# Patent: RF mount super telephoto lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 25, 2019)

> It looks like Canon is indeed working on their RF mount super telephoto optical formulas. We were told a couple of days ago that an RF 500mm f/4L IS would be the first super telephoto lens launched for the EOS R system.
> A USPTO patent has appeared that shows optical designs for an RF 400mm f/2.8L IS, RF 500mm f/4L IS and an RF 600mm f/4L IS.
> *Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## degos (May 26, 2019)

Blah blah blah Canon. Where are the long DO lenses?

Also interesting that the RF 600mm f4 is longer than the EF versions, 476mm versus 448 ( III ) and 457 ( II ). Which might not seem a lot but does complicate finding an appropriate carry-on-friendly backpack, for example.

Actually on further research they're _all_ longer than the EF variants.


----------



## SV (May 26, 2019)

No mention of a 300 f/2.8 RF?
Or anything RF DO?!?!?


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 26, 2019)

That answers one question but for me weight is still more important. It seems they are concerned with some aspect of the performance or are challenged by some aspect of the production of DO versions or they would be first and foremost coming out??

Jack


----------



## Mistral75 (May 26, 2019)

degos said:


> (...)
> 
> Also interesting that the RF 600mm f4 is longer than the EF versions, 476mm versus 448 ( III ) and 457 ( II ). Which might not seem a lot but does complicate finding an appropriate carry-on-friendly backpack, for example.
> 
> Actually on further research they're _all_ longer than the EF variants.


The RF versions would actually be shorter than their EF counterparts. In a patent request 'entire lens length' means from the front-end of the first element to the sensor: a patent is not linked to a specific mount / flange focal distance.

You should therefore add 44mm to the length of the EF lenses to make your comparisons.


----------



## AlanF (May 26, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> That answers one question but for me weight is still more important. It seems they are concerned with some aspect of the performance or are challenged by some aspect of the production of DO versions or they would be first and foremost coming out??
> 
> Jack


The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF weighing in less than a 100-400mm II at 3.2lb (1.46kg) is selling like hot cakes and is back-ordered everywhere. Our 400mm DO II with lens hood weigh 2.265kg, and with a 1.4xTC 2.51kg or 5.5lb. If they were freely available, I would get a 500mm as I feel that extra kg over my shoulder. At least I have the good old 100-400mm II, which is unmatched.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2019)

Mistral75 said:


> The RF versions would actually be shorter than their EF counterparts. In a patent request 'entire lens length' means from the front-end of the first element to the sensor: a patent is not linked to a specific mount / flange focal distance.
> 
> You should therefore add 44mm to the length of the EF lenses to make your comparisons.


To compare *lens* lengths, one should instead subtract 20mm from the RF patent length. Doing so based on the above measurements indicates the lenses are essentially the same length. 

Still not seeing the purported ‘benefits of the RF mount’.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To compare *lens* lengths, one should instead subtract 20mm from the RF patent length. Doing so based on the above measurements indicates the lenses are essentially the same length.
> 
> Still not seeing the purported ‘benefits of the RF mount’.


i guess this is going to sound snarky and I'm saying this generally rather than to a specific poster. "Did anybody really expect to?" 

The true benefit of the new mount is that Canon, one way or another, is going to find a way to get RF mount users to buy "improved" versions of all their existing EF lenses. Regardless of whether they're any better. So much for EF lens compatibility. If EF lenses are going to be seamlessly compatible why the dramatic push for new lenses.

It's only a matter of time until we start hearing about "issues" with legacy EF lenses on the newer R's. Sure they'll be lots of faux surprise/outrage when that happens but it's coming. Canon will tear that page right out of Apple's book when the time is right. 

I'm very surprised by how casual this forum is regarding the EF mount's impending and unnecessary obsolescence for no reason other than a shorter flange distance and some "special sauce" in the new interface.

If you had posted in this forum a couple of years ago that "Canon was going to junk the EF mount" hundreds of posters would have been standing in line to call you an idiot. Now everyone seems to think it's a great idea. Go figure.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 27, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> i guess this is going to sound snarky and I'm saying this generally rather than to a specific poster. "Did anybody really expect to?"



Yes. There are a number of members on this website who have for years proselytized mirrorless cameras as capable of diminutive lens sizes.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 27, 2019)

Not sure about the comment regarding the EF lenses becoming useless - the 70-200 II worked beautifully on my daughters R and she had the added benefit of the ISO setting via the ring adapter. That's true manual exposure shooting with really easy right finger adjustment of ISO based on the viewfinder image. I think EF lenses will just slowly disappear without much fanfare.

