above definition, which it's clear you are unfamiliar with. The FACT is that the vast majority of bodies Canon sells are sold with a kit lens. Since a 3rd party lens in a Canon mount cannot be used without a Canon camera, Canon has already recorded the income from the camera when the 3rd party lens is bought.

I hesitate to use numbers, since your posts so far suggest they will confuse you even more than you already are, but here goes. Canon sells close to 50% of the ILCs sold globally each year. As I indicated in my response to @dtaylor that likely means that somewhere around 80% or more of the ILCs in use today are made by Canon. By opening up their mount to 3rd parties, Canon grants them access to the vast majority of the camera body market. By keeping it as closed as possible (with the understanding that they cannot prevent legal reverse-engineering), Canon retains sales of lenses for that vast majority of cameras out there.

Canon has stated in their financial reporting that they expect RF lens sales to be a major driver of future revenues. Why would they want to reduce those revenues by opening the mount up to competition? They wouldn't. I'd further suggest that one of the reasons Canon designed the RF mount the way they did, including multiple patents on the AF protocols transmitted through the interface, was specifically so that they could use that patent portfolio to exclude 3rd party AF lenses that they know cut into their revenue from EF lens sales.

Could they structure a licensing deal that would mean they did not lose money by opening up the RF mount? In theory, yes. But the fees they'd need to charge for that almost certainly be more than 3rd parties would pay, because it they did they'd have to charge much more for their lenses, which would negate the lower costs that comprise their main advantage over OEM lenses.

Try to come back with some cogent arguments next time, please.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I feel the same way about Kodak. They've got a century of being at the top of the market by making good decisions. If ignoring this digital fad is a bad decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Kodak is foolish. So if all the people claiming that this digital nonsense will hurt Kodak are right, then we will see Kodak take another path. Everything else is just noise.
> 
> Oh...wait...what year is it again?


Of all the strained and silly comparisons that have been floated on these forums, that is one of the worst.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I think EU and US competition authorities should step in if a manufacturer uses its patents of a mount to keep the competition out. The fact that each manufacturer has their own mount is unfortunate enough for the consumer. The least that should be done now is forcing companies to open their mounts for others...


What would be the point of getting a patent on anything if the government forces you to open up your proprietary designs to competitors?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.
> 
> 
> And even if they did do that to take share away from Canon they have grown so it’s worked for them. Canon have claimed they want to have over 50% market share and if they opened their mount, they could probably have a even bigger monopoly of the market.
> ...


Gosh, you know so much about the best possible business decision for Canon. Maybe you should share your market research with Canon. I'm sure that once you explain it to them, they will see the light.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Next time, think then type. You evidently skipped that first step.
> 
> You went to great pains to support the idea that Canon has, in fact, chosen to block 3rd party manufacturers from making RF-mount AF lenses. So, since Canon has already decided to not work with 3rd parties, how do you reconcile that with your statement above that only a fanboy can't understand it's a win-win for Canon? Canon manifestly _doesn't_ think working with 3rd parties is a win-win for them, since they apparently have decided not only to not work with them, but to actively block some of them from making lenses for the RF mount.
> 
> So as before, this boils down to you believing you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe something so asinine? Only a @dlee13 fanboy would believe that, and I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there's only one of those in the world.



Wow so I have my own fanboys, my ‘opinion’ must be correct then  




neuroanatomist said:


> *fact* \ ˈfakt \ _noun_
> 1: something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence
> 2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> 
> Read the above definition, which it's clear you are unfamiliar with. The FACT is that the vast majority of bodies Canon sells are sold with a kit lens. Since a 3rd party lens in a Canon mount cannot be used without a Canon camera, Canon has already recorded the income from the camera when the 3rd party lens is bought.


