# Canon Germany addresses recent Viltrox RF mount lens demands, and it’s a case of patent infrigement



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 6, 2022)

> Last week a bunch of reports hit the web about Viltrox being told to stop producing lenses for the RF mount by Canon. In an exclusive report, German magazine Photografix has received word from Canon Germany about the issue.
> It looks like it affects autofocus lenses being made for the RF mount and patent infringement. What the exactly Viltrox was infringing on is unknown. Rokinon continues to sell AF lenses for the RF mount.
> 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.”
> So what does this mean for the likes of SIGMA and Tamron...



Continue reading...


----------



## BC (Sep 6, 2022)

Working pro in the field. I have a blend of Canon and third-party lenses, all great performers, even adapting my EF lenses to RF. Unfortunately, as Canon ages out its lineup it will no longer be worth it for me to stay with them. If I don't at least have that choice, my next camera won't be a Canon.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

Edit: I created this table for easier comparison

Edit 2: For context on manufacturing plant output I added dSLR full frame body & lens SKUs listed on BH Photo. Added Pentax who sees dSLR as the future.

I googled this timeline so everyone's on the same page.
​
Brand​Canon​Sony​Nikon​Full Frame Mirrorless Mount announced​2018​2010​2018​3rd party lens license​N/A​2011 (without fee)​2021​Last dSLR body announced​Feb 2020​Sep 2016​Jan 2020​Last dSLR body model​Canon EOS Rebel T8i​Sony a99 II​Nikon D780​2019 Brand ranking​#1​#2​#3​End of dSLR manufacturing​2026(?)​2021​2026(?)​
​As of Today on BHPhoto


BrandCanonSonyNikonPentaxAge of Full Frame Mirrorless Mount4124N/AMirrorless Full Frame Lens-only SKU with USA warranty306329N/AMirrorless Full Frame Body-only SKU with USA warranty594N/AFuture mirrorless lens roadmap by 202632N/A3N/AdSLR Full Frame Lens-only SKU with USA warranty3445923dSLR Full Frame Body-only SKU with USA warranty5031

It has been reported that Canon Japan's CEO committed to 32 new lenses by year 2026.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canons-roadmap-includes-32-new-lenses-by-2026-according-to-canons-ceo/

30 current Canon-branded RF lenses + 32 future lenses = 62 unique lens SKUs before year 2027

vs

63 current Sony-branded E lenses + unknown future lenses.

It is guaranteed Sony/everyone else will release new lens SKUs that are

- updates to ~10 year old E mount lenses
- equivalent counterpart lenses of their 1st party & 3rd party competitors
- unique focal lengths & apertures that Sony pioneered

From 2018-2022 Canon & Nikon have both put out key focal lengths that photo news agencies & journalists need in their work.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> I googled this timeline so everyone's on the same page.
> 
> Sony
> 
> ...


Woow, that's a lot of research. Thx for the effort!


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Woow, that's a lot of research. Thx for the effort!


This is a rumor site! Someone needs to substantiate it! 

If anyone's in the market for 3rd party lenses then get any EF lens and use an EF to RF adapter with it.

I read on this forum that pharma companies have a monopoly on pharma products they R&Ded for 6 years(?) then it becomes generic?

Canon deserve to recoup whatever money they spent on R&D and make a tidy profit as an incentive to innovate.

It takes a shorter time to buy a new system than to wait and complain online. 

Digital still camera market has been shrinking YoY for over the past decade.

From all all time high of 121,463,234 in 2012 to 7,850,000 for year 2022 forecast.

All time low was 5,088,207 back in 1999 which doubled to 10,342,084 in 2000.

Last thing I want to happen is for Canon digital still camera division to go bankrupt because 3rd party lenses outsell RF L lenses on the 1st 6 years of the mount's introduction.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

As some users on CR and other forums have noticed, the Viltrox lens has been identify as EF 85mm F1.4 in post-production, so I guess the company might have copied Canons firmware.