Jack


----------



## padam (May 27, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Not sure about the comment regarding the EF lenses becoming useless - the 70-200 II worked beautifully on my daughters R and she had the added benefit of the ISO setting via the ring adapter. That's true manual exposure shooting with really easy right finger adjustment of ISO based on the viewfinder image. I think EF lenses will just slowly disappear without much fanfare.
> 
> Jack


It will take a very long time to disappear (Canon are still selling lenses that are very very old now), but if IBIS will be working to its full potential with EF lenses as well, they will actually become a bit more desirable than before (also for video with the built-in ND adapter and physical manual focus, which is only for EF and not RF)

Of course, ergonomically, the RF lenses have a bit better weight distribution but they will probably remain as an integral part of the system (unlike Nikon or Sony where compatibility is much more limited to newer lenses).


----------



## padam (May 27, 2019)

degos said:


> Blah blah blah Canon. Where are the long DO lenses?


Maybe something has changed regarding production costs, because the EF 600mm f/4 DO BR IS looked close to serial production. Maybe they will get back to it once they figure it out, looks like Nikon also has trouble with their 500mm f/5.6 PF ED VR.

If they can keep decreasing the weight even further than their recent version III EF supertelephotos, that would be quite impressive on its own. It is probably about 2-3 years away anyway.


----------



## Kit. (May 27, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The true benefit of the new mount is that Canon, one way or another, is going to find a way to get RF mount users to buy "improved" versions of all their existing EF lenses. Regardless of whether they're any better. So much for EF lens compatibility. If EF lenses are going to be seamlessly compatible why the dramatic push for new lenses.
> 
> It's only a matter of time until we start hearing about "issues" with legacy EF lenses on the newer R's. Sure they'll be lots of faux surprise/outrage when that happens but it's coming. Canon will tear that page right out of Apple's book when the time is right.


As long as these lenses work on _Sony_ cameras, it would be extremely stupid for Canon to do something like that.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Yes. There are a number of members on this website who have for years proselytized mirrorless cameras as capable of diminutive lens sizes.


True, but to be fair, one of the most vocal (and overbearing) proselytizers envisioned modest primes and variable aperture zooms. Many of these lenses (the 24mm f2.8 for example) are already small, so a slight decrease in size would make a difference. Canon seems to be going in another direction right now, leaving small size to the M series and focusing on either duplicating existing EF lenses or creating new high end lenses for the R. Only Canon knows why they are heading in that direction. I would speculate that they are sending a message to the industry about their willingness to expend considerable resources to aggressively compete in the mirrorless market.


----------



## canonnews (May 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To compare *lens* lengths, one should instead subtract 20mm from the RF patent length. Doing so based on the above measurements indicates the lenses are essentially the same length.
> 
> Still not seeing the purported ‘benefits of the RF mount’.


shouldn't see any advantage really except perhaps a better balance on an RF super telelphoto.

as we originally discovered with this patent last thursday, about the only change is a shifting of the elements closer to the back.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2019)

canonnews said:


> shouldn't see any advantage really except perhaps a better balance on an RF super telelphoto.
> 
> as we originally discovered with this patent last thursday, about the only change is a shifting of the elements closer to the back.


True, but not RF-specific. That same sort of shift was done in the EF 600/4 III – moving the lens groups behind the front element closer to the mount, which allows them to be smaller in diameter (= lighter), and shifts the center of mass toward the body (= better balance).


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 27, 2019)

Kit. said:


> As long as these lenses work on _Sony_ cameras, it would be extremely stupid for Canon to do something like that.


You may be right. This sort of thing has to be done at a fairly slow pace. You don't want to have any abrupt changes that can organize resistance.

I'd imagine it will probably start with "special features" that only work on a combo of R/RF bodies and lenses. Once users have become desensitized to the idea that RF lenses perform better than EF lenses on R bodies you can move to the next phase. The "stop complaining and just buy new lenses" narrative. It's a continuum. You can't move along it too quickly or it won't work.

I've worked around tech long enough to know how this movie ends. I've seen it often enough. You can't really blame Canon. It's the smart play from a marketing perspective. But it's going to crush the resale value of my EF lenses so I can't say I approve.