Funny you mention facts as we do in fact have a screenshot from one of these third parties that proves Canon is actively blocking third parties and they refused to comment to DPR. You should know people who buy a kit lens either let that camera sit there gathering dust after a while or upgrade that kit lens to something better which is where third party options often come in. There are the more educated ones too who buy a body only, not to mention a lot of stores here split the kit and sell the lens separately so a lot of units sold appear to be kits, but they are in fact selling the body only. 



neuroanatomist said:


> I hesitate to use numbers, since your posts so far suggest they will confuse you even more than you already are, but here goes. Canon sells close to 50% of the ILCs sold globally each year. As I indicated in my response to @dtaylor that likely means that somewhere around 80% or more of the ILCs in use today are made by Canon. By opening up their mount to 3rd parties, Canon grants them access to the vast majority of the camera body market. By keeping it as closed as possible (with the understanding that they cannot prevent legal reverse-engineering), Canon retains sales of lenses for that vast majority of cameras out there.


You like to say you know the definition of facts, so where are the hard facts of how many units they’ve sold compared to every other manufacturer? Or are you doing that you try to claim others are doing and just speculating? 



neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has stated in their financial reporting that they expect RF lens sales to be a major driver of future revenues. Why would they want to reduce those revenues by opening the mount up to competition? They wouldn't. I'd further suggest that one of the reasons Canon designed the RF mount the way they did, including multiple patents on the AF protocols transmitted through the interface, was specifically so that they could use that patent portfolio to exclude 3rd party AF lenses that they know cut into their revenue from EF lens sales.
> 
> Could they structure a licensing deal that would mean they did not lose money by opening up the RF mount? In theory, yes. But the fees they'd need to charge for that almost certainly be more than 3rd parties would pay, because it they did they'd have to charge much more for their lenses, which would negate the lower costs that comprise their main advantage over OEM lenses.


Key word there is expect. If people get sick of being cash cows and move to other brands, they won’t expect to sell anything if no one is buying bodies to use those overpriced RF lenses on. 

Even if they offer a licensing deal that makes those third party lenses available but so expensive that they are similar priced to Canon RF lenses, doesn’t that mean that people would often go for the similar priced first party lenses but still have those options which is a win for Canon?! You are all about what’s best for Canon and that scenario would be best for them. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Try to come back with some cogent arguments next time, please.
> 
> View attachment 205464


Aww so cute, you think you made an argument that didnt come off as being some senile fanboy rant  we can agree your points are typical of a Canon fanboy and agree to disagree on everything else. Can’t keep wasting my time arguing with someone thicker than a brick wall so have fun feeding the ducks!


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Gosh, you know so much about the best possible business decision for Canon. Maybe you should share your market research with Canon. I'm sure that once you explain it to them, they will see the light.


Thanks for the suggestion, sending them my resume as we speak! Once they hire me, I’ll be sure to give you a few coins to wash my windshield


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon Germany on third-party Viltrox lenses: "Canon believes that these products infringe their patent and design rights and has therefore requested the company to stop all activities that infringe Canon's intellectual property rights" - Photo Rumors


Canon never released any official statements on the report that Viltrox was forced to stop selling RF-mount mirrorless lenses until today. The German site Photografix Magazin published the first official statement where Canon Germany indicated that third-party lenses infringe on their patent and...




photorumors.com


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What would be the point of getting a patent on anything if the government forces you to open up your proprietary designs to competitors?


I think only innovation should get the chance to get patended. So for example a lens design can be patented, but a mount is just a connection to the lens. Basically like a plug. It is anti-competitive to prevent third party manufacturers from selling their sometimes very innovative designs by patenting a plug or a mount.

Lenses are required accessories for cameras and the EU usually makes sure that the market for accessories is open for others, because the EU acts in the interest of the consumers. If a manufacturer wants to keep its market share for accessories, it should just produce better products than the competition. Then people will buy the product. Canon should just make better or cheaper lenses than Tamron and Sigma, but in the past that was not always the case.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not claiming it does. But if you flip a coin 100 times and 96 of those times it comes up tails, do you conclude that the 101st flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails? Personally, I'd conclude there was something not balanced about the coin, and that it was far more likely to come up tails on the 101st flip. In case the analogy eludes you, making mostly right decisions doesn't preclude making a wrong one, but it does suggest that subsequent decisions will be more likely to be correct than not.


Actually each flip of a coin is entirely different, and statistically the likelihood of that 101st flip being heads or tails is equal, regardless of past history.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Wow so I have my own fanboys, my ‘opinion’ must be correct then


Good job ignoring the main point of the discussion there. Did you think no one would notice that you failed to respond to the facts that specifically neuter your main point and make you look like a fool for stating it?