The absence of a press release on behalf of Sigma, Tamron on third party lenses leaves us unknowing. I expect that "behind the curtains" they are negotiating terms about how and when Sigma etc. will come out with RF lenses. At least, that's what most people hope. 
The more cameras and lenses Canon sells, the more they'll demand in return to let them sell RF lenses. Sigma is probably betting on Canon sales to decline and Canon "needing" Sigma lenses in order to compete. It will be really interesting to see, how it turns out.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sigma is probably betting on Canon sales to decline and Canon "needing" Sigma lenses in order to compete. It will be really interesting to see, how it turns out.


It appears in 2021 that Nikon licensed Cosina the Z mount for a Voigtlander 35/1.2 MF lens.

There are business reasons why Sony & Nikon licensed their 2010's E & 2018's Z mounts.

They do not want or do not have the R&D and manufacturing resources to develop thin margin lenses.

They both at one point were #2 players to Canon's #1 position.

To my understanding Sony's licensing the E mount in 2011 was at a symbolic fee. This is to get them to 2nd largest camera brand by 2018 without spending much R&D money.

Is Canon in that business position? They aint. They're the largest camera brand.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/camera-market-share-canon-owns-48-sony-22-nikon-drops-to-14

If you're a leading player in your market what incentives do they have to share? Any 1st party manufacturer makes a better margin than licensing it out per unit sold.

This is why Apple stopped licensing macOS to 3rd parties nearly a quarter century ago.

Typically companies outsource when they cannot do it themselves or they do not want to do it themselves.

If my primary purpose for wanting 3rd party lenses to work on the RF mount was because of financial reasons then I'd stick to EF or F mount. There are thousands of perfectly functional used bodies, lenses and gear to buy at a discount because many are migrating to mirrorless. If the used goods breaks then you can easily find out one on eBay or FM's Buy-Sell for the same SKU for even less in the near future.

If you want 3rd party products because ABC lens on MNO mount is not available on XZY mount then buy the MNO body. Saves the photographer time and gets them shooting yesterday.

What I dislike about going multisystem is the down time away from shooting because you have to relearn how to use a camera's physical button placements and menu system.

So being system-neutral may sound progressive on paper but at the cost your time & money.

Not to mention smaller player's after sales service level does not exceed or much less match Canon's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> To my understanding Sony's licensing the E mount in 2011 was at a symbolic fee. This is to get them to 2nd largest camera brand by 2018 without spending much R&D money.
> 
> Is Canon in that business position? They aint. They're the largest camera brand.


Exactly. I’m really not sure why this is so difficult for some people on this form to comprehend, but sadly that seems to be the case.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. I’m really not sure why this is so difficult for some people on this form to comprehend, but sadly that seems to be the case.


Photographers tend to be artists and and business know how tends to be about their profession.

So it is excusable for them not to think that way.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 6, 2022)

Why not make an RF mount lens with EF contacts and protocols?

It's not using the RF chatter, you don't need the control ring. There must be a way around the patents.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

Not another thread on this. It's being going on for far too long in other current threads, and posts and myths are being repeated over and over again.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

wockawocka said:


> Why not make an RF mount lens with EF contacts and protocols?
> 
> It's not using the RF chatter, you don't need the control ring. There must be a way around the patents.



In the past 3rd party lens makers 

- reverse engineer the tech in-house
- develop IPs that are legally different enough but functionally near identical to EF mount
- hired ex-Canon engineers or moonlighting Canon engineers to create work rounds of Canon IPs


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Not another thread on this. It's being going on for far too long in other current threads, and posts and myths are being repeated over and over again.


CR needs clicks! ;-)


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon have a long history of thousands of patents protecting their designs and concepts, all published and available for third parties to browse.

Did Viltrox fail to look at the patents, or did they realise they were infringing, but hope to get away with it?

I assume Canon threatened a lawsuit if Viltrox failed to stop production.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

wockawocka said:


> Why not make an RF mount lens with EF contacts and protocols?
> 
> It's not using the RF chatter, you don't need the control ring. There must be a way around the patents.


