# Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 6, 2022)

> Since the story broke last week that Viltrox was told by Canon to cease making any autofocus lens for the RF mount, there has been a lot of chatter for obvious reasons. The lack of RF native autofocus third party lenses has become a growing concern amongst shooters.
> One of the good things to come from multiple folks covering this issue, is people begin to talk a bit more candidly about the topic at hand.
> I have spoken to two quality sources on the topic, from completely different geographical locations and they both have said very similar things.
> The big one being, Canon has no plans to give permission to third party manufacturers to utilize their RF mount patents as they pertain to electronics and autofocus anytime in the near future.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 6, 2022)

Makes sense.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 6, 2022)

If this is truly the case, Canon definitely needs to branch out their line up with answers to some of the more common third party options, like 120-300 and 150-600, both lenses I see relatively frequently from the third party companies.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 6, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> If this is truly the case, Canon definitely needs to branch out their line up with answers to some of the more common third party options, like 120-300 and 150-600, both lenses I see relatively frequently from the third party companies.


RF-S line up is empty which needs good native options, also for RF there is still missing 180mm Macro and a 100mm Macro without SA control and focus shift.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 6, 2022)

Fair game to Canon. Also don't really see a need for Canon to be 'transparent', as I suspect they would prefer to play the cards closer to the chest rather than give competitors an advantage. Besides, they might not even be sure what is the best way forward and probably not want to tie themselves up with public promises. As consumers, we generally do what makes sense for us - stay with Canon or go? Use existing EF lenses with adapters or wait for new RF lenses? etc.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 6, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> If this is truly the case, Canon definitely needs to branch out their line up with answers to some of the more common third party options, like 120-300 and 150-600, both lenses I see relatively frequently from the third party companies.


The Sigma EF 150-600 Sport works just fine with an adapter on my R7. I can't see Canon making one for anything near the Sigma's price.


----------



## melgross (Sep 6, 2022)

I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it. This was a decision made by the Librarian Of Congress a number of years ago, within whom the authority to make such decisions lies.

so Canon couldn’t forbid it here. Elsewhere, I don’t know.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

What on earth does

tweaks and improvements to the RF mount.
mean? I guess they're still improving the communications protocol?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

CANON GIVE ME ALL THE LENSES I WANT NOW OR I'LL SWITCH TO SONY!

Or maybe I should learn some patience.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon! You're supposed to defeat bad competitors, not join them!


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 6, 2022)

I asked this on the other thread and didn't get an answer. I'll ask again.

Did Canon lock down the EF format (as far as autofocus zooms) for several years before opening it up?

They basically did that with EF-M.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Seem like a lame excuse. They say that the RF system has not reached maturity, but they are already selling a $6,000 RF camera and a $3,000 RF standard zoom. 

In the last few years Canon told us, how awesome and revolutionary their RF gear is, but when it comes to third party lenses, they suddenly tell us that their system is not mature enough. Does that mean we should rather buy Sony cameras, which are already mature?

All the focussing alrorithms happen inside the camera anyway. The camera just has to tell the lens if it has to focus further or closer until the focus fits. Is that part any different for RF lenses than for EF lenses? Nobody wants Canon to give a way the secret how it nails the focus on animal eyes or fast moving subjects.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 6, 2022)

Could be a tough challenge for Canon to meet the expectation of a full lens line in a timely manner. Given the introduction of the RF-S line it would seem they need to release more than the planned half dozen lenses a year. A reliable lens roadmap that supports their plans might help appease some customers, but they may not want their plans that public.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

I'm glad I got my Samyang RF 85/1.4 AF and Samyang RF 14/2.8 AF last year, but if either stops working, I'm SOL and will need to reconsider my kit.

If I need to replace the wide angle, I could go for the RF 16/2.8, which is cheap, but has absolutely horrible image distortion in the corners that needs to be corrected. If I need to replace my short tele, I could go for the RF 85/2.0, which I've heard has a very slow autofocus.

Or, of course, I could buy more EF glass, some of it probably used.

I'm not happy with these options.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> In the last few years Canon told us, how awesome and revolutionary their RF gear is, but when it comes to third party lenses, they suddenly tell us that their system is not mature enough.


Judging by the number of people (including myself) who complain about certain desirable lenses being absent from the RF range, the lens system is indeed not mature enough. It takes time to fill out a lens range, and Canon have made very good progress. I'd certainly like to see a few more lenses added e.g. a 180mm or 200mm macro with OIS, a close-focusing compact 70-300mm etc.



Skyscraperfan said:


> Does that mean we should rather buy Sony cameras, which are already mature?


That is a decision everyone should think about *before* entering the RF system. If you want *native* AF glass that is not available from Canon, then sure, consider Sony- they make excellent cameras. But you can't be trying very hard if you can't find what you want in EF mount - and EF lenses work extremely well on RF cameras.


Skyscraperfan said:


> The camera just has to tell the lens if it has to focus further or closer until the focus fits. Is that part any different for RF lenses than for EF lenses? Nobody wants Canon to give a way the secret how it nails the focus on animal eyes or fast moving subjects.


You're speculating, and you're probably wrong. Modern lenses are jam-packed with complex electronics, which work in conjunction with the electronics in the camera body. The only people who know how much is lens-based and how much is body-based, are the manufacturers.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Actually even if I ever switch to mirrorless I will only buy RF glass if there really is no EF option at all that comes close to it. So the only lens I would probably buy right now is the 800mm f/11. There is no EF option for that. I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

BBarn said:


> Could be a tough challenge for Canon to meet the expectation of a full lens line in a timely manner. Given the introduction of the RF-S line it would seem they need to release more than the planned half dozen lenses a year. A reliable lens roadmap that supports their plans might help appease some customers, but they may not want their plans that public.


Adapting EF lenses mitigates the lack of corresponding (or improved) RF lenses. The EOS R system is nearly 4 years old, so by now Canon has lots of data on who's switched from their DSLRs to their MILCs, what EF lenses they owned when they switched, and what RF lenses they bought afterward. They also know very well based on EF lens sales which lens classes and specific lenses are most popular.

We all imagine specific RF lenses that we want Canon to release (actually, to have already released). For some of us, those lenses will be the next ones to be announced. For others, the wait will be long. Canon will release lenses in the order they think will be most profitable for them, and as I've said (often!), history suggests they do an excellent job of predicting and meeting the demands of the market as a whole.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Adapting EF lenses mitigates the lack of corresponding (or improved) RF lenses.





neuroanatomist said:


> Canon will release lenses in the order they think will be most profitable for them, and as I've said (often!), history suggests they do an excellent job of predicting and meeting the demands of the market as a whole.


Which makes the adapter an "elegant" solution. I believe Canon knew the line would take time to fill out, and also knew few people could afford to switch all lenses at once. The adapters are a great bridge into the new technology.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually even if I ever switch to mirrorless I will only buy RF glass if there really is no EF option at all that comes close to it. So the only lens I would probably buy right now is the 800mm f/11. There is no EF option for that. I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.


So you're complaining about RF glass, but you don't even use an RF mount camera?

Why are you so worried? You shoot mainly architecture. Presumably therefore most of the time you will be using tilt-shift lenses, which in most cases are manual focus, so what difference does it make to you whether Canon permits third parties to manufacture AF lenses in RF mount?


----------



## danfaz (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> All the focussing alrorithms happen inside the camera anyway. The camera just has to tell the lens if it has to focus further or closer until the focus fits. Is that part any different for RF lenses than for EF lenses?


I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

danfaz said:


> I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?


Let's ask Canon (and wait 2-3 years for them to answer, à la this 3rd party lens situation)


----------



## KirkD (Sep 6, 2022)

Although I have a Canon R5 and am heavily-invested in Canon RF glass, Canon's approach to third-party lenses really does limit my glass options. In my own view, this is a strong reason for a person to not purchase a Canon camera, but to go with a manufacturer that has both a) excellent cameras and glass and b) accepts third-party lenses, some of which are outstanding in terms of optics and value.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> So you're complaining about RF glass, but you don't even use an RF mount camera?
> 
> Why are you so worried? You shoot mainly architecture. Presumably therefore most of the time you will be using tilt-shift lenses, which in most cases are manual focus, so what difference does it make to you whether Canon permits third parties to manufacture AF lenses in RF mount?


Actually I do not use tilr-shift-lenses, because time usually is an issue for me. I have 12 days in Shanghai for example and in that time frame I want to take photos of as many skyscrapers as possible. Usually I try to take photos of a skyscraper from a distance, but very often I have to come closer. Then I usually use a 15-30 or a 24-70 lens. The RF mount would only be important for me because of the IBIS that would allow me to take hand held shots with lower ISO even at low light.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.


The RF 100-400mm does not have much lower IQ than the EF 100-400mm II. The RF 100-400mm is nearly as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II at long distances and actually sharper close up. The RF 100-500mm is more versatile than the EF, being really good with the 2x TC at 1000mm and is far better for close ups with it on. As for plastic, the 100-500 is mostly plastic on the outside, and plastic with much metal on the inside. Modern engineering plastics make for a lighter lenses that are strong. I've used all three extensively on the R5 and can speak from much real first hand experience.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon make RF lenses that bridge 14mm to 800mm so a very broad range is already covered. 
Some of the RF lenses get a bad rap unfairly. Take the RF 100-400mm yes its not the RF 100-500mm but it has its own attributes such as being extremely small and light ideal for hiking and at a bargain price relative to its optical quality. 
The RF 24-240mm again is a zoom that whilst it needs image correction especially at 24mm its a 10-1 zoom that can be a single walk around lens on vacation. The RF L lenses like the RF 24-70mm f2.8L now have IS or in the RF 28-70mm f2L a fast aperture and image quality matching primes and effective covering three to four focal lenghts. 
Sure I have my wants like everyone else like the RF version of the EF 85mm f1.4L IS lens but the EF version works seamlessly on my R5 & R6 with the added benefit of eye tracking and improve IS. 
Canon do need to address a wide angle zoom in the RF-S mount and round out f1.4L lenses.


----------



## Bonich (Sep 6, 2022)

melgross said:


> I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it. This was a decision made by the Librarian Of Congress a number of years ago, within whom the authority to make such decisions lies.
> 
> so Canon couldn’t forbid it here. Elsewhere, I don’t know.


USA is not of relevance in this regard.
Camera business is a word wide business.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400mm does not have much lower IQ than the EF 100-400mm II. The RF 100-400mm is nearly as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II at long distances and actually sharper close up.


Before I bought the EF, I checked out the image quality comparison at "The Digital Picture" and there the RF 100-400 showed quite a horrible result. I did not have the chance to compare those lenses personally. So I had to rely on test like that: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## Bonich (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually even if I ever switch to mirrorless I will only buy RF glass if there really is no EF option at all that comes close to it. So the only lens I would probably buy right now is the 800mm f/11. There is no EF option for that. I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.


Did you ever shoot the RF 100-400???
You are complaining, the RF 100 to 400 weights 40% of the EF, costs 35% of the EF and is better in close-up, IS and reasonable sharpness.
Not too bad of an offer!

If you want the same apertures and more reach: Take the RF100-500.

Please avoid complaining - and avoid switching!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Before I bought the EF, I checked out the image quality comparison at "The Digital Picture" and there the RF 100-400 showed quite a horrible result. I did not have the chance to sompare those lenses personally. So I had to rely on test like that: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


Bryan (TDP's owner) usually tests just one copy of a lens, and sometimes he gets a bad copy. If that happens with an L-series lens, he generally tests more copies (IIRC, for the EF 24-70/2.8L II he tested four copies of the lens). With an inexpensive, non-L lens if he finds poor IQ he generally finds other ways to praise the lens and moves on. 

As a specific example, when I was writing the review for his site on the EF-M 18-150, my copy of the lens performed substantially better than his ISO 12233-type testing indicated. He tested a second copy, that one was much better and is the one currently shown in the TDP comparison tool.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Before I bought the EF, I checked out the image quality comparison at "The Digital Picture" and there the RF 100-400 showed quite a horrible result. I did not have the chance to sompare those lenses personally. So I had to rely on test like that: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


The digital picture is not 100% reliable for image comparisons - just compare its comparison with the EF 400mm DO II, it has the zoom sharper. I have had 3 copies of the EF 100-400mm II and 2 of the 400mm DO II and the prime was sharper, as every other review site finds, including lensrentals measurements on many copies.


----------



## Bonich (Sep 6, 2022)

Recently I added a lens to my RF kit which is not in the Canon lineup:
- adapted Angeneux 185mm 2.3

It was never better than today.
Sorry, no AF, it is a biest to get the focus right but it delivers subject separation.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The digital picture is not 100% reliable for image comparisons - just compare its comparison with the EF 400mm DO II, it has the zoom sharper.


Yes, the EF 400mm DO II test looks really strange, The corners look sharper than the center.


----------



## MythPlayer (Sep 6, 2022)

If they're think EF Lens adapter is "solution", Now we have many "Thrid-party camera body" to choice.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, the EF 400mm DO II test looks really strange, The corners look sharper than the center.


The site is otherwise so good that it's too easy to believe everything on it. My experience is don't base your buying on those charts. Some sites do seem more reliable, like opticallimits which rarely gets it wrong.


----------



## peconicgp (Sep 6, 2022)

Isn't the solution for this to have Sony and Nikon just put in all of their advertising that their new lense mounts support third party autofocus lenses? If that drives consumers to their brands and Canon loses customers than Canon will change their mind sooner than 2024.


----------



## emc (Sep 6, 2022)

If EF lenses work very well on RF mount with adapters, I don't see how it could be different for third party lenses in RF mount. Unless the adapter is not neutral.


----------



## fred (Sep 6, 2022)

Can't really blame Canon for being afraid of SIGMA's outstanding glass. Near perfect F1.4 Art primes, premium F2 I series primes featuring the best build quality on the market and an expanding range of traditional as well as innovative zoom lenses - all at half or even 1/3 of the cost of Canon's own lenses. They simply can't compete...


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

fred said:


> Can't really blame Canon for being afraid of SIGMA's outstanding glass. Near perfect F1.4 Art primes, premium F2 I series primes featuring the best build quality on the market and an expanding range of traditional as well as innovative zoom lenses - all at half or even 1/3 of the cost of Canon's own lenses. They simply can't compete...



Strong statement. I think you're exaggerating a little, but the point remains that they're extremely competitive.


----------



## CrPr (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400mm does not have much lower IQ than the EF 100-400mm II. The RF 100-400mm is nearly as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II at long distances and actually sharper close up. The RF 100-500mm is more versatile than the EF, being really good with the 2x TC at 1000mm and is far better for close ups with it on. As for plastic, the 100-500 is mostly plastic on the outside, and plastic with much metal on the inside. Modern engineering plastics make for a lighter lenses that are strong. I've used all three extensively on the R5 and can speak from much real first hand experience.


Totally agree with you. I switched from the EF 100-400 II and I'm using the RF 100-500 for more than a year now, also in rough conditions, with R5 and R6. The EF was very good indeed, but the new one is better in any regard: optics in general, especially close ups and - not to forget 100 mm additional reach. All that in a package that is lighter, a big advantage for nature photography. Thus, for me there is no absolutely no reason to look back ...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

CrPr said:


> Totally agree with you. I switched from the EF 100-400 II and I'm using the RF 100-500 for more than a year now, also in rough conditions, with R5 and R6. The EF was very good indeed, but the new one is better in any regard: optics in general, especially close ups and - not to forget 100 mm additional reach. All that in a package that is lighter, a big advantage for nature photography. Thus, for me there is no absolutely no reason to look back ...


The EF 100-400mm II is an incredibly good lens and I got many years of fun and great shots with it, and so did my wife with my second copy (I even sold one and had to buy another when I missed it). The RF 100-500mm seems very well liked by everyone who actually uses it, and I love it. And, I also love the RF 100-400 for being so light and sharp.


----------



## fred (Sep 6, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Strong statement. I think you're exaggerating a little, but the point remains that they're extremely competitive.


Maybe a little. But I do think Sigma has become so good that any system without them is rather unattractive. Canon + Sigma would have been great, both exclusively made in Japan as well. Hopefully Nikon will sell them a licence soon... (I don't like Sony and the L-Mount can't really be taken seriously imho).


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 6, 2022)

Show me the patents. Everyone reports about patents but I’d welcome a report on what the pertinent patents were (I’m a patent attorney).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Show me the patents. Everyone reports about patents but I’d welcome a report on what the pertinent patents were (I’m a patent attorney).


That’s funny. When I need information on the IP portfolio of a company, the IP landscape for a particular technology, or to access the full text of a specific patent, I reach out to one of my patent attorneys. Every one of them that I’ve worked with has had access to databases and search tools beyond what idly curious people can utilize.

Here you are, a patent attorney yourself, yet you’re asking _others_ to provide you with the information you seek. If there is a point you’re trying to make regarding Canon’s patents, why don’t you look them up yourself and make the point?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Show me the patents. Everyone reports about patents but I’d welcome a report on what the pertinent patents were (I’m a patent attorney).


I asked a question that you may be able to answer. Do companies like Canon actually patent and publish the code for their communication protocols?


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 6, 2022)

KirkD said:


> Although I have a Canon R5 and am heavily-invested in Canon RF glass, Canon's approach to third-party lenses really does limit my glass options. In my own view, this is a strong reason for a person to not purchase a Canon camera, but to go with a manufacturer that has both a) excellent cameras and glass and b) accepts third-party lenses, some of which are outstanding in terms of optics and value.


Why are adapted EF lenses (including 3rd party ones) not an option for you?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch.


Loved that lense. Works great, even better on mirrorless. I still opted for to "upgrade" to the 100-500mm because in the US the price for the upgrade is basically what I would have paid for an extender. I sold my 100-400mm and got real money for it, so the upgrade wasn't too expensive. 
The main reason was that I often use the 100-400/500mm for landscape pics, but when you use it with an extender at focal lengths such as 700mm there is so much air between the lense and the subject, the pics just turn out as nice. Therefore, I mostly stick to 500mm at most and I didn't want have to use an extender just to get to 500mm


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

First thought: 
Canon will now feel the heat because the chatter and the (bad) PR is out. They can...
1,)...simply not care about (bad move) and see if actually more people chose Sony, Nikon whatsoever. If they do, they'll answer to that. If they don't, their strategy worked. 
2. answer by releasing a huge amount of lenses in the next 12 months and show people: we're all you need. 
3. they can start by licensing and earning money of third party sales


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Second thought: 
What if Canon went for a "killer" move: 
They license Sigma lenses for free, in return Sigma exclusively produces lenses for RF and L-mount. No other mount will be supported from that point on. Sigma would make a killing as Canon only third party option, they could easily afford losing the others. 

Some people will rip this comment to pieces  But I thought this strategy could have some merits.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Second thought:
> What if Canon went for a "killer" move:
> They license Sigma lenses for free, in return Sigma exclusively produces lenses for RF and L-mount. No other mount will be supported from that point on. Sigma would make a killing as Canon only third party option, they could easily afford losing the others.
> 
> Some people will rip this comment to pieces  But I thought this strategy could have some merits.


I don't think Sigma would go for it.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.


I've read several reviews of the RF 100-400mm.

To summarise:

Most reviews focus on the positives i.e. good sharpness, excellent stabilisation, close-focusing, light weight, compactness and affordability.

A few negatives have been mentioned, e.g. modest build quality, lack of supplied lens hood, lack of supplied case, lack of rotating tripod collar, and limited maximum aperture. Most of these are perfectly acceptable in view of the modest price. The only concerning negative is that you are stuck with an effective fixed F8 aperture, because you allegedly need to stop down to F8 to get sharp images, and if you stop down to F11 or beyond the image quality becomes quite soft due to diffraction.

I haven't used the RF 100-400mm myself, so I can only judge from reviews. I have had the EF 100-400mm and now have the RF 100-500mm. Both are (for me) heavy to hold, and consequently a bit cumbersome, but someone younger and/or fitter should have no trouble with either. Personally, although the RF 100-500mm is a tad sharper, focuses a tad faster and has a bit of extra reach, I don't think I gained enough to justify the expense. The EF 100-400mm with 1.4 extender is arguably a better choice for some.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 6, 2022)

> We’re hoping that this run of stories will push Canon to be more transparent on the topic in the near future.


Canon, a Japanese company, be more transparent? That's extremely naive to hope so.


----------



## Videoboy (Sep 6, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> Fair game to Canon. Also don't really see a need for Canon to be 'transparent', as I suspect they would prefer to play the cards closer to the chest rather than give competitors an advantage. Besides, they might not even be sure what is the best way forward and probably not want to tie themselves up with public promises. As consumers, we generally do what makes sense for us - stay with Canon or go? Use existing EF lenses with adapters or wait for new RF lenses? etc.


Unfair game to canon, while investing hard earned money in a company's ecosystem it would be nice if they let us in on there plans


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

danfaz said:


> I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?


As I stated, some of the electronics are in the body (hence camera firmware updates), and some of the electronics are in the lens (hence lens firmware updates).

Different RF lenses probably benefit from different AF algorithms due to the differing weight of the elements, the differing torque of the AF motors, and differing optical characteristics.

Camera bodies need different firmware, to handle things such as AF zones, button customisation, IBIS etc. - and bug fixes...

It isn't possible to update firmware in older EF lenses, because the practice of updating firmware (in bodies and/or lenses) is a development that only came into existence when MILCs became popular. I think Fujifilm were the first to provide firmware updates to bodies, or was it Sony?


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 6, 2022)

Feel bad for anyone waiting for these third party RF lenses. Sony has the top spot in FF Mirrorless and I don’t see that changing any time soon with their lens selection. Hopefully Nikon have indeed opened their mount to Sigma as well, then Canon can be the only major manufacturer that doesn’t provide new and affordable lens options to their customers and they’ll be pressured to come to their senses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I don't think Sigma would go for it.


I agree, they wouldn't. Still a fun thought


----------



## woodman411 (Sep 6, 2022)

I'm wondering if the ILC market is moving (or has moved) towards the Playstation/Xbox model, where the console makers make nothing on the consoles but get all the profits from the games, meaning make nothing on the camera bodies but get all the profits from the lenses and accessories. This is because the development cycle on processor chips is too fast and costly for any reasonable ROI, and mirrorless camera bodies are now primarily processor driven (no more mechanical shutter, or increasingly less importance on mechanical components, rather the emphasis on autofocus features and performance, sensor read-out speed and data throughput, higher and cleaner megapixels, raw high-res video, etc. all of this hinges on the processor).

No one but Canon knows the profits for camera bodies and lenses, but if I had to guess, it wouldn't surprise me if the profits are going down on the bodies and going up on the lenses over the years. If this is true, it wouldn't make sense to share their primary profits to third-party lens makers.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Feel bad for anyone waiting for these third party RF lenses. Sony has the top spot in FF Mirrorless and I don’t see that changing any time soon with their lens selection. Hopefully Nikon have indeed opened their mount to Sigma as well, then Canon can be the only major manufacturer that doesn’t provide new and affordable lens options to their customers and they’ll be pressured to come to their senses.



I don't expect anything less than a stalemate over the next 5 years. Nikon will stay in last place (hardly gaining market share for allowing 3rd parties), Sony will retain its top spot, and Canon will hang out in 2nd place with maybe a modest bump in profit as a result of this decision.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 6, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Strong statement. I think you're exaggerating a little, but the point remains that they're extremely competitive.


Its not an exaggeration at all. Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 DG DN has IQ that rivals the RF 85mm f1.2 L but costs a 3rd of the price. 

Then there’s their 35mm f1.2 Art which costs less than the 35mm f1.4 L II and will definitely be less than Canon’s premium 35mm prime.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> I have had the EF 100-400mm and now have the RF 100-500mm. Both are (for me) heavy to hold, and consequently a bit cumbersome, but someone younger and/or fitter should have no trouble with either.


Actually after having tested the EF 100-400 for a few hours, I found it to be so heavy that I have to do more workouts just to get more strength for hand holding it over a longer period of time. My plan is do not a longer journey next summer and until then I have to be strong enough to carry that lens - and a few more - around all day.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually after having tested the EF 100-400 for a few hours, I found it to be so heavy that I have to do more workouts just to get more strength for hand holding it over a longer period of time. My plan is do not a longer journey next summer and until then I have to be strong enough to carry that lens - and a few more - around all day.


Try what I do for carrying it. I use a Black Rapid strap with two carabiniers, one attached to the base of the camera and the other to the tripod foot, as in the picture. I can go on reasonably long walks with this over my shoulder, and I am really getting on in years. Hand holding when pointing at a target is still a little tiring. If it's still too heavy, get the RF 100-400mm - it is so light that you won't notice you are carrying it. I really do recommend it, and I don't recommend anything unless I know it well.


----------



## AJ (Sep 6, 2022)

melgross said:


> I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it.


I did some googling and found this: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq6


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its not an exaggeration at all. Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 DG DN has IQ that rivals the RF 85mm f1.2 L but costs a 3rd of the price.
> 
> Then there’s their 35mm f1.2 Art which costs less than the 35mm f1.4 L II and will definitely be less than Canon’s premium 35mm prime.


I mean, I can see a difference in the 85s, looking at the center of the image. Plus the RF 85 1.2 L is brighter. Either lens can be used on the RF system if you use the EF adapter on the Sigma.

The Sigma 35/1.2 Art is only available on Sony, however. Its image quality is good, but I think the rendering is a little wonky. I daresay that once you get brighter than F/1.4, it gets harder and harder to make the bokeh look good and suit the image, both from a lens-making standpoint as well as a photography skill.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2022)

AJ said:


> I did some googling and found this: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq6


Very informative.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

woodman411 said:


> No one but Canon knows the profits for camera bodies and lenses, but if I had to guess, it wouldn't surprise me if the profits are going down on the bodies and going up on the lenses over the years. If this is true, it wouldn't make sense to share their primary profits to third-party lens makers.


Canon stated in one of their earnings calls that they expect lenses to be a significant driver of revenue in the future. Given that, blocking competition certainly makes sense for Canon.


----------



## AJ (Sep 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Very informative.


What I found interesting is that any EULA plays a big factor. When you first start up a Canon camera or lens, you don't have to waive any rights. The camera starts right away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its not an exaggeration at all. Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 DG DN has IQ that rivals the RF 85mm f1.2 L but costs a 3rd of the price.


Tell us again why Canon should think it’s a bad idea to block 3rd parties from making RF mount lenses as good as OEM that sell for 1/3 the price.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Try what I do for carrying it. I use a Black Rapid strap with two carabiniers, one attached to the base of the camera and the other to the tripod foot, as in the picture. I can go on reasonably long walks with this over my shoulder, and I am really getting on in years. Hand holding when pointing at a target is still a little tiring. If it's still too heavy, get the RF 100-400mm - it is so light that you won't notice you are carrying it. I really do recommend it, and I don't recommend anything unless I know it well.
> 
> View attachment 205469


Yes, the pointing is the hardest part. For carrying I bought a wide camera strap and used it for the lens bag the camera came with. I did the same with the 70-200, which is not much lighter. The straps the camera bags come with are much too slim. 

When I was younger I always carried around all lenses I had in a huge Lowepro backpack that was very ergonomic to carry heavy stuff, but not very comfortable on hot days. I stopped taking that backpack on journeys and now think carefully which of my lenses I take with me when I leave the hotel room in the morning. 

I still like big and heavy cameras, but after I had the R3 in my hands that is still somehow large, but weighs so much less, I can understand the appeal of having to carry around much less. The combination with one of the very light 70-200 RF lenses must be so much easier to carry around without having to compromise image quality.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2022)

So, to summarize. Canon is not going to change its long-standing policy of protecting its proprietary designs in the near term. Canon plans to release many more lenses in the next few years to build out its RF system and give buyers more choices. After it has had time to build out its system and recover its investment, Canon may or may not revisit or revise it's long-standing policy and negotiate licensing agreements. 

Not stated, but can be inferred: 

Canon will be looking at its sales, market position and customer satisfaction data to determine whether or not licensing agreements are in its best interest. 

Sigma (and other third-parties) remain free to reverse engineer the RF mount provided they do not infringe on Canon's patents *or* they can seek discussions with Canon to see if it is possible to reach a license agreement that benefits both companies.

Given that Canon has released a selection of both expected, predictable lenses and "surprise" lenses (16mm f2.8, 800mm f11, Virtual Reality Fisheye, 28-70 f2, compact 70-200 f2.8 and f4. for example) third-party manufacturers might be cautious about rushing into the RF market anyway, as they run the risk of designing a lens that fills a "niche" that turns out to be non-existent, once Canon builds out its lens collection. It is far safer for established third parties like Sigma to wait until they can identify what, if any, holes might exist in the lineup, since they are in the business of niche marketing. 