Let me repeat it for you: you claim that opening the RF mount is a win-win for Canon, and you also made (and continue to make) a concerted effort to show that Canon themselves have decided to close the mount to 3rd parties. So, Canon clearly does not see opening the mount as a win for them.

Therefore, either Canon is stupid, or you are wrong. You go on thinking you're right. But if you keep posting the same drivel, you just look ever more foolish.



dlee13 said:


> You like to say you know the definition of facts, so where are the hard facts of how many units they’ve sold compared to every other manufacturer? Or are you doing that you try to claim others are doing and just speculating?


CIPA publishes total ILC units produced and shipped every month. Canon publishes the number of ILC units sold every quarter in their financial reports. If you know how to do addition and division (hint: _you_ should use a calculator!) then determining Canon's units sold relative to the other manufacturers is easy. Granted, it's an approximation because not every camera shipped in a quarter is sold in that quarter. But looking at a period of a year, during which time Canon ships and sells millions of cameras, the estimate is close enough to the true value. Particularly when the Canon is selling about half of all ILCs in the market, a small difference is irrelevant.

Unlike some, I don't pretend my opinions are facts. Again, by your own statements you look foolish.



dlee13 said:


> Key word there is expect. If people get sick of being cash cows and move to other brands, they won’t expect to sell anything if no one is buying bodies to use those overpriced RF lenses on.


Sure, sure. Canon has close to 50% market share year over year and the vast majority of ILCs in use today are Canon. But all that's going to just evaporate because you're unhappy. Lol.



dlee13 said:


> Can’t keep wasting my time arguing with someone thicker than a brick wall so have fun feeding the ducks!


I agree. As I said above, you state that Canon decided to close the RF mount to 3rd parties and then say it is obviously a win for them to open it. The thick person you're arguing with is yourself.

I recommended that you bring cogent arguments next time. You failed, utterly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Actually each flip of a coin is entirely different, and statistically the likelihood of that 101st flip being heads or tails is equal, regardless of past history.


Sheesh. Since you're being so obtusely literal, let me be clear – I was suggesting a biased coin flip. It's a theoretical concept used in probability statistics. If one flips a coin by catching it and placing it down, it's very easy to bias the outcome. It should be obvious that I was suggesting a biased coin flip, since the probability of getting 96 heads out of 100 ideal tosses is ~3.1 x 10^–24. 

Physically, a modern coin cannot be biased (although one could be constructed that is thicker than modern coins and weighted on one surface, and that would yield biased results even when flipped properly and allowed to land untouched on a flat surface). 

A loaded die would be perhaps have been a better example in that it's easily possible to make one. But I was trying to keep the example simple.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Arguing that they will continue to do so, regardless of market changes, simply because they have in the past is a logical fallacy even if they've held it for 1,000 years.
> 
> 
> They do have a history of making good business decisions. That does not render them immune to making bad ones. And I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend they aren't making a bad one simply because they have a history of making good ones.
> ...


You're clearly exercised about this, but other than the generic "companies can make bad decisions/successful companies can lose their dominance" you haven't offered any substantive reason for why _this_ decision (if it's real) _now_. You seem to be working from the assumption that third party lens options are important for sales of bodies but you've not given any evidence - none of us has any idea what the reality is. Surely you concede that?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.


This is the key point that the thread revolves around: that is an assertion presented as fact. _We simply don't know if it's relevant to overall profits_. We don't know how many people buy bodies on that basis. Some are assuming it's (statistically) significant - maybe! But we have no figures. Others are saying, if this decision has been made as reported, they've run the numbers and decided it isn't. That's not fanboyism, however much you dislike it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Aww so cute, you think you made an argument that didnt come off as being some senile fanboy rant  we can agree your points are typical of a Canon fanboy and agree to disagree on everything else. Can’t keep wasting my time arguing with someone thicker than a brick wall so have fun feeding the ducks!