----------



## canonnews (May 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> True, but not RF-specific. That same sort of shift was done in the EF 600/4 III – moving the lens groups behind the front element closer to the mount, which allows them to be smaller in diameter (= lighter), and shifts the center of mass toward the body (= better balance).


similar, yes, but not as much. This shift was RF specific. the shift was around 40-50mm more than what you see on EF super telephotos, which is why we identified these as RF super telephoto patent applications.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 27, 2019)

These lenses are aimed at the professional market, not the well-heeled amateur. If the professional wants the lens and the RF version gives faster and better focus, it doesn't matter about how it compares to the EF version in length, or even weight (although it's not likely to be MORE). If the professional doesn't have an R body and needs this lens, they'll get an R body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2019)

canonnews said:


> similar, yes, but not as much. This shift was RF specific. the shift was around 40-50mm more than what you see on EF super telephotos, *which is why we identified these as RF super telephoto patent applications.*


It seems obvious they are RF patents based on the 31-33 mm back focus distances specified in the patents.

Based on an appropriately-scaled overlay, the second group back from the front element (G1n) sits ~6mm behind the corresponding group in the 600/4 III, and the next group back is ~12mm behind the corresponding EF group.


----------



## canonnews (May 27, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> It seems obvious they are RF patents based on the 31-33 mm back focus distances specified in the patents.
> 
> Based on an appropriately-scaled overlay, the second group back from the front element (G1n) sits ~6mm behind the corresponding group in the 600/4 III, and the next group back is ~12mm behind the corresponding EF group.
> 
> View attachment 184781



yes, there isn't going to be a significant difference. I'm actually surprised there's ANY difference to a super telephoto, but there it is.

I think you're expecting a lot from a focal length that is supposed to show no benefits for a shorter registration distance.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 27, 2019)

canonnews said:


> *I think you're expecting a lot *from a focal length that is supposed to show no benefits for a shorter registration distance.



That’s not what’s happening here


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2019)

canonnews said:


> yes, there isn't going to be a significant difference. I'm actually surprised there's ANY difference to a super telephoto, but there it is.
> 
> I think you're expecting a lot from a focal length that is supposed to show no benefits for a shorter registration distance.


I'm really surprised that Canon haven't gone for DO optics for the RF system. It kind of makes sense making the RF versions shorter and lighter than the EF versions. As it is...there is so little between the EF and RF versions...is there any point other than having a native lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2019)

canonnews said:


> I think you're expecting a lot from a focal length that is supposed to show no benefits for a shorter registration distance.


I’m not _expecting_ anything. But many on this forum continue to tout the ‘benefits of the RF mount,’ and the ‘smaller, lighter, higher IQ’ lenses that mount makes possible. I have yet to see any evidence of those purported benefits. Claims that are put forward just blow away like smoke in the wind when examined critically, for example 40-50mm becoming 6mm.

The only evident benefit is in terms of lens-body communication, but that has nothing to do with the short flange distance (and after all, even the EF-M mount has two extra pins compared to EF).


----------



## canonnews (May 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not _expecting_ anything. But many on this forum continue to tout the ‘benefits of the RF mount,’ and the ‘smaller, lighter, higher IQ’ lenses that mount makes possible. I have yet to see any evidence of those purported benefits. Claims that are put forward just blow away like smoke in the wind when examined critically, for example 40-50mm becoming 6mm.
> 
> The only evident benefit is in terms of lens-body communication, but that has nothing to do with the short flange distance (and after all, even the EF-M mount has two extra pins compared to EF).


yes, sorry, and yeah I agree. seems there was some expectations thrown out there, but really alot of that came from Nikon, not Canon.


----------



## Kit. (May 28, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> You may be right. This sort of thing has to be done at a fairly slow pace. You don't want to have any abrupt changes that can organize resistance.


If the market shows a clear preference for RF bodes (thus there will be no point in developing new EF lenses), that "slow pace" will happen naturally, just as older lens models are replaced with newer, improved ones. There is no reason for conspiracy.

If the market shows no clear preference, there is no point in crippling RF bodies by intentionally making them incompatible with EF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm really surprised that Canon haven't gone for DO optics for the RF system. It kind of makes sense making the RF versions shorter and lighter than the EF versions. As it is...there is so little between the EF and RF versions...is there any point other than having a native lens.