It might also be prudent for third-party manufacturers to move slowly because the R system is still immature and its user base is no doubt far smaller than the legacy EF user base. We do not know what minimum sales numbers might be for third parties to justify developing RF lenses. Additionally, we do not know if the same "one size fits all mounts" approach that Sigma followed with the legacy Canon and Nikon mounts lends itself to the new mirrorless designs.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Given that Canon has released a selection of both expected, predictable lenses and "surprise" lenses (16mm f2.8, 800mm f11, Virtual Reality Fisheye, 28-70 f2, compact 70-200 f2.8 and f4. for example) third-party manufacturers might be cautious about rushing into the RF market anyway, as *they run the risk of designing a lens that fills a "niche" that turns out to be non-existent, once Canon builds out its lens collection.* It is far safer for established third parties like Sigma to wait until they can identify what, if any, holes might exist in the lineup, since they are in the business of niche marketing.
> 
> It might also be prudent for third-party manufacturers to move slowly because the R system is still immature and its user base is no doubt far smaller than the legacy EF user base. We do not know what minimum sales numbers might be for third parties to justify developing RF lenses. Additionally, *we do not know if the same "one size fits all mounts" approach that Sigma followed with the legacy Canon and Nikon mounts lends itself to the new mirrorless designs.*



I think both these sections I bolded are worth visiting in light of obvious cost differences in 1st party and 3rd party RF glass. The niche you say might turn out to be "non-existent," and which Canon has not addressed and likely will not address any time soon, is inexpensive, fast primes. We are already aware these lenses sell quite well across platforms with a "one size fits all mounts approach" if, for instance, the number of images uploaded to their Flickr group pages is any indication (someone can link actual sales figures if they have them), and I see no reason why this would be different, now.

The Samyang RF 85/1.4 was on sale for over a year at $629 before it was discontinued. The Canon 85/2.0 sells for approximately the same price and is a full stop slower, with somewhat cheaper build quality and reportedly a pokey autofocus motor (yes, and it has some macro utility and IS, for those that want these features).

The RF system is now in its 5th year and Canon wants us all to either 1) buy a cheap-ish, slower starter primes, or 2) buy f/1.2 monsters.

Sigma, Samyang, and others offer a way out of this binary, and that's precisely why Canon has disallowed it. I am exactly the kind of customer that wants this illicit glass, lol, and I have a lot of company.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually after having tested the EF 100-400 for a few hours, I found it to be so heavy that I have to do more workouts just to get more strength for hand holding it over a longer period of time. My plan is do not a longer journey next summer and until then I have to be strong enough to carry that lens - and a few more - around all day.


Yes, it's when hand holding and pointing at a target, that I feel the weight, especially if I have to hold in that position for a couple of minutes. A monopod can help in some situations, but is very difficult for BIF and other subjects with unpredictable movement.

There's a product, the name of which I can't remember which is basically a harness with a holster at the front. The idea is to use a short monopod and have the foot of the pod in the holster. This also takes the weight off the arms, and allows the camera to be manoeuvred and panned easily.

As Alan stated, the RF 100-400mm is a great alternative when a compact and light weight lens is needed, although it won't be much use to you at the moment, as you're still using a DSLR. Your best option if you intend to stay with your DSLR, is probably a Tamron, as they are generally much lighter than Canon (or Sigma) equivalents.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 7, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I mean, I can see a difference in the 85s, looking at the center of the image. Plus the RF 85 1.2 L is brighter. Either lens can be used on the RF system if you use the EF adapter on the Sigma.
> 
> The Sigma 35/1.2 Art is only available on Sony, however. Its image quality is good, but I think the rendering is a little wonky. I daresay that once you get brighter than F/1.4, it gets harder and harder to make the bokeh look good and suit the image, both from a lens-making standpoint as well as a photography skill.


I mentioned the newer 85mm f1.4 DG DN for mirrorless cameras that’s much smaller and lighter. Here’s a real world comparison of them here. 




For many the Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 has wonderful rendering but that’s a subjective thing.

For me I shoot with at f1.4 with a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I don’t have issues with OOF areas at all. As for manufacturing we are in probably the best ever era for lens design at the moment. Canon, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, Sigma and Leica are all making amazing fast glass.


----------



## Silverstream (Sep 7, 2022)

Lets me know that I can go ahead and spend money on more EF glass from high quality vendors like Sigma and not wait for them to come out with the RF versions. I have no problems with using the EF/RF adapter and lenses.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 7, 2022)

melgross said:


> I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it.


It's fine to reverse engineer stuff, but you still can't reproduce what you've reverse engineered if it's patented. You can figure out a *different* way of doing the same thing. That's what reverse engineered alternatives typically are.

More RF stuff was patented than EF stuff back in the day. So there might be a communications protocol related patent or the like that could be violated if people weren't careful to avoid just that in reverse engineering. 

All that said, I suspect that what Canon could most successfully enforce (and this is hinted at in the Canon Germany statement) against the others is a claim that they are falsely calling their lenses RF mount, a Canon trademark.

The third party lenses mostly are not really RF mount. They're EF mount autofocus protocol lenses in most cases, with extra pins to make them look like RF mount lenses. When they are marketed as RF lenses, they could be violating Canon's trademarked mount name and causing consumer confusion, which is the the key legal standard to prove in those types of cases). 

Canon can argue that the lame version of RF is denigrating the rich RF goodness that comes with all the various additional features. 

If I'm right, you could create an RF mount lens with EF mount protocols and *not call it an RF lens* and be fine. You'd have to indicate that it would "fit cameras that use the RF mount", rather than call in at RF mount lens, etc. I very much hope Sigma and Tamron will do so.


----------



## woodman411 (Sep 7, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I think both these sections I bolded are worth visiting in light of obvious cost differences in 1st party and 3rd party RF glass. The niche you say might turn out to be "non-existent," and which Canon has not addressed and likely will not address any time soon, is inexpensive, fast primes. We are already aware these lenses sell quite well across platforms with a "one size fits all mounts approach" if, for instance, the number of images uploaded to their Flickr group pages is any indication (someone can link actual sales figures if they have them), and I see no reason why this would be different, now.
> 
> The Samyang RF 85/1.4 was on sale for over a year at $629 before it was discontinued. The Canon 85/2.0 sells for approximately the same price and is a full stop slower, with somewhat cheaper build quality and reportedly a pokey autofocus motor (yes, and it has some macro utility and IS, for those that want these features).
> 
> ...



From Canon's perspective, an RF buyer has 3 valid choices for an 85 prime:

- RF 85 f/1.2 for $2,500
- EF 85 f/1.4L IS for $1,500 and adapter
- RF 85 f/2 for $500

Time will tell if Canon will eventually replace the EF f/1.4 primes with RF versions and maintain the $1000 spread between lenses, I'm guessing they will, since as you mentioned, the gap is too big if they don't.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 7, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I mentioned the newer 85mm f1.4 DG DN for mirrorless cameras that’s much smaller and lighter. Here’s a real world comparison of them here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The lens in this comparison (f1.4 DG DN) doesn't hold up when checking charts, either, but you're quite right that in the real world, there is no noticeable difference (and certainly no difference any client can see!).

I find that my Sigma 35/1.4 renders busy OOF foregrounds a little harshly, but alas, I won't be trading it for something else anytime soon.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 7, 2022)

If I were an enterprising young man with a great staff of optical engineers, I'd develop an EF lens that was designed to be used with the EF-RF converter, and in fact used the space in the adapter to get the rearmost element closer to the sensor. But that might be cheating too. Still, it'd be an eF lens, but not compatible with an EF camera.


----------



## esglord (Sep 7, 2022)

Maybe they’ll license to Sony and Nikon and vice versa and crush all of the third party budget producers out of business to the benefit of all three


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 7, 2022)

woodman411 said:


> From Canon's perspective, an RF buyer has 3 valid choices for an 85 prime:
> 
> - RF 85 f/1.2 for $2,500
> - EF 85 f/1.4L IS for $1,500 and adapter
> ...


In Australia the pricing is quite different. 

RF 85 f/1.2 - $3730 (on sale from $4300)
EF 85 f/1.4L IS - $2299 AUD plus adapter which is around $200AUD 
RF 85 f/2 - $934 AUD (on sale from $1099 AUD)

If Sigma DN lenses were available, the 85mm f/1.4 DN Art was available for $1155 AUD on sale.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 7, 2022)

The comments here are quite interesting:









Canon Breaks the Silence on Viltrox Lenses


News recently broke that Viltrox, a brand known for their affordable lenses, has stopped manufacturing for the Canon RF mount after rumors that Canon had asked them to pull their products. Canon recently confirmed that news, and it certainly raises questions about the future of third-party...




fstoppers.com





…and not a net positive for Canon, I think…at least in terms of growing their user base. 

Undoubtedly Canon management have a plan and they aren’t sharing…their lens mount or their plan.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon doesn’t feel the RF lineup is anywhere near maturity, and they want the lineup filled out with their own lenses first. Canon still has lots of work...​



I agree with this point of view.

Once Canon reaches near 70 lens SKUs after year 2026 then odds are that 3rd parties may not receive legal action for patent infringement.

Many forget that in spite of the world population growing YoY the worldwide shipment of digital still cameras has been declining YoY because of smartphones.

What remains are customers who are professional photogs & enthusiasts with discretionary spend for cameras.

The table below is for 1999 (when records were started being kept), 2010 (all time high) & the past 6 years of worldwide shipment of digital still cameras within the context of worldwide population growth.


Year19992010201720182019202020212022 forecastTotal Cameras5,088,207121,463,23424,978,48619,423,37115,216,9578,886,2928,361,5217,850,000Point & Shoot-108,576,29813,302,7978,663,5746,755,4673,578,6433,013,2502,560,000Total SLR & Mirrorless-12,886,93611,675,68910,759,7978,461,4905,307,6495,348,2715,290,000SLR-12,886,9367,595,7086,620,9994,504,9872,374,5692,241,772-Mirrorless--4,079,9814,138,7983,956,5032,933,0803,106,499-Worldwide population6.034 billion6.922 billion7.509 billion7.592 billion7.673 billion7.753 billion7.9 billion8 billion% of worldwide population relative to cameras bought that year0.0843%1.7547%0.3326%0.2558%0.1983%0.1146%0.1078%0.1013%

As #1 interchangeable lens camera brand, Canon sees 3rd parties as cannibalizing their RF lens sales. If they charge a licensing fee it would never provide the exact same margin as them selling 1st party lenses.

Also there are ways to cheat licensing fees if the charge is on a per unit basis. Extra work for their legal department that does not creat meaningful revenue for Canon.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> In Australia the pricing is quite different.
> 
> RF 85 f/1.2 - $3730 (on sale from $4300)
> EF 85 f/1.4L IS - $2299 AUD plus adapter which is around $200AUD
> ...


Pricing for different countries may be influence by

- forex
- import duties
- tax treaties
- overhead
- labor
- etc


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> Pricing for different countries may be influence by
> 
> - forex
> - import duties
> ...



The issue with that is, since the release of the RF mount Canon have continuously put their prices up, even on RF gear. If you compared Sony lens prices from pre-Covid to now, they’ve barely changed whereas Canon have greatly increased their lens prices, especially for EF mount. 

If all manufacturers were increasing prices to the same level it would be one thing but here Canon is the main one doing it.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> The issue with that is, since the release of the RF mount Canon have continuously put their prices up, even on RF gear. If you compared Sony lens prices from pre-Covid to now, they’ve barely changed whereas Canon have greatly increased their lens prices, especially for EF mount.
> 
> If all manufacturers were increasing prices to the same level it would be one thing but here Canon is the main one doing it.


Sony's E mount manufacturing started in 2010

Nikon & Canon started in 2018.

All EF & F mount lenses were designed & announced prior to 2018.

Changes to manufacturing process increases cost.

This gets magnified because of COVID-19

Have you seen the cost of fuel? Makes you wish you owned oil stocks!

Using BH Photo here are the comparison
​
Brand​Canon​Nikon​70-200mm f/2.8 IS/VR​$2,799​$2,697​24-70mm f/2.8 IS/VR​$2,399​$2,397​


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.


I looked at the EF100-400 and even second hand was still expensive but I couldn't use TCs on my RF70-200mm. When the RF100-500mm was on sale, I jumped at it and have not regretted my decision. 

Adding a 1.4xTC for the EF100-400 is common but having it built in to the RF is just great. 
I tend to use the lens at the longer end so not an issue with the 300mm limitation. Having the weight distribution closer to the body is a big benefit.
If you need a TC for the RF100-500mm then that would be equivalent to the 2xTC on the EF100-400 and that did have focus speed and image quality degradation.

Frankly, I am very glad that all the RF lenses have moved to plastic rather than metal. Besides the obvious weight reduction and size by having extending the lens body, there is the problem of white paint chips at the mount on the EF lenses which always looked poor!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> If this is truly the case, Canon definitely needs to branch out their line up with answers to some of the more common third party options, like 120-300 and 150-600, both lenses I see relatively frequently from the third party companies.


I think that you are in the minority of shooting genres to consider the 120-300mm or 150-600mm lenses are common.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> RF-S line up is empty which needs good native options, also for RF there is still missing 180mm Macro and a 100mm Macro without SA control and focus shift.


You only need native RF-S lenses for wide angle. Using RF lenses on the R7/10 will give you more "reach".
The RF100mm macro is expensive and has focus shift and the SA control is debatable. It sounds like the EF100mm L macro is the right lens/cost etc for you.
I think that a native 180mm macro is far down their priority list but I could be (and have been) wrong in the past


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

navastronia said:


> What on earth does
> 
> tweaks and improvements to the RF mount.
> mean? I guess they're still improving the communications protocol?


Of course they are!
There is no way that they didn't build in buffers for new features in the future. The EF protocols have been with us for 35 years so far. I expect improvements over time and new lenses to take advantage of them in the future.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

AJ said:


> I did some googling and found this: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq6


If you want to see some active/open source reverse engineering then look to the Magic Lantern effort to replace the Canon's firmware. They haven't started on Digic X yet and I don't see the point so much as Canon has regularly released new features in their R6/5 etc and pushed thermal limits etc already.

Magic Lantern Supported cameras:
5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 6D, 7D, 50D, 60D, 500D/T1i, 550D/T2i, 600D/T3i, 650D/T4i, 700D/T5i, 1100D/T3, EOS M.
In progress:
70D, 100D/SL1, 1200D/T5, 450D/XSi, EOS M2, EOS M50.
5D3 1.3.4, 7D 2.0.6, 550D 1.1.0, EOS M 2.0.3.
Porting started:
80D, 200D, 77D, 5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II, 5DS/R (Hello World)
1300D, 2000D, 4000D, 750D, 760D, 800D, 6D Mark II, EOS R, SX70, SX740 (ROM dumpers available)


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 7, 2022)

Canon is smart not to share profits in an already compacted market.

Quality glass is different then camera bodies, they are much longer lasting. I have no doubt my investment in RF glass will be with me for years after my R5, R6 and R3 are long gone. I have already retired the R and RP but still have the 15-35, 28-70, 70-200 that I bought as soon as they were available. I sold my EF glass as I replaced it with RF equivalents.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> You only need native RF-S lenses for wide angle. Using RF lenses on the R7/10 will give you more "reach".
> The RF100mm macro is expensive and has focus shift and the SA control is debatable. It sounds like the EF100mm L macro is the right lens/cost etc for you.
> I think that a native 180mm macro is far down their priority list but I could be (and have been) wrong in the past


I already own EF 100mm L along with Venus 100mm and wont upgrade to that overpriced RF 100mm L(wont even buy it at $750 which is what I paid for EF 100mm L). For RF-S there needs to be a good tele zoom along with replacements for 60mm and 35mm Macros. Unfortunately 180mm Macro is not on priority for any lens manufacturer right now so I am stuck to borrowing either Sigma 180 2.8 or EF 180 when I need it.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Of course they are!
> There is no way that they didn't build in buffers for new features in the future. The EF protocols have been with us for 35 years so far. I expect improvements over time and new lenses to take advantage of them in the future.


I agree with your point.

Somewhat related Canon published a list EF lenses compatible to EOS R3 Max. Continuous shooting Speed 

After a year it was discovered that lens announced prior to 2012 did not have the aperture mechanism to handle H+ of approx 30fps with electronic shutter or 12fps of mechanical shutter & electronic 1st curtain shutter.

As an owner of these affected lenses I do not mind the limitations as it would mean no uncessary increase of of wear & tear. Last thing I want is for a lens announced in 1999 breaking down prematurely because it wasn't designed for 30fps.

For those who need it it is an incentive for them to upgrade to RF lenses.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Canon is smart not to share profits in an already compacted market.
> 
> Quality glass is different then camea bodies, they are much longer lasting. I have no doubt my investment in RF glass will be with me for years after my R5, R6 and R3 are long gone. I have already retired the R and RP but still have the 15-35, 28-70, 70-200 that I bought as soon as they were available. I sold my EF glass as I replaced it with RF equivalents.



Lenses tend to be good for decades while bodies may be considered for replacement after a decade.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I already own EF 100mm L along with Venus 100mm and wont upgrade to that overpriced RF 100mm L(wont even buy it at $750 which is what I paid for EF 100mm L). For RF-S there needs to be a good tele zoom along with replacements for 60mm and 35mm Macros. Unfortunately 180mm Macro is not on priority for any lens manufacturer right now so I am stuck to borrowing either Sigma 180 2.8 or EF 180 when I need it.


I also won't upgrade to the RF100mm - at least until something fails on my EF100mm and even then I may not buy the RF one. 
Using the 100mm L macro (RF or EF) with the R7/10 will get you better working distance for handheld macro though.

For R7/10, the RF100-400mm would be the obvious choice for good reach or RF100-500mm for those with deeper pockets.

Replacing EF-S macros is unlikely in my opinion. Too little volume in general although they served a good purpose in small/light macro setups.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> If you want to see some active/open source reverse engineering then look to the Magic Lantern effort to replace the Canon's firmware. They haven't started on Digic X yet and I don't see the point so much as Canon has regularly released new features in their R6/5 etc and pushed thermal limits etc already.
> 
> Magic Lantern Supported cameras:
> 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 6D, 7D, 50D, 60D, 500D/T1i, 550D/T2i, 600D/T3i, 650D/T4i, 700D/T5i, 1100D/T3, EOS M.
> ...


I've spoken to a CPS personnel in my country and they disclosed to me that they encountered some Magic lantern cameras that broke before of the firmware.

Canon wouldn't push their bodies beyond spec because they have a legal responsibility to fix them.

Magic Lantern's free so if you use it and breaks your body then buy a replacement.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> I've spoken to a CPS personnel in my country and they disclosed to me that they encountered some Magic lantern cameras that broke before of the firmware.
> 
> Canon wouldn't push their bodies beyond spec because they have a legal responsibility to fix them.
> 
> Magic Lantern's free so if you use it and breaks your body then buy a replacement.


I know many happy users of Magic Lantern on their 5Diii at the time. Their bodies were out of warranty in any case. 
The best feature was their ETTR function which I should think would be simple to implement


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I know many happy users of Magic Lantern on their 5Diii at the time. Their bodies were out of warranty in any case.
> The best feature was their ETTR function which I should think would be simple to implement


If a project covers the cost of possible replacement. Sure, go for it. If you're just an enthusiast that does not want to burn out their body prematurely... try at your own risk.

It also eats into the profit margins of Canon that in turn impacts the service center's viability & R&D budget.

Wouldn't ETTR be handled by exposure compensation settings?


----------



## Berowne (Sep 7, 2022)

I am completely happy with Canon (nearly). My lenses are mostly EF-Glass, which is working exzellent, even the 100-400 with 1.4 Adapter is working well - at the right setting. And the RF 100 Macro is great. I do not need third party Lenses. And i do not understand the complaints of people who are longing for cheap alternatives. If they do not have the money, they should not use the expensive R-System or make compromises like me and use EF-Glass.
Go and switch to Sony or shoot with a smartphone ...


----------



## navastronia (Sep 7, 2022)

Berowne said:


> I am completely happy with Canon (nearly). My lenses are mostly EF-Glass, which is working exzellent, even the 100-400 with 1.4 Adapter is working well - at the right setting. And the RF 100 Macro is great. I do not need third party Lenses. And i do not understand the complaints of people who are longing for cheap alternatives. If they do not have the money, they should not use the expensive R-System or make compromises like me and use EF-Glass.
> Go and switch to Sony or shoot with a smartphone ...



You don't understand . . . People who want cheaper alternatives . . . To the expensive lenses on Canon's modern camera system? And you also claim that you, yourself, are making compromises (ostensibly for financial reasons) and that's why you use EF glass instead, even though it works well "at the right setting," in your case?

Bruddah, you have got to raise your standards lol. This sounds like Stockholm Syndrome!


----------



## navastronia (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> If a project covers the cost of possible replacement. Sure, go for it. If you're just an enthusiast that does not want to burn out their body prematurely... try at your own risk.
> 
> It also eats into the profit margins of Canon that in turn impacts the service center's viability & R&D budget.
> 
> Wouldn't ETTR be handled by exposure compensation settings?



It's 2022. Everyone shooting movies at this point, if they're desperate enough to try Magic Lantern, should just buy a used, 5-10-year-old cinema camera instead, including something like the original Blackmagic Pocket, which can probably be had for $300 on EBay.


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 7, 2022)

People should start changing systems now and selling their EF lenses so I can get a good price on the used market 

I wonder if they will remove the "Release shutter w/o lens" feature to remove the unchipped lenses, I don't think they will go that far but it's a possibility.


----------



## Birdshooter (Sep 7, 2022)

All the whiners, please exit the building as Sony and Nikon are waiting for you outside.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> If a project covers the cost of possible replacement. Sure, go for it. If you're just an enthusiast that does not want to burn out their body prematurely... try at your own risk.
> 
> It also eats into the profit margins of Canon that in turn impacts the service center's viability & R&D budget.
> 
> Wouldn't ETTR be handled by exposure compensation settings?


Magic Lantern unlocked a lot of features that Canon wouldn't allow their engineers to support for whatever reason. raw video was one of them. Clearly Canon has a different philosophy now even allowing the R5 to have higher temperature settings. Some have suggested that this will wear bodies out faster but who is to know for sure. Canon Australia supports a 5 year warranty so I have no issues to use the higher temp setting.

ETTR mode automatically assigned the exposure so that there was no clipping. It saved any inadvertently underexposured images for instance if you have different metering mode. It should be easy to calculate for Canon as it can generate a histogram now.
Exposure compensation is a manually dialed in fixed amount that you choose.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Sep 7, 2022)

navastronia said:


> It's 2022. Everyone shooting movies at this point, if they're desperate enough to try Magic Lantern, should just buy a used, 5-10-year-old cinema camera instead, including something like the original Blackmagic Pocket, which can probably be had for $300 on EBay.


WTF. No not everyone is shooting movies. Most people probably are, but I couod gives a rats ass about it.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

I am thankful that Canon figured that adding video to their cameras will increase volume without significant additional R&D expense.

We'd be worst off today if no dSLR or mirrorless camera did video.



SUNDOG04 said:


> WTF. No not everyone is shooting movies. Most people probably are, but I couod gives a rats ass about it.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 7, 2022)

SUNDOG04 said:


> WTF. No not everyone is shooting movies. Most people probably are, but I couod gives a rats ass about it.


You misread me --- another way to write my sentence would be to say "anyone who is shooting movies in 2022 should . . ." etc


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 7, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Makes sense.



2 minutes ago
New
Add bookmark
#106
Yeah - reminds me of IBM redefining the PC interface with "Microchannel Architecture" in their new PS/2 range ...

A new and completely proprietary design, deliberately designed to prevent 3rd Party add-ons.

Well that didn't work out too well for IBM did it !

Compaq and other rivals cleaned up whilst IBM became hated by vast swathes of the PC user base as a result.

I can feel nothing but total contempt for Canon in this - it sucks.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The digital picture is not 100% reliable for image comparisons - just compare its comparison with the EF 400mm DO II, it has the zoom sharper. I have had 3 copies of the EF 100-400mm II and 2 of the 400mm DO II and the prime was sharper, as every other review site finds, including lensrentals measurements on many copies.


If I had relied on TDP only, I'd never have bought the EF 180 macro. It really looks mediocre at best on TDP's sharpness chart.
The text yet, speaks of excellent sharpness, which I can confirm. In fact, it's my sharpest canon lens...
It usually makes sense to mitigate the reviews with real-life experiences from actual users.
You can rely on TDP, most of the time...


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> [..]It isn't possible to update firmware in older EF lenses, because the practice of updating firmware (in bodies and/or lenses) is a development that only came into existence when MILCs became popular. I think Fujifilm were the first to provide firmware updates to bodies, or was it Sony?


Every Canon EF lens launched after 2012(ish) should be able to get a firmware update from the body. This factored into my decision to replace my EF100L (launched 2009) with the RF100L, I didn't like the IBIS/ILIS interaction and since the lens couldn't get updated...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> If I had relied on TDP only, I'd never have bought the EF 180 macro. It really looks mediocre at best on TDP's sharpness chart.
> The text yet, speaks of excellent sharpness, which I can confirm. In fact, it's my sharpest canon lens...
> It usually makes sense to mitigate the reviews with real-life experiences from actual users.
> You can rely on TDP, most of the time...


Its image qualities for EF-M lenses don't match up with my experience, as have been some telephotos from Sigma and Tamron. I regretfully put off buying the 400mm DO II because its image IQ looked so bad on the TDP chart. The only reviews using charts I take seriously are from those who actually measure things using IMATEST or an optical bench because they have to set things up properly. Anyway, the only lens that counts is the one you have been sold, and so I buy only from reputable dealers who have a no-quibble return policy and I test thoroughly myself. I used to borrow from my local dealer to test before buying if he had it in stock already. It would be embarrassing if he had to order one in for me and I had to return it, so if he didn't have one in stock I'd order on-line.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> As Alan stated, the RF 100-400mm is a great alternative when a compact and light weight lens is needed, although it won't be much use to you at the moment, as you're still using a DSLR. Your best option if you intend to stay with your DSLR, is probably a Tamron, as they are generally much lighter than Canon (or Sigma) equivalents.


I bought the Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 when it first came out and found it hopeless for easy birds in flight shots - the AF was very poor on my 5DIV. I sold it on at a loss after a couple of months. I tried several copies of the Sigma 100-400 from my local dealer and was unhappy with the IS and didn't buy. The 100-400mm II is in a different league from them, and it's not that heavy. I am always on the hunt for light telephotos.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Of course they are!
> There is no way that they didn't build in buffers for new features in the future. The EF protocols have been with us for 35 years so far. I expect improvements over time and new lenses to take advantage of them in the future.


When the R system launched in 2018, Canon said that some of the extra pins were unused, to have a bit more leeway for future developments. I haven't heard anything new about those pins since then, the closest thing would be the fact that the R3 can deliver more power to focus motors. But that might be just a matter of using a higher voltage on the existing pins.


----------



## 2 cents (Sep 7, 2022)

Problem is, Canon's own line up is pathetic. I don't want weird, I want practical. I also DO NOT WANT to use adapters, I prefer a native lens.

I have a particular beef with the RF 100mm macro. It is overbloated with useless SA control (for most), then as a macro lens for skittish critters it has the front element closer to the subject at 1:1 when compared to the EF version, so that makes it a worse choice for me. It is a conundrum. Canon gave me a fancier lens, more expensive, heavier, and were it matters, it is worse. For me. Yes a conundrum it is.

I also want a decent NON zoom telephoto or a zoom that goes to 600mm, middle of the range, and not f-eleven. Nikon make some, Sony make some, Sigma make some, Tamron make some...... Canon, the world's biggest camera maker, loves f-eleven.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 7, 2022)

I think it would be very helpful if we could see Canon's lens lineup plans over the next 2-4 years. What are they going to produce, what time frame, things like that. They've filled a lot of essentials, but there are gaps. As well, there seems to be mid-range gap in many areas. It'd be a lot easier to see what the near term future holds.

I'm of a mind that once the lineup is filled out, Canon might license some third-party lenses into the lineup. 

Frankly, I'd like to see Canon go the other way and produce top-tier lenses for other formats. Imagine L glass on your favorite Nikon or Olympus.


----------



## EOS (Sep 7, 2022)

Doesn’t explain the lack of native RF fast wide L primes.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

EOS said:


> Doesn’t explain the lack of native RF fast wide L primes.


Odds are they do not sell as well or have as good a margin as

- 50mm
- 70-200mm
- 24-70mm
- 14-35mm
- 400mm
- 600mm
- 85mm
- 800mm
- etc


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

EOS said:


> Doesn’t explain the lack of native RF fast wide L primes.






There have been several patents for wide, fast primes. No doubt they are coming. Zooms have been more popular for the past decade or more, and Canon logically prioritizes lenses their data suggest will be more popular.