Nothing like resorting to a bit of casual ageism to demonstrate how solid your arguments are


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point, which was that IF Canon has made that decision, then they have a rationale for doing so and have decided the decision is likely to benefit them. Thus, predictions of a negative impact from such a decision on Canon’s bottom line are more likely to be false than true.
> 
> You ignoring that logical argument is also irrelevant to its correctness.
> 
> ...


That looks like a grey market AU retailer with remaining stock, but either way, thanks for finding it, they're quite hard to get these days, I'm considering getting one!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> He measured the RF 800 on the 45 Mpx R5 and the RF 100-400 on the 20 Mpx R6 so the results are not directly comparable. Roughly speaking, 2200 on the R6 would be about 3000 LW/PH on the R5. Both lenses are pretty sharp. In my testing on my copies, the 800mm f/11 is similar to the EF 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 800mm and the RF 100-400mm is pretty close to the EF 100-400mm II.


Well spotted, it was late night and I missed that critical detail that they were tested on different cameras, I usually check that on the site's test results.
Thanks for the comparisons of similarly sharp lenses!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I think only innovation should get the chance to get patended. So for example a lens design can be patented, but a mount is just a connection to the lens. Basically like a plug. It is anti-competitive to prevent third party manufacturers from selling their sometimes very innovative designs by patenting a plug or a mount...


Well, actually, the lens mount *is* the innovation in the R system.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

What is so innovative about it? It is closer to to sensor, because their is no need for space for a mirror. Is that the innovation?


----------



## Nemorino (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Is that the innovation?


The electronic part; 12 pins instead of 8 and how to transmit more data eg DLO data.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 6, 2022)

Amazing how much ire is generated when folks think someone is getting in the way of what they WANT. Firstly, we have no real idea why there are so few third-party offerings for RF mount. Secondly, it IS Canon's business, and they are trying to stay in business in what is frankly a very difficult time. Canon is not the only company in the camera business, so you have choices, but remember that one of the factors in your choice should be whether that camera you buy will be supported in 3 or 5 years. Companies that don't survive don't support products. Bottom line, what we think we WANT isn't always the best long-term choice. Reading through many of the comments was like watching a bunch of spoiled brats.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> That looks like a grey market AU retailer with remaining stock, but either way, thanks for finding it, they're quite hard to get these days, I'm considering getting one!


Correct they are grey market, and one of the less trusted ones too.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

It is unlikely that Canon is in danger of going bankrupt. They just try to earn as much money as possible - like almost every company. I once had a Canon printer with very expensive Canon ink. Each time you unplugged it from the power source and plugged it in again, it made a "cleaning" that used more than two Euros worth of ink. A nice way for Canon to make money: Waste 2 Euros worth of ink just for a cleaning that happens even without the owner wanting it.

Apple for example also is a company that really is not on the brink of bankruptcy, but recently Apple decided that they want to show their customers more ads in future and generate at least $10 billion per year just from ads. So even the richest company is always looking for ways to make even more money, even if the users hate the way that money is made.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not claiming it does. But if you flip a coin 100 times and 96 of those times it comes up tails, do you conclude that the 101st flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails?


You don't make false analogies out of silly hypotheticals.



neuroanatomist said:


> I like how you state that Canon's history of making good business decisions does not suggest this recent decision was the right one, but then imply Sony's history of being #1 in FF MILC sales means they'll continue in that position. That's sadly hypocritical.


Only if you ignore the very thing everyone in this thread is complaining about. Since you're fond of analogies, let me explain it this way: you are insisting that the Titanic will continue on course because nothing has altered the course so far and we're already halfway across the ocean. I'm telling you I see an iceberg, dead ahead.



neuroanatomist said:


> For example, when you stated, "I'm not going to pull any punches here: this is a rotten policy by Canon, and one which *will* financially hurt them in a market this competitive." You even emphasized the word 'will'. Guaranteed accurate clairvoyance on your part, or an opinion stated as fact?


You know very well that I'm making a prediction based on the news which recently broke. 



neuroanatomist said:


> If you want to claim the former, provide some proof.


As I've stated previously, people speculating based on the increasing number of complaints, as well as the growing statements of 'I will switch over this', is more evidence than you've presented. "Because it always has" is a non-starter when something this significant has changed.



neuroanatomist said:


> So no, neither Canon's rank in annual market share nor especially their installed base are likely to change quickly.