If you don't want to buy genuine Canon RF lenses, why not just use Canon or third-party EF glass via the EF-RF adaptor?

That would provide you with an incredible amount of choice of AF glass.

If you want the advantages of genuine Canon RF glass, you have a choice between state-of-art L exotica, or very affordable Canon "budget" glass (although unfortunately not a third tier of middle-of-the-road lenses). Canon's RF range covers almost every need, and anything that isn't available in RF mount will be available in EF mount.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> As some users on CR and other forums have noticed, the Viltrox lens has been identify as EF 85mm F1.4 in post-production, so I guess the company might have copied Canons firmware.
> 
> The absence of a press release on behalf of Sigma, Tamron on third party lenses leaves us unknowing. I expect that "behind the curtains" they are negotiating terms about how and when Sigma etc. will come out with RF lenses. At least, that's what most people hope.
> The more cameras and lenses Canon sells, the more they'll demand in return to let them sell RF lenses. Sigma is probably betting on Canon sales to decline and Canon "needing" Sigma lenses in order to compete. It will be really interesting to see, how it turns out.


I had Sigma 50mm Macro which would be detected as Canon EF 50mm Compact macro for corrections in camera and on Pc. Canon didnt chase 3rd party manufacturers during EF era(Nikon did sue and win against Sigma during DSLR days) for misidententifying lenses to Canon equivalents.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> Last thing I want to happen is for Canon digital still camera division to go bankrupt because 3rd party lenses outsell RF L lenses on the 1st 6 years of the mount's introduction.



Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Similarly, a third party lens maker should be able to use a mount without license fee, until and unless the mount maker makes a lens of similar spec.


On that point, I have to disagree.

Canon has spent a vast amount of money developing RF cameras and RF lenses, and IMO they have absolutely every right to stop third parties from cashing in.

If photographers want access to third party AF glass, they can choose Sony, or they can use EF glass via an adaptor, on RF bodies.

No one is forcing anyone to buy Canon, but those who *choose* Canon RF cameras do so with the full knowledge that that they are restricted to Canon's own RF glass (plus any third party or Canon glass in EF mount, via an adaptor).


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon really needs to clear that up, because otherwise many photographers - including me - will be hesitant to invest $6,000 into an RF body. It is very annoying when Tamron or Sigma announce new lenses for Nikon and Sony mirrorless cameras, but not for Canon. In the EF area the record breaking lens formulas for the EF mount mostly came from Tamron or Sigma. For example the fastest zooms in a specific range or the widest stabilized lenses. For the EF mount Canon NEVER developed an 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization. You has to either buy the non stabilized f/2.8 version or a stabilized f/4 version. The same was true for the 16-35, if I remember it right. Of course with the RF mount Canon finally offered at stabilized 24-70 f/2.8, but I am sure Tamron and Sigma would top that again with a stabilized 24-70 f/2 or 24-105 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron always went a step futher than Canon. Also the idea of a Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-f/4 was great or the stabilized Tamron 45mm f/1.8. Both are EF lenses and I expect the RF version to even top that. 

For most use cases glass is more important than the body. So any limit on third party glass limits what a photographer can do with his expensive Canon body.

Next month I will likely visit Germany's largest remaining photo fair "Photopia" (unfortunately Photokina is dead) and there Canon, Sigma and Tamron will all show their latest glass. I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> ...bought my first third-party lens ever last month, but yesterday for the first time I advised someone not to buy Canon because of this issue. I think Canon is a 100% excellent choice for wildlife, sports, and high-end reportage with trinity zooms. If you want to do street, budget, or art photography, go with someone else.


Well, that'll show 'em! 

Incidentally, I’ve advised several people to go with brands other than Canon. Somehow, and I’m really, truly, incredibly puzzled and mystified by this, Canon’s business doesn’t seem to have suffered as a result of my actions.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...



If I was hard up I'd buy used dSLR bodies, lenses and accessories. The rush to mirrorless is forcing sales on a discount.