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Problem is, Canon's own line up is pathetic. I don't want weird, I want practical. I also DO NOT WANT to use adapters, I prefer a native lens.
> 
> I have a particular beef with the RF 100mm macro. It is overbloated with useless SA control (for most), then as a macro lens for skittish critters it has the front element closer to the subject at 1:1 when compared to the EF version, so that makes it a worse choice for me. It is a conundrum. Canon gave me a fancier lens, more expensive, heavier, and were it matters, it is worse. For me. Yes a conundrum it is.
> 
> I also want a decent NON zoom telephoto or a zoom that goes to 600mm, middle of the range, and not f-eleven. Nikon make some, Sony make some, Sigma make some, Tamron make some...... Canon, the world's biggest camera maker, loves f-eleven.


.... and here's my 2 cents!

I think Canon had a pretty good RF line-up, and what you can't get in RF you can easily get in EF.

But I tend to agree with your criticisms of the RF 100mm macro, having replaced my EF 100mm IS macro with the RF version. Canon clearly wanted to be seen to add something "extra" to the new lens. For me the SA control is a complete waste, and the 1.4x reproduction ratio isn't something I need, as I rarely shoot closer than half life size. But I guess there are some people who'll appreciate the SA control (wedding & portrait photographers) and some who'll appreciate the 1.4x.

Using AF with the new lens requires a different approach. With the old lens I always used it in SERVO (continuous) AF, but could instantly switch to MF simply be releasing pressure on the shutter button. If I want to override the AF with the new lens I either have to switch to ONE SHOT AF, or assign a custom button to ONE SHOT, or flick the AF/MF switch on the lens. This is a slower and more cumbersome method, and the fact that the new lens tends to hunt a lot more than the old one, makes it more of a nuisance.

I also found the rubber of the focusing ring grippier on the old lens, and easier to locate by feel, when the camera is at eye-level. Another criticism frequently aimed at the RF version is that it suffers from focus-breathing, although in practice I've found that the shift is more than covered by the depth of field at the apertures I commonly use (F5.6-F9.5).

The RF version does have better OIS (or better integration between the OIS and IBIS), which reduces camera shake by an additional 1-2 stops compared to the EF version.


----------



## EOS (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> Odds are they do not sell as well or have as good a margin as
> 
> - 50mm
> - 70-200mm
> ...


I didn’t get into the Canon ecosystem all those years ago for slow prosumer zooms and shitty kit lenses. Are we saying that’s what Canon is now? Is f/2.8 the fastest they can do without horrid barrel distortion and vignetting?


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

Tom W said:


> I think it would be very helpful if we could see Canon's lens lineup plans over the next 2-4 years. What are they going to produce, what time frame, things like that. They've filled a lot of essentials, but there are gaps. As well, there seems to be mid-range gap in many areas. It'd be a lot easier to see what the near term future holds.
> 
> I'm of a mind that once the lineup is filled out, Canon might license some third-party lenses into the lineup.


It would be helpful and encouraging if Canon produced a timeframe and list of lenses that they plan to release in the next 2-3 years, but plans often change, due to development issues, supply chain issues and various other factors, so I don't think we're likely to see this happen.

I agree completely that there needs eventually to be a middle-tier of high quality Canon glass, with modest maximum apertures, high build quality and sensible pricing. At the moment we have two extremes - expensive L exotica, or "affordable" lenses such as 16mm F2.8, 600mm F11 etc. But Canon is prioritising the lenses that it believes will sell in the largest numbers and bring in the highest profits. I think eventually the middle ground will be filled, but it isn't going to happen for at least another couple of years, as they haven't yet filled out the L range or the budget range.



Tom W said:


> Frankly, I'd like to see Canon go the other way and produce top-tier lenses for other formats. Imagine L glass on your favorite Nikon or Olympus.


Overall, Nikon glass is at least as good as Canon glass, and in some cases better. I can't see Canon or Nikon allowing the other to use their protocols.

Same for Olympus - their Zuiko lenses are incredibly sharp, extremely well built, very light, compact and sensibly priced, so why would an OM user want to slap Canon glass on?


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

EOS said:


> I didn’t get into the Canon ecosystem all those years ago for slow prosumer zooms and shitty kit lenses. Are we saying that’s what Canon is now? Is f/2.8 the fastest they can do without horrid barrel distortion and vignetting?


Canon is a business.

RF mount started in 2018.

They're releasing ~8 lens SKU annually.

It has been 4 years so 32 lens SKUs so far.

These lenses have the fastest inventory turnover or a more favorable profit margin.

Next 4 years will be another 32 lens SKUs.

Odds are the low volume or/and thinner margin lens you want will be released within 4 years.

When you got into the EF mount odds are it was about 1-2 decades after its introduction in 1987.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> When you got into the EF mount odds are it was about 1-2 decades after its introduction in 1987.


More like 2-3 years. The EOS system was introduced in 1987. The EOS-1 flagship (film) was introduced in 1989, the replacement EOS-1N in 1994.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> More like 2-3 years. The EOS system was introduced in 1987. The EOS-1 flagship (film) was introduced in 1989, the replacement EOS-1N in 1994.


Bob, is @EOS your other username?


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 7, 2022)

Tom W said:


> If I were an enterprising young man with a great staff of optical engineers, I'd develop an EF lens that was designed to be used with the EF-RF converter, and in fact used the space in the adapter to get the rearmost element closer to the sensor. But that might be cheating too. Still, it'd be an eF lens, but not compatible with an EF camera.


Good idea. That way those 'EF' lenses might even fit Sony, Nikon, Panasonic mirrorless with the correct adapter. But unfortunately there will always be some retards that will try it on a DSLR and crash the mirror


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> But I tend to agree with your criticisms of the RF 100mm macro, having replaced my EF 100mm IS macro with the RF version. Canon clearly wanted to be seen to add something "extra" to the new lens. For me the SA control is a complete waste, and the 1.4x reproduction ratio isn't something I need, as I rarely shoot closer than half life size. ... Another criticism frequently aimed at the RF version is that it suffers from focus-breathing, although in practice I've found that the shift is more than covered by the depth of field at the apertures I commonly use (F5.6-F9.5).


I generally agree, which is why I have kept my EF 100/2.8L Macro and not bought the RF version. I do often want to shoot at >1x magnification, but for that I have the MP-E 65mm 1-5x.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I already own EF 100mm L along with Venus 100mm and wont upgrade to that overpriced RF 100mm L(wont even buy it at $750 which is what I paid for EF 100mm L). For RF-S there needs to be a good tele zoom along with replacements for 60mm and 35mm Macros. Unfortunately 180mm Macro is not on priority for any lens manufacturer right now so I am stuck to borrowing either Sigma 180 2.8 or EF 180 when I need it.


I'd be surprised if they release an APS-C telephoto zoom. They never went beyond 250mm for EF-S and 200mm for EF-M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

EOS said:


> I didn’t get into the Canon ecosystem all those years ago for slow prosumer zooms and shitty kit lenses. Are we saying that’s what Canon is now? Is f/2.8 the fastest they can do without horrid barrel distortion and vignetting?


Are you aware of the RF 28-70mm f/2L, which was one of the first lenses announced for the mount? Yes, it's big and heavy (relatively speaking, it's a lot smaller and lighter than my 600/4 II). But for me it's like carrying around a bag of primes, since I usually shoot them at ~f/2 anyway, and unlike the EF 35/50/85L that benefit optically from being stopped down, the 28-70/2 is optically excellent wide open.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> It would be helpful and encouraging if Canon produced a timeframe and list of lenses that they plan to release in the next 2-3 years, but plans often change, due to development issues, supply chain issues and various other factors, so I don't think we're likely to see this happen.
> 
> I agree completely that there needs eventually to be a middle-tier of high quality Canon glass, with modest maximum apertures, high build quality and sensible pricing. At the moment we have two extremes - expensive L exotica, or "affordable" lenses such as 16mm F2.8, 600mm F11 etc. But Canon is prioritising the lenses that it believes will sell in the largest numbers and bring in the highest profits. I think eventually the middle ground will be filled, but it isn't going to happen for at least another couple of years, as they haven't yet filled out the L range or the budget range.
> 
> ...


Good point about supply chain issues, though I think everyone is suffering the same conditions. 

I think we have a couple of what I'd call middle tier lenses - the RF 85 f/2 might be considered middle tier, as would maybe the 35 f/1.8 (though I don't think there's much room for a lens below either, unless Canon decides to toss out a $200 version of each). There is room for an 85 f/1.4 (and the EF lens is very good for that spot in the meantime). A mid-range 50 is obviously missing, especially since the high end 50/1.2, while potentially the best 50 mm out there, is way too expensive for us mere mortals. Right now, I have the 50/1.2L EF version, which really is nice, warts and all. An awful lot of great images have come from that lens (well, in the right hands, which may not be mine).

You're probably right about Nikon and Olympus, or anyone else outside of a few smaller players - Canon selling glass in other mounts is probably not going to happen. Unless Canon buys Sigma or something like that, but given their ability to spit out 4-6 new designs a year, that really isn't necessary except to gain a foothold in other brands' markets.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 7, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I'd be surprised if they release an APS-C telephoto zoom. They never went beyond 250mm for EF-S and 200mm for EF-M.



I agree - the size advantage of APS-C disappears as the lens gets longer because the diameter of the entrance pupil is governed by the f/stop. 600 mm lens and f/4 will have a minimum of 150 mm diameter entrance pupil regardless of the size of image it projects at the other end of the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I'd be surprised if they release an APS-C telephoto zoom. They never went beyond 250mm for EF-S and 200mm for EF-M.


Perhaps @Chaitanya means something along the lines of an RF-S 55-200/250mm zoom? The RF-S 18-150 is a straight repackaging of the optics from the EF-M 18-150, the could easily do the same with the EF-M 55-200mm, or design one going to 250mm like the EF-S version. 

Certainly it's true that longer focal lengths gain nothing in terms of design from the smaller image circle.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps @Chaitanya means something along the lines of an RF-S 55-200/250mm zoom? The RF-S 18-150 is a straight repackaging of the optics from the EF-M 18-150, the could easily do the same with the EF-M 55-200mm, or design one going to 250mm like the EF-S version.
> 
> Certainly it's true that longer focal lengths gain nothing in terms of design from the smaller image circle.


I wouldn't be surprised* either way; it's certainly far more likely than a new design.

*to avoid self contradiction, I would be surprised if they released an APS-C zoom that was telephoto all the way; I reckon the RF 100-400 fills that gap.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> Bob, is @EOS your other username?


No, I don't have another username.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> No, I don't have another username.


So why are your replying to my reply to @EOS as if you're him?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> So why are your replying to my reply to @EOS as if you're him?


Because that's how forums work.

See what I did there?


----------



## navastronia (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> So why are your replying to my reply to @EOS as if you're him?


Are you his mother?


----------



## diegopisante (Sep 7, 2022)

Even doing photography for living I'm very discouraged to pull the trigger on RF lenses, I am still on EF glass (16-35 2.8LII, 24-70 2.8LII, and 70-200 2.8L (no IS)). It's insane the prices of the new lenses. OBS: All the new lenses have IS, it's just one more thing to break inside the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

diegopisante said:


> OBS: All the new lenses have IS, it's just one more thing to break inside the lens.


Should probably go back to film cameras and fully manual lenses. Cameras and lenses these days are all new fangledy and are just chock full of stuff that can break.

In fact, maybe stick to paintbrushes and canvas. Sure, it's a bit slower but then the only moving parts are your joints. No, that won't work since those can break, too.


----------



## Berowne (Sep 7, 2022)

navastronia said:


> You don't understand . . . People who want cheaper alternatives . . . To the expensive lenses on Canon's modern camera system? And you also claim that you, yourself, are making compromises (ostensibly for financial reasons) and that's why you use EF glass instead, even though it works well "at the right setting," in your case?
> 
> Bruddah, you have got to raise your standards lol. This sounds like Stockholm Syndrome!


_My_ standards are ok.


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I generally agree, which is why I have kept my EF 100/2.8L Macro and not bought the RF version. I do often want to shoot at >1x magnification, but for that I have the MP-E 65mm 1-5x.


The focus motors of my original EF 100mm macro were worn out after 8 years of heavy use. I should have just bought another EF copy , but I just assumed that the new RF lens would be better. How wrong could I be?


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> Same for Olympus - their Zuiko lenses are incredibly sharp, extremely well built, very light, compact and sensibly priced, so why would an OM user want to slap Canon glass on?


meh. Olympus is interesting for sure, but their 300 f4 is not cheap. It's better than the EF 300 4L, but not cheap at all. In a backyard handheld test of the inexpensive options, a Canon M6II with an adapted 55-250 at 250 was better than a 70-300 on an EM1MarkII, cropping the canon shot to same field of view.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2022)

illadvisedhammer said:


> meh. Olympus is interesting for sure, but their 300 f4 is not cheap. It's better than the EF 300 4L, but not cheap at all. In a backyard handheld test of the inexpensive options, a Canon M6II with an adapted 55-250 at 250 was better than a 70-300 on an EM1MarkII, cropping the canon shot to same field of view.


The new 150-400 f/4.5 + 1.25 TB does look good but at £6499 is not exactly cheap.


----------



## randfee (Sep 7, 2022)

*I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.*

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good". 
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

illadvisedhammer said:


> meh. Olympus is interesting for sure, but their 300 f4 is not cheap. It's better than the EF 300 4L, but not cheap at all.


You are comparing a EF 300mm with an equivalent 600mm Zuiko, in terms of field of view. I would say that the Olympus price of GBP 2399 is very fair.

Likewise, although the 150-400mm Zuiko costs GBP 6499, it's equivalent to a 300-800mm.


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

randfee said:


> *I feel actively deceived!
> 
> Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.*
> 
> ...


You'll send the fanboys into MELTDOWN with a comment like that....


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> You are comparing a EF 300mm with an equivalent 600mm Zuiko, in terms of field of view. I would say that the Olympus price of GBP 2399 is very fair.
> 
> Likewise, although the 150-400mm Zuiko costs GBP 6499, it's equivalent to a 300-800mm.


If you are going to use "equivalent", then to be fully consistent, it is equivalent to a 300-800 f/9, which would mean it is a narrow lens. And £6499 is incredibly expensive for an f/9 lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

randfee said:


> *I feel actively deceived!
> 
> Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.*
> 
> ...


How very unfortunate for you. What will you do if Canon doesn't 'come to their senses'? Switch brands? That's your prerogative, of course. Canon doesn't care what you do. 

But take a step back... Canon made a decision to block Viltrox from infringing on their intellectual property, as is completely within their rights as the holder of the relevant patent(s). The reality is that Canon is being completely sensible about what is, after all, a normal and standard business decision. You're just ranting because you don't like it, which is nonsensical. But entertaining.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 7, 2022)

So many jumping ship, the M.S. Sony is at risk of sinking due to overload!


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon made a decision to block Viltrox from infringing on their intellectual property, as is completely within their rights as the holder of the relevant patent(s). The reality is that Canon is being completely sensible about what is, after all, a normal and standard business decision.


Bloody right, why the hell should other companies be allowed to benefit from Canon's R&D if it isn't in Canon's interests to let them do so!
... and I'd make the same argument if it was Sony, Nikon, Panasonic or any other company.


----------



## entoman (Sep 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> So many jumping ship, the M.S. Sony is at risk of sinking due to overload!


Haha, those who jump ship, often drown....


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> Haha, those who jump ship, often drown....


And cold water should help against deception- induced whining.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 7, 2022)

This is a (the?) Canon rumor site...a rumor site...full of fan-bois from all of the world...with lots of differing perspectives.

Some of those perspectives would have you believe they are right in there with Canon's decision-makers!

I have some awareness of how one particular high-profile set of businesses in the United States 'does business'...and to try to draw a parallel between that business and the 'imaging' business, it must be pointed out that *all *customer opinions in these high-profile businesses are _noted _(of course, some are noted more than others and some opinions are even valued).

Sometimes, in the enterprises I'm referring to, knee-jerk decisions are made in response to sentiments expressed in various public forums.

WIth the benefit of hindsight, some of those very decisions have not had the desired outcome...other than, at times, sort of changing the subject.

=====

I don't spend all that much time on YouTube when it comes to photography. I know about the Northrups more from reading criticism of their videos here and perhaps dpreview than I do from actually watching them.

But their latest showed up on my YouTube feed:






I watched it. All of it. I see why they've made it work.

But while I am rather ambivalent about the matter at hand (the RF Wall), I am quite interested in what Canon will (or won't) do. Why? Because I think the very existence of the internet changes things.

I did take note of the nearly 70K views of the Northrup video ("Canon's making a huge mistake. Speak up."), the 1.6K comments, and the 4K 'Likes'...all within 24 hours of posting.

Canon is getting scalded in the comments.

And as I read them, it became clear to me that some of those who posted had already purchased Canon's R5, with the expectation that third-party zoom lenses would be available for the RF mount.

The intensity of their posts reminds me of one of the neat terms to come from the 'net:

'The Streisand Effect': The *Streisand effect* is a phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information, often via the Internet. The Streisand effect is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to access and spread that information.

So 'the internet' is, I think, speaking loud and clear on this subject (whether or not Canon intentionally hid anything).

And the internet is an amazing, almost living, thing...where amazing can mean, and lead to, just about anything you want it to.

Sometimes the 'amazing' helps lead to surprising...even shocking...outcomes and events...even for things that really matter (Jan 6 comes to mind).

I assume Canon has thought this through. I want to see the company fluorish. And the walled garden has worked out pretty well for Apple.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2022)

randfee said:


> *I feel actively self-deceived!...*


Ha! You win the prize for the funniest post so far. I hope you don't mind that I corrected your post. Any deception was self-deception.

Canon has never given away or sold their proprietary designs. Why would they now? As has been stated multiple times in these threads, third-parties can reverse engineer the RF mount, they just can't violate patents. Exactly the same situation as with the EF mount. 

If you thought Canon was going to hand over their research and designs to competitors you were only deceiving yourself.

As for your conspiracy theory that somehow Canon cared enough about you to go to the trouble of not announcing that they were going to protect their legal rights just so a couple of third party manufacturers would violate their patents. Well, that's pretty convoluted. More rational and logical is that Canon had to study the copycats and determine if their lenses violated Canon patents. Then they had to decide what to do about it. All that takes some time. Sorry they didn't give you a call first.

Have fun holding your breath for the next six months while you wait for Canon to "come to their senses." Maybe Canon isn't the ones that need to come to their senses.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 7, 2022)

This thread devolving, as they often do, into deranged Canon boot lickers vs maniacal Canon bashers.

Oh, CR, never change!


----------



## danfaz (Sep 8, 2022)

randfee said:


> I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.


Based on?


randfee said:


> I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party.


Are they required to by some law?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> This thread devolving, as they often do, into deranged Canon boot lickers vs maniacal Canon bashers.
> 
> Oh, CR, never change!


Personally, I'd describe it as pragmatic and realistic individuals who actually understand that Canon is a for-profit business and delusional whiners who think that Canon exists solely to fulfil their personal desires. 

But then, that's just me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Problem is, Canon's own line up is pathetic. I don't want weird, I want practical.


What is your real expectation? How many RF lenses should Canon have released in the first 4 years of a new mount given covid/supply chain issues impacting all manufacturing? I think that 30 is a good number but could be better. There aren't any weird RF lenses but are very practical and generally add features on top of their closest EF counterparts. I agree that the RF100mm has pros and cons though



2 cents said:


> I also DO NOT WANT to use adapters, I prefer a native lens.


Native is great. Expensive and has more features but adapted opens up the ability to migrate rather than big bikkies up front. Keep an adapter on every EF lens (effectively weld it on) and you have a RF lens!


2 cents said:


> I also want a decent NON zoom telephoto or a zoom that goes to 600mm, middle of the range, and not f-eleven. Nikon make some, Sony make some, Sigma make some, Tamron make some...... Canon, the world's biggest camera maker, loves f-eleven.


Provide your feedback to Canon directly. Your demands encourage mirth in the forum 
Switch to Sony/Nikon/Oly etc if you can't get what you want from Canon. We will be happy for you to go.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

randfee said:


> *I feel actively deceived!
> 
> Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.*
> 
> ...


Giving Canon a deadline is like shouting into a cyclone. Please don't wait 6 months to jump... I can tell that you really want to!
Others would love to buy your excellent second hand RF body/lenses at a reasonable price!


----------



## Johnw (Sep 8, 2022)

I hope not to expect any more stories like this in the near future either. This one’s been beaten to death.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> There aren't any weird RF lenses but are very practical and generally add features on top of their closest EF counterparts.


Well, personally I find the RF 5.2mm f/2.8L Dual Fisheye lens to be a bit weird. I could dress that up as ‘esoteric’ if you prefer.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

randfee said:


> *I feel actively deceived!
> 
> Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.*
> 
> ...


Better call Saul!


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are going to use "equivalent", then to be fully consistent, it is equivalent to a 300-800 f/9, which would mean it is a narrow lens. And £6499 is incredibly expensive for an f/9 lens.


Nikkon's Z 800mm f/6.3 VR is $6.5k. So a f/9 lens of that focal range is laughable.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps @Chaitanya means something along the lines of an RF-S 55-200/250mm zoom? The RF-S 18-150 is a straight repackaging of the optics from the EF-M 18-150, the could easily do the same with the EF-M 55-200mm, or design one going to 250mm like the EF-S version.
> 
> Certainly it's true that longer focal lengths gain nothing in terms of design from the smaller image circle.


yes, something to replace EF-S 55-250mm but with slightly longer end(similar to RF 100-400 replacing 70-300mm) and/or some other improvement made to lens. That 55-250mm even though came as a part of 2 lens kit many bird and wildlife photographers used it as 1st step before buying longer lenses(300mm f4 +TC, 400 f5.6, 100-400, etc...)


----------



## navastronia (Sep 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Personally, I'd describe it as pragmatic and realistic individuals who actually understand that Canon is a for-profit business and delusional whiners who think that Canon exists solely to fulfil their personal desires.
> 
> But then, that's just me.



Are Sony and Nikon not for-profit businesses?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Are Sony and Nikon not for-profit businesses?


And I would not presume to tell them how to run their businesses either.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, personally I find the RF 5.2mm f/2.8L Dual Fisheye lens to be a bit weird. I could dress that up as ‘esoteric’ if you prefer.


Very true! Unique as it is only possible with the R5's high mp sensor.
I wonder how long it has been designed and just waiting to be released after the R5. I don't recall a patent for it.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> And I would not presume to tell them how to run their businesses either.


This is a rumors and speculation website - we talk about what the camera makers are doing, and why (in addition to new releases, etc).

If you're not interested, then what are you doing here?


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 8, 2022)

diegopisante said:


> Even doing photography for living I'm very discouraged to pull the trigger on RF lenses, I am still on EF glass (16-35 2.8LII, 24-70 2.8LII, and 70-200 2.8L (no IS)). It's insane the prices of the new lenses. OBS: All the new lenses have IS, it's just one more thing to break inside the lens.



I'm also happy to pay less for a lens without IS, there are lots of situations where you just don't need it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Very true! Unique as it is only possible with the R5's high mp sensor.
> I wonder how long it has been designed and just waiting to be released after the R5. I don't recall a patent for it.


There was one, Japan Patent Application 2020-139984.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Are Sony and Nikon not for-profit businesses?


There‘s a worry that Nikon is becoming one…


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Are Sony and Nikon not for-profit businesses?



In 2011 Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee. This was done to help get to #2 in 2019 displacing Nikon.

In 2021 Nikon selectively licensed their Z mount in the hopes of replicating Sony's success and get to #2 again. Let us see if this will be successful before the 2030s.

Both companies compromised because they had little or no choice at the time they made the decision to license their tech out. Google did this with Android where in the OS is free for consumers & brands to install to remove every possible friction or bottleneck to growth and adoption. Microsoft tried to compete and replicate their desktop business model of a license fee-based Windows Mobile and failed.

Canon is #1 in interchangeable lens cameras. They have little to no incentive to license with or without a fee to 3rd parties as their business model has them earning more selling 1st party lenses. In this respect they are following Apple's business model in the hopes of continuing to be the biggest profit & venenue generator in the perpetually shrinking digital still camera market.

Digital still camera market is experiencing shrinkage so every additional sale of a 1st party body, lens & accessory helps. Without this economies of scale does not function in helping push prices down.

>80% of the 30+ lenses each released from 2018-2022 by Canon & Nikon are

- faster inventory turnover
- better profit margins

The missing EF & F mount lenses that will be released on the RF & Z mounts in the next 4 years will tend to be

- slower inventory turnover
- worse profit margins

Why are they releasing their products this way? Because any for profit company want to get their ROI faster.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 8, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> All the focussing alrorithms happen inside the camera anyway. The camera just has to tell the lens if it has to focus further or closer until the focus fits. Is that part any different for RF lenses than for EF lenses? Nobody wants Canon to give a way the secret how it nails the focus on animal eyes or fast moving subjects.


For a while there have been claims online that the RF pins in the same positions as their EF counterparts serve the same function, and that the new pins implement a high speed serial channel. (And when I say "claims" it's by people with photographs of disassembled equipment and testing equipment.) It would appear that AF is still handled over the EF pins, but I can't point to hard confirmation of that, nor have I tried testing any of this myself. The sites I'm thinking of have details on the pins, but not the RF serial channel protocol.

Canon marketing would like you to believe that there's super secret magic stuff in the RF mount that makes RF lenses perform better. It's more likely that the serial channel is used for stuff like lens corrections stored in the lens and everything else is handled the old fashioned way. It's also possible that on RF lenses with OIS the serial channel enables better coordination with IBIS.


----------



## kten (Sep 8, 2022)

As much as I dislike it [3rd party AF in RF support] I think there is a lot of unfair shade thrown at Canon over this. Sure I don't like it and as someone who owns fair bit of sigma glass and likes the look of a lot of sigmas mirrorless only stuff and have been waiting for it to come in an RF flavour I feel disappointed, but I understand it and can't give Canon too much flak if any over it. They have to defend their IP or risk losing it I presume, plus recoup cost of r&d, shareholder pressure and fact some of those 3rd parties are pretty closely in bed with competitors (namely Tamron with Sony).

There are many things I feel are valid reasons to throw stones at Canon for, more so in the printer segment but some photo and low end video world such as stripping features that are in equal tier or lower models to greater degree than simple cannibalising lines avoidance. Being very very conservative and slow to adapt vs others (although it is also a strength) and ill thought out stuff like touch bar added to the R (which I actually don't mind) or sticking with old codecs longer than most despite digic generation at those points being more than capable of better ones. Defending their IP and not making it easy for 3rd party companies to profit from seems unreasonable to harshly criticise over though imho.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> What is your real expectation? How many RF lenses should Canon have released in the first 4 years of a new mount given covid/supply chain issues impacting all manufacturing?


How many could Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, and Viltrox combined have released? How many people would have gone RF if those lenses had been available?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

kten said:


> As much as I dislike it I think there is a lot of unfair shade thrown at Canon over this. Sure I don't like it and as someone who owns fair bit of sigma glass and likes the look of a lot of sigmas mirrorless only stuff and have been waiting for it to come in an RF flavour I feel disappointed, but I understand it and can't give Canon too much flak if any over it. They have to defend their IP or risk losing it I presume, plus recoup cost of r&d, shareholder pressure and fact some of those 3rd parties are pretty closely in bed with competitors (namely Tamron with Sony).
> 
> There are many things I feel are valid reasons to throw stones at Canon for, more so in the printer segment but some photo and low end video world such as stripping features that are in equal tier or lower models to greater degree than simple cannibalising lines avoidance. Being very very conservative and slow to adapt vs others (although it is also a strength) and ill thought out stuff like touch bar added to the R (which I actually don't mind) or sticking with old codecs longer than most despite digic generation at those points being more than capable of better ones. Defending their IP and not making it easy for 3rd party companies to profit from seems unreasonable to harshly criticise over though imho.






You know how Sméagol gets when he is denied The Precious 3rd Party Lenses.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 8, 2022)

kten said:


> As much as I dislike it I think there is a lot of unfair shade thrown at Canon over this. Sure I don't like it and as someone who owns fair bit of sigma glass and likes the look of a lot of sigmas mirrorless only stuff and have been waiting for it to come in an RF flavour I feel disappointed, but I understand it and can't give Canon too much flak if any over it. They have to defend their IP or risk losing it I presume, plus recoup cost of r&d, shareholder pressure and fact some of those 3rd parties are pretty closely in bed with competitors (namely Tamron with Sony).


Everyone is acting like Canon invented cold fusion. They took the EF mount, moved it back, and added some pins. This is not Earth shattering innovation, nor is it something that puts them ahead of their competitors. It's just a mount with a communications protocol. Things that make Canon unique (color science, focus pull algorithms, AI tracking AF) are sitting in the camera body. I could understand this argument if there was something unique to the RF mount which meant that RF lenses could focus 10x faster than lenses on any other mount ever could. There's not.

Canon got these patents precisely to do what they're doing now because they believe that it will not cost them marketshare but rather gain them lens sales. People complaining think Canon is wrong because...well, because they're ready to leave over it.