Canon's marketshare rank can change in one year. (It could change in one quarter though it would likely take an 'act of God', such as loss of manufacturing capacity, to cause that.) The installed base would take more time, but Canon's bean counters don't care about that, they care about new sales.

I'm probably about as big of a Canon fan as you can find. And I will not invest in a closed mount. In all the years of people complaining about DR, I never knew anyone in my real life circle who thought about switching mounts over it. I'm already hearing complaints to that effect over this. Keep believing things will always stay the same if you wish. I think this is an incredibly foolish move by Canon. 

Now if Canon turns around and licenses the mount, that will fix things. If the big three get around the patents legally, that will change things. But RF without 3rd party glass is a sitting duck for Sony.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 7, 2022)

scyrene said:


> You're clearly exercised about this, but other than the generic "companies can make bad decisions/successful companies can lose their dominance" you haven't offered any substantive reason for why _this_ decision (if it's real) _now_.


Hand waving all the people complaining online does not make them go away. Are they iron clad proof? No. Are they an indicator one would be foolish to ignore? Yes.



scyrene said:


> You seem to be working from the assumption that third party lens options are important for sales of bodies but you've not given any evidence - none of us has any idea what the reality is. Surely you concede that?


It's difficult to have clear, indisputable evidence when nobody has been *so foolish* as to lockout 3rd party glass before this. On the other hand, it's also hard to miss that Sony's rise from last place to #1 in FF, and #2 overall, occurred simultaneously with a boom in 3rd party E-mount glass, and with Tamron's rise to become one of the heavyweights of the industry on glass alone.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 7, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Amazing how much ire is generated when folks think someone is getting in the way of what they WANT. Firstly, we have no real idea why there are so few third-party offerings for RF mount. Secondly, it IS Canon's business, and they are trying to stay in business in what is frankly a very difficult time. Canon is not the only company in the camera business, so you have choices, but remember that one of the factors in your choice should be whether that camera you buy will be supported in 3 or 5 years. Companies that don't survive don't support products. Bottom line, what we think we WANT isn't always the best long-term choice. Reading through many of the comments was like watching a bunch of spoiled brats.


If Canon cannot survive 3rd party glass on RF mount then they are in a lot more trouble than any of us suspect. I think that's a silly take as nothing in their financials or sales data even remotely suggests this. But if Canon executives are literally scared that Tamron glass on RF will ruin the imagining division, then Canon is...you remember the word.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> You don't make false analogies out of silly hypotheticals.


The fact that you misunderstand something doesn't make it false. Canon leads the market because of their aggregate business decisions over the last two decades.



dtaylor said:


> Only if you ignore the very thing everyone in this thread is complaining about. Since you're fond of analogies, let me explain it this way: you are insisting that the Titanic will continue on course because nothing has altered the course so far and we're already halfway across the ocean. I'm telling you I see an iceberg, dead ahead.


That's your opinion, not fact.



dtaylor said:


> You know very well that I'm making a prediction based on the news which recently broke.


You stated it as a foregone conclusion, when it's merely your opinion.



dtaylor said:


> As I've stated previously, people speculating based on the increasing number of complaints, as well as the growing statements of 'I will switch over this', is more evidence than you've presented. "Because it always has" is a non-starter when something this significant has changed.


It's only significant in your own mind and the minds of a handful of forum posters. There haven't been articles in the Nikkei about this, for example, merely some blog-type posts on a couple of photo-specific websites. The financial markets tell the tale, because stock trading is driven in large part by analysts who's job it is to watch the media and predict the effects of current events that affect the companies they track.

Here's what a company's stock looks like after a bad news day. This is Merck in 2004, the day the news broke that Vioxx was being withdrawn. It was just one of many of the company's blockbuster drugs, much like ILCs are just one of Canon's many product lines.


The stock price (the blue line) drops far below it's 6-month trend, and there's a huge spike in trading volume (the red/green columns at the bottom).

Now, here's what Canon's stock looked like the day after this 'news' broke:


Stock price within the normal fluctuations for the past 6 months, and no change in trading volume.