In 2011 Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee






Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the


Sony Corporation announced today it will disclose the basic specifications of its




www.sony.com





They did this to get 3rd party lens makers to build for their 10 month old mount.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Canon really needs to clear that up, because otherwise many photographers - including me - will be hesitant to invest $6,000 into an RF body. It is very annoying when Tamron or Sigma announce new lenses for Nikon and Sony mirrorless cameras, but not for Canon. In the EF area the record breaking lens formulas for the EF mount mostly came from Tamron or Sigma. For example the fastest zooms in a specific range or the widest stabilized lenses. For the EF mount Canon NEVER developed an 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization. You has to either buy the non stabilized f/2.8 version or a stabilized f/4 version. The same was true for the 16-35, if I remember it right. Of course with the RF mount Canon finally offered at stabilized 24-70 f/2.8, but I am sure Tamron and Sigma would top that again with a stabilized 24-70 f/2 or 24-105 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron always went a step futher than Canon. Also the idea of a Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-f/4 was great or the stabilized Tamron 45mm f/1.8. Both are EF lenses and I expect the RF version to even top that.
> 
> For most use cases glass is more important than the body. So any limit on third party glass limits what a photographer can do with his expensive Canon body.
> 
> Next month I will likely visit Germany's largest remaining photo fair "Photopia" (unfortunately Photokina is dead) and there Canon, Sigma and Tamron will all show their latest glass. I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.



Sigma doesnt make lenses for Z mount nor have they announced any plans to support that mount. For now they are only making lenses for Sony E mount and L mount alliance for FF mirrorless along with handful(less than 5 lenses) of crop lenses for E, X, m43 and Ef-M mounts.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 6, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...


Nikon and Sony have both at times had more compelling options than Canon. That has never stopped Canon from selling more of one of their bodies like the 5D II or III than the entire combined bodies sold by both Nikon and Sony combined. 

Canon right now have the technology lead and their sub super tele options are all fantastic. They won’t change how they do things unless/until somehow half of their user base switches their buying habits to another brand. 

I switched to Nikon for the most part. Not because Canon where bad or too expensive. I switched to have a change of pace and it turned out fantastic as I now have a 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 that I can’t get anywhere else. It is incredibly rare for someone to switch and Canon knows it. It was only logical for me as my main lenses where ageing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...


YAPODFC. I coined that acronym here over a decade ago ago. It's still applies today.

For those newer than that, who perhaps have missed out on the myriad of similar predictions that turned out to be totally baseless as Canon continued to maintain and grow market share over the past 20+ years, it stands for Yet Another Prediction of D00m for Canon.

A few more letters than a simple BS, but effectively the same thing.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> [..]
> If you want the advantages of genuine Canon RF glass, you have a choice between state-of-art L exotica, or very affordable Canon "budget" glass [..]


Most of the RF 'budget' lenses are more expensive than the EF L lenses I have, so I'm having a hard time calling them "affordable". The RF15-30 is more expensive than the EF17-40L, EF24-105L and only slightly cheaper than the EF100L.

It feels like these RF lenses are twice the price of their EF counterparts, but that could be my rose tinted glasses and 2 decades of inflation.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...


LOL

Here we go again!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [..] For the EF mount Canon NEVER developed an 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization. You has to either buy the non stabilized f/2.8 version or a stabilized f/4 version. The same was true for the 16-35, if I remember it right. Of course with the RF mount Canon finally offered at stabilized 24-70 f/2.8, but I am sure Tamron and Sigma would top that again with a stabilized 24-70 f/2 or 24-105 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron always went a step futher than Canon. Also the idea of a Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-f/4 was great or the stabilized Tamron 45mm f/1.8. Both are EF lenses and I expect the RF version to even top that.[..]


I'm having a hard time believing that Tamron and Sigma will be able to get the coordinated IS working on IBIS bodies. And keep it working when the bodies get firmware updates. I hope they do, I miss using my Sigma 150mm macro, on the R5 I get to pick between "actively harmful IS" and "no IS at all".