----------



## kten (Sep 8, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Everyone is acting like Canon invented cold fusion. They took the EF mount, moved it back, and added some pins. This is not Earth shattering innovation, nor is it something that puts them ahead of their competitors. It's just a mount with a communications protocol. Things that make Canon unique (color science, focus pull algorithms, AI tracking AF) are sitting in the camera body. I could understand this argument if there was something unique to the RF mount which meant that RF lenses could focus 10x faster than lenses on any other mount ever could. There's not.
> 
> Canon got these patents precisely to do what they're doing now because they believe that it will not cost them marketshare but rather gain them lens sales. People complaining think Canon is wrong because...well, because they're ready to leave over it.


I should have been more clear on I don't mean the mount design costs, but the lens design costs. The two are linked and defending the mount defends their whole RF ecosystem and everything developed in it such as The new RF 70-200s for instance are both clearly new designs and if 3rd parties can start eating some of their lunch there releasing similar IQ lenses with reliable AF in small sizes/weight it'll hurt their bottom line I presume.


----------



## Szst (Sep 8, 2022)

I bought into the RF ecosystem 3 months ago knowing full well I was gonna rely mostly on EF glass but it still sucks to see Sony and Nikon getting all the fancy third party new and improved lenses. I'm happy with my R5C but buyer's remorse is unavoidable and Canon's definitely not helping.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> How many could Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, and Viltrox combined have released? How many people would have gone RF if those lenses had been available?


3rd party lens buyers tend to be lower margin customers.

In a forever shrinking digital still camera market you want to have more higher margin customers.

This can be seen by how many L lenses vs non-L lenses or Full Frame bodies vs APS-C bodies were released in the past 4 years.

In the smartphone market Apple takes 75% of the profits even when they only cater to the price points of $429-1,599.

Android sells for as little as $29 to beyond $1,599.

I am hopeful that RF L lenses were designed for a larger than 35mm full frame image circle to allow for a 0.79x medium format image sensor. This is being said as this is higher-end of the market.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> This is a rumors and speculation website - we talk about what the camera makers are doing, and why (in addition to new releases, etc).
> 
> If you're not interested, then what are you doing here?


Being detached from reality is not the same as speculating.


----------



## kten (Sep 8, 2022)

Also I think people are complaining because they're going on emotion vs rational thought. I dislike it as much if not more than the next guy, but of course I get it and Canon aren't out of order in doing this no matter how I feel about it. It likely won't cost them marketshare because they are the primary player, and folks are always saying they are leaving over something (overheating, ISO performance, DR, the list goes on). For me the biggest thing that Canon does better than anyone that there isn't an equivalent of is ergo's, glass plenty of others have similar options, the colour science is pretty much only applicable to OOC jpegs since 3rd party raw developers like ACR doesn't have Canon profiles for newer models and the same colour responses can be had with other camera easily and I can make friends Nikon, Fuji and Sony raw files match various Canon cr2 and cr3 files easy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

kten said:


> Also I think people are complaining because they're going on emotion vs rational thought. I dislike it as much if not more than the next guy, but of course I get it and Canon aren't out of order in doing this no matter how I feel about it. It likely won't cost them marketshare because they are the primary player, and folks are always saying they are leaving over something (overheating, ISO performance, DR, the list goes on).


That's it, in a nutshell. Except they've convinced themselves that their emotional reaction represents rational thought, and that they represent the majority of Canon's customers.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

kten said:


> Also I think people are complaining because they're going on emotion vs rational thought. I dislike it as much if not more than the next guy, but of course I get it and Canon aren't out of order in doing this no matter how I feel about it. It likely won't cost them marketshare because they are the primary player, and folks are always saying they are leaving over something (overheating, ISO performance, DR, the list goes on). For me the biggest thing that Canon does better than anyone that there isn't an equivalent of is ergo's, glass plenty of others have similar options, the colour science is pretty much only applicable to OOC jpegs since 3rd party raw developers like ACR doesn't have Canon profiles for newer models and the same colour responses can be had with other camera easily and I can make friends Nikon, Fuji and Sony raw files match various Canon cr2 and cr3 files easy.


My read on this is 

Professional photographers whose primary business know how is related to photo services

vs

Enthusiasts who make their living in a broader business world that, framework-wise, drives Canon, Sony & Nikon's marketing, R&D and other business decisions for their goods & products.

It is a good conversation. We learn from each other.

Would any professional photographer bother looking at the number of bodies, lenses and accessories Canon vs Sony vs Nikon vs Pentax?


----------



## danfaz (Sep 8, 2022)

diegopisante said:


> OBS: All the new lenses have IS, it's just one more thing to break inside the lens.


Not really. Amongst the RF L lenses, the 28-70, 50 and both 85s do not have IS. And on the consumer-grade side, the 16 and 50 do not have IS.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> You are comparing a EF 300mm with an equivalent 600mm Zuiko, in terms of field of view. I would say that the Olympus price of GBP 2399 is very fair.
> 
> Likewise, although the 150-400mm Zuiko costs GBP 6499, it's equivalent to a 300-800mm.


Well, no, I'm absolutely not comparing to any 600 FF. I am sure the olympus is a better 300mm lens, this link was convincing; 



 . However, Comparing olympus 300/4 on an em1ii to canon 300/4 on 90D isn't that far off. The 600 on full frame might be a comparison for someone who can afford that combination, but that's not me. Canon APS-C and M43 aren't that different on the shorter (vertical) side, and the Canon sensor is higher density. I've done some of the low-cost comparisons myself, and yes, the 250 (400 eq) on an EF-S 55-250/ M6ii beats the Olympus 75-300 ii combo. The 75-300 ii is an inexpensive zoom, now $550, the EF-S is now 300, used to be cheaper (on sale for half that). I haven't rented the pro olympus lens, but my guess is that I'll do better with a used Canon 500 f4 IS mark 1 than with the pro olympus plus 1.4 TC. My take home from using both systems for birds and bugs is that you use the Olympus to be smaller and lighter, maybe to use the more computational modes, but not to save money or have higher quality.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Being detached from reality is not the same as speculating.


No one seems able to describe what's so preposterous about wanting Canon to allow 3rd party AF glass on the RF system when the other major camera makers allow it on their own --- in place of an explanation are ad hominem attacks (like yours above), "I trust Canon to do what's in its best financial interest," "Switch to Sony/Nikon if you hate Canon so much," etc.

Canon is doing something unpopular and hard to defend. It's ok to admit it! I know we're on CR, but this isn't a religion - sometimes these companies do greedy, bothersome things and make life harder for people who use their brands.

It's sad to watch CR forumers trip over themselves to excuse these moves, but it's happened before and will happen again.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

danfaz said:


> I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?


There may be changes in the body that requires the lens to follow.

Bug fixes are also issued as well. Canon has a history of firmware upgrades for EF lenses.

EF400mm F4 DO IS II USM Firmware Version 1.0.9 [Windows]

EF400mm f/2.8L IS III USM Firmware Version 1.1.2 [Windows]

Firmware Notice: Firmware Update for EF300mm f/2.8 IS II USM, EF400mm f/2.8 IS II USM, EF500mm f/4 IS II USM, EF600mm f/4 IS II USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> No one seems able to describe what's so preposterous about wanting Canon to allow 3rd party AF glass on the RF system when the other major camera makers allow it on their own --- in place of an explanation are ad hominem attacks (like yours above), "I trust Canon to do what's in its best financial interest," "Switch to Sony/Nikon if you hate Canon so much," etc.
> 
> Canon is doing something unpopular and hard to defend. It's ok to admit it! I know we're on CR, but this isn't a religion - sometimes these companies do greedy, bothersome things and make life harder for people who use their brands.
> 
> It's sad to watch CR forumers trip over themselves to excuse these moves, but it's happened before and will happen again.


You are completely missing the point, probably because you can't see past your own desires.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with anyone wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses. Noting at all! Personally, I have bought 3rd party EF lenses when they met my needs, and I would buy 3rd party RF lenses if they met my needs.

The problem is not wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses or expressing that desire. The problem is when people claim that Canon will lose market share over this issue, that a huge swath of their users will switch brands in disgust, that because Sony and Nikon do something Canon must also do that same thing or 'suffer the consequences'. People making such claims 1) have no actual evidence to support them, and 2) are ignoring the simple fact that choosing to block 3rd party RF lenses is a reasonable and logical action for Canon to take, given their market position and the ample data they have to inform such a decision. If people lack the business acumen to understand that, it’s not the fault of those who do understand it and try to explain it.

I'm not sure why you and others seem to believe Canon has a duty to do the things you want, to make your life easy, or to save you money by facilitating cheaper lenses for their system. They don't. They are a business, it's their duty to generate a return on investment for their shareholders. For reasons that I find baffling, some people can't seem to grasp the reality that Canon is a business and their job is to make money. It's not excusing or defending Canon's actions, it's stating an objective fact.

If you don't like Canon's actions, that’s your personal value judgement on those actions and the way they impact you, and doesn't change the reality of the situation. But refusal to acknowledge or accept that reality is ridiculous, and as I keep saying, ridiculous arguments invite ridicule.

The bottom line is that the only real power you have in this situation is how you spend your money. But you also need to realize that how you personally spend your money is totally irrelevant in the ILC market – what matters is how the aggregated masses of users spend their money.

It's sad to watch these CR forumers complain about this or that thing that Canon has done or not done and threaten dire consequences for Canon as a result of something they personally don't like, only to see Canon's market share remain unaffected despite their complaints that they erroneously believe represent the opinions of the majority of camera buyers, but it's happened before and will happen again. It does make those people look rather foolish, though. Still, maybe this time you'll be right and Canon will actually suffer the consequences of your ire.




But probably not, Charlie.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> This is a (the?) Canon rumor site...a rumor site...full of fan-bois from all of the world...with lots of differing perspectives.
> 
> Some of those perspectives would have you believe they are right in there with Canon's decision-makers!
> 
> ...


Tony made the video to get views... The end.

It is simply laughable that there are still people that take anything said by Tony seriously at this point. The slow death of that channel has been a sight to behold as he states more and more rubbish. It looks pretty clear that Canon as well as many other manufacturers have cut ties with the Northrups because of the clickbait videos they have been posting for the past few years in the same vain as the one you linked to.

The go to move for the desperate Camera review youtuber is to go after Canon and sit back and watch the Canon haters fill the comments with line after line about how Canon killed their puppy, eat all their food, and slept with their partners.


Enough about that...

My real motivation for replying to your post is to ask how can you imply that Canon defending their IP is a knee-jerk reaction?

I work for Motorola Solutions and we proudly kick the living crap out of any company that steals technology from us. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/motorola-msi-wins-patent-violation-141502492.html

Pretty safe to say Canon has thought this through and they will fight using every and all lawful means at their disposal to prevent the theft of their IP.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> View attachment 205501
> 
> 
> You know how Sméagol gets when he is denied The Precious 3rd Party Lenses.


I think you're mixing things up there, for gear heads "the precious" is the newest RF gear, especially the ones that don't even exist, that we see endless lists of on this forum. You know the ones, the R1 with its 200MP stacked sensor, global shutter, 150fps burst mode, 16K120 video, yada yada, and equally proposterous and unneeded lenses to match lol! 

I'm sure you haven't forgotten the Canon fanboy cargo cult thinking phenomenon, where if adherents to the Canon fait make endless lists on forums, their wishes will materialse through supernatural means!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

Ramage said:


> My real motivation for replying to your post is to ask how can you imply that Canon defending their IP is a knee-jerk reaction?
> 
> I work for Motorola Solutions and we proudly kick the living crap out of any company that steals technology from us. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/motorola-msi-wins-patent-violation-141502492.html
> 
> Pretty safe to say Canon has thought this through and they will fight using every and all lawful means at their disposal to prevent the theft of their IP.


How dare you bring logic and business acumen to a forum discussion where people just want to complain and believe they’re right. I say, how dare you, Sir?!?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Tony made the video to get views... The end.
> 
> It is simply laughable that there are still people that take anything said by Tony seriously at this point. The slow death of that channel has been a sight to behold as he states more and more rubbish. It looks pretty clear that Canon as well as many other manufacturers have cut ties with the Northrups because of the clickbait videos they have been posting for the past few years in the same vain as the one you linked to.
> 
> ...


This is a perfect example of the 'genetic fallacy', a logical fallacy that something is somehow false because of the source. So, is Tony not capable of relaying facts or making an accurate assessment of anything under any circumstances? Here's a hint. nobody is 100% wrong or right all of the time... 

Basically, you're dismissing him because you don't like him for whatever emotional reason, and that's fine to have your own _opinions_!


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2022)

This is what will likely be the first of many videos on the topic! Alex had been mostly using Canon but says in the comments he considering swapping now too over this.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> In 2011 Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee. This was done to help get to #2 in 2019 displacing Nikon.
> 
> In 2021 Nikon selectively licensed their Z mount in the hopes of replicating Sony's success and get to #2 again. Let us see if this will be successful before the 2030s.
> 
> ...


Sticky this and close the thread!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think you're mixing things up there, for gear heads "the precious" is the newest RF gear, especially the ones that don't even exist, that we see endless lists of on this forum.


No mix up, that’s exactly it. The Precious is the Tokina 24-150 f/2.8 that weighs 800 g and costs $950. It’s the Sigma 35/1.2 Art that costs $800. It’s the Tamron 150-600/6.3 that has IQ as good as the 100-500 and costs only $900.

But they won’t be available in the RF mount because some stupid hobbit lawyer saved Canon’s patent from falling into the Cracks of Doom.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> How dare you bring logic and business acumen to a forum discussion where people just want to complain and believe they’re right. I say, how dare you, Sir?!?


The logical fallacy here is equating ruthless business activities between competitors with what's best for the customers, as compared to what might drive them away!

Yes, businesses are happy to ride the thin line bordering onto anti-trust activity without breaking the law, but often go an inch too far and get fined, as in the many cases I've posted where they've been sued, including camera companies, such as Canon 

What the fanboys are saying is that it's justified for Canon to screw them over because it's protecting IP. Well, there's a difference between legal and ethical behavior, and something can be legal but not ethical. Brand loyalty is really blind faith that anything the company does is good. Good grief! Throw reason out the window, we're dealing with feelings here! But then again, that may be an aspect of a rumour site!


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Stinky this and close the thread!


I know I'm ripe after a day but do we really need to lock the thread because of that?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> No mix up, that’s exactly it. The Precious is the Tokina 24-150 f/2.8 that weighs 800 g and costs $950. It’s the Sigma 35/1.2 Art that costs $800. It’s the Tamron 150-600/6.3 that has IQ as good as the 100-500 and costs only $900.
> 
> But they won’t be available in the RF mount because some stupid hobbit lawyer saved Canon’s patent from falling into the Cracks of Doom.


A bit of a disingenuous reversal of reality there... It's all about having 'the best' new toys, the holy grail of tech-head heaven, even if the gear sits on a shelf.
Fanboys are happy with whatever a company does, and usually pay whatever they ask if it's in their means, as long as it provides the necessary emotional gratification.

Third party lens buyers are less likely to be fanboys and more likely to be beginners or enthusiasts with limited funds. Let's make this a class war between the haves and have nots shall we, great idea.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> What the fanboys are saying is that it's justified for Canon to screw them over because it's protecting IP. Well, there's a difference between legal and ethical behavior, and something can be legal but not ethical. Brand loyalty is really blind faith that anything the company does is good. Good grief! Throw reason out the window, we're dealing with feelings here! But then again, that may be an aspect of a rumour site!


Who is saying it’s ok or ‘good’? It simply is. Canon made a business decision. They didn’t do it capriciously, they had a rationale. They believe it’s the right decision. This isn’t hard to understand. 

I have ample personal experience with corporations doing things that are ‘bad’. However I personally feel about it, I can usually understand the rationale. 

Obviously it would be good for customers if Canon opens up the mount. I believe that doing so would result in lost revenue, I suspect Canon believes that too, which is why they are blocking Viltrox. I don’t believe the revenue loss would be substantially detrimental to Canon, not to the point where it’s bad for customers because Canon’s bottom line suffers. But Canon is in the business of making revenue, not losing it. 

Stating the logical conclusion that Canon has valid business reasons for their action is not defending them or throwing reason out the window. It’s merely stating the obvious. Your clearly emotional reaction to a factual matter is much closer to throwing reason out the window.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> This is a perfect example of the 'genetic fallacy', a logical fallacy that something is somehow false because of the source. So, is Tony not capable of relaying facts or making an accurate assessment of anything under any circumstances? Here's a hint. nobody is 100% wrong or right all of the time...
> 
> Basically, you're dismissing him because you don't like him for whatever emotional reason, and that's fine to have your own _opinions_!


Thanks I aim for perfection.

I am dismissing him and his opinion on this issue because he is simply wrong. His video, like all the others that have popped up on this subject are serving there intended purpose.

Create drama.

Cheers!


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Thanks I aim for perfection.
> 
> I am dismissing him and his opinion on this issue because he is simply wrong. His video, like all the others that have popped up on this subject are serving their intended purpose.
> 
> ...


I disagree.

It creates clicks & clicks drive ad revenue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> A bit of a disingenuous reversal of reality there... It's all about having 'the best' new toys, the holy grail of tech-head heaven, even if the gear sits on a shelf.
> Fanboys are happy with whatever a company does, and usually pay whatever they ask if it's in their means, as long as it provides the necessary emotional gratification.
> 
> Third party lens buyers are less likely to be fanboys and more likely to be beginners or enthusiasts with limited funds. Let's make this a class war between the haves and have nots shall we, great idea.


It’s Gollum, and you want to make it a class war. You need to lighten up. Seriously.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I disagree.
> 
> It creates clicks & clicks drive ad revenue.


Meet me in the middle and agree drama drives clicks


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You are completely missing the point, probably because you can't see past your own desires.
> 
> To be clear, there's nothing wrong with anyone wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses. Noting at all! Personally, I have bought 3rd party EF lenses when they met my needs, and I would buy 3rd party RF lenses if they met my needs.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation, you're being reasonable here.

Well, it's hard to say what impact this decision of Canon's will have on market share. Doing unpopular things with the market would likely result in negative outcomes for a company, but if this is the point, you're making an argument you're making about, then yes, agreed, it's speculation either way, because only time will tell. Sometimes companies get away with dodgy behaviour, sometimes it backfires magnificently.

The only power people have in the markets is to vote with their wallets. If people don't like something, every single individual makes their decision and collectively that adds up, hence 'the market decides'.

Forums are full of emotions, people making hopeful wish lists, or whining about features missing from the latest camera body. That doesn't negate factual criticism, which fanboys get defensive about, such as R5 overheat issues. Objective criticisms which lay out a products limitations are valuable for new buyers, who want an unbiased product evaluation. This conflicts with the fanboy need for validation of their product purchase, so they try censor any negative facts to preserve their feelings. We probably feel the same about that point.

I see the discussion as a lot of venting, and of people expressing where they stand on the issue. It's harmless and it's fine for people to state that if a situation which they dislike continues, they will consider changing brands. Describing it as a threat emotionalises the everyday action that all consumers do with every product and have always done. What they're stating is their opinion, which is essentially a fact, but if you get into a defensive mindset, you can read that as someone declaring my favourite brand is 'bad' and threatening to abandon loyalty and leave the tribe. What part of the brain is responsible for such primal thinking?

The consequences of Canon's decision and the impact on its market is something we will be able to assess in retrospect, so as you mentioned before, we need to patient, not for new lenses (if you really need them to earn a living, you'll ether use adapted EF, buy into a second system or switch brands), but for seeing where the market goes. The past is not an indication of the future because the environment in which the business activities are taking place have changed. We are dealing with lots of unknowns here, and humans psychologically have a hard time dealing with uncertainty (and are having to in more significant areas than camera lenses currently), so only time will tell.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I know I'm ripe after a day but do we really need to lock the thread because of that?


Sorry my bad I know I should not type on my phone...


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I know I'm ripe after a day but do we really need to lock the thread because of that?


Damn you!!! You quoted before I could fix my fat fingered reply.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s Gollum, and you want to make it a class war. You need to lighten up. Seriously.


It's sarcasm, just suggesting everyone is in a different boat here, photography as a hobby draws diverse groups of people from far and wide who share the same interest, and it doesn't take much to be considerate of other people's financial situations to keep our pastime/profession more inclusive. 

Now, hypothetically, if Canon does choose to become a premium brand, mainly focused on it's more profitable and expensive lines, then it may become an exclusive brand, which will by definition push lots of buyers away, as they target a specific demographic.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You are completely missing the point, probably because you can't see past your own desires.
> 
> To be clear, there's nothing wrong with anyone wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses. Noting at all! Personally, I have bought 3rd party EF lenses when they met my needs, and I would buy 3rd party RF lenses if they met my needs.
> 
> ...



I'm impressed you can write such a wall of text and also fail to demonstrate basic literacy, arguing against a point I didn't make (That Canon is somehow making a bad business decision -- great strawman!) and then blessing us with a pedantic explanation of how money works.

I haven't "refused to accept reality" and I don't believe Canon "has a duty to do things I want," or "make my life easy." I'm flattered by your fan fiction, but all I've ever claimed is (1) other companies are allowing 3rd party glass, and (2) I'm unhappy Canon isn't.

That this is so triggering to you and others (who go to desperate lengths to avoid engaging with these ideas -- seriously, go back and read what you wrote!) is hilarious.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Who is saying it’s ok or ‘good’? It simply is. Canon made a business decision. They didn’t do it capriciously, they had a rationale. They believe it’s the right decision. This isn’t hard to understand.
> 
> I have ample personal experience with corporations doing things that are ‘bad’. However I personally feel about it, I can usually understand the rationale.
> 
> ...


Depends on whether said facts are offered as a defense to justify the actions of Canon or just stated as an objective explanation. 
I'm okay with the latter but I'm reading many posts which come across as defensive and carry an implicit value judgement that the actions are almost praiseworthy!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 8, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Thanks I aim for perfection.
> 
> I am dismissing him and his opinion on this issue because he is simply wrong. His video, like all the others that have popped up on this subject are serving there intended purpose.
> 
> ...


Haha, that's a perfect comeback! 

Saying you think he's incorrect in this instance is much clearer, it's your valid opinion, and that's all good.

Yes, YouTube is all about getting views, that's why the most viewed videos are often clickbait garbage, with titles such as "I bought all of Canon's cameras and guess what happened next!" with a thumbnail image of some idiot with their jaw jammed wide open like it's dislocated in that position!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> How many could Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, and Viltrox combined have released? How many people would have gone RF if those lenses had been available?


How many people bought into the RF system because of the (mostly) wonderful RF lenses? 

Net add metrics are needed to make meaningful discussions otherwise it is just wish lists/ people threatening switching vs work with what we have today the best we can. Unfortunately, switching camera systems is a lot more expensive and difficult compared to switching mobile carrier providers (and keeping the same number).


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2022)

Another video on the topic 






Interesting to see the comments, most agreeing it’s a bad move that deters them from Canon


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> This is what will likely be the first of many videos on the topic! Alex had been mostly using Canon but says in the comments he considering swapping now too over this.


Yes, but complaining and "considering" (not even threatening) to switch systems is just click bait. 

Make a decision, switch, lose money in the process and feel somewhat justified that it was correct for them. 
Maybe it is and maybe it won't be. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

People with youtube channels are like people with megaphones... more people can hear them but it doesn't make their words any more accurate or valid than anyone else.

Note that some people will feel regret that they didn't achieve everything they wished for by changing. They will find it harder to admit it their error.
Some people may feel trapped that it is too expensive/hard to switch from Canon and complain but still somehow manage to make great images using Canon gear.

I find is strange that the people complaining about this can be summed up by.... "imagine what I could do if only someone in Canon listened to me"


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Who is saying it’s ok or ‘good’? It simply is. Canon made a business decision. They didn’t do it capriciously, they had a rationale. They believe it’s the right decision. This isn’t hard to understand.
> I have ample personal experience with corporations doing things that are ‘bad’. However I personally feel about it, I can usually understand the rationale.


There are many examples where leaders of private and even public companies (where they have large shareholdings) make decisions that are hard to understand. 
I am not sure that anyone can fully comprehend the rationale of Elon's bid for Twitter for instance. 
Inflated personal ego can have a lot to do with it with a self-proclaimed god-like status.

We (and shareholders) hope that there has been considered/good decision making process under a strategic vision but we all know that it isn't always the case.
I do believe that Canon has made a reasonable decision in this case though.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Yes, but complaining and "considering" (not even threatening) to switch systems is just click bait.
> 
> Make a decision, switch, lose money in the process and feel somewhat justified that it was correct for them.
> Maybe it is and maybe it won't be. The grass is not always greener on the other side.
> ...


Well for someone like this, it would be pretty easy to tell if they do switch or not as if they do, you’d likely see a “I swapped to X” video. Plus majority won’t usually stick with one system as they can get much more reach when shooting all brands. 

Swapping doesn’t actually cost or lose as much as you think. You’re also in Sydney so you know the prices here fluctuate like crazy. I’ve bought a lens, owned it for a year then sold it for $20 less than what I paid brand new for it purely due to a really good sale when I originally bought it. 

You can definitely make great images with any brand but often when people spend money on something, they want to feel they made a good choice with their decision. On Reddit yesterday alone I seen a few threads from people who just bought R series bodies and wanted third party RF lenses and were now questioning their choices. Some don’t care, some will sell, others will stay and complain until Canon does allow them.


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 8, 2022)

randfee said:


> *I feel actively deceived!
> 
> Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.*
> 
> ...


I switched from 5D4 to EOS R then R5 solely because I want to use Canon made RF lenses.


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> How many people bought into the RF system because of the (mostly) wonderful RF lenses?
> 
> Net add metrics are needed to make meaningful discussions otherwise it is just wish lists/ people threatening switching vs work with what we have today the best we can. Unfortunately, switching camera systems is a lot more expensive and difficult compared to switching mobile carrier providers (and keeping the same number).


I’m at least one of those, I hope I’m not the only one


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 8, 2022)

I got a random notification on my smart phone this morning about the third party lens news, so the news is getting around.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Well for someone like this, it would be pretty easy to tell if they do switch or not as if they do, you’d likely see a “I swapped to X” video. Plus majority won’t usually stick with one system as they can get much more reach when shooting all brands.


And yet there are few of these videos published. You would think that they would be popular but you can only really switch a finite number of times just for clicks 


dlee13 said:


> Swapping doesn’t actually cost or lose as much as you think. You’re also in Sydney so you know the prices here fluctuate like crazy. I’ve bought a lens, owned it for a year then sold it for $20 less than what I paid brand new for it purely due to a really good sale when I originally bought it.


I only got the RF100-500mm as there was a 20% off sale in the early days. I was happy to pre-order the R5 (with spare battery/strap). I bought the RF70-200mm/2.8 on sale prior to owning a R body. That said... I wouldn't sell them!

The second hand market for EF lenses is a different story. 
I bought my EF100mm and EF8-15mm second hand and they were the right price for me so I can be price conscious depending on the usage.
Generally you can get for 50% of list price or less. The EF100-400mm and the big whites can be more than 50%. Very few R5/6 bodies for sale so they are keeping their value moreso but again the standard 50% or less second hand price for the rest.
Given that my replacement (insured) value of my camera gear is 10s of thousands of dollars... this would add up to a lot of money lost if I switched.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 8, 2022)

First of all totally agree Canon is a business and will do whatever it feels is the best course to maximise profits.

Also agree that any company has a right to protect their patents. I’d be interested to know whether Canon has created the RF patents in such a way to make it nigh impossible to make an RF lens without infringing, based on Canon also controlling the bodies.

I don’t think comparison with Apple is valid. Computers are hardware and software. 3rd parties can expand the hardware through ports (not storage), and the software ecosystem is extensive via 3rd parties. A better comparison might be a car manufacturer who previously allowed 3rd party spare or repair services and then moved to electric cars and prevented it. I’m not huge into cars so maybe this isn’t the case. But nor is comparison to Apple imho, sorry.

I do like the idea of a lens using the RF “mount” and EF protocol, even if that meant giving up IS (because you need Rf to work with the body IS) and lens correction. Again, if Canon has patented against that it would be interesting to know, and whether Vitrox went this route or not.

vitrox has been quiet on the details which perhaps indicates they are not being totally transparent on what they’ve done, and they seem to accept they’ve infringed IP, else why else would they stop selling.

YT is also a business and the content providers are also there to make money. Canon’s decision is a sell opportunity for content creators, but we cannot discount the influence Social Media has on the wider photographic community, even if it is considerably smaller. SM and internet sites did I believe help improve the video record times on the R5. 

Competition however is good for us. It has provided us with better bodies and lenses. I have no data to know whether those who choose not to migrate to RF system because of Canon’s decision will be offset by the fact that only Canon can produce lenses atm for it. I suspect Canon doesn’t fully know, but given how long it takes to develop lenses, if they have made a mistake it won’t be quick to rectify.