So, the people who's job it is to care about this sort of thing...don't. I get that you and a small number of others care deeply about it. The tail doesn't wag the dog.



dtaylor said:


> Canon's marketshare rank can change in one year. (It could change in one quarter though it would likely take an 'act of God', such as loss of manufacturing capacity, to cause that.)


Yes, anything _can_ happen. In much the same way you can be hit by lightning tomorrow. The probability of either happening is miniscule. Come back in a year and tell me 'told you so' when Canon has fallen to #2 in global ILC market share. I'm not going to hold my breath.



dtaylor said:


> I'm probably about as big of a Canon fan as you can find. And I will not invest in a closed mount. In all the years of people complaining about DR, I never knew anyone in my real life circle who thought about switching mounts over it. I'm already hearing complaints to that effect over this. Keep believing things will always stay the same if you wish. I think this is an incredibly foolish move by Canon.


Good for you. The complaints about Canon's poor low ISO DR on this forum and others were far more extensive, with far more complainers than we've seen over this issue, yet still that had no effect on Canon's bottom line. As is so common on this forum, you believe that your opinion represents the viewpoint of the majority, and that it will have a correspondingly significant effect. The reality is different. You believe this is a bigger issue than DR because it apparently matters to you. So, don't invest in the closed RF system. Canon doesn't care what you do, as an individual.

You and a few people you know are complaining about this. Me and a few people I know don't care. How many people feel the way either of us does about this issue? I have no idea, and neither do you. Who is more likely to be better able to estimate that for the global ILC market...you, me, or Canon?



dtaylor said:


> Now if Canon turns around and licenses the mount, that will fix things.


All that would fix is your angst. The business case for not doing so is very clear. I know you don't understand it, but Canon does and that's why they have not licensed the mount.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 7, 2022)

Am I really the only one fed up with this continuous Sony propaganda?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> The electronic part; 12 pins instead of 8 and how to transmit more data eg DLO data.


Also the Control Ring, which is even available on mount adapters independent of any lens, regardless of brand.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 7, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Only if you ignore the very thing everyone in this thread is complaining about. Since you're fond of analogies, let me explain it this way: you are insisting that the Titanic will continue on course because nothing has altered the course so far and we're already halfway across the ocean. I'm telling you I see an iceberg, dead ahead.


Bad analogy, since the iceberg was spotted and the Titanic did attempt to make a correction but couldn't react in time. The flaw that kept the Titanic from missing the iceberg (other the stupidity of the Captain) was designed in to the ship years earlier. By your analogy Canon has set its course years ago and is ******* , no cry of iceberg ahead will save it.

Edit: I wonder why the word doom ed is stricken out.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Hand waving all the people complaining online does not make them go away. Are they iron clad proof? No. Are they an indicator one would be foolish to ignore? Yes.
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have clear, indisputable evidence when nobody has been *so foolish* as to lockout 3rd party glass before this. On the other hand, it's also hard to miss that Sony's rise from last place to #1 in FF, and #2 overall, occurred simultaneously with a boom in 3rd party E-mount glass, and with Tamron's rise to become one of the heavyweights of the industry on glass alone.


On your first point, we have literally no idea how many actual customers (or potential customers) are upset enough to jump ship - from my subjective position there was far more ire about the overheating issue, and this kerfuffle is akin to the older beefs about low ISO DR, reusing old sensors, tightly clustered AF points in the 6D2 etc. But none of us can quantify how big a deal each controversy is, because online chatter is hard to equate to real world decisions (and easily manipulated).

On the second issue - Canon has never licensed third parties, there's plenty of third party MF glass available, and for all we know the lack of AF options is no different to how it was with previous mounts - just a matter of time. I don't see it as a sky-falling-in situation. Incidentally when I checked a major UK retailer, I could find no AF 3rd party lenses for Nikon's mirrorless mount either (indeed the lineups were almost identical). Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe people are extrapolating wildly.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 7, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What would be the point of getting a patent on anything if the government forces you to open up your proprietary designs to competitors?