There are some drawbacks to DO optics, one being they are more susceptible to flare and lose contrast against strong light. However, if you can't lift the heavier lens the drawbacks are of minor detail.


----------



## degos (May 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If the market shows no clear preference, there is no point in crippling RF bodies by intentionally making them incompatible with EF lenses.



Hmm, I dunno... you have to think with a corporate group-mind. If the market isn't adopting a New Shiny Thing, that means, in corp-think, that the market is stupid and lazy and needs to be beaten into doing the Right Thing. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if lens-mount interoperability began to 'deteriorate'; maybe IBIS will only work with RF lenses, due to the communication data-rate needed...


----------



## BillB (May 28, 2019)

degos said:


> Hmm, I dunno... you have to think with a corporate group-mind. If the market isn't adopting a New Shiny Thing, that means, in corp-think, that the market is stupid and lazy and needs to be beaten into doing the Right Thing. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if lens-mount interoperability began to 'deteriorate'; maybe IBIS will only work with RF lenses, due to the communication data-rate needed...


So, if you build a better mousetrap, you are beating the stupid and lazy market into doing the Right Thing?


----------



## BillB (May 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If the market shows a clear preference for RF bodes (thus there will be no point in developing new EF lenses), that "slow pace" will happen naturally, just as older lens models are replaced with newer, improved ones. There is no reason for conspiracy.
> 
> If the market shows no clear preference, there is no point in crippling RF bodies by intentionally making them incompatible with EF lenses.


Even if there is a clear preference for RF bodies, there will be a market for EF lenses so long as there are Canon DSLRs, EF mount video cameras, and M mount mirrorless. Maybe Canon might develop new EF lenses for such a market, or maybe not. I am pretty sure they would keep selling EF lenses to anyone who wanted buy one.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2019)

AlanF said:


> There are some drawbacks to DO optics, one being they are more susceptible to flare and lose contrast against strong light. However, if you can't lift the heavier lens the drawbacks are of minor detail.


Yes I agree....but Canon have also pushed the technology a lot. The 400mm f4 DO II is a lot better optically / back lit contrast than the mkI. So one could assume that an RF version (essentially a mkIII) would be even better. I think I read somewhere on a Canon page that these days they are using 2 or 3 DO optic elements compared to the older single DO element.


----------



## degos (May 28, 2019)

BillB said:


> So, if you build a better mousetrap, you are beating the stupid and lazy market into doing the Right Thing?



The question was around what Canon would do if the market didn't rush to the RF mount ( the Better Mousetrap* ).

My conjecture is that they'll see this as a failure on the part of the market, rather than a reflection of the lack of advantage of moving to RF. And will therefore take steps to make EF artificially obsolete in order to force upgrades. 

* which itself is actually a sarcastic term referring to an overcomplicated solution to a simple problem


----------



## Kit. (May 28, 2019)

degos said:


> Hmm, I dunno... you have to think with a corporate group-mind. If the market isn't adopting a New Shiny Thing, that means, in corp-think, that the market is stupid and lazy and needs to be beaten into doing the Right Thing. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if lens-mount interoperability began to 'deteriorate'; maybe IBIS will only work with RF lenses, due to the communication data-rate needed...


If IBIS only works with RF lenses, people will be _less_ interested in buying RF cameras.

_Edited, sorry._


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 28, 2019)

Does anyone really believe Canon purposely has as one of its goals alienating their customers? I'd suggest the opposite. That doesn't mean that everyone will be happy because progress in any field always obsoletes older products.

Jack


----------



## BillB (May 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If IBIS only works with RF lenses, people will be interested in buying RF cameras.


On the other hand, if your IBIS only works with RF lenses and all the other guys have IBIS that works with whatever you put on the camera, you may want to rethink your strategy.


----------



## BillB (May 28, 2019)

degos said:


> The question was around what Canon would do if the market didn't rush to the RF mount ( the Better Mousetrap* ).
> 
> My conjecture is that they'll see this as a failure on the part of the market, rather than a reflection of the lack of advantage of moving to RF. And will therefore take steps to make EF artificially obsolete in order to force upgrades.
> 
> * which itself is actually a sarcastic term referring to an overcomplicated solution to a simple problem


If I recollect correctly, the saying is that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. Not saracastic at all.


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2019)

degos said:


> The question was around what Canon would do if the market didn't rush to the RF mount...
> 
> ....My conjecture is that they'll see this as a failure on the part of the market, rather than a reflection of the lack of advantage of moving to RF. And will therefore take steps to make EF artificially obsolete in order to force upgrades...