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> *FUCK CANON*
> 
> I've shot nothing but Canon since 1995 (well, if you set aside a Leica M6 outfit, Mamiya 7, and Rollei SL66), and bought my first third-party lens ever last month, but yesterday for the first time I advised someone not to buy Canon because of this issue. I think Canon is a 100% excellent choice for wildlife, sports, and high-end reportage with trinity zooms. If you want to do street, budget, or art photography, go with someone else.


Well you definitely seem like a mature individual with a balanced outlook


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Most of the RF 'budget' lenses are more expensive than the EF L lenses I have, so I'm having a hard time calling them "affordable". The RF15-30 is more expensive than the EF17-40L, EF24-105L and only slightly cheaper than the EF100L.
> 
> It feels like these RF lenses are twice the price of their EF counterparts, but that could be my rose tinted glasses and 2 decades of inflation.


The EF L lenses you listed are really old. So their street price is significantly different from their MSRP.

- 2003 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
- 2005 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
- 2009 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

scyrene said:


> LOL
> 
> Here we go again!


Not to offend but I notice the artists giving the FU to Canon while the business types give the business case why X is Y to achieve Z.


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.


Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.


IMHO that's a reasonable time frame for Canon to fully monetize their R&D investment.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Most of the RF 'budget' lenses are more expensive than the EF L lenses I have, so I'm having a hard time calling them "affordable". The RF15-30 is more expensive than the EF17-40L, EF24-105L and only slightly cheaper than the EF100L.
> 
> It feels like these RF lenses are twice the price of their EF counterparts, but that could be my rose tinted glasses and 2 decades of inflation.


Yes, I was using the terms "budget" and "affordable" comparatively with RF L glass, much of which IMO is very overpriced.

I think the 16mm F2.8, RF 100-400mm, 600mm F11, 800mm F11 are *sufficiently* affordable to make them accessible to anyone who has purchased an RF mount camera, although they are of course inferior in specification and build quality to L glass.

They say you get what you pay for, but you are paying a premium for the Canon name and the L brand, and Canon are in any case actively moving upmarket price-wise. I think Nikon and Sony will also be forced to increase prices significantly, and specialise in high-end gear, as smartphones gradually take over the sub $1000 market, but Canon will always price themselves above their direct competitors.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 6, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I'm having a hard time believing that Tamron and Sigma will be able to get the coordinated IS working on IBIS bodies. And keep it working when the bodies get firmware updates. I hope they do, I miss using my Sigma 150mm macro, on the R5 I get to pick between "actively harmful IS" and "no IS at all".


Both Tamron and Sigma have IS that work on some of their telephoto zooms for E and L mount. Sigma don’t tend to add IS to their mirrorless primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> And you'll note my proposed change


I must have missed your proposal. Oh wait, I found it!


SwissFrank said:


> *FUCK CANON*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> And what if Canon brings cases against third parties on EF too?


On what grounds? Apparently you have no understanding of patent law, a key fact is that patents expire after a certain period of time, and the invention becomes available for anyone to use. 

The EF mount and it’s associated transmission protocols were launched 35 years ago. Any intellectual property associated with that mount and those protocols has long since entered the public domain.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm surprised anyone listens to you, given what an asshole you are to other forum members.


Well, if you don’t like facts and data feel free to ignore my posts. if your understanding of those things is at the same level as your emotional maturity, that’s probably for the best because you won’t understand them anyway.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> It's _weird_ that you can only buy programs for your iPhone at the Apple Store and arguably it's grounds for anti-monopoly action against Apple too, and yet you can buy software from a huge number of non-Apple vendors there. You can buy PC software anywhere. You can buy Android apps anywhere. So no, it's not readily apparent that Canon is such a closed shop.


Were you buying software prior to the Apple App Store that was established in 2008?

Prior to that year software distribution was primary through physical disks like CDs, DVDs and floppies.

This was very very expensive as it meant physical movement of goods from manufacturing plant to domestic & overseas buyers.