The government gets involved with anti-competitive practices where they affect a large number of consumers and where a monopoly or near monopoly exists. Automobile makers were forced to allow for 3rd party parts, even forced to give enough data to make sure they fit. John deere is involved in a similar lawsuit where it requires that their farm equipment be repaired by their repair stations and is refusing to let owners fix their own equipment by keeping the necessary software under control.

It was obvious early on, well before the mirrorless series came out that Canon was methodically patenting every detail of the lens to camera interface and operation so that they could stop any third parties from churning out lenses using their patented details. The dimensions and configuration of the lens mount itself is covered by a patent.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 7, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> If Canon cannot survive 3rd party glass on RF mount then they are in a lot more trouble than any of us suspect. I think that's a silly take as nothing in their financials or sales data even remotely suggests this. But if Canon executives are literally scared that Tamron glass on RF will ruin the imagining division, then Canon is...you remember the word.


The issue may be far more complex than just the availability of Tamron or Sigma glass. The RF protocol may well hold some (or many) of the secrets to the impressive autofocus performance in RF cameras. Tamron is part owned by Sony and Sigma is formally part of the L alliance, so they are both to some degree in the "enemy" camp. OTOH, the hesitancy could be totally the other way around in that maybe neither Sony nor the L alliance wants to see Canon have the benefit of third-party glass. My point was that we really have no idea what is really going on and Viltrox getting curtailed for stepping on a patent is not informative with respect to either Tamron or Sigma. Samyang quit selling the 85m AF under the Samyang brand, but they seem to be continuing to sell it under the Rokinon brand, but it appears to be basically an EF lens with an RF mount, so that is not instructive either.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 7, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I think the better analogy is that Apple maintains a closed environment in its iOS App Store, only allowing software it personally vets and allows on a platform (iOS) that could just as easily support other software it hasn't vetted. This is like Canon with the RF system.


I see your analogy.

But for me....errr....I just see hardware and software as two different and SEPARATE entities to be treated differently.

You should be able to buy hardware and do with it as you please. The software, in general, is licensed to you....and you should have the ability to use other software if you please, etc.

In this case, there would be code on the hardware you own, that makes calls to the canon. Merely talking to an API, or in this case and hardware interface connected to you, should be free to do, legal....

Knowing what to SAY, that's the trick. But again, I think this is still considered legal if they did a clean room reverse engineer of canon cameras.

cayenne


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact that you misunderstand something doesn't make it false. Canon leads the market because of their aggregate business decisions over the last two decades.


I didn't misunderstand anything. It was a silly and false analogy. Businesses are not static physical objects. Canon's business wisdom is not a physical constant. Blocking out 3rd party lens manufacturers is not 'a coin flip just like all the past ones.' You've mocked other people in this thread for their arguments and logic, but that was one of the silliest things posted in this thread, period.



neuroanatomist said:


> That's your opinion, not fact.


I never claimed it was fact. Why does this confuse you? Do I really have to go through the work of labeling statements as fact, opinion, prediction, etc, just for you?



neuroanatomist said:


> You stated it as a foregone conclusion, when it's merely your opinion.


You've stated that Canon makes, and will continue to make, wise business decisions as a foregone conclusion, a fact, when it is merely your opinion.



neuroanatomist said:


> It's only significant in your own mind and the minds of a handful of forum posters. There haven't been articles in the Nikkei about this, for example, merely some blog-type posts on a couple of photo-specific websites. The financial markets tell the tale, because stock trading is driven in large part by analysts who's job it is to watch the media and predict the effects of current events that affect the companies they track.


Numerous major photography sites and blogs have published articles on this. Likewise some of the most popular influencers are now making videos about it and discussing it on social media. It's only insignificant in your mind because you don't want to consider the potential repercussions. The term is 'normalcy bias'.



neuroanatomist said:


> Here's what a company's stock looks like after a bad news day.