In many ways, it probably helps me as a lot of the RF lenses don’t appeal based on cost, size/weight and that the improvements from the EF isn’t sufficient for me. Plus I like the drop in filter on the rf adaptor for landscape stuff. Thus I won’t be buying many (any) more RF lenses, unless the tilt and shift are amazing, ha ha, and may well continue with an occasional EF. Still, I did expect that 3rd parties would eventually be allowed onto the Rf ecosystem - Canon perhaps feels in the smaller market to remain as profitable then they need to restrict it more.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

peconicgp said:


> Isn't the solution for this to have Sony and Nikon just put in all of their advertising that their new lense mounts support third party autofocus lenses? If that drives consumers to their brands and Canon loses customers than Canon will change their mind sooner than 2024.


What is it with the incessant desire (by some) for a 1st party lens maker, like Canon, to give over trade secrets to the competition? You think Sony and Nikon should advertise that customers should buy third party? In case you've forgotten, they sell their own lenses too.

My gosh, maybe Ford should make their car engines hot swappable with Chevy. It's just weird thinking, man. Really weird. Do you think the camera body is so profitable that Canon can afford such suicide? That lens profits don't matter?

Well, they'll sell more cameras, you'd say. Maybe. They'd sell fewer lenses to. Hey! How about all these companies just toss it all in together and become a single entity, sharing all their secrets with each other? Forget competition, which drives innovation. This type of altruism sinks businesses. Micro 4/3 anyone?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Second thought:
> What if Canon went for a "killer" move:
> They license Sigma lenses for free, in return Sigma exclusively produces lenses for RF and L-mount. No other mount will be supported from that point on. Sigma would make a killing as Canon only third party option, they could easily afford losing the others.
> 
> Some people will rip this comment to pieces  But I thought this strategy could have some merits.


Why would Sigma want to dump sales from Sony, Nikon, and their own Sigma cameras? Yeah, maybe Canon would make a killing (how?), but what's in it for Sigma? What about the lost Canon lens sales? Do you think the mount licensing change ($) on a Sigma lens will make up for the lost profit on a Canon? Nay nay 
Canon wants to sell you a body and at least 1-3 lenses. Canon also wants to sell adapters.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> [..]but all I've ever claimed is (1) other companies are allowing 3rd party glass, and (2) I'm unhappy Canon isn't.[..]


My, admittedly very naive, reading of this situation is that Canon isn't dis-allowing 3rd party glass (just look at Laowa and TTartisans), but specifically has an issue with how Viltrox did theirs.

A more cynical reading is that Canon will send C&D letters to companies that make lenses that overlap with Canons offerings. Canon might not even have a strong case, but a C&D letter is very low-effort and seems to have had the effect on Viltrox that Canon wanted.

I really hope the naive reading it the correct one!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> These are feelings and everyone will have different ones. The white lens one is classic Canon halo branding irrespective of it they are the best or if Sony also uses white now.


I use Canon products because they suit my needs best. I have no more brand loyalty to them than I would to any mega corporation, and I dislike a lot about them as a company, especially their price gouging of certain regions. As for branding features like the white lens, Minolta used white lenses before Canon. Sony bought up Minolta and took over its lens division for its own brand. Sony could argue that they as the continuation of Minolta lenses are being copied by Canon! I personally prefer black telephotos and cover my white ones with camo.


----------



## Sigurd2 (Sep 8, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> My gosh, maybe Ford should make their car engines hot swappable with Chevy. It's just weird thinking, man. Really weird.



This is nothing like expecting Ford to make it easier to fit third party parts in their cars...
It is more like Ford taking legal action to forbid any other company of selling parts, or a whole engine, custom made to fit in a Ford car.

I'm sure the negative views on this in media will make some choose to go for Sony or Nikon instead when buying their next camera.
But Canon must have made a calculation that those losses will be less, than if they let competition in on RF glass.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

Sigurd2 said:


> It is more like Ford taking legal action to forbid any other company of selling parts, or a whole engine, custom made to fit in a Ford car.


Canon is not preventing the manufacture of parts. Canon is preventing the theft of tech they paid dearly to research and develop. A Chevy engine can be installed in a Ford, however, Ford doesn't make the mounts for that, Ford doesn't provide any guidance on how to do so. And shouldn't.


Sigurd2 said:


> I'm sure the negative views on this in media will make some choose to go for Sony or Nikon instead when buying their next camera.


Doubtful, because people would be buying more than a camera. Very few can afford to make the total swap. Imagine being so pissed that you can't get RF Sigma that you'd sell off your body, lenses, flash, familiarity, etc. And then go buy all that stuff NEW for your new brand fetish... because you wanted the Sigma lens. Not happening. Ain't saved no money. Gotta learn a new system. You got your Sigma! But it cost many times what that Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L woulda cost if you'd not got spun up.  Oh? You'll adapt your old Canon glass to the Sony? Then why not just adapt the Sigma to RF? You sure won't be adapting RF to Sony.

In the meantime, all EF glass works in the RF world, including 3rd party.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

illadvisedhammer said:


> My take home from using both systems for birds and bugs is that you use the Olympus to be smaller and lighter, maybe to use the more computational modes, but not to save money or have higher quality.


I've just spotted that OM Systems intend to release a 90mm F3.5 IS macro next year, that will go to 2x magnification. It seems highly likely that they'll also release a 25MP body too. I find the computational aspects of OM cameras, such as in-camera stacking and merging are very appealing, as is the Pro Capture facility. Olympus weather-sealing and durability are legendary. I've long said that ultimately, as M43 quality and MP counts improve, FF will be ousted by smaller formats due to the light weight and compactness of the latter.

I'm heavily committed to Canon RF, with 2 bodies, 6 lenses and 3 flashguns, but as I get older (now 72) a light weight system will become increasingly desirable, and I can seriously see myself switching to OM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I got a random notification on my smart phone this morning about the third party lens news, so the news is getting around.


Lol. My wife and I once discussed our gas fireplace (verbally), and later that day my weather app ads were Home Depot gas fireplaces.

It’s not random coincidence, that’s how modern advertising works. You’re browsing this thread, and being tracked while doing so.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> [..]I find the computational aspects of OM cameras, such as in-camera stacking and merging are very appealing, as is the Pro Capture facility.[..]


For what it's worth: the R7 has all 3 of those things, the M6II has 2, stacking, pr(e/o)-capture but not merging.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I'm impressed you can write such a wall of text and also fail to demonstrate basic literacy, arguing against a point I didn't make (That Canon is somehow making a bad business decision -- great strawman!) and then blessing us with a pedantic explanation of how money works.
> 
> I haven't "refused to accept reality" and I don't believe Canon "has a duty to do things I want," or "make my life easy." I'm flattered by your fan fiction, but all I've ever claimed is (1) other companies are allowing 3rd party glass, and (2) I'm unhappy Canon isn't.
> 
> That this is so triggering to you and others (who go to desperate lengths to avoid engaging with these ideas -- seriously, go back and read what you wrote!) is hilarious.


I see. You were responding to someone else and addressing ‘CR forumers’ with general comments, but you took my reply as a personal attack on you as you talk about ‘being triggered’. Lol.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I asked a question that you may be able to answer. Do companies like Canon actually patent and publish the code for their communication protocols?


Code is usually not patentable (since the Alice decision). Need more than basic hardware in the system to patent. 

There are exceptions, but the bar is much higher and far less likely to patent any software innovation than it used to be.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> For what it's worth: the R7 has all 3 of those things, the M6II has 2, stacking, pr(e/o)-capture but not merging.


Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few caveats with the R7 though, e.g. no merging, very limited pre-capture mode, questionable ergonomics, lack of battery grip option, and prosumer build quality. It is however good value. Unfortunately I don't believe that Canon has any intention of producing a pro-grade APS model.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Sep 8, 2022)

So, after all these pages to what conclusion community agreed on?

Will canon be d00med because some part of their client base, which is cant spend $3000 per lens would goes to another company?
Will this ban helped to develop good, sharp and cheap lenses like %lens name% (16, 24, 100-400 or whatever cheap zoom)? <sarcasm/>
Does a logic of a giant corporation helps to comprehend and accept the needs a raise the price for 70-200 f4 from $1600 to $1800 ( $2k in my country )?


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> So, after all these pages to what conclusion community agreed on?
> 
> Will canon be d00med because some part of their client base, which is cant spend $3000 per lens would goes to another company?
> Will this ban helped to develop good, sharp and cheap lenses like %lens name% (16, 24, 100-400 or whatever cheap zoom)? <sarcasm/>
> Does a logic of a giant corporation helps to comprehend and accept the needs a raise the price for 70-200 f4 from $1600 to $1800 ( $2k in my country )?


Canon's d------med as much as Apple is dooooooooooooooomed for the past 3 decades.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon's d------med as much as Apple is dooooooooooooooomed for the past 3 decades.


But what if Apple had locked third-party headphones out of the iPod?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few caveats with the R7 though, e.g. no merging, very limited pre-capture mode, questionable ergonomics, lack of battery grip option, and prosumer build quality. It is however good value. Unfortunately I don't believe that Canon has any intention of producing a pro-grade APS model.


This side-by-side detailed comparison of the R7 and OM-1 prefers the ergonomics of the R7. What did you find questionable about the R7 ergonomics when you were using it?








Canon R7 vs. OM Systems Olympus OM-1: An In-Depth Camera Comparison & Review — Oxbow Photography


A detailed review and comparison of the OM Systems OM-1 and Canon R7 crop sensor mirrorless cameras and their respective kit lenses.




www.oxbowphoto.com


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> This side-by-side detailed comparison of the R7 and OM-1 prefers the ergonomics of the R7. What did you find questionable about the R7 ergonomics when you were using it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link, it's interesting reading.

Ergonomics are very much a personal thing, and some may like the R7, but I didn't like the dial around the joystick, I found it too easy to nudge the dial when using the joystick. I'm left-eyed, which aggravates the situation. Also I found the * button awkwardly positioned, and the rear buttons/d-pad a bit cramped. The EVF is a bit of a let-down compared to the one on my R5, and has lower resolution and lower magnification than on the OM1. Apart from that, it's OK, although I would have greatly preferred a slightly larger, more rugged pro-grade body.

There also are things about the OM1 that I don't particularly like, e.g. I find the GUI and menu descriptions confusing. It does however fit my hands very comfortably, and is easy to operate. But the main attractions for me are the ruggedness of the body*, the wide choice of compact lenses, and the announcement of a 90mm F3.5 macro that goes down to 2x life size. That would be roughly equivalent on my R5 to the "compact 180mm F5.6 L IS macro" which I've pleaded for Canon to introduce. I also like the Pro Capture which is better implemented than on the R7, and the fact that the OM can focus-stack *and* merge in-camera. I've used an OM D E-M1 Mkii (bloody silly name), and the OM1 is even better. I think OM Systems will have a very bright future if they are able to market themselves better.

*I've recounted this several times in threads on dpreview, but it probably bears repeating. In 2017, while in Papua New Guinea with one of my butterfly photography groups, we had to wade knee-deep along a fast-flowing stream in order to reach some spectacular butterflies mineralising further along on the opposite bank. One of the group tripped on a small boulder and went crashing into the stream, and her OM D E Mkii crashed into the water and sunk to the bottom. It was down there for almost a minute, before she rescued it. After wiping the camera down and drying it in the hot sunshine for half an hour, the camera was found to be undamaged and working perfectly. She still has this camera, and it still works perfectly.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few caveats with the R7 though, e.g. no merging, very limited pre-capture mode, questionable ergonomics, lack of battery grip option, and prosumer build quality. It is however good value. Unfortunately I don't believe that Canon has any intention of producing a pro-grade APS model.


The R7 actually does do in-camera merging, it saves the RAW files and then generates a merged jpeg.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The R7 actually does do in-camera merging, it saves the RAW files and then generates a merged jpeg.


Thanks, I think the reviews which I read must have failed to understand the "depth composite" setting. I'll look at the R7 more favourably.


----------



## EOS (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon is a business.
> 
> RF mount started in 2018.
> 
> ...


LOL! You assume too much. I’ve been a Canon shooter since the A-1 and FD mount, and have lived through pseudo compatibility with FL and “R Series” glass. (Yes, Canon recycled the R name.) And then EF and autofocus, which of course broke compatibility with everything. 

For now I’ve dumped as much EF glass as had resale value, except for some very special lenses like the TS-E 24 f/3.5 II that have no corollary in the RF or FE lines at this time. Still waiting. Hoping today’s RF wide L primes rumor comes through sooner rather than later.


----------



## EOS (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> Bob, is @EOS your other username?


Bob doesn’t LOL enough to be me.


----------



## kten (Sep 8, 2022)

one thing worth mentioning that seems to be missed is Canon isn't blocking RF mount lenses


koenkooi said:


> My, admittedly very naive, reading of this situation is that Canon isn't dis-allowing 3rd party glass (just look at Laowa and TTartisans), but specifically has an issue with how Viltrox did theirs.
> 
> A more cynical reading is that Canon will send C&D letters to companies that make lenses that overlap with Canons offerings. Canon might not even have a strong case, but a C&D letter is very low-effort and seems to have had the effect on Viltrox that Canon wanted.
> 
> I really hope the naive reading it the correct one!


They're manual focus though. Canon isn't blocking RF mount glass across the board but more specifically seems to be doing so with AF RF. Since there is no official way of supporting AF on RF mount all 3rd party are going to be copying or reverse engineering and Canon are blocking that. Again they're within their rights to do it and probably even have to to be seen to defend their IP (or legally they lose it) even if didn't care (doubtful).

Although it isn't the best move for consumers admittedly I think this is blown out of proportion a little. For pros they can just pass cost off to customers so isn't that big of a deal. As hobbyist I'm not earning my living from photography and maybe affects me more BUT but I can afford to simply not buy lots of Canon RF glass at current prices (in the UK and regional pricing here is more than other places + VAT) and it won't affect my livelihood. A shame maybe but not exactly life and death and stopping me putting bread on the table so I can afford to shrug it off, and for those who depend on it for business are likely to go 1st party anyway so not that big an issue.

For me the Canon RF L stuff is not worth the current cost and other things I'd rather spend that disposable income on before lenses when my current ones work well enough albeit heavier or larger with adapters etc. Even within the hobby niche I'd be likely to blow that amount replacing my old lights (godox qt600ii's) with smaller modern equivalents and accessories before glass since that is likely to make more of a difference to me.


----------



## EOS (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you aware of the RF 28-70mm f/2L, which was one of the first lenses announced for the mount? Yes, it's big and heavy (relatively speaking, it's a lot smaller and lighter than my 600/4 II). But for me it's like carrying around a bag of primes, since I usually shoot them at ~f/2 anyway, and unlike the EF 35/50/85L that benefit optically from being stopped down, the 28-70/2 is optically excellent wide open.


I’ve demoed it. Why the heck doesn’t that lens come with a tripod mount? It’s _twice_ the weight of the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which earned every bit of its nickname: “The Brick”.

The fact is, I’m a sucker for a 24mm focal length. It just suits my eye, always has. I’m really hoping the RF 24mm f1.4 L from todays rumor doesn’t have the aberration issues that the EF 24mm L lenses have had.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS said:


> I’ve demoed it. Why the heck doesn’t that lens come with a tripod mount? It’s _twice_ the weight of the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which earned every bit of its nickname: “The Brick”.


Yeah, it’s heavy! When I used it with my EOS R, it felt awkward and that’s an understatement. But with my R3, it balances nicely and is comfortable to use.



EOS said:


> The fact is, I’m a sucker for a 24mm focal length. It just suits my eye, always has. I’m really hoping the RF 24mm f1.4 L from todays rumor doesn’t have the aberration issues that the EF 24mm L lenses have had.


I had the EF 24-105/4, then the 24-70/2.8 II, and I now have the RF 24-105/4 and 28-70/2. 

I like 24mm outdoors and for travel, but looking at my EF shots from the settings where I’d use the 28-70 (indoor/events) I found that even when the EXIF showed shots at 24-28mm, I had almost always cropped them to an AoV of 30-35mm. So I went ahead and bought the f/2 beast. No regrets.


----------



## GoranS (Sep 8, 2022)

They could license the RF-S mount to Sigma and keep FF lenses native-only for 2-3 more years. In that way they could fill the lineup for crop lenses quickly and still keep quality concerns at bay.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

GoranS said:


> They could license the RF-S mount to Sigma and keep FF lenses native-only for 2-3 more years. In that way they could fill the lineup for crop lenses quickly and still keep quality concerns at bay.


Except there’s no such thing as an RF-S mount. There are RF-S _lenses_, but those simply project a smaller image circle through the same RF mount used by full frame lenses.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except there’s no such thing as an RF-S mount. There are RF-S _lenses_, but those simply project a smaller image circle through the same RF mount used by full frame lenses.


Sure, but the electronic communication in a licensed product could tell the ff cameras to crop to APS-c, protecting the high end profits while building the cropped base that can grow into ff. As you like to remind us just thinking of something or wanting it doesn't make it happen or likely, but this sounds like a great compromise that would check some boxes for protection and growth. I know its an unresolved debate how many crop users move to ff, but if that path exists this would help it along.


----------



## GoranS (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except there’s no such thing as an RF-S mount. There are RF-S _lenses_, but those simply project a smaller image circle through the same RF mount used by full frame lenses.


Exactly, I know that. Under license you can make only the lenses you are allowed to. Sigma has great crop zooms and primes - probably Canon would port the 32mm over from the m-mount but still. That still leaves 16, 30, 56 and 18-50 to fill the gaps.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 8, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Tony made the video to get views... The end.
> 
> It is simply laughable that there are still people that take anything said by Tony seriously at this point. The slow death of that channel has been a sight to behold as he states more and more rubbish. It looks pretty clear that Canon as well as many other manufacturers have cut ties with the Northrups because of the clickbait videos they have been posting for the past few years in the same vain as the one you linked to.
> 
> ...


This will be my last post in this thread.

You wrote that I wrote that Canon defending their IP is/was a knee-jerk reaction.

I wrote no such thing...and do not believe that their decision here is/was a knee-jerk reaction.

Out.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 8, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> This will be my last post in this thread.
> 
> You wrote that I wrote that Canon defending their IP is/was a knee-jerk reaction.
> 
> ...





Ramage said:


> My real motivation for replying to your post is to* ask how can you imply* that Canon defending their IP is a knee-jerk reaction?


*Correction* - I wrote that you "implied" Canon was making a knee-jerk reaction. If your were not attempting to tie Canon and their decisions into the discussion I am not sure what service the lines I quoted below provide to the discussion. Perhaps you were attempting to establish expertise

After re-reading your post a number of times I concede that if the entire body of your post ended before you linked to Tony's video I would have little to no grounds to imply you were linking Canon and or their decisions to a "knee-jerk" reaction.

Sadly having read the post in its entirety I could not help but link your earlier paragraph to the full body of the message. Which does not come across as supportive of Canon and their position.

Also starting a discussion by first labeling users as "fan-bois" weakens what you have to contribute IMO. Had you said "As a member of the Canon "fan-bois" club this is my take". By somewhat aligning to the group you become "one of us" and not just someone here to cast judgement.


josephandrews222 said:


> Sometimes, in the enterprises I'm referring to, *knee-jerk* decisions are made in response to sentiments expressed in various public forums.
> 
> WIth the benefit of hindsight, some of those very decisions have not had the desired outcome...other than, at times, sort of changing the subject.


Anyway. thanks for taking the time to clear up things up.

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

Ramage said:


> Also starting a discussion by first labeling users as "fan-bois" weakens what you have to contribute IMO.


Perhaps it depends on the subject of the appellation. For example, I’m an unapologetic fanboi of facts and data, and the logical deductions which derive from them.


----------



## melgross (Sep 9, 2022)

Bonich said:


> USA is not of relevance in this regard.
> Camera business is a word wide business.


It us, of course. It’s a big percentage of sales. But that wasn’t the point I was making. I thought the point was obvious. I guess not.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 9, 2022)

melgross said:


> I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it. This was a decision made by the Librarian Of Congress a number of years ago, within whom the authority to make such decisions lies.
> 
> so Canon couldn’t forbid it here. Elsewhere, I don’t know.


Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the situation (unless perhaps I misunderstand the point you were trying to make?).

Reverse engineering a product means, basically, to pull it apart and work out how it works. At least generally, reverse engineering is not a legal problem. However, just because you have reverse engineered something does *not *mean you can necessarily start making and selling a product which can operate in the same way as the product (or works with the product) you reverse-engineered without any problem. There can be various reasons for that, but in particular just because you have worked out how someone's intellectual property works doesn't mean you can use that intellectual property (particularly for commercial purposes) without infringing that intellectual property (eg infringing a patent or infringing copyright).

I think what you are thinking of is this:

In an effort to stop other people copying digital content (eg copying and distributing movies, etc), the people who make the content often use digital rights management software and/or hardware.
Generally speaking, in the US (and various other countries) the law prohibits anyone from circumventing digital rights management systems, at least where those systems concern copyright material. Obviously enought, that is prohibited because the intention is to stop people from copying copyright material when they are not supposed to.
There are some exceptions to the general rule that you cannot circumvent digitial rights management systems, and one of those exceptions is reverse engineering to achieve interopability between computer systems.
I am not a US lawyer but you mgiht want to look at this post (albeit it is old now) by a US law firm https://www.stoel.com/legal-insight...m-copyright-act-changing-the-digital-landscap

However, the critical point is what I have said above. Reverse engineering something allows you to work out how a product works, but just because you have done that doesn't necessarily mean you can make your own product without having legal problems. You will still need either a licence to use any relevant intellectual property, or you will have to come up with a way to make a product which doesn't use the relevant intellectual property but still does the job.

So, the bottom line is, if Canon has a relevant patent or owns relevant copyright material (or any other relevant form of intellectual property), it can stop other people selling products which use that IP, even in the USA. The fact it may not be able to stop people reverse engineering a product doesn't change that. And that may mean it is very difficult or even impossible for someone to be commercial making or selling an AF lens which uses the RF mount without infringing Canon's IP (unless Canon has granted the person a relevant licence, of course).


----------



## martti (Sep 9, 2022)

Never mind. I Switched to Sony 4 years ago. Been using all kinds of lenses since, even Leitz-M and Jupiter-3.


----------



## rawshooter (Sep 9, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> RF-S line up is empty which needs good native options, also for RF there is still missing 180mm Macro and a 100mm Macro without SA control and focus shift.


Yea when I'm going to buy a small RF-S cam (if Canon releases one) I'm not going to use RF or adapted lenses, because I want it to be a compact system.
If they want me to attach my RF 70-200 2.8 I can also just put my R5 on it..buying an additional RF 70-200 4 is still a waste of space since its made for fullframe.


----------



## dolina (Sep 9, 2022)

rawshooter said:


> Yea when I'm going to buy a small RF-S cam (if Canon releases one) I'm not going to use RF or adapted lenses, because I want it to be a compact system.
> If they want me to attach my RF 70-200 2.8 I can also just put my R5 on it..buying an additional RF 70-200 4 is still a waste of space since its made for fullframe.


The first RF-S bodies came out in 2022. This is 4 years after RF system was introduced

- 2022 Canon EOS R7
- 2022 Canon EOS R10

RF-S lenses

- 2022 Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
- 2022 Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2022)

rawshooter said:


> Yea when I'm going to buy a small RF-S cam (if Canon releases one) I'm not going to use RF or adapted lenses, because I want it to be a compact system.
> If they want me to attach my RF 70-200 2.8 I can also just put my R5 on it..buying an additional RF 70-200 4 is still a waste of space since its made for fullframe.


Once you get into telephotos, they soon have to be the same size for crop and full frame. The RF-S 18-150 f/6.3 is beginning to get there and it is not exactly small for an f/6.3. The new Olympus 100-400mm f/6.3 micro 4/3 lens weighs twice the FF RF 100-400mm f/8 and is bigger.


----------



## rawshooter (Sep 9, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Once you get into telephotos, they soon have to be the same size for crop and full frame. The RF-S 18-150 f/6.3 is beginning to get there and it is not exactly small for an f/6.3. The new Olympus 100-400mm f/6.3 micro 4/3 lens weighs twice the FF RF 100-400mm f/8 and is bigger.


Well in the M system everything is a lot smaller. So I'm hoping for something like this. Also are we talking crop adjusted focal length here? Of course it's similar size if it's full frame focal length, but that's not the plan.
And 18-150 is a bit much I think, that will cost quality, I don't need an all in one zoom lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

rawshooter said:


> Also are we talking crop adjusted focal length here?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> What is it with the incessant desire (by some) for a 1st party lens maker, like Canon, to give over trade secrets to the competition? You think Sony and Nikon should advertise that customers should buy third party? In case you've forgotten, they sell their own lenses too.
> 
> My gosh, maybe Ford should make their car engines hot swappable with Chevy. It's just weird thinking, man. Really weird. Do you think the camera body is so profitable that Canon can afford such suicide? That lens profits don't matter?
> 
> Well, they'll sell more cameras, you'd say. Maybe. They'd sell fewer lenses to. Hey! How about all these companies just toss it all in together and become a single entity, sharing all their secrets with each other? Forget competition, which drives innovation. This type of altruism sinks businesses. Micro 4/3 anyone?


The answer you're looking for is _consumer choice_.

Your car analogy unfortunately is a false equivalence fallacy argument. The real-world automotive equivalent is not being able to buy any third-party components (vs genuine OEM components) for your car. For your Ford in the example you made, you could only get new tyres from Ford, and only new wheel rims from Ford if you wanted to change the standard ones, because they patented the stud pattern on the wheel or something like that. Same as air filters, brake pads and other replaceable parts that are changed in a service. That car example argues the opposite of the case you were making, and there would be an uproar if a popular mainstream car company tried to do that.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 9, 2022)

GoranS said:


> They could license the RF-S mount to Sigma and keep FF lenses native-only for 2-3 more years. In that way they could fill the lineup for crop lenses quickly and still keep quality concerns at bay.


What is important about the RF mount is the body-to-lens communications protocol, not the physical dimensions of the mount. Canon would have to reveal that for the RF-S mount.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2022)

rawshooter said:


> Well in the M system everything is a lot smaller. So I'm hoping for something like this. Also are we talking crop adjusted focal length here? Of course it's similar size if it's full frame focal length, but that's not the plan.
> And 18-150 is a bit much I think, that will cost quality, I don't need an all in one zoom lens.


The smaller lenses you are talking about in the M system are the non-telephoto lenses, and the wider the angle, the smaller they are. This because for short focal length lenses, it is difficult to make their image circle to cover the sensor and so it is easier to build a short focal length lens to cover a smaller sensor. For telephoto lenses, the natural image circle is so large it more than covers the FF and crop sensors and you can't make a smaller lens for the crop. A 400mm lens for your iPhone would be of the same size as one for your R3. I am not talking about crop adjusted length.


----------



## David_B (Sep 9, 2022)

melgross said:


> I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it. This was a decision made by the Librarian Of Congress a number of years ago, within whom the authority to make such decisions lies.
> 
> so Canon couldn’t forbid it here. Elsewhere, I don’t know.



Canon can't forbit reverse the engineering but that is separate question in relation to patent infringement of what they produce as a result of reverse engineering. This has been followed up by many posters here. It's a shitty part of patenting, to be sure.

Everyone thinks Sigma, etc, all just reverse engineer to make EF lenses. No. Read the quotes from Leica, etc. Threre is no AF for European EF lenses due to Canon not licensing EF to anyone but Japanese companies. The European companies don't put it like that, rather they mention not to anyone on a particular island.

Viltrox is a Chinese company which might explain why they've been the only ones to produce AF for RF. I suspect that whatever patent case Canon brings won't stop the manufacture or sale of Viltrox lenses with AF for RF on mainland China. But I might be surprised.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The answer you're looking for is _consumer choice_.
> 
> Your car analogy unfortunately is a false equivalence fallacy argument. The real-world automotive equivalent is not being able to buy any third-party components (vs genuine OEM components) for your car. For your Ford in the example you made, you could only get new tyres from Ford, and only new wheel rims from Ford if you wanted to change the standard ones, because they patented the stud pattern on the wheel or something like that. Same as air filters, brake pads and other replaceable parts that are changed in a service. That car example argues the opposite of the case you were making, and there would be an uproar if a popular mainstream car company tried to do that.


I disagree. The wheels don't require a deep dive into circuitry or software. Hmmm... I wonder why Sigma doesn't just make a copy, also of Canon's lens formulas and mfg. tech? 

You are talking wheels and wiper blades. The engine, computer, etc... aren't accessories. They are the heart. BTW: Do you think tread designs and wheel designs are patented? The wheel itself doesn't communicate.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 10, 2022)

Here are 3rd party AF adapters for RF mount including some with control ring. If these are allowed then 3rd party lenses which this adapters/communication protocols built-in should be legal. So not sure what Canon is trying to "protect" here. 