The Apple App Store made digital distribution very cheap, reliable and instantaneous.

Imagine how life would be if you had to install apps on your smartphone using a CD or DVD?

For the past 5 years people whine about monopoly but Apple's popularization of 1 stop shop secured digital distribution of software made the smartphone revolution what it is today.

Canon's EF system is built on the strength of its 1st party bodies, lenses and accessories. Sony had to give away the specs of their E-mount for free to get people to buy into a new & untested system a dozen years ago


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm surprised anyone listens to you, given what an asshole you are to other forum members.


Don't mind him. He's using online forums to vomit out his bedside manner. He cannot exactly do that to his patients or else no one would pay for his services.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Reports about patents without giving the patent numbers are missing the most important facts.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> there's clearly a point above which companies can be deemed to have monopoly power and arguably Canon is above it.



Oh really? Could you present me a cogent, succinct, logical argument explaining why that is? I haven’t heard one yet.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 6, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...


Everyone can go bankrupt. However, if the profit margins on this market are in the lenses, those who open their body mounts to 3rd party lens manufacturers are more likely to go bankrupt.

Sony is no exception here (saying this as an ex-owner of a Vaio laptop).


----------



## Blue Zurich (Sep 6, 2022)

yawn


----------



## Kit. (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> Were you buying software prior to the Apple App Store that was established in 2008?


Yes. For example, VueScan in around 2000.



dolina said:


> Prior to that year software distribution was primary through physical disks like CDs, DVDs and floppies.


Or downloads from the manufacturer's website.

Like, you know, you are getting the opensource software now.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

Freakin' hell, we already went through this with the R5 overheating fanboy emotive denial bulls**t not too long ago, and here we are, once again...

“_Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it_.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

As I've been saying the last few weeks, while having random ad hominem attacks thrown at me, the landscape is changing in the world of photography, and the companies are having to change their business strategies.

Canon has potentially done a bait and switch, which has caught people off guard, hence the various reactions we've been seeing here.

Going from EF to RF, anyone would assume would be much the same, where third parties exist, a somewhat open system, as it's been in the past. If Canon has decided to run a closed system at some point, without telling the market that's their intention, then it's not surprising that some people will feel caught out if that's the case, and Canon really do go that way.


Canon's bad press is gathering momentum, much like the fake overheating timer debacle did, and they might act on it, or not. They may license their mount to third parties, or not. It may have been their intention to sell licences from the start, or not.

So what to do now? The solution is quite simple.

If people only buy native Canon lenses, and are potentially happy to be part of a closed camera ecosystem, and accept whatever Canon throws out to them (at whatever price Canon chooses), then none of this matters at all, they can keep buying to their heart's content! 

If people don't like the idea of a closed system, and want the choice of third party lenses (which may or may not come), or are simply tiring of Canon's penny-pinching shenanigans, then they should just postpone buying any more Canon gear (unless they _really _need it) until Canon indicates their business direction, allowing the buyers to make a properly informed decision about whether they want to outlay any more money on the RF ecosystem or not. 

Using adapted EF lenses is only a stop-gap measure, which becomes less viable as time progresses, because of factors such as cessation of production, eventual lack of parts for repair, increased size/weight and inconvenience of using an adapter, inability to utilise all the benefits of the RF platform. There's also the biggest psychological hurdle for all the gear heads (who emotionally identify with having the 'best gear', whatever the heck that nebulous, irrational idea means, and get defensive at genuine criticisms of said gear because they personalise it as a criticism of themselves and their choice of 'the best'), they would be buying 'yesterday's technology', which probably doesn't matter functionally, but does to them on an emotional level!

Welcome to the brave new world, where there is always the option to buy Sony lol!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> yawn


Time for bed then!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> Don't mind him. He's using online forums to vomit out his bedside manner. He cannot exactly do that to his patients or else no one would pay for his services.


Lol. I don’t have an medical degree, nor do I see patients. I just have no compunction about ridiculing people who make ridiculous comments.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, if you don’t like facts and data feel free to ignore my posts. if your understanding of those things is at the same level as your emotional maturity, that’s probably for the best because you won’t understand them anyway.