That's both silly and more than a bit paranoid.


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Does anyone really believe Canon purposely has as one of its goals alienating their customers? I'd suggest the opposite...



Sadly, there are always people who will believe in conspiracies rather than accept a reality that conflicts with their uninformed view of the world. 

I've seen this all my life. As a kid growing up in the 60s I had classmates that insisted there was a secret carburetor that could get 100 miles to the gallon, but Detroit and the oil industry had conspired to keep it off the market. I also grew up in an era when people seriously suggested that fluoridated water was a Russian plot to poison American children.

Today we have people who put other people's children at risk by refusing to have their own children vaccinated. 

So, when I read some of the ridiculous theories floated on this forum, I cringe, but know that no amount of logic or common sense will change their minds.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Yes I agree....but Canon have also pushed the technology a lot. The 400mm f4 DO II is a lot better optically / back lit contrast than the mkI. So one could assume that an RF version (essentially a mkIII) would be even better. I think I read somewhere on a Canon page that these days they are using 2 or 3 DO optic elements compared to the older single DO element.


The 400mm DO II does use 2 DO gratings already. The problem is light from the zeroth-order diffraction coming straight through. Nikon have the same problem with their very modern PF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2019)

Now rumoured that Nikon will have its 600mm f/5.6 PF out this summer https://nikonrumors.com/2019/05/28/nikon-nikkor-600mm-f-5-6-pf-lens-rumors-coming-this-summer.aspx/


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 29, 2019)

degos said:


> Hmm, I dunno... you have to think with a corporate group-mind. If the market isn't adopting a New Shiny Thing, that means, in corp-think, that the market is stupid and lazy and needs to be beaten into doing the Right Thing. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if lens-mount interoperability began to 'deteriorate'; maybe IBIS will only work with RF lenses, due to the communication data-rate needed...


Brilliant!!!

I don't know why I didn't think of that. I guess that's why I don't work in marketing. Lens IS only working in conjuction with IBIS on RF lenses would be a classic "special feature" of the new mount. IBIS not working at all with EF lenses would be even better.

A highly desirable feature with a plausible and defensible explanation for why it can't work with "obsolete" lenses. No competent marketing manager would pass on an opportunity like that.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To compare *lens* lengths, one should instead subtract 20mm from the RF patent length. Doing so based on the above measurements indicates the lenses are essentially the same length.
> 
> Still not seeing the purported ‘benefits of the RF mount’.



When you are dealing with long telephoto probably not much advantage. But in shorter lenses it can be quite substantial. The shorter distance with the Canon large diameter mount allows for wider lenses to not require such a huge front optic for the same aperture value. Also allowing for a lens with less weight up front.
I am not an optical engineer but reading the options and capabilities with the shorter distance and large diameter opening does allow for things that never could be done with a mirror box in the way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> When you are dealing with long telephoto probably not much advantage. But in shorter lenses it can be quite substantial. The shorter distance with the Canon large diameter mount allows for wider lenses to not require such a huge front optic for the same aperture value. Also allowing for a lens with less weight up front.
> I am not an optical engineer but reading the options and capabilities with the shorter distance and large diameter opening does allow for things that never could be done with a mirror box in the way.


Possibly. The RF UWA patents all indicate lenses similar to the current EF 16-35/17-40 in length. The RF diagrams are consistent with a smaller front element, but overall there are more elements and many are thicker, suggesting the overall weight reduction will not be significant (and in a 4“ long lens, moving the center of mass is unlikely to have a big impact on balance). 

As I’ve said, even if the potential is there (jury is still out on that) the practical examples we’ve seen so far do not support the claim of significant benefit from the RF mount (lens communication notwithstanding).


----------



## Ozarker (May 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If IBIS only works with RF lenses, people will be _less_ interested in buying RF cameras.
> 
> _Edited, sorry._


Very true for me.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Possibly. The RF UWA patents all indicate lenses similar to the current EF 16-35/17-40 in length. The RF diagrams are consistent with a smaller front element, but overall there are more elements and many are thicker, suggesting the overall weight reduction will not be significant (and in a 4“ long lens, moving the center of mass is unlikely to have a big impact on balance).
> 
> As I’ve said, even if the potential is there (jury is still out on that) the practical examples we’ve seen so far do not support the claim of significant benefit from the RF mount (lens communication notwithstanding).