Because "bad days" only come in one flavor: instantaneous and catastrophic. And if Canon's stock didn't tank to near zero the day this became photo news, then nobody cares and everything must be OK, right?



neuroanatomist said:


> Now, here's what Canon's stock looked like the day after this 'news' broke:


The financial markets have not had a chance to react. This is nothing like a drug company being forced to pull a major product (another false analogy). Nobody...not me (admittedly), and certainly not you...will know the true fallout of this for a few years. Though we should have indicators within one year. If you're right then the financial markets won't react. If other people are right and this costs Canon sales and revenue, the markets will react.



neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, anything _can_ happen. In much the same way you can be hit by lightning tomorrow. The probability of either happening is miniscule. Come back in a year and tell me 'told you so' when Canon has fallen to #2 in global ILC market share. I'm not going to hold my breath.


If Canon holds to this decision long enough then I won't be around this forum to tell you "I told you so." I'll simply be on another mount, in another forum.



neuroanatomist said:


> The complaints about Canon's poor low ISO DR on this forum and others were far more extensive, with far more complainers than we've seen over this issue, yet still that had no effect on Canon's bottom line.


No, there were not far more DR complainers. There were more persistent complainers. This is being discussed pretty heavily across photography related social media, and it's just a few days old. One difference between this and DR is that nobody will sit around arguing the impact or technical nature of 3rd party lens support, year after year, while debating whether to stay or leave. They will simply leave if RF does not have the lenses they need at prices they can afford.

Furthermore: that argument of yours had some merit when the DR gap was several years old and yet there had been no negative shift in marketshare. It has zero merit with breaking news which has not had a chance to ripple across a year of sales. I'll admit that right now the people complaining only have indicators as to how the market will react over time. But you don't even have that. Just your normalcy bias that 'everything is fine' while you hand wave the negative indicators.



neuroanatomist said:


> The reality is different. You believe this is a bigger issue than DR because it apparently matters to you.


This is a bigger issue because it touches a heck of a lot more people, scenarios, budgets, etc. than ever cared about DR.



neuroanatomist said:


> You and a few people you know are complaining about this. Me and a few people I know don't care. How many people feel the way either of us does about this issue? I have no idea, and neither do you.


The Northrups have 80k views and 1,700 comments in one day after releasing a video about this. Care to guess how many of the comments are positive about this move from Canon? But it's 'just a few people', right?

Now search YouTube for "Canon 3rd party lenses." See all those frowns? Click each video and read the comments. See the negativity? There were videos that talked about DR, but never an explosion of them, all terribly negative, in a couple days.

But it's just a few people though, nothing to worry about. Clearly all these negative comments are not an indicator that this could be *a very bad move,* right?



neuroanatomist said:


> Who is more likely to be better able to estimate that for the global ILC market...you, me, or Canon?


Because companies never become arrogant or blind to how the market will react. No, companies never make mistakes.



neuroanatomist said:


> All that would fix is your angst. The business case for not doing so is very clear. I know you don't understand it, but Canon does and that's why they have not licensed the mount.


The 'business case' is the age old mistake of the #1 company assuming they can get away with soaking customers because they 'control the market.' What's funny is that when I got into photography, I had that impression of Nikon. It looked like Nikon thought they could charge more while offering fewer features simply because they were Nikon. It cost them. Now Canon is committing the same fallacy you are. We'll see if it works out any better for them than any of the other market leaders who fell before.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I didn't misunderstand anything. It was a silly and false analogy. Businesses are not static physical objects. Canon's business wisdom is not a physical constant. Blocking out 3rd party lens manufacturers is not 'a coin flip just like all the past ones.' You've mocked other people in this thread for their arguments and logic, but that was one of the silliest things posted in this thread, period.


Since the coin was being flipped, it was not a static physical object, it was a moving physical object. So was the Titanic, which was your analogy. But I bet you think that is not silly, right?  

Really no point in responding to the rest of your repetition. Time will tell which of us is correct, and if you're not around to see it because you've switched to another brand and another forum over this Titanic-killing iceberg of an issue, I will somehow manage to contain my disappointment.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Every rumor here has not been true. And 3rd party manufacturers make and sell apple parts and accessories.


I had no idea there were 3rd party lens makers for Apple cameras, aside from clip on add-ons that do not require any proprietary disclosures from Apple.

As far as accessories go, just about any strap, case, screen protector manufacturer makes a product for Canon. No input is required from Canon to make them. In other words, Canon does not have to go to those factories to show them how Canon does it. Canon doesn't have to help them beat Canon.


----------