Lens Mount Adapters: Sony, Nikon, Canon Lens Adapters | B&H


Your source for Lens Mount Adapters from top brands like FotodioX, KIPON, Novoflex and Metabones. Fantastic prices and legendary customer service.




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 10, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Here are 3rd party AF adapters for RF mount including some with control ring. If these are allowed then 3rd party lenses which this adapters/communication protocols built-in should be legal. So not sure what Canon is trying to "protect" here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Canon is trying to protect their profits. They do not want third parties selling RF lenses with similar specs for a more affordable price.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Here are 3rd party AF adapters for RF mount including some with control ring. If these are allowed then 3rd party lenses which this adapters/communication protocols built-in should be legal. So not sure what Canon is trying to "protect" here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because it is really just an EF adapter for the mount. That's it. Not proprietary.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> Canon is trying to protect their profits. They do not want third parties selling RF lenses with similar specs for a more affordable price.


Especially before their own line is fleshed out. Not everyone can afford to upgrade from 3rd party once 1st party comes out. Canon wants that 1st lens sale.

I'd imagine Canon will one day license the mount/software/electronics, but not soon. I'm wondering how long it was after EF came out before Canon licensed it? Then I have to imagine the backlash EF caused when no adapter was available.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 10, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Because it is really just an EF adapter for the mount. That's it. Not proprietary.


All of those adapters are enabling communication between lenses and bodies for various functions(none of these are dumb adapters like we see for older Mf lenses) including what was supposed to RF mount exclusive Control ring. So as suggested here by quite a few members if lens manufacturers decides to make RF mount lens but with EF to RF adapter built-in(i.e. uses EF protocols and has electronics in between to change it to RF) that would be legal rather than having a lens that uses reverse engineered RF mount protocols(given all these 3rd party EF to RF adapters exist and Canon hasn't sent their legal team barking up this tree yet).

Edit: many of those adapters have usb ports for upgrading firmwares as well.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> All of those adapters are enabling communication between lenses and bodies for various functions(none of these are dumb adapters like we see for older Mf lenses) including what was supposed to RF mount exclusive Control ring. So as suggested here by quite a few members if lens manufacturers decides to make RF mount lens but with EF to RF adapter built-in(i.e. uses EF protocols and has electronics in between to change it to RF) that would be legal rather than having a lens that uses reverse engineered RF mount protocols(given all these 3rd party EF to RF adapters exist and Canon hasn't sent their legal team barking up this tree yet).
> 
> Edit: many of those adapters have usb ports for upgrading firmwares as well.


Yes. I understand. Still, they use EF protocols. They are absolutely not RF. It is not just the physical mount at issue. Many times many members suggest all kinds of things. I'd rather take the word of Canon's legal team and the courts than some guy here with zero legal background, especially with regard to extremely complicated international patent law. Legal consensus drawn up in a forum chock full of non-legal minds does not equal reality.

Canon invented it. Canon patented it to protect intellectual property. "Property" belongs to it's owner. Doesn't matter how many Joes/Jane's off the street say it doesn't. Why do we copyright photos? To protect our property.

I have no idea how many patent attorneys are members here that are qualified to make an assertion. My guess is zero.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Yes. I understand. Still, they use EF protocols. They are absolutely not RF. It is not just the physical mount at issue. Many times many members suggest all kinds of things. I'd rather take the word of Canon's legal team and the courts than some guy here with zero legal background, especially with regard to extremely complicated international patent law. Legal consensus drawn up in a forum chock full of non-legal minds does not equal reality.
> 
> Canon invented it. Canon patented it to protect intellectual property. "Property" belongs to it's owner. Doesn't matter how many Joes/Jane's off the street say it doesn't. Why do we copyright photos? To protect our property.
> 
> I have no idea how many patent attorneys are members here that are qualified to make an assertion. My guess is zero.


There have been some very good posts about patents here from knowledgeable members and a good link or two posted for reference, which show clearly what the situation is. You are making assertions about patent protection being the same as copyright law that are just simply wrong - copyrighting an image is a quite different situation from here. The essence of the intellectual property law situation is that a company can patent a mount for a certain period of time but they cannot patent the fitting that goes onto it - anyone can legally make a lens that fits a Canon or any other mount without needing a licence. Further, it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer any communication protocol that is required to make that lens operable by using their own code and they don't need a licence. The reverse engineering becomes illegal if in fact it wasn't actually engineered but deception or suchlike was use to obtain that protocol. Reading between the lines, it looks like Viltrox must have illegally obtained the AF or other code.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 10, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Yes. I understand. Still, they use EF protocols. They are absolutely not RF. It is not just the physical mount at issue. Many times many members suggest all kinds of things. I'd rather take the word of Canon's legal team and the courts than some guy here with zero legal background, especially with regard to extremely complicated international patent law. Legal consensus drawn up in a forum chock full of non-legal minds does not equal reality.
> 
> Canon invented it. Canon patented it to protect intellectual property. "Property" belongs to it's owner. Doesn't matter how many Joes/Jane's off the street say it doesn't. Why do we copyright photos? To protect our property.
> 
> I have no idea how many patent attorneys are members here that are qualified to make an assertion. My guess is zero.





AlanF said:


> There have been some very good posts about patents here from knowledgeable members and a good link or two posted for reference, which show clearly what the situation is. You are making assertions about patent protection being the same as copyright law that are just simply wrong - copyrighting an image is a quite different situation from here. The essence of the intellectual property law situation is that a company can patent a mount for a certain period of time but they cannot patent the fitting that goes onto it - anyone can legally make a lens that fits a Canon or any other mount without needing a licence. Further, it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer any communication protocol that is required to make that lens operable by using their own code and they don't need a licence. The reverse engineering becomes illegal if in fact it wasn't actually engineered but deception or suchlike was use to obtain that protocol. Reading between the lines, it looks like Viltrox must have illegally obtained the AF or other code.


I think you are misunderstanding what @Ozarker is getting at. He used copyright as an example of how individuals protect their creative output. I don't think he was conflating copyright with patents, but just using it to show that Canon is protecting their own work, just like many creatives do with copyrights.

I'm also not sure your statements are entirely accurate, when it comes to patent law.

I think it might be better to just keep it simple. Canon has objected to RF lens designs that they believe violate their patents. We don't know what the specifics are and shouldn't speculate. How those third parties developed their products we don't know. Deception or illegally obtaining the code or Autofocus is only one possibility and we shouldn't assume that is the case. It is possible to violate a patent without deceiving anyone or illegally obtaining anything. For example, even if you independently invent something, if the invention has already been patented you can still be in violation of the patent. Specifics are beyond the scope and knowledge of forum participants and while many of the posts here have been interesting and informative, none can be assumed to apply to this case based on the limited hearsay information that is available.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There have been some very good posts about patents here from knowledgeable members and a good link or two posted for reference, which show clearly what the situation is. You are making assertions about patent protection being the same as copyright law that are just simply wrong - copyrighting an image is a quite different situation from here. The essence of the intellectual property law situation is that a company can patent a mount for a certain period of time but they cannot patent the fitting that goes onto it - anyone can legally make a lens that fits a Canon or any other mount without needing a licence. Further, it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer any communication protocol that is required to make that lens operable by using their own code and they don't need a licence. The reverse engineering becomes illegal if in fact it wasn't actually engineered but deception or suchlike was use to obtain that protocol. Reading between the lines, it looks like Viltrox must have illegally obtained the AF or other code.


I never implied patents and copyrights are the same things. Both protect intellectual property, but in different fields. You can't get a patent on a photo. If, however, you invent a novel process or a novel piece of kit you can get a patent.

The point is that people have rights to their work. Photographers protect their output through the law. Same such photographers belly aching that Canon is trying to protect it's work because they don't want to pay Canon is just plain silly, and frankly, displays selfishness and entitlement. Canon does not owe anyone access. Canon owes no explanation.

The mount is far more than just a fitting. Knowledgeable posts? From patent attorneys, or pedestrians that have no legal training on the intricacies and nuance of patent law?

I guess we shall see whether Canon wins or loses. Then we'll have an answer. If Viltrox stops production, then we'll have the answer. I am sure that Canon's patent attorneys know far more about the law than any link chaser here.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I have no idea how many patent attorneys are members here that are qualified to make an assertion. My guess is zero.





Ozarker said:


> The mount is far more than just a fitting. Knowledgeable posts? From patent attorneys, or pedestrians that have no legal training on the intricacies and nuance of patent law?
> 
> I guess we shall see whether Canon wins or loses. Then we'll have an answer. If Viltrox stops production, then we'll have the answer. I am sure that Canon's patent attorneys know far more about the law than any link chaser here.


What I am trying to point out quite gently is that there is knowledge of patents in this forum and that the situation has been summed up succinctly by several members. At least one, @InchMetric, has declared himself to be a patent attorney in these threads and he has himself has a patent on AF that has been raised in another thread, and I recall there was one other attorney whose name I have forgotten. I have my name on a few patents and have been involved in several others and do have some working knowledge on IPR.


----------



## amfoto1 (Sep 11, 2022)

What this effectively means is that the Canon RF mount offers the least choice of autofocusing lenses of any current mirrorless camera system, other than Canon EF-M.

Canon EF-M.... 14 lenses
Canon RF......... 29 lenses
Nikon Z............ 39 lenses
Leica L............. 64 lenses
Fujifilm X......... 65 lenses
Micro 4/3........ 75 lenses
Sony E............ 172 lenses

All the systems are bolstered by 3rd party lens contributions, except for Canon RF. This is especially disastrous for the new APS-C R7 and R10, since there are only two RF-S lenses (and they fully overlap each other). Half the eight Viltrox lenses planned for RF mount are very well regarded APS-C designs (13mm, 23mm, 33mm, 56mm). Likely some of the Rokinon/Samyang would have been crop designs, too. Of course the R7 and R10 are both able to make full use of all RF lenses, but there won't be any particularly wide options for them and how many people buying a sub-$1000 camera will want to spend $2000 or $3000 for a large, heavy full frame capable lens?

This action by Canon effects Viltrox. That has been confirmed by both sides. Reportedly Samyang has also been warned off, and have pulled their RF autofocus lenses off both Samyang and Rokinon websites. In addition, Yongnuo had just begun offering a couple autofocus RF lenses (35mm and 85mm) and appears to have discontued them. 

Canon is entitled to protect their patents. I don't question the legality of their actions. However I do question the wisdom of doing so, from a marketing stand point. Sony has gone from being one of the smallest camera companies in 2006 (when they bought Konica-Minolte) to #2 share of global market, in some part by welcomimg 3rd party lens participation. Nikon appears to be doing the same.

We'll see how it works out for Canon. Some people who planned to buy into the R system might now look elsewhere. Anyone considering a jump from DSLRs to mirrorless would also find it one of the least painful times to change systems too, if need be.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> What this effectively means is that the Canon RF mount offers the least choice of autofocusing lenses of any current mirrorless camera system, other than Canon EF-M.
> 
> Canon EF-M.... 14 lenses
> Canon RF......... 29 lenses
> ...


Regarding your lens numbers

Are these all

- USA warranty
- Single physical color
- In stock
- In production
- 1st party only or 1st party + 3rd party
- autofocus only or autofocus + manual
- lens-only or lens kit
- lens-only or lens + adapter

The first APS-C RF-S mount bodies and lenses listed below were announced 4 months ago on May 24, 2022

- EOS R7
- EOS R10
- RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
- RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM

You represent these 4 products as if the RF-S mount came our earlier than this year.

The Canon RF full frame mount was released in 2018 and it took nearly 4 years for the first RF-S lens & bodies to be announced because that part of the market isn't as lucrative anymore.

The 12yo Sony E mount has 9 full frame & 4 APS-C mirorless bodies. It is an indicator that the market for consumer APS-C ILCs is not as big as 2012. In 2010, the year the Sony E mount was announced, the 1st body for it was the APS-C bodies NEX-3 & NEX-5. In 2013 the first full frame E mount body were the Sony a7 & Sony a7R.

Release schedule are indicators of what are priorities to the company.

As Canon has half the mirorrless bodies as Sony means that they will also have half APS-C ILCs Sony has.

Below are the ILC bodies that are found on bhphoto.

These are filtered for

- USA warranty
- Single physical color
- In stock
- In production
​
BrandCanonNikonFujiFILMSonyPentaxAPS-C dSLR33N/AN/A2APS-C Mirrorless2 RF-S & 2 EF-M364N/ASubtotal APS-C ILC76642Full Frame dSLR53N/AN/A1Full Frame Mirrorless54N/A9N/ASubtotal Full Frame ILC107N/A91Grand Total ILC (Full Frame + APS)17136133


My interpretation

- Canon has the most body SKUs at 17 with the most APS-C & Full Frame ILC
- Nikon is tied with Sony in number of grand total of ILCs
- FujiFILM has the most APS-C mirrorless SKUs at 6 but has no Full Frame mirrorless mount
- Sony has the most Full frame mirorless SKUs & 2nd most single mount APS-C mirrroless SKUs after FujiFILM
- Pentax product lineup is for current Pentax users & new users who inherited or bought used Pentax gear

Number of lenses & bodies indicates the importance of each market to the brand and which niche they see as most profitable to them relative to their IPs and resources.

I see FujiFILM as being the preferred brand of consumer ILC users because of the aesthetic of their camera bodies that is reminiscent of cameras designed prior to 1980s. From 2013-2020 the Nikon Df was marketed as camera with similar aesthetic theme. Not having a successor indicates that the product did not sell well.

FujiFILM has no full frame mirrorless mount as it is crowded. Since 2017 they opt to compete in the better margins medium format for enthusiast & professional photogs. They were able to push down medium format digital bodies to a price point of less than $3,500 for their 50+ megapixel GFX 50S II. This is $400 cheaper than the 50+ megapixel Canon EOS 5Ds R when it was released in 2015.

In terms of physical dimensions of height, width & length and physical weight the FujiFILM medium format bodies are near identical to full frame Canon dSLR bodies













Source

FujiFILM also has 13 1st party medium format lenses before this week's announcement for a 1 new ultra wide zoom & 2 new tilt shift lenses that are priced at RF L lens price points.

Last month I was recently made aware that you can adapt longer than 35mm focal length EF lenses without vignetting onto the FujiFILM G mount. Naturally the effective focal length will be reduced with a 0.79x crop factor.

So say a EF 800mm lens will have an effective focal length of 632mm


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I'd imagine Canon will one day license the mount/software/electronics, but not soon. I'm wondering how long it was after EF came out before Canon licensed it? Then I have to imagine the backlash EF caused when no adapter was available.


To my understanding Canon never licensed the EF mount to any 3rd party.

Canon tolerated reverse engineering as SLR & dSLR sales from 1987, the year EF mount was released, grew and peaked in 2012.

The last decade has dSLR sales tumble YoY because consumer dSLRs were being out competed by smartphones. This is more pronounced in point & shoot global shipping numbers.

So it isn't unsurprising that Canon being #1 in ILCs will be territorial in a shrinking market.

Many here may not be aware of this or may have forgotten that Canon produces roughly 1.44 lenses for every 1 body made.

This tells me that a typical consumer EF system owner will buy a Rebel + kit lens that will never be detached from the body. This will only be replaced if it is too expensive to repair or isn't fashionable anymore. Odds are the replacement may be a smartphone as utility is higher, easier to buy on a carrrier plan of 2-4 years and you'll never leave it at home.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Especially before their own line is fleshed out. Not everyone can afford to upgrade from 3rd party once 1st party comes out. Canon wants that 1st lens sale.


This observation is very on point.

If you are an enthusiast or consumer with a 2001 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or 1999 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens then odds are you may not buy into a 2010 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM or 2010 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM. 


But if your EF L lens is 1-2+ decades old then there is a chance than you'll get the RF L equivalent and keep it for the next 1-2+ decades.

When equivalent, viable and absent you may look at 3rd parties and not buy 1st parties in the near future.

I think of it as buying a car. Unless you get a windfall odds are you'll keep the car until it isn't economical to repair further.

Only on forums do you see a concentration of serial upgraders so it comes across as "normal" when everyone else sees it as as addiction to glass.

This is why pointing out CIPA global shipping numbers frames the conversation on what is actually happening.

I would not hold my breath but the earliest I can see this ever happening would be late 2020s or even into the 2030s.

FujiFILM, that I believe has the dominant APS-C mirrorless camera body market share, only selectively licensed their 2012 X-mount in 2020. My guess is they've hit a wall in 1st party lens sales and want to now appeal to buyers who prioritize 3rd party lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> FujiFILM, that I believe has the dominant APS-C mirrorless camera body market share..


Your belief is incorrect. As of last year, Canon’s ILC market share was ~48%, and 1/3 of the ILCs they sell are EOS M series cameras. Therefore, ~16% of all ILCs sold globally are M series cameras. Fuji’s global ILC market share is 5.6%, so Canon sells nearly three times as many M series cameras as Fuji sells ILCs. 

The only market Fuji dominates is the instamatic (film) camera market (and by units sold, that market is significantly larger than the digital ILC market, so technically Fuji is the largest camera maker globally).


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your belief is incorrect. As of last year, Canon’s ILC market share was ~48%, and 1/3 of the ILCs they sell are EOS M series cameras. Therefore, ~16% of all ILCs sold globally are M series cameras. Fuji’s global ILC market share is 5.6%, so Canon sells nearly three times as many M series cameras as Fuji sells ILCs.
> 
> The only market Fuji dominates is the instamatic (film) camera market (and by units sold, that market is significantly larger than the digital ILC market, so technically Fuji is the largest camera maker globally).


Instax not instamatic. Surprisingly a large number of people are using those cameras especially youngsters who will use those over cellphones.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Instax not instamatic. Surprisingly a large number of people are using those cameras especially youngsters who will use those over cellphones.


Good marketing

Cheaper than a digital still camera that feels redundant

Produces hard copies

It becomes an in person social interaction


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Instax not instamatic.


Sorry, you’re right. I didn’t capitalize the ‘I’ since my intent was to use it as a generic designation, Instamatic is a Kodak product. I was using it in the same way people commonly refer to facial tissue as kleenex (lower case), no matter what the actual brand.


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I'm wondering how long it was after EF came out before Canon licensed it?


I don't think Canon ever licensed the EF mount.

All third-party EF lenses are reverse-engineered, but presumably Sigma, Tamron etc didn't infringe any patents in doing so.

Where Viltrox (and Samyang?) have come adrift this time, is that Canon apparently patented the RF protocols and electronics pertaining to AF.

Canon has not stopped Laowa or any of the other third parties who manufacture entirely manual lenses with no electronics.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think Canon ever licensed the EF mount.
> 
> All third-party EF lenses are reverse-engineered, but presumably Sigma, Tamron etc didn't infringe any patents in doing so.
> 
> ...


It's been posted several times here but is perhaps being lost as there are so may duplicate threads with so many replies. Canon could have indeed patented the RF protocols but it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer them. However, if a competitor had obtained the code by deception, theft etc, then it would be illegal to use it. It has been reported several times but I cannot vouch for it that Canon has licensed to Sigma and Tamron but would not license to a non-Japanese company.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's been posted several times here but is perhaps being lost as there are so may duplicate threads with so many replies. Canon could have indeed patented the RF protocols but it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer them. However, if a competitor had obtained the code by deception, theft etc, then it would be illegal to use it...


You keep referencing "obtained the code by deception, theft etc." but that's not how patents work. Stealing something is a criminal offense, so obtaining corporate secrets through theft or deception would be a matter to take to criminal court. Protecting a patent is a property right. A patent case does not need to prove that the information was obtained illegally. It just has to prove that someone is using your patented design. How they came up with that design is irrelevant. Even if you come up with the design all on our own, without any knowledge of the patent, if it duplicates one that is patented then you are infringing on the patent. 



entoman said:


> I don't think Canon ever licensed the EF mount.
> 
> All third-party EF lenses are reverse-engineered, but presumably Sigma, Tamron etc didn't infringe any patents in doing so.
> 
> ...



I agree with your first two statements. As for the third, we do not know where Viltrox came "adrift" and probably shouldn't make any assumptions. As far as I know there has been no court case filed, so we really don't know what Canon has objected to. 



AlanF said:


> It has been reported several times but I cannot vouch for it that Canon has licensed to Sigma and Tamron but would not license to a non-Japanese company.


Where has that been reported? My understanding is that @entoman is correct that Canon never licensed the EF designs to anyone, but that Sigma and other third party manufacturers had designs that did not violate the patents. Most people assume they came up with those designs through reverse engineering, which certainly sounds plausible.


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I agree with your first two statements. As for the third, we do not know where Viltrox came "adrift" and probably shouldn't make any assumptions. As far as I know there has been no court case filed, so we really don't know what Canon has objected to.


​From Canon Germany (Google Translated)​


> “SHENZHEN JUEYING TECHNOLOGY CO.LTD, manufactures auto focus lenses for Canon RF mount under the brand name “Viltrox”. Canon believes that these products infringe their patent and design rights and has therefore requested the company to stop all activities infringing on Canon’s intellectual property rights.”



According to Canon Germany, Viltrox infringed Canon's "patent and design rights".
Canon doesn't prevent Laowa from producing RF mount manual lenses.
I think therefore that it's safe to assume that the patent infringement refers to the RF protocols and lens electronics pertaining to AF.
The RF protocols will also presumably include things pertaining to the "control ring", the electronic iris, function buttons on big whites etc.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's been posted several times here but is perhaps being lost as there are so may duplicate threads with so many replies. Canon could have indeed patented the RF protocols but it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer them. However, if a competitor had obtained the code by deception, theft etc, then it would be illegal to use it. It has been reported several times but I cannot vouch for it that Canon has licensed to Sigma and Tamron but would not license to a non-Japanese company.


I would not be at all surprised if there was some patent infringement going on.

In my day job we work with the ONVIF protocol for all third party devices connecting to our VMS. Non native devices using ONVIF are limited both on our side (VMS) and on the third party side (Device) unless we have an agreement in place.

Sadly when dealing with some of the Chinese brands we often find where they have attempted to talk directly to our hardware protocol layer. This is a MAJOR no no so we will not certify the use of these devices.

The crazy things I have seen in 20 years of trying to certified anything from POE switches that cannot negotiate who is going to provide power in a switch to switch connection to malicious attempts to capture firmware data once connected to our network. Just last month we had a device that cooked off so violently we had to evacuate the lab and one of our 200K environmental chambers was pretty messed up. 

Just my opinion but no amount of money saved is worth me risking using any of these non certified 4th party manufactures.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You keep referencing "obtained the code by deception, theft etc." but that's not how patents work. Stealing something is a criminal offense, so obtaining corporate secrets through theft or deception would be a matter to take to criminal court. Protecting a patent is a property right. A patent case does not need to prove that the information was obtained illegally. It just has to prove that someone is using your patented design. How they came up with that design is irrelevant. Even if you come up with the design all on our own, without any knowledge of the patent, if it duplicates one that is patented then you are infringing on the patent.


It is far more complicated than you think. Read this from beginning to end, especially the end, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering where it is explained. Some court cases about reverse engineering are also summarised in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies,_Inc.
Reverse engineering per se is not illegal, but can be illegal if deception is involved, end user agreements are breached etc.



unfocused said:


> Where has that been reported? My understanding is that @entoman is correct that Canon never licensed the EF designs to anyone, but that Sigma and other third party manufacturers had designs that did not violate the patents. Most people assume they came up with those designs through reverse engineering, which certainly sounds plausible.


I wrote: "It has been reported several times but I cannot vouch for it that Canon has licensed to Sigma and Tamron but would not license to a non-Japanese company." The meaning should be clear: I have seen it reported many times but have never seen the evidence that supports the assertions. I don't keep records of gossip.


----------



## edstiles (Sep 12, 2022)

fred said:


> Although I have a Canon R5 and am heavily-invested in Canon RF glass, Canon's approach to third-party lenses really does limit my glass options. In my own view, this is a strong reason for a person to not purchase a Canon camera, but to go with a manufacturer that has both a) excellent cameras and glass and b) accepts third-party lenses, some of which are outstanding in terms of optics and value.



Personally, I purchased an R5 as an upgrade from my two 6Ds after many years of use. I purchased it partially on the spec and partially on the advice of a friend who shoots birds. He recommended the Sigma Sport 150-600 for my bird photography and I was waiting for the Sigma Sport 150-600 DN to come out with the RF mount. Then I saw that Canon was blocking 3rd party lenses. If I had known that initially, I probably wouldn't have purchased the R5 even though I have 8 or 9 EF mount lenses - mostly L series.

I wanted the new Sigma Sport 150-600 DN series for my bird photography because it it much lighter, costs less than the EF version and according to reviews is sharper at the 600 end than the older Sport 150-600 EF HSM OS version. When you are hiking for nature shots, that extra weight counts.

So my question is as follows: Canon is NOT objecting to EF-RF converters made by 3rd parties, just check out B&H or Adorama and you'll see them available from multiple vendors. I would assume that means the actual RF mount can't be or wasn't patented, otherwise Canon would be objecting to those converters. Likewise, I believe that Sigma has stated that they will convert the Sport 150-600 DN between different mounts for a fee, Sony to Nikon etc.

So.... Why doesn't Sigma build the Sport 150-600 DN with the RF mount and EF focusing / stabilization protocols with the public statement that once Canon opens up the RF mount specs, they will either offer a firmware upgrade to full RF specs OR build a proper RF mount that can be installed for a reasonable fee?

Just a thought...


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 12, 2022)

I will not go into any details as I am not sure what is part of the public record but I work for MSI (Motorola Solutions) and we won a big case against Hytera in 2020 - https://www.motorolasolutions.com/n...t-theft-and-copyright-infringement-lawsu.html . Our patents are our life blood and the company is very serious about protecting them.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It is far more complicated than you think. Read this from beginning to end, especially the end, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering where it is explained. Some court cases about reverse engineering are also summarised in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies,_Inc.
> Reverse engineering per se is not illegal, but can be illegal if deception is involved, end user agreements are breached etc.


Thank you for the references. Informative. There is nothing in there that conflicts with what I wrote. In fact it confirms my points. 


AlanF said:


> ...I don't keep records of gossip.


But, you were willing to repeat gossip.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> ​From Canon Germany (Google Translated)​
> 
> According to Canon Germany, Viltrox infringed Canon's "patent and design rights".
> Canon doesn't prevent Laowa from producing RF mount manual lenses.
> ...


First, I was agreeing with your main points. 

Second, if I read your reasoning correctly, you would include everything other than the physical mount in the category of RF protocols and lens electronics. So, sure, if you use a broad definition, that is probably correct. My point, which really shouldn't be a point of contention, is that we are not privy to the specifics of Canon's objections so it's safer not to assume what their objections entail. Not a big deal and certainly not worth debating.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 12, 2022)

As I said on another forum the mental gymnastics required to make the leap from Canon pushing back at Viltrox and maybe Samyang to Canon WILL NEVER ALLOW 3RD PARTY glass on the RF mount is truly epic.

If only there was not people like Tony N or all the other countless channels and forums that rely on views and clicks to generate revenue we could be discussing the facts as they are known today:

Current set of facts I am aware of:

Canon has asked Viltox to stop selling things with the RF mount
There are no 3rd party options for RF from Sigma and Tamron
Rumors:

Samyang has also been asked to stop making autofocus RF glass.
So for those that wanted a Vitrox RF product best to get it ASAP and maybe the same for Samyang. Those that want 3rd party glass from Sigma and Tamron you will have to wait and see.

I know this is not as sexy as

"Canon is *******"
"Canon must be stopped"
"Do not buy Canon"
"Canon stole my truck and dog but left the wife, damn them"

Cheers


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

fred said:


> Although I have a Canon R5 and am heavily-invested in Canon RF glass, Canon's approach to third-party lenses really does limit my glass options. In my own view, this is a strong reason for a person to not purchase a Canon camera, but to go with a manufacturer that has both a) excellent cameras and glass and b) accepts third-party lenses, some of which are outstanding in terms of optics and value.



Yes, if you *truly need* a particular lens that isn't available in RF mount, and isn't on the Canon roadmap, it makes sense to switch to Sony.

But, it's a very expensive move, as you'll have to buy a complete new set of lenses for the new body, not just that one specialised lens, so you really have to ask yourself how badly you want that lens.

Consider also that the lens you want is almost certainly available in EF mount, and that EF lenses function 100% perfectly on RF bodies. An EF-RF adaptor costs a hell of a lot less than a Sony body!

Also, switching brands means that you have to relearn all the camera controls, menu system, AF quirks and adapt to new ergonomics. Don't underestimate the difficulties - while some people can switch back and forth from one brand to another, a lot of people will find that it takes time to adapt, and that they'll miss a lot of shots due to lack of familiarity with a new camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, if you *truly need* a particular lens that isn't available in RF mount, and isn't on the Canon roadmap, it makes sense to switch to Sony.
> 
> But, it's a very expensive move, as you'll have to buy a complete new set of lenses for the new body, not just that one specialised lens, so you really have to ask yourself how badly you want that lens.
> 
> ...