I think that it's the sprinkling of the occasional ad hominem attacks amongst the facts you provide (when you get frustrated with people or have had a bad day at work) that get's people a bit off side lol!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Welcome to the brave new world, where there is always the option to buy Sony lol!


A world in which nearly twice as many people continue to buy Canon instead of Sony.

At least, that’s what’s happening in the real world. Many people on this forum can’t seem to grasp reality, and prefer to live in their own personal fantasy world where it’s much easier to be right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think that it's the sprinkling of the occasional ad hominem attacks amongst the facts you provide (when you get frustrated with people or have had a bad day at work) that get's people a bit off side lol!


Lol. As I said, ridiculous statements engender ridicule, and I’d add that asinine statements make people who make them look like asses.

FWIW, my last bad day at work was probably over a decade ago. I am truly fortunate that I really enjoy what I do for a living, and even more so that I am well compensated for it.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Next month I will likely visit Germany's largest remaining photo fair "Photopia" (unfortunately Photokina is dead) and there Canon, Sigma and Tamron will all show their latest glass. I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.


Honestly, what answer do you expect? There is no statement from Sigma itself and their CEO´s probably told everybody to shut the ****** until they've figured things out on their own or successfully negotiate with Canon. So, you won't get an answer that you can count on. 

Furthermore, I visited the photokina in 2019 and the Sigma hostesses (or workers) did not know squad about their lenses. They had the Sigma 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG on display and when asked by someone (not me) why it's so expensive the first hostess said: "well, it's very big, bigger than most lenses"  The second one, which the asking visitor called over, said: "I think it works in the dark, but I´m not sure". 

So, I am looking forward to what response you'll get. Unfortunately, I can't go myself (would love though).


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 6, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.


Past is (often) prologue.

No snark directed at UlfricStormcloak here...is your post true?

I assume it is...and perhaps serves as an example to be considered.

What about Tamron? Or the other major lens manufacturers? I guess its off to wiki for me...my guess is that others who post here are well aware of what I'm only guessing at.

In the other thread I noted that there is exactly one third-party auto-focus zoom EF-M lens (a Tamron, released in 2014).

Many who post here moaned for years about the lack of EF-M lenses (third party or otherwise).

How did that work out for Canon?!

Interesting stuff.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A world in which nearly twice as many people continue to buy Canon instead of Sony.
> 
> At least, that’s what’s happening in the real world. Many people on this forum can’t seem to grasp reality, and prefer to live in their own personal fantasy world where it’s much easier to be right.


Yes, but which people? The ones who have been buying Rebel APSCs and M50s? The formerly large market that depends on high sales volumes of lower margin products, in a climate where that market is shrinking? The younger generations which comprise many of the new buyers are moving to smartphones, causing the camera market to shrink further. Canon has mentioned placing its focus on its higher tiers of gear. The big spender pro-am sector, which probably constitutes the bulk of the demographic on forums buys full-frame mirrorless, the sector of the market which Sony dominates and has dominated in the past. 

As you're rightly pointed out on many occasions, we forumites are a minority of the market, but if the lower end of the market which made up the bulk of Canon's sales (but not profits/item) is eroding away, who will become Canon's key demographic? The market is shifting quickly, and the old ways Canon depended on are gradually disappearing. Sony is already killing it with the growing vlogger market, as many more young people get into video rather than stills photography. Sony they have theZV-E10 and ZV-1 which have likely displaced the older Canon M50, which displaced the older Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III and II before it. We're in the midst of change, and as they say in the corporate world, it's a case of 'change or die'. The security of the DSLR boom is long gone. We live in interesting times.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> That's how AT&T worked in the US, if you'll recall. Until 1987 or whenever you couldn't hook up a phone or answering machine from any other company. You had to buy EVERYTHING from AT&T.
> 
> AT&T got broken up by the US govt and good thing too.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what monopoly law is anywhere else, but Canon is FAR from a monopoly in the camera market by US standards. For your photographic of video needs, you can buy Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Red...the list goes on. 