One thing we have seen are lenses geared for the gods. Us mere mortals , it seems, will have to wait for more down to earth lenses that will likely show that they can be smaller and lighter. Also if IBIS is introduced universally from now on all that mechanism can be taken out of many if not most designs. Thus a definite size and weight reduction would be possible. That is what I am looking for.


----------



## scyrene (May 31, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Sadly, there are always people who will believe in conspiracies rather than accept a reality that conflicts with their uninformed view of the world.
> 
> I've seen this all my life. As a kid growing up in the 60s I had classmates that insisted there was a secret carburetor that could get 100 miles to the gallon, but Detroit and the oil industry had conspired to keep it off the market. I also grew up in an era when people seriously suggested that fluoridated water was a Russian plot to poison American children.
> 
> ...



I mean in general I agree with you, and certainly the idea the Canon conspires against camera buyers (for whatever reason) is absurd, but corporate conspiracies do _sometimes_ occur - e.g. the emissions scandal (was it Volkswagen?).


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I mean in general I agree with you, and certainly the idea the Canon conspires against camera buyers (for whatever reason) is absurd, but corporate conspiracies do _sometimes_ occur - e.g. the emissions scandal (was it Volkswagen?).


I guess I draw a distinction between grand conspiracies and cheating. Certainly some companies cheat. Heck, look at Yongnuo and their blatant theft of Canon technology. The U.S. is in a trade war with China because their government has built an economy that relies on cheating. W. Eugene Smith's final and possibly greatest documentary project, Minamata, focused on a Japanese company's environmental cheating and the devastating effect it had on people. Cheaters often conspire to conceal their cheating and that type of conspiracy is all too common.

But, I reject silly conspiracy theories that have no basis in logic. My post was in agreement with another forum participant's observation that it is silly to suggest that Canon would purposely alienate customers as some sort of bizarre strategy to trick people.

So yeah, your point is well taken.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I guess I draw a distinction between grand conspiracies and cheating. Certainly some companies cheat. Heck, look at Yongnuo and their blatant theft of Canon technology. The U.S. is in a trade war with China because their government has built an economy that relies on cheating. W. Eugene Smith's final and possibly greatest documentary project, Minamata, focused on a Japanese company's environmental cheating and the devastating effect it had on people. Cheaters often conspire to conceal their cheating and that type of conspiracy is all too common.
> 
> But, I reject silly conspiracy theories that have no basis in logic. My post was in agreement with another forum participant's observation that it is silly to suggest that Canon would purposely alienate customers as some sort of bizarre strategy to trick people.
> 
> So yeah, your point is well taken.


Actually, we are in a trade war because our President is an economics illiterate with no sense of history. Governments don't pay tariffs, the end users of products do. The only people the tariffs on Chinese or Mexican imports hurt are U.S. consumers of Chinese and Mexican goods. The United States government is now having to bail out our pork industry (with taxpayer dollars) thanks to retaliatory tariffs by China. The Chinese have turned to Mexico and Canada for those pork products, and have seized 40% of what used to be our market (a yuge market!). While I agree that China reverse engineers products and produces things based on the theft of intellectual property (NOT the reason we are in a trade war), a trade war is just plain stupid, especially when the federal government is in so much bond debt to China... who have financed so much of our money printing.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 1, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I mean in general I agree with you, and certainly the idea the Canon conspires against camera buyers (for whatever reason) is absurd, but corporate conspiracies do _sometimes_ occur - e.g. the emissions scandal (was it Volkswagen?).


_Sometimes_? Off the top of my head: exchange rate rigging; subprime mortgages; PPI; pharmaceutical price fixing; opioid drugs; automotive parts; and the US has anti-trust laws that have been famously served with success on Kodak, Microsoft, Standard Oil and AT & T to name a few.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 1, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> i guess this is going to sound snarky and I'm saying this generally rather than to a specific poster. "Did anybody really expect to?"
> 
> The true benefit of the new mount is that Canon, one way or another, is going to find a way to get RF mount users to buy "improved" versions of all their existing EF lenses. Regardless of whether they're any better.



Another consideration is that with so many ef lenses available on the second hand market, canon is positioning to make them obsolete and force cash flow back to them directly. Once you have an r mount camera, will you consider purchasing more ef lenses?


----------