Well the above is true and quite relevant to a discussion on a forum dedicated to camera gear, I don’t believe any of that really applies to the ‘typical consumer’. 

I suspect for most people it’s, ‘I need/want a new camera, I have/had a Canon, it was ok, I’ll buy another Canon.’ You can swap in toaster, tv, car, and whatever brand you like. That’s typical consumer behavior. It’s why, unless something truly paradigm-shifting comes along, market share changes slowly at best.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 13, 2022)

randfee said:


> I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!



Do you honestly believe that they will take that fact (that you are giving them the 6 months) into consideration when deciding how to act in the next half year?


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It is far more complicated than you think. Read this from beginning to end, especially the end, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering where it is explained. Some court cases about reverse engineering are also summarised in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies,_Inc.
> Reverse engineering per se is not illegal, but can be illegal if deception is involved, end user agreements are breached etc.


It is correct that, per se, reverse engineering does not expose you to legal liability. The point is, though, that relates specifically to the reverse engineering process, ie pulling something apart to learn how it works. To make a product based on what you have learned is a separate step, and if your product infringes another person's intellectual property, you have a problem even if there was nothing illegal about you reverse engineering the other product to learn how it works. If what you learned was simply something which was previously a trade secret, it is unlikely you will be infringing IP by using what you learned in your product (unless, as you have already noted, you have breached an end user agreement, been deceptive, etc). However, with other forms of IP (ie other than confidential information) such as patents, copyright, registered designs, integrated circuit layout rights, etc, the situation is different. So, for example, reverse engineering the RF mount is one thing, developing a lens which can use the RF mount is another. In particular, what we seem to be seeing is that developing a lens which makes use of the electronics in an RF mount must be difficult or perhaps even impossible to do without infringing Canon's IP (in particular, it seems, infringing one or more Canon patents).


----------



## edstiles (Sep 13, 2022)

Ramage said:


> I will not go into any details as I am not sure what is part of the public record but I work for MSI (Motorola Solutions) and we won a big case against Hytera in 2020 - https://www.motorolasolutions.com/n...t-theft-and-copyright-infringement-lawsu.html . Our patents are our life blood and the company is very serious about protecting them.


First of all, I'm not a lawyer. That said, I think you are comparing Apples to Oranges in this case. Yes, Motorola enforces their patents. And good for them. Either Canon did not patent the EF protocols ( according to one poster here ) OR Canon did not enforce their EF patents for about 35 years ( from 1987 onwards ) OR Sigma legitimately reverse engineered the EF mount communications protocols. So my understanding of patent law is that you have to enforce your patents or essentially, you lose them. They may have to enforce the current RF physical mount patent, as used on the EF to RF adapters, assuming they have one and send a Cease and Desist letters to the various makers of these adapters to retain that patent but it would appear to me that the EF focus / stabilization protocols could be used based on Canon's previous behaviors. Like I said previously, make a Sigma Sport 150-600 DN with Canon RF physical mount using Sigma's EF communications protocols with the promise that once they work things out with Canon, that mount can be upgraded either through firmware or by sending the lens back to Sigma to replace the original RF style mount with a new, true RF Mount.

I think most Canon R series users could live with this solution.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 13, 2022)

jd7 said:


> It is correct that, per se, reverse engineering does not expose you to legal liability. The point is, though, that relates specifically to the reverse engineering process, ie pulling something apart to learn how it works. To make a product based on what you have learned is a separate step, and if your product infringes another person's intellectual property, you have a problem even if there was nothing illegal about you reverse engineering the other product to learn how it works. If what you learned was simply something which was previously a trade secret, it is unlikely you will be infringing IP by using what you learned in your product (unless, as you have already noted, you have breached an end user agreement, been deceptive, etc). However, with other forms of IP (ie other than confidential information) such as patents, copyright, registered designs, integrated circuit layout rights, etc, the situation is different. So, for example, reverse engineering the RF mount is one thing, developing a lens which can use the RF mount is another. In particular, what we seem to be seeing is that developing a lens which makes use of the electronics in an RF mount must be difficult or perhaps even impossible to do without infringing Canon's IP (in particular, it seems, infringing one or more Canon patents).


Thanks for this thoughtful post.

I think a lot of times on this forum people use "reverse engineering" without understanding what it is and that it isn't some magical way around patent infringement.

As I understand it, and as you state in your post, reverse engineering simply means deconstructing something to figure out how it works. As photographers, most of us have reverse engineered images that we like, figuring out the lighting, focal length, point of view, processing, etc. 

Roger's team at Lens Rentals often do tear downs of cameras to see how they work and how they are constructed. They are essentially reverse engineering the bodies, but they are not violating any patent because they aren't making new cameras from what they learned. As you point out, it's how you use that information that matters. 

What I have tried to explain, and I hope you would agree, is that for patents it really doesn't matter how you get there. One could have a "Eureka" moment in the middle of the night, get up and design a new mirrorless lens system without any awareness or improper copying of Canon's system and still be in violation of patents if the end result is too similar to what has already been patented.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 13, 2022)

edstiles said:


> That said, I think you are comparing Apples to Oranges in this case.


Not at all... patent infringement is patent infringement. There is either only apples or there are only oranges.


edstiles said:


> Canon did not patent the EF protocols ( according to one poster here ) OR Canon did not enforce their EF patents for about 35 years ( from 1987 onwards ) OR Sigma legitimately reverse engineered the EF mount communications protocols.


Canon has one of the largest patent portfolio's in the world and are also one of the most successful litigators of patent infringement. If Sigma infringed on there IP they would have been sued. That said Sigma is a true 3rd party brand and have a reputation to uphold. So there is no way they would release a product that Canon can buy in any store, take apart and find firmware\hardware that is a direct copy of there design. Pro Tip: Reverse Engineering is not cloning.

These 4th party Chinese manufacturers often just copy the thing firmware\hardware and all with no attempt to hide what they are doing. Check out the Shuanghuan SCEO or the CH Lithia and then have a look at a BMW X5 and a Audi R8.



edstiles said:


> So my understanding of patent law is that you have to enforce your patents or essentially, you lose them.


Not really that simple... But in this case it is completely irrelevant since Canon was still filing patents on the EF mount in 2020 - https://petapixel.com/2020/01/23/new-patents-show-canon-hasnt-given-up-on-the-ef-mount-just-yet/

Overall I would say your level of understanding on this topic is a little on the light side and you might want to do a little more research. Link to Canons patents - https://www.canonwatch.com/category/patents/canon-patents/

Have fun there is a lot to read. 

Oh and here is another great read on Canon and there Patent policy - https://global.canon/en/intellectual-property/sword-shield/

Cheers


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Thanks for this thoughtful post.
> 
> I think a lot of times on this forum people use "reverse engineering" without understanding what it is and that it isn't some magical way around patent infringement.
> 
> ...


Yes, I would agree with that regarding patents. The situation isn't necessarily the same for all types of IP though. For example, for copyright infringment, essentially there needs to be some relevant dealing with the copyright work. So, if I come up with something which is identical to your copyright work but I didn't copy your work (eg I didn't even know you had ever even created your copyright work so I couldn't have copied it), that isn't copyright infringement. Obviously, that would be an unusual situation though!


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 13, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, if you *truly need* a particular lens that isn't available in RF mount, and isn't on the Canon roadmap, it makes sense to switch to Sony.
> 
> But, it's a very expensive move, as you'll have to buy a complete new set of lenses for the new body, not just that one specialised lens, so you really have to ask yourself how badly you want that lens.
> 
> ...


In some instances a lot of money can be saved depending on a particular shooter’s circumstances by switching brands. In particular comparing OEM 35mm f1.4 prices its £2099 for the Canon L II vs £1499 for the Sony GM. 

Another example is super telephoto primes, if someone wants a top of the line 800mm the Canon options are £19’099 for the RF, £13’549 for the EF or they could buy the Nikon Z for £6’299. Its a stop slower but being less than half the price many will happily accept that trade off.

There are more examples of this but in both cases the option of using an RF adapter results in a user having to spend significantly more money for an older and heavier lens.

There are many other instances where a certain lens simply does not exist on EF at all so adapting isn’t always a solution.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Thanks for this thoughtful post.
> 
> I think a lot of times on this forum people use "reverse engineering" without understanding what it is and that it isn't some magical way around patent infringement.
> 
> ...


Here is a paragraph from a recent textbook published by Springer which succinctly sums up much.








Reverse Engineering of Code


The ability to reverse engineer a product has been important for as long as technology has existed. A vital activity in most branches of industrial design and production has been to acquire samples of the products sold by competing companies and pick them apart....




link.springer.com




Reverse Engineering of Code,
Olav Lysne

“Reverse engineering for the purpose of understanding interfaces is largely uncontroversial. The reasons for doing it are clear and they are generally compatible with the interests of society. An exception to this is when a company intentionally keeps its user interface secret for commercial reasons or for reasons related to security. Whether reverse engineering that interface is acceptable then becomes a legal as well as a moral question. In 1990, Sega Enterprises released a gaming console called Genesis. Its strategy was to let Sega and its licensed affiliates be the only developers of games for it. A California-based company called Accolade reverse engineered the interface of the Genesis gaming platform and successfully developed and sold games for it. In 1991, Accolade was sued by Sega for copyright infringement. The court ruled in Accolade’s favour because it had not copied any of Sega’s code and because of the public benefit of the additional competition in the market that Accolade represented. Today – several decades later – secrecy regarding interfaces and challenges of such secrecy through reverse engineering still take place. The jailbreaking of mobile phones bears witness to this phenomenon.”

What that means is that anyone can both legally reverse engineer the interface code between a lens and a camera and then write their own version of the code that does the same job. The defense of "reverse engineering" fails if the proprietary code is copied, or it was obtained by deception or it has been in breach of end user agreement, as has been ruled in other cases. And that sums up what I have said all along in several posts.

Patent law is there both to protect the rights of the patentee and also to protect the interests of society. It doesn't like oppressive monopolies. What that means for us here is that as far as the physical mount on the lens is concerned, any lens maker can make the hardware to fit onto the RF mount without any restrictions as the law wants competition for accessories. Then, they can genuinely reverse engineer the interface software and write their own code. I have no idea what Viltrox has done that is in breach of Canon's patents, but they must have done something.


----------



## entoman (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well the above is true and quite relevant to a discussion on a forum dedicated to camera gear, I don’t believe any of that really applies to the ‘typical consumer’.
> 
> I suspect for most people it’s, ‘I need/want a new camera, I have/had a Canon, it was ok, I’ll buy another Canon.’ You can swap in toaster, tv, car, and whatever brand you like. That’s typical consumer behavior. It’s why, unless something truly paradigm-shifting comes along, market share changes slowly at best.


Very true, most people are extremely loyal to a brand, whether it's a camera, a car, motorcycle etc. The level of willingness of people to switch brands was demonstrated when a modest percentage of Canon and Nikon DSLR owners jumped ship to Sony MILCs, but that was primarily due to new technology. I agree that it's pretty unlikely that your typical consumer will switch brands due to Canon not having yet filled out their lens range. Especially when the desired lens is almost certainly available from either Canon or Sigma in EF mount.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

entoman said:


> Very true, most people are extremely loyal to a brand, whether it's a camera, a car, motorcycle etc. The level of willingness of people to switch brands was demonstrated when a modest percentage of Canon and Nikon DSLR owners jumped ship to Sony MILCs, but that was primarily due to new technology. I agree that it's pretty unlikely that your typical consumer will switch brands due to Canon not having yet filled out their lens range. Especially when the desired lens is almost certainly available from either Canon or Sigma in EF mount.


An example of "paradigm-shifting" that @neuroanatomist mentioned is the 2007 iPhone & 2008 Android smartphones.

A pocketable camera/computer/modem/iPod/etc that has increased utility that you would find odd to leave at home.

It is pushed to you on a 2-4 year contract that you pay off on equal monthly installment.

That's why point & shoots and dSLRs peaked in 2010 & 2012 respectively. As buying them is more of a "pull" when they're still functional.

When it is time for replacement odds are you'll beg off any digital still camera and stick with any $429-1599 iPhone or $29-2,999 Android.


----------



## entoman (Sep 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Here is a paragraph from a recent textbook published by Springer which succinctly sums up much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting, and thanks for posting.

In view of this being the case, what do you think are the reasons why Sigma and Tamron have so far failed to release, or even announce the development of, RF mount lenses?

RF mount and cameras have been available since September 2018, and in view of the facts that camera owners rarely switch brands, and that Canon has held the biggest market share for many years, it must have been obvious to Tamron and Sigma that the RF mount would become hugely successful. Many of their existing designs could have been easily ported to RF, using EF protocols to save time, to fill the time-gap while new designs were being developed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> An example of "paradigm-shifting" that @neuroanatomist mentioned is the 2007 iPhone & 2008 Android smartphones.


Then you have people on here that seemingly believe Canon blocking certain RF-mount AF lens manufacturers is a paradigm shift that will spell certain d00m for Canon. Lol.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then you have people on here that seemingly believe Canon blocking certain RF-mount AF lens manufacturers is a paradigm shift that will spell certain d00m for Canon. Lol.



Number of APS-C vs Full frame body SKUs from all brands indicates otherwise.

Canon may follow FujiFILM's direction of selectively licensing after nearly a decade or at least tolerating reverse engineered 3rd party lenses nearing the year 2030. This is being done so that Canon gets the opportunity for 1st lens purchase in a market that has been shrinking since 2012.

Absence of a preferred MILC equivalent dSLR lens today is an indicator of how profitable or in-demand it is globally & not just in you city/country.

Example would be the 28-300mm. All the brands below halted production long ago

- Nikon
- Sigma
- Tamron

Canon is the only one that has it in stock

Sony that has the largest MILC lens lineup does not have that lens. The closest being the 24-240mm.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2022)

entoman said:


> Interesting, and thanks for posting.
> 
> In view of this being the case, what do you think are the reasons why Sigma and Tamron have so far failed to release, or even announce the development of, RF mount lenses?
> 
> RF mount and cameras have been available since September 2018, and in view of the facts that camera owners rarely switch brands, and that Canon has held the biggest market share for many years, it must have been obvious to Tamron and Sigma that the RF mount would become hugely successful. Many of their existing designs could have been easily ported to RF, using EF protocols to save time, to fill the time-gap while new designs were being developed.


It's sheer speculation why. At one extreme, Canon might even have a deal that they will license in the future if Sigma and Tamron hold back now. Or, it might be rather at difficult at present and there is not enough profit and there is lower hanging fruit elsewhere now. Or, perhaps they think Canon is d o o med.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> Example would be the 28-300mm. All the brands below halted production long ago
> 
> - Nikon
> - Sigma
> ...


Canon have it listed as discontinued.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Canon have it listed as discontinued.


Amazing! Yesterday it was listed in stock.

So yesterday the last USA warranty to ship!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> Amazing! Yesterday it was listed in stock.
> 
> So yesterday the last USA warranty to ship!


I look at the Canon Japan site. Maybe they have residual stock in USA or Brazil or elsewhere. But, the message from the Japanese site is that they are no longer making it.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I look at the Canon Japan site. Maybe they have residual stock in USA or Brazil or elsewhere. But, the message from the Japanese site is that they are no longer making it.


A RF L successor will be out within 4 years.

The delay of a refresh is reflective of soft demand or margins not as good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> A RF L successor will be out within 4 years.
> 
> The delay of a refresh is reflective of soft demand or margins not as good.


I'll believe it when we see it. The 35-350L launched in 1993, and was replaced with the 28-300L in 2004. I'm not convinced we'll ever see another L-series superzoom. As you carefully document, no other manufacturer has one currently, and even Sony has not bothered with a high-end superzoom like that. 

The main purpose of such a lens was reportedly for journalism (pun intended, there). Photojournalism has fallen on hard times, I'm not sure the market can support such a lens in RF mount. 

More generally, the target market for a superzoom lens is the consumer wanting an all-in-one solution, and for that there is already the RF 24-240.


----------



## entoman (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'll believe it when we see it. The 35-350L launched in 1993, and was replaced with the 28-300L in 2004. I'm not convinced we'll ever see another L-series superzoom. As you carefully document, no other manufacturer has one currently, and even Sony has not bothered with a high-end superzoom like that.
> 
> The main purpose of such a lens was reportedly for journalism (pun intended, there). Photojournalism has fallen on hard times, I'm not sure the market can support such a lens in RF mount.
> 
> More generally, the target market for a superzoom lens is the consumer wanting an all-in-one solution, and for that there is already the RF 24-240.


I agree. I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll see an L series superzoom. The general perception seems to be that there are too many compromises - mediocre optical performance, excessive bulk and weight, restricted maximum aperture etc. For those reasons, superzooms seem to be perceived as "amateur" glass, hence we have the 24-240mm non-L at an affordable price for those who want a one-lens solution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree. I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll see an L series superzoom. The general perception seems to be that there are too many compromises - mediocre optical performance, excessive bulk and weight, restricted maximum aperture etc. For those reasons, superzooms seem to be perceived as "amateur" glass, hence we have the 24-240mm non-L at an affordable price for those who want a one-lens solution.


I owned the 28-300L for a while (it was one of those I bought used because I didn't know if I really wanted it, and I ended up selling it at a profit). The IQ was on par with my 24-105/4L...decent but not great. The combination of the EF 24-70/2.8 II and EF 70-300L delivered much better IQ across the range.


----------



## entoman (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I owned the 28-300L for a while (it was one of those I bought used because I didn't know if I really wanted it, and I ended up selling it at a profit). The IQ was on par with my 24-105/4L...decent but not great. The combination of the EF 24-70/2.8 II and EF 70-300L delivered much better IQ across the range.


That's a familiar story - over the years I've bought several lenses that I *thought* at the time would be really useful, but in practice they got little use, and ended up being sold. Judging by the huge amount of pristine EF glass on sale secondhand, quite a lot of people have the same experience. It pays to choose optics carefully.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

My *guess* on RF direct replacements or improvements of the following to be released between today-2026

- EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
- EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
- EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM
- EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
- EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
- EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
- EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
- EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
- EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
- EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
- EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

2024-onwards or 2026-onwards

- TS-E L lenses


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

entoman said:


> That's a familiar story - over the years I've bought several lenses that I *thought* at the time would be really useful, but in practice they got little use, and ended up being sold. Judging by the huge amount of pristine EF glass on sale secondhand, quite a lot of people have the same experience. It pays to choose optics carefully.


I haven't done much of that, fortunately. Lenses I'm not *sure* of, I buy used. Of the lenses I've done that with, I ended up keeping only one (the MP-E 65mm). 

I have bought several lenses new that I've ultimately sold, but that was after replacing them with something similar/better. For example, the second lens I bought was the EF 85/1.8. I eventually switched to the 85/1.2L II then the 85/1.4L IS which I still have and use.


----------



## WhatDoesMStandsFor (Sep 13, 2022)

I don't think it's only autofocus patents, but anything that have comms with the camera body. Some cinema glass manufacturers like Cooke, Leica, Fujinon and Zeiss have protocols for their PL lenses (mainly Cooke/i and Zeiss eXtended Data), and since RED adopted the RF mount, they may be willing to work on something for RF as well. Canon may be aware of these companies as well, but they tend to respect patents more than Chinese and Korean companies,


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> A RF L successor [to the EF 28-300L] will be out within 4 years.





dolina said:


> My *guess* on RF direct replacements or improvements of the following to be released between today-2026
> 
> - EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
> - EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
> ...


Interesting. So first an RF 28-300L replacement *will* be launched within 4 years. But now you don't *guess* it will happen. 

I'd suggest putting more thought into your guesses. Do you honestly believe the RF lineup will include _five_ 85mm prime lenses? There are three already. With IBIS and the two RF 85/1.2L lenses, I doubt we'll see an RF 85/1.4. With the RF 85/2 Macro, I doubt we'll see an RF 85/1.8.


----------



## WhatDoesMStandsFor (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> My *guess* on RF direct replacements or improvements of the following to be released between today-2026
> 
> - EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
> - EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
> ...



I'm pretty sure Canon considers the RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM a replacement for the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Also, the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM can also be considered a somewhat sucessor for the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting. So first an RF 28-300L replacement *will* be launched within 4 years. But now you don't *guess* it will happen.
> 
> I'd suggest putting more thought into your guesses. Do you honestly believe the RF lineup will include _five_ 85mm prime lenses? There are three already. With IBIS and the two RF 85/1.2L lenses, I doubt we'll see an RF 85/1.4. With the RF 85/2 Macro, I doubt we'll see an RF 85/1.8.


Dude, this is a rumor site.

Most rumors are conjectures or outright guesses. Cool your jets.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

WhatDoesMStandsFor said:


> I'm pretty sure Canon considers the RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM a replacement for the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Also, the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM can also be considered a somewhat sucessor for the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III.


Come to think of it it does sound plausable.

Let us see what the next 4 years will bring. 

2/3rd EF lens direct replacement or improvement?

1/3rd new lenses?


----------



## WhatDoesMStandsFor (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> Come to think of it it does sound plausable.
> 
> Let us see what the next 4 years will bring.
> 
> ...


Consider it is Canon we are talking about, they may even consider the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM a replacement for the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM. And then consider a L series 20mm with a fast aperture, such as f/1.4, since they already have that into their cine line up (both the regular CN-E as the Sumire lenses)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 13, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Yes, I would agree with that regarding patents. The situation isn't necessarily the same for all types of IP though. For example, for copyright infringment, essentially there needs to be some relevant dealing with the copyright work. So, if I come up with something which is identifical to your copyright work but I didn't copy your work (eg I didn't even know you had ever even created your copyright work so I couldn't have copied it), that isn't copyright infringement. Obviously, that would be an unusual situation though!


And without going too far down the rabbit hole, there is the whole world of appropriation art – Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince for example.


----------



## randfee (Sep 14, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Do you honestly believe that they will take that fact (that you are giving them the 6 months) into consideration when deciding how to act in the next half year?


no - where do I say that... I'm not that naive.


----------



## dwarven (Sep 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> CANON GIVE ME ALL THE LENSES I WANT NOW OR I'LL SWITCH TO SONY!
> 
> Or maybe I should learn some patience.



Brand loyalty is super cringey. Canon's only job is to fleece as much money out of you as humanly possible.


----------



## dolina (Sep 15, 2022)

dwarven said:


> Brand loyalty is super cringey. Canon's only job is to fleece as much money out of you as humanly possible.


Framing the market environment will help everyone understand why Canon refuses to license, Sony gave out the basic specifications without fee and Fuji & Nikon gave a selective license

The dSLR & MILC market 1-2 decades ago is different from the one within this decade.

The market has been shrinking YoY since 2010-2012.

With lower sales means cuts in R&D and after sales support. This results in fewer body & lens SKUs released annually and shit bad service center experiences.

If 3rd party brands gets the 1st opportunity of lens sales because Canon do not have that specific lens SKU released then the odds of the buyer replacing it later with a 1st party lens is near zero.

As happy Canon users we do not want to suffer less 1st party choices and diminished after sales service center support.

I rather 3rd party lens brands close down than body makers.

Our worry is Canon may end up like

- Minolta https://www.lightstalking.com/minolta-sony-relationship/
- Ricoh https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-reborn-but-will-disappear-from-camera-stores
- Pentax https://www.adorama.com/alc/ricoh-buys-pentax/
- Samsung https://petapixel.com/2017/04/08/samsungs-camera-business-killed-smartphones-report/
- Olympus https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/what-the-olympus-imaging-sale-means-for-photographers


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 15, 2022)

dwarven said:


> Brand loyalty is super cringey. Canon's only job is to fleece as much money out of you as humanly possible.


Well, "fleece" reads like "rip off". That ain't the case.


----------



## degos (Sep 15, 2022)

dolina said:


> With lower sales means cuts in R&D and after sales support. This results in fewer body & lens SKUs released annually and shit bad service center experiences.
> 
> If 3rd party brands gets the 1st opportunity of lens sales because Canon do not have that specific lens SKU released then the odds of the buyer replacing it later with a 1st party lens is near zero.



Canon Imaging made a profit of 332 billion Yen in 2021. That's money they chose not to invest in R&D and after sales support. Money they so earnestly didn't want to spend on R&D that they decided a better idea was to throw away a quarter of it as tax instead.

If Canon don't offer a particular RF lens that people want to buy it's because of their internal decisions, not because of small third-party manufacturers.

As for me, I'll choose to ignore RF until I have a true choice of lenses from a variety of manufacturers.


----------



## dolina (Sep 15, 2022)

degos said:


> Canon Imaging made a profit of 332 billion Yen in 2021. That's money they chose not to invest in R&D and after sales support. Money they so earnestly didn't want to spend on R&D that they decided a better idea was to throw away a quarter of it as tax instead.
> 
> If Canon don't offer a particular RF lens that people want to buy it's because of their internal decisions, not because of small third-party manufacturers.
> 
> As for me, I'll choose to ignore RF until I have a true choice of lenses from a variety of manufacturers.


Canon poised for 20% growth in net profit for 2022​Upward revision for year expected on Tuesday with weakening yen as tailwind

TOKYO -- Japanese camera maker Canon is expected to book a consolidated net profit of about 250 billion yen ($1.9 billion) for the 2022 fiscal year, roughly a 20% increase on the previous year, due to predictions of strong earnings in semiconductor lithography equipment and security cameras.

The figure exceeds the outlook announced by the company in January by 5 billion yen. Raw materials are rising due to inflation, but the company will work around the problem by finding ways to reduce costs and marking up products.

=====

Making that little, in the 4 years of RF system they have released

- 30 RF lens SKUs, nearly half of the 63 Sony E lens SKUs
- 5 RF full frame bodies that is over half of the 9 Sony FF bodies
- 2 RF APS-C bodies that is half of 4 Sony APS-C bodies
- 32 RF lens SKUs has been promised by Canon CEO by year 2026.

Sony has 2x more bodies & lenses because the E mount started in early 2010, more than a dozen years ago.

Canon EF system also enjoyed more lenses & bodies than Sony during their 1st 4 years because the EF mount was introduced in 1987.

=====

The RF lens & bodies released in the past 4 years are representative of

- faster inventory turnover due to actual higher user demand

- better margins

The RF lens & bodies released in the next 4 years are representative of

- slower inventory turnover due to actual lower user demand

- worse margins


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon poised for 20% growth in net profit for 2022​Upward revision for year expected on Tuesday with weakening yen as tailwind
> 
> TOKYO -- Japanese camera maker Canon is expected to book a consolidated net profit of about 250 billion yen ($1.9 billion) for the 2022 fiscal year, roughly a 20% increase on the previous year, due to predictions of strong earnings in semiconductor lithography equipment and security cameras.
> 
> ...


Please, don't confuse people with the facts. They like living in their alternate reality.


----------



## dolina (Sep 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Please, don't confuse people with the facts. They like living in their alternate reality.









I blame them being spoiled with the 35 years of EF system that enjoyed YoY growth from 1987 to 2012 where in Canon can afford to tolerate reversed engineered unlicensed 3rd party lenses.

Sony replicated this in 2011 and cleared the air of any legal ambiguity by Disclosing Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee.

For the last decade ILC sales dropped YoY so when Canon released their RF mount they refused to license it out or even tolerate reverse engineering.

If 3rd party support is that important I'd stick to Sony that has ~6 year image sensor tech advantage over Canon. This only possible as ~50% of all ~1.4 billion smartphones annually shipped have image sensors from Sony. R&D for smartphone cameras are being applied to E mount bodies.

For me what is more important is CPS. Other than Nikon no other company can match them.

This can only be achieved if sales are doing well.

If I was a working photog and depended on functional equipment for a job I'd hate to depend on a service center that does not have spare parts on hand or a slow turn around.

I'd be forced to spend on a rental while I wait longer than CPS turn around time. That's lost revenue that could have gone to my pocket or to better RF L lenses.


----------



## dolina (Sep 16, 2022)

degos said:


> If Canon don't offer a particular RF lens that people want to buy it's because of their internal decisions, not because of small third-party manufacturers.



Canon, like every other business, is experiencing supply chain challenges.









In a shocking development, Canon adds the EOS R3, RF 16mm f/2.8 & RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to its list of products with a supply issue


Canon has added all of the gear announced this week to its list of products that will likely suffer supply issues to meet demand. From Canon We have recei



www.canonrumors.com





I recall the magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami impacting the delivery of these lenses






- 2010 Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
- 2010 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
- 2010 Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
- 2011 Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS II USM
- 2011 Canon EF 600mm f/4.0L IS II USM
- 2011 Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x

I remember this incident because my orders were impacted by it


----------



## dwarven (Sep 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> Framing the market environment will help everyone understand why Canon refuses to license, Sony gave out the basic specifications without fee and Fuji & Nikon gave a selective license
> 
> The dSLR & MILC market 1-2 decades ago is different from the one within this decade.
> 
> ...



Canon deserves to go out of business if their only strategy is to sell their brand name and take options away from customers. I know I'll be getting rid of all my Canon gear soon in favor of Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2022)

dwarven said:


> Canon deserves to go out of business if their only strategy is to sell their brand name and take options away from customers. I know I'll be getting rid of all my Canon gear soon in favor of Sony.


Seems to me they sell quality products, not just a brand name. 

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


----------



## dolina (Sep 18, 2022)

dwarven said:


> Canon deserves to go out of business if their only strategy is to sell their brand name and take options away from customers. I know I'll be getting rid of all my Canon gear soon in favor of Sony.



Users like you are better served by Sony.

Smartphones destroyed the market of consumer point & shots and consumer ILCs that is customarily paired with economical 3rd party lenses.

All camera brands are going up market to professionals and enthusiasts with large discretionary spend. Better margins per unit bought. This is a key reason why FujiFILM created a new MILC system with a 0.79x crop Medium Format Sensor with bodies & lenses that are priced, physical dimensions & weight of Canon FF dSLR & EF L lenses.

Total ILC bodies shipped worldwide in key years

- 2003: 845,328 -- 1st year it was recorded separately from p&s
- 2012: 20,157,053 -- all time high
- 2021: 5,348,271 -- last year
- 2022: 5,290,000 -- forecast for this year

Count how many FF vs APS-C body SKUs each brand are in-stock with a USA warranty on https://www.bhphotovideo.com/

For every 4 APS-C body there are 9 FF

If the market for professional photographers dropped from 20+ million jobs to 5+ million jobs would you want to hear customers say they'll switch photographer services in a shrinking market?

That's what many photogs do not understand because they started photography in the growth years of ILC that benefited during the declining years of ILC.

Odds are with Canon's business model will maintain its profitability it being 1 of 3 brands to occupy more than 90% of the digital still camera market into the 2030s.

My key concerns for Canon are these

- CPS continues to operate at the service level I've enjoyed in the past 2 decades within 30 mins drive from me
- Canon keeps releasing new bodies & lenses relevant to my interests

The professional photog friends of mine publicly complained to the local Sony Japanese boss about the CPS equivalent of Sony in my country is terrible. I attribute this to Sony's ability to fund their CPS equivalent to the service level accustomed by professional photogs.

Sony may have FF sensors that is ~6 years advanced of any that Canon has now but that technical advantage gets snuffed when you cannot do personal projects or even revenue generating work due to slow turn around times.

I hope when you have a job scheduled that week your Sony gear will not require any servicing or that will be one costly booking.


----------



## entoman (Sep 18, 2022)

dwarven said:


> Brand loyalty is super cringey. Canon's only job is to fleece as much money out of you as humanly possible.


Brand loyalty is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes, resulting in fanboyism, silly levels of defensivenes and plain stupid bashing of the perceived "opposition".

But there are very good reasons why people remain loyal to a particular brand, e.g. continuity of ergonomics, and reluctance to make uneconomic decisions about switching.

Occasionally, switching can be worthwhile e.g. if an alternative brand offers really significant improvements in specification and performance, or if it offers particular lenses that are unobtainable in someone's current brand. But realistically, there are very few lenses "missing" from the RF range, and anything that is missing is available in EF fitting and will work perfectly with the EF-RF adaptor.

But don't kid yourself that switching brands will make any difference to the quality of your photography, because that's down to you, not to the camera you are using. And don't kid yourself that you'll even notice a difference in technical quality either, because you won't - that is down mostly to good technique, as the IQ from all the top brands is pretty much indistinguishable in the real world. Perhaps you should try living in the real world.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 19, 2022)

entoman said:


> Occasionally, switching can be worthwhile e.g. if an alternative brand offers really significant improvements in specification and performance, or if it offers particular lenses that are unobtainable in someone's current brand.



Or I think even more commonly, when you are moving up to a more capable system. I started with Canon and Powershots, then when I moved up to APSC I re-evaluated the options and decided to move to Nikon since I liked their options better at the time. When I moved up to FF, I similarly did another re-evaluation and decided that Canon had the best FF system to invest in for the future.



entoman said:


> But don't kid yourself that switching brands will make any difference to the quality of your photography, because that's down to you, not to the camera you are using.



100%. I didn’t move up to APSC until I got good results with Powershots, and I didn’t move up to FF until I got good results with APSC. In each case I understood that my ability as a photographer had reached a point where more capable equipment would allow me to do better and continue to grow in my skill, but it was the prior results achieved that justified the move.


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2022)

I'm brand loyal because of CPS. From feedback of non-Canon users the service level they experience with their brand is not to standard.


----------



## Tarets (Sep 19, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon poised for 20% growth in net profit for 2022​Upward revision for year expected on Tuesday with weakening yen as tailwind
> 
> TOKYO -- Japanese camera maker Canon is expected to book a consolidated net profit of about 250 billion yen ($1.9 billion) for the 2022 fiscal year, roughly a 20% increase on the previous year, due to predictions of strong earnings in semiconductor lithography equipment and security cameras.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but 9 FF bodies released? 4 APS bodies? Not that I think it matters, bo you clearly have no idea what you're taking about. Unless you do know and missinform on purpose.


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2022)

Tarets said:


> I'm sorry, but 9 FF bodies released? 4 APS bodies? Not that I think it matters, bo you clearly have no idea what you're taking about. Unless you do know and missinform on purpose.


You registered today with 1 post.

You trolling? If you are then CR should block your IP block. ;-)


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 19, 2022)

Tarets said:


> I'm sorry, but 9 FF bodies released? 4 APS bodies? Not that I think it matters, bo you clearly have no idea what you're taking about. Unless you do know and missinform on purpose.


Reading comprehension might not be your strong suit so I will help you out​@dolina Said Canon has release 5 RF FF Cameras in 4 years - RP, R, R6, R5 and R3 that is 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5!!!! @dolina also said Canon released 2 APS-C RF Cameras in the same timeline R7 and R10 that is 1 and 2!!!​@dolina reported that Sony has released 9 FF Cameras From 2018 to 2022​
Sony a7R III​
Sony a7 III​
Sony a7R IV​
Sony a9 II​
Sony a7S III​
Sony a7C​
Sony a1​
Sony a7 IV​
Sony FX3​
If you include the Sony a7R IVA and Sony a7R IIIA that is 11 so a little off but pretty spot on. Then again the EOS RA was not included by @dolina so saying over half remains accurate.​Sony APS-C Releases in the same timeframe​
Sony ZV-E10​
Sony a6100​
Sony a6600​
Sony a6400​
All of this information can be viewed at - https://www.dpreview.com/products/timeline?year=all&brand=Sony&category=slrs​Cheers​


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2022)

Tarets said:


> I'm sorry, but 9 FF bodies released? 4 APS bodies? Not that I think it matters, bo you clearly have no idea what you're taking about. Unless you do know and missinform on purpose.


Welcome to the forum, and congratulations on being zero for one and earning your duncecap on the first day!

@dolina may get some things wrong, but he can count. I’m not sure the same is true of you.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 19, 2022)

NOW


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2022)

Ramage said:


> NOW
> View attachment 205694


Of course not. I shall look for links that are not fresh enough for the pedantic to nitpick


----------



## Tarets (Sep 19, 2022)

dolina said:


> You registered today with 1 post.
> 
> You trolling? If you are then CR should block your IP block. ;-)



That's your argument? Pointing out your misinformation is trolling?



Ramage said:


> Reading comprehension might not be your strong suit so I will help you out​@dolina Said Canon has release 5 RF FF Cameras in 4 years - RP, R, R6, R5 and R3 that is 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5!!!! @dolina also said Canon released 2 APS-C RF Cameras in the same timeline R7 and R10 that is 1 and 2!!!​@dolina reported that Sony has released 9 FF Cameras From 2018 to 2022​
> Sony a7R III​
> Sony a7 III​
> Sony a7R IV​
> ...


I'm doing pretty fine with reading, thank you for your concern. @dolina has clearly stated the reason for Sony having 9 FF bodies was the fact they had 12 years to do so. If it was a 4-year comparison then what would be the purpose of mentioning the year 2010? And how does the same thing not apply to the count of native e-mount lenses mentioned? It's clear they think Sony has actually released 9 FF and 4 APS bodies over 12 years, which is just plain ignorant.

I see not much has changed over the years in terms of debate quality at CR, so I'm not surprised criticism of a flawed argument meets with insults and passive aggression. I'm not gonna bother you guys, keep the echo chamber strong. Good day


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2022)

Tarets said:


> That's your argument? Pointing out your misinformation is trolling?



Argumentative on the 2nd post.. obviously a sock puppet.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 19, 2022)

Tarets said:


> That's your argument? Pointing out your misinformation is trolling?
> 
> 
> I'm doing pretty fine with reading, thank you for your concern. @dolina has clearly stated the reason for Sony having 9 FF bodies was the fact they had 12 years to do so. If it was a 4-year comparison then what would be the purpose of mentioning the year 2010? And how does the same thing not apply to the count of native e-mount lenses mentioned? It's clear they think Sony has actually released 9 FF and 4 APS bodies over 12 years, which is just plain ignorant.
> ...


I know you have crawled back into the hole you climbed out of but since you missed it AGAIN have another look at what was written 
*"Making that little, in the 4 years of RF system they have released" *​It is the group of words just before pointing out the number of RF FF and APS-C Canon has released compared to Sony...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2022)

Tarets said:


> I'm doing pretty fine with reading, thank you for your concern.


Yep youz iz doin jus grate at the redding and sutch.


----------



## ShawnMoore (Sep 22, 2022)

I wonder how long before Canon get hit with an antitrust lawsuit. Seems a bit of a monopoly. I'm not a lawyer but looks that way.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 22, 2022)

ShawnMoore said:


> I wonder how long before Canon get hit with an antitrust lawsuit. Seems a bit of a monopoly. I'm not a lawyer but looks that way.


Yep your not a lawyer... all brands protect their IP.

Have look at how many times Sony has sued for patent infringement or Nikon vs Shigma(NOT Sigma) in 2014 or Nikon vs Red which is ongoing.

Antitrust...


----------



## dwarven (Sep 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems to me they sell quality products, not just a brand name.
> 
> Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.



They're good, but overpriced.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 23, 2022)

dwarven said:


> They're good, but overpriced.


I'm not so sure. The 28-70 is nearly 3k. To call it overpriced, I'd have to know what Canon's costs are to make a factual claim like that. Sans that, it's just opinion.

What is the profit margin on that lens that you'd think is fair? Fair to me would be the highest possible price for sustained good sales growth.

Some consumers might think it overpriced. From Canon's perspective, it might be under priced based on their costs. I think the prices are fair, especially for what those exotic lenses can do. There's nothing quite like tack sharp f/1.2.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 23, 2022)

dwarven said:


> They're good, but overpriced.


That is the standard perception but it does not seem to be true when comparing actual pricing of 1st party glass. 

BH Photo Current pricing on Sony, Nikon and Canon's 2.8 trinities

Sony's 2.8 GM Trinity = $7294.00
*Nikon's 2.8's trinity = $7590.85*
Canon's trinity = $7497.99
When you compare 1st party glass that is of the same aperture and is no more than 4 years old "Overpriced" moniker labeled on RF glass is pretty weak.

Big Primes:

Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens = $11998.00​
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens = 11999.00​
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S Lens = 13996.95​
There is for sure some high cost RF glass but much of that is unique in design. The RF28-70 f2.0 as an example of costly but truly awesome and unique lens.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 23, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> I'm not so sure. The 28-70 is nearly 3k. To call it overpriced, I'd have to know what Canon's costs are to make a factual claim like that. Sans that, it's just opinion.
> 
> What is the profit margin on that lens that you'd think is fair? Fair to me would be the highest possible price for sustained good sales growth.
> 
> Some consumers might think it overpriced. From Canon's perspective, it might be under priced based on their costs. I think the prices are fair, especially for what those exotic lenses can do. There's nothing quite like tack sharp f/1.2.



What a product should be priced at really has nothing to do with the production costs. The optimal price point from the perspective of the corporation is the point on the demand curve where the quantity demanded at that price will result in the most total revenue. As the price increases along the curve the quantity demanded is reduced, but at every point the quantity demanded multiplied by the price is the total revenue generated. The calculation of where the price point should be to maximize revenue is mostly based on the features of the product and its relative demand in the market place and is basically independent of production cost.

Where the production cost is relevant is, once that optimal price point has been selected (based on demand), then the resulting margins at that price point will determine the profit (production cost being one factor in the resulting margin).


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2022)

Johnw said:


> What a product should be priced at really has nothing to do with the production costs. The optimal price point from the perspective of the corporation is the point on the demand curve where the quantity demanded at that price will result in the most total revenue. As the price increases along the curve the quantity demanded is reduced, but at every point the quantity demanded multiplied by the price is the total revenue generated. The calculation of where the price point should be to maximize revenue is mostly based on the features of the product and its relative demand in the market place and is basically independent of production cost.
> 
> Where the production cost is relevant is, once that optimal price point has been selected (based on demand), then the resulting margins at that price point will determine the profit (production cost being one factor in the resulting margin).


"Fair to me would be the highest possible price for sustained sales growth."

The other things I said were an attempt to draw out belief, or not, in the morality of profit. I never said production costs were the sole arbiter of anything. I was more looking for a motive in thinking.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 24, 2022)

Ramage said:


> That is the standard perception but it does not seem to be true when comparing actual pricing of 1st party glass.
> 
> BH Photo Current pricing on Sony, Nikon and Canon's 2.8 trinities
> 
> ...


Here in the UK the f2.8 holy trinities cost

Canon - 15-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £7437

Sony - 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £6697

Nikon - 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £7397

To A LOT of shooters all of those options are overpriced or they appreciate the value of those options but simply can’t afford them. So for those people what can they do?

On Sony they can build an alternative f2.8 trinities with 3rd party glass that are more than good enough for the needs and wants of professionals and enthusiasts.

Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 DG DN - £1299
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN - £1049
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 = £1149
Total = £3497

Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 = £849
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 = £849
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 = £1149
Total = £2847

Nikon will have their own lower cost alternative f2.8 trinity once their 70-180mm f2.8 arrives.

On Canon there are no alternatives natively so its adapting EF glass which for some is a perfect solution but for others it won’t be.


Ramage said:


> Big Primes:
> 
> Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens = $11998.00​
> Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens = 11999.00​
> ...


Again the issue for many isn’t that Canon has the high end high cost glass. Its the fact that natively there aren’t any alternatives available even from Canon themselves.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Here in the UK the f2.8 holy trinities cost


Canon’s UK pricing is a subject of frequent complaints, as it is higher than elsewhere in the world and Sony/Nikon don’t do that. 

I wonder about the trinity price comparison if grey market HK imports were considered. 



SNJ Ops said:


> Again the issue for many isn’t that Canon has the high end high cost glass. Its the fact that natively there aren’t any alternatives available even from Canon themselves.


Again, Canon doesn’t seem to care, and the business case suggests keeping the RF mount closed is the right position for them. 

But to be clear, you mean cheaper alternatives _for the lenses you want_. Show us a zoom trinity for Sony or Nikon FF spanning 15-400mm that’s cheaper than US$1500 / £1850.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 24, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Here in the UK the f2.8 holy trinities cost
> 
> Canon - 15-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £7437
> 
> ...


Excellent post and all facts that Canon is overpriced for us outside the US and here’s the Aus pricing for the f/2.8 zoom trinity: 

Sony = $8138.00 
Canon = $10505.00 
Nikon = $9573.00

Now just to make it interesting for those who see EF as a ‘viable alternative’ for third parties, for AUD the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 III cost the following not including adapter (adding to the bulk)
EF = $9262

Now this really puts it all into perspective and I can see why EF is such an great alternative to third parties on Sony and Nikon


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 24, 2022)

Ramage said:


> That is the standard perception but it does not seem to be true when comparing actual pricing of 1st party glass.
> 
> BH Photo Current pricing on Sony, Nikon and Canon's 2.8 trinities
> 
> ...


In Australia the f/2.8 zoom trinity

Sony = $8138.00 
Canon = $10505.00 
Nikon = $9573.00

The 400mm lenses
Sony = $16,999
Canon = 18,990
Nikon = $21,800

So for the f/2.8 zoom, Canon is definitely overpriced (especially when taking into considering third parties on Sony/Nikon’s rebadged Tamron lenses) and for the 400mm lenses, Canon is slightly overpriced and Nikon is very overpriced


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon’s UK pricing is a subject of frequent complaints, as it is higher than elsewhere in the world and Sony/Nikon don’t do that.
> 
> I wonder about the trinity price comparison if grey market HK imports were considered.
> 
> ...


I did mentioned in my post lenses that meet the needs of professionals and enthusiasts which is what I mean. I'm sure for some of them they could well find uses for variable aperture zooms. However there are also many use cases where those lenses won't be suitable, weddings and events come to mind. For users on lower budgets that trinity is a great price absolutely but again for those that need more but can't afford the L series zooms what do they do?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> For users on lower budgets that trinity is a great price absolutely but again for those that need more but can't afford the L series zooms what do they do?


For most, given Canon’s installed base, the answer is probably to just use an adapter with the EF L zoom trinity they already have.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 24, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Here in the UK the f2.8 holy trinities cost
> 
> Canon - 15-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm = £7437
> 
> ...


So you agree when people state that Canon RF glass is overpriced that is not in fact true when compared to like for like 1st party offerings?

Can we agree this is more accurate statement? 

"Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"

Canon also does not seem to get any credit for their excellent f4 offerings or the STM line up. Hell one of my first RF lenes was the RF 35mm 1.8 and I still love that little thing.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For most, given Canon’s installed base, the answer is probably to just use an adapter with the EF L zoom trinity they already have.


And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?



Ramage said:


> So you agree when people state that Canon RF glass is overpriced that is not in fact true when compared to like for like 1st party offerings?
> 
> Can we agree this is more accurate statement?
> 
> ...


"Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass in the US ONLY and is greatly overpriced in other countries but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"

Fixed that for you


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 24, 2022)

Great to see that even Christopher Frost who usually does reviews only has weighed in on this


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?


If they want and can afford them, sure. There’s also the lighter and less expensive f/4 L zoom trinity. Or non-L RF lenses. Or used EF lenses. Or 3rd party EF mount lenses. Or Nikon. Or Sony. Choice is good.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 25, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?
> 
> 
> "Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass in the US ONLY and is greatly overpriced in other countries but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"
> ...


Hmm, I guess "fixed" means something different where you are from. 

I live in Canada and our pricing looks a lot like the US prices across the brands. Oh and about the Australian prices make sure to factor in the 5 year warranty on Canon glass when adding up those totals. 

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2022)

Ghost7 said:


> I think Canon is losing out if they are shutting RF lens production to 3rd party manufacturers and exclusively offering them. This will only hurt them and the people who might be scraping nickels and dimes that want an inexpensive lens.


Canon obviously thinks differently than you. I am confident the company that has led the ILC market for two decades knows more about that market than you. They clearly don’t believe shutting out 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount will hurt them. 

I do agree that it hurts people on a tight budget. Unfortunately for them, Canon is a for-profit corporation not a philanthropic organization. 



Ghost7 said:


> It seems like Canon is a few steps back in regards to a few brands in my opinion and having to play a lot of catch up everytime I read about other brands bringing products out while we wait and wait.


Last year (2021), 48% of ILCs sold were Canon. Sony was at ~22% and Nikon was at ~14%. Compared to 2020, Canon modest increase (2.5% gain) was bigger than Sony’s (1.9%). 

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘catching up’. Sounds like you mean Canon is behind in bringing out the products that you personally want. That’s a valid concern, but it really is a you problem. 



Ghost7 said:


> I'm just being a bit grunted that's all. Rant over.


Oh, I should have read to the end. Ranting doesn’t require logic or acknowledgement of facts. All good.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 2, 2022)

Ghost7 said:


> I think Canon is losing out if they are shutting RF lens production to 3rd party manufacturers and exclusively offering them. This will only hurt them and the people who might be scraping nickels and dimes that want an inexpensive lens.


Every time someone says this I am left dumbfounded. How in the world does it hurt Canon to make the lens sale? Somebody looking to buy an additional lens already has the camera. Sometimes it seems people think there's no profit in lenses for Canon, and that the body sale is all that matters.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Every time someone says this I am left dumbfounded. How in the world does it hurt Canon to make the lens sale? Somebody looking to buy an additional lens already has the camera. Sometimes it seems people think there's no profit in lenses for Canon, and that the body sale is all that matters.


A related question. How in the world does it help Canon to lose a lens sale to Sigma or Tamron?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 2, 2022)

unfocused said:


> A related question. How in the world does it help Canon to lose a lens sale to Sigma or Tamron?


There are different types of customers when it comes to lenses - OEM only, mix of OEM and 3rd party, 3rd party only. 

The 1st group is the one the Canon is currently catering too.

The 2nd group is itself a mix of people. It 
includes shooters that have over 90% OEM glass but a couple of 3rd party options complete their kit. While Canon has no obligation to accommodate them its still potentially lost customers. How many remains to be seen.

The last group perhaps is of little interest to Canon even though they are still would be buyers of Canon bodies. However they have the potential to join the 2nd group over time. These users perhaps will switch to another system.

As for Canon dominating the market that is certainly true when DSLR market share is included. As most would agree sales of DSLRs are decreasing and development of new DSLR bodies and lenses has already stopped for Canon and Nikon. The mirrorless market has Canon and Sony leading with very little between them overall. Sometimes one is ahead and then the other. 

On the adapting issue there are users who will opt for 3rd party EF glass so Canon is still loosing a potential lens sale anyway. Perhaps with a license they could get a smaller cut of revenue rather than none at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Perhaps with a license they could get a smaller cut of revenue rather than none at all.


I’m sure Canon knows this, and they have not done so. Perhaps they’re wrong, but history suggests otherwise.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 2, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?
> 
> 
> "Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass in the US ONLY and is greatly overpriced in other countries but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"
> ...


Just take a look at the pricing of G Master II lenses in Europe (Calumet), no advantage over RF lenses.
2,8/70-200: Sony 2999,- RF 2849,-
2,8/24-70: Sony 2399,- RF 2499,-
RF "greatly overpriced in other countries"? Maybe in Northern Yemen...


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 2, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Just take a look at the pricing of G Master II lenses in Europe (Calumet), no advantage over RF lenses.
> 2,8/70-200: Sony 2999,- RF 2849,-
> 2,8/24-70: Sony 2399,- RF 2499,-
> RF "greatly overpriced in other countries"? Maybe in Northern Yemen...


Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L II - £2099
Sony 35mm f1.4 GM - £1499

Canon RF 50mm f1.2 - £2589
Sony 50mm f1.2 - £2099

Canon 100-500 L - £2899
Sony 100-400 GM - £2149

Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L II - £1579
Sony 24mm f1.4 GM - 1299

Canon 70-200 f2.8 RF - £2699
Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM II - £2599

Bar the last example there’s sometimes a massive price difference here in the UK.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 2, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L II - £2099
> Sony 35mm f1.4 GM - £1499
> 
> Canon RF 50mm f1.2 - £2589
> ...


Massive in the 35mm & 24mm's case, yes (in the UK). But, even in the UK, the GM IIs cost massively more than their GM predecessors.
And the RF 100-500 shouldn't be compared with a GM 100-400. 
PS: the EF 1,4/35 costs Euro 1749 in Europe, the EF 24mm Euro 1429 (both less in GBP). I often read (here) that Canon's UK pricing was "strange", to express it politely...


----------



## dlee13 (Oct 2, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Just take a look at the pricing of G Master II lenses in Europe (Calumet), no advantage over RF lenses.
> 2,8/70-200: Sony 2999,- RF 2849,-
> 2,8/24-70: Sony 2399,- RF 2499,-
> RF "greatly overpriced in other countries"? Maybe in Northern Yemen...


And that’s where the whole point of this thread comes in, for the FE mount you have the excellent Sigma DN and Tamron options which are just as good as those lenses but much cheaper and on Canon they don’t exist. 

So even if Sony Europe charge a lot, you have the option of modern third party lenses which Canon don’t give you.


----------



## LoisMPhoto (Oct 2, 2022)

I paid a lot of money for my RF mount camera so I want to use the best glass possible. Why go expensive with the camera and devalue it with cheaper glass? Some 3rd party is high quality like Sigma and etc. To each their own though.
-Lois
Austin Texas Wedding Venue Photographer


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 2, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> And that’s where the whole point of this thread comes in, for the FE mount you have the excellent Sigma DN and Tamron options which are just as good as those lenses but much cheaper and on Canon they don’t exist.
> 
> So even if Sony Europe charge a lot, you have the option of modern third party lenses which Canon don’t give you.


Not yet, or do you have certainties no one else has?


----------



## dlee13 (Oct 2, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Not yet, or do you have certainties no one else has?


You say not yet as if you have a certainty that they’re coming so no different to my statement. 

Fact is for someone right now (and the foreseeable future) buying into a new system or looking to move to Mirrorless, aknots every brand but Canon offers better value option lenses than Canon does.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I often read (here) that Canon's UK pricing was "strange", to express it politely...


Unfair seems like an apt descriptor. But it’s a small market, sadly grappling with a self-made economic crisis. I don’t see Canon changing their pricing policy for the UK, which can give residents a skewed view of global pricing.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Oct 16, 2022)

I don't know if this brings anything real new, but maybe a hint or confirmation that Sigma _is_ trying to get RF lenses on the market. Depending on how you interprets the conversation....

Spanish site https://www.photolari.com/ did an interview with Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki. The interviewer speaks Spanish which I don't understand. But with help from automatic subtitling I think the dialog is something like the following...

_Photolari (P)_ ask about the situation or likelihood to get Canon RF lenses from Sigma, _Kazuto Yamaki (Sigma)_ answers:

_Sigma:_ Sigma's mission is to deliver lenses to as many customers as possible. And I'm very aware that there is a strong demand from Canon mirrorless users. I really appreciate such interest from customers. I cannot tell about future planning, but I really want to deliver such products in the future.

_P:_ When such lenses hasn't yet arrived, is it because of Sigma or is it because of Canon?

_Sigma:_ [Smiling, surely knowing why he's asked a question like that] Sorry, but I cannot comment on it [both laughing]. But what I can tell you today is that Sigma is very interested to satisfy the Canon mirrorless users' demand.


----------



## stabilus (Dec 30, 2022)

I know where that leaves me in terms of buying Canon glass: I won't until they open up their policy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

stabilus said:


> I know where that leaves me in terms of buying Canon glass: I won't until they open up their policy.


I hope you have all the lenses you need, your wait may be a long one.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hope you have all the lenses you need, your wait may be a long one.


How many years now that Canon has not licensed lens patents? Canon has a counter on their website. 

They do license a lot of their technology, just not when the patent is effective at reducing competition.


----------



## emc (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hope you have all the lenses you need, your wait may be a long one.


I, too, am waiting. I was lucky enough to be able to buy the Samyang RF 85 mm AF F1.4 and I don't regret it. For telephoto lenses, I have the EF 100-400 II which also suits me. I don't think the RF mount does much for tele. It's mainly on the wide angles that I'm waiting. I have the Tamron 24-70 VC, not the G2, and I've discovered that, despite Tamron's list of RF incompatible lenses, it works very well with the RF single ring. It's with the ring with control ring that it doesn't work well. Otherwise in the meantime I'm happy with my 17-40 F4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

emc said:


> I don't think the RF mount does much for tele. It's mainly on the wide angles that I'm waiting. … Otherwise in the meantime I'm happy with my 17-40 F4.


For the high end lenses, not yet. I have no plans to swap my EF 600/4 II for the RF version, and if I still had an EF 100-400L I likely wouldn’t have bought the excellent 100-500L.

But for consumer telephoto lenses, RF is great. The RF 100-400 is half the weight and much smaller than the 100-500L, and delivers very good IQ and excellent magnification for a non-macro lens, and costs only $500 with the current discount (of which I took advantage when I ordered one a couple of hours ago). The 600/11 and 800/11 put long focal lengths within reach of shorter budgets.

RF wide zooms are also very good. The 14-35/4L delivers much better IQ than the old 17-40/4L, along with IS. I’m sure more wide, fast primes will be along eventually.


----------



## emc (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For the high end lenses, not yet. I have no plans to swap my EF 600/4 II for the RF version, and if I still had an EF 100-400L I likely wouldn’t have bought the excellent 100-500L.
> 
> But for consumer telephoto lenses, RF is great. The RF 100-400 is half the weight and much smaller than the 100-500L, and delivers very good IQ and excellent magnification for a non-macro lens, and costs only $500 with the current discount (of which I took advantage when I ordered one a couple of hours ago). The 600/11 and 800/11 put long focal lengths within reach of shorter budgets.
> 
> RF wide zooms are also very good. The 14-35/4L delivers much better IQ than the old 17-40/4L, along with IS. I’m sure more wide, fast primes will be along eventually.


----------