Having control over your intellectual property on designs you created and own (i.e. the RF mount) does not make a monopoly. Canon cannot use their 'power' to gatekeep other companies in to or out of the market as a whole. They can only use patents they hold to manage their own ecosystem. You may not like it, but that's nowhere close to a monopoly.

-Brian


----------



## JoseB (Sep 6, 2022)

Tangent to the topic:
Did Nikon licenced "Z mount" to Putin?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. As I said, ridiculous statements engender ridicule, and I’d add that asinine statements make people who make them look like asses.
> 
> FWIW, my last bad day at work was probably over a decade ago. I am truly fortunate that I really enjoy what I do for a living, and even more so that I am well compensated for it.


I'm glad to hear you enjoy your work, that something not many people have, it's usually quite the opposite. Great too that it pays well, considering your impressive collection of photography gear!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 6, 2022)

JoseB said:


> Tangent to the topic:
> Did Nikon licenced Z mount to Putin?


To spite the US for nuking them in WWII?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Actually the closed App Store of Apple is the main reason why I would never buy an iPhone and other people should neither. Android allows you to install .apk files from any source. The problem with Apple is censorship. For example we have a very evil newspaper in Germany called "Bild". It is only read by very dumb people, but that is another topic. Until a few years ago, "Bild" always had a topless woman on the cover and that woman also appeared on the start page of the app. Apple is is from the US and topless women seem to be a problem there - unlike machine guns or hate speech. Apple threatened "Bild" to get rid of the topless women in the app. Otherwise the "Bild"app would have been banned from the app store. So an American company prevents German citizens from downloading an app because of some strange American moral standards. Apple also banned an app that made fun of Jesus, which is not a problem in Germany either. Here in Germany "Die Hard" was on TV on Good Friday every year for many years, but Apple prevents us from installing apps that make fun of Jesus. There are more examples like that. Apple treats people like kids. Everybody should decide on his own what he wants to install on his phone, because he owns it.

With cameras it is similar. If YOU bought the camera, the camera manufacturer should not be able to prevent you from using third party lenses.

We had a very spectacular court decision about OEM software a long time ago, that basically ended all OEM ristrictions in Germany. As a result, we can now buy full versions of Microsoft Windows or Office (even Professional versions) for very little money, because companies who bought licences on bulk, can now trade the ones they do not need. Fpr Windows 10 Professional I paid about 25 Euros and for Office 2016 Professional I paid 15 Euros or so. That is only a tiny fractions of the official retail price and still those are valid licenses due to the strong consumer protection in Germany and often the whole EU.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> And what if Canon brings cases against third parties on EF too?


They haven't in the past, why start now? Furthermore, possible patents are probably outdated now. And if the EF third party glass was reverse engineered the don't even have a case. 


SwissFrank said:


> What if Sony and Nikon follow in Canon's footsteps?


Please oh please tell me, how Sony should do that? They would have to implement an entire new algorithm/ protocol, bring out new firmware for every camera and every lens model ever released and probably put lots of research to put their AF back on the number one spot. Furthermore, they have make to they are not breaking initials agreements/ contracts. Although the "price" was symbolic for other companies to join. 
Sony chose to let others participate and therefore help building the e-mount. But doing so they sacrificed future revenues in order to become a major player in the camera industry. There is no going back on this decision. Also, Canon does not need to this because they are a major player! How do people still not get that after what feels a hundreds threads... 


SwissFrank said:


> You're saying you're against my proposed because you're assuming these options are carved in stone but I don't see an obvious reason why they would be.


So, you propose Canon should license lenses they don't build? Are you forgetting that Canon is in the process of fleshing out their lineup and that'll another few years? So, according to your proposal, the following would be possible: 
Tamrom gets a license for the 30-150mm F2.8-4 to be released on the RF mount. In 2025, Canon decides they'll put an RF 30-150mm F2.8-4 so they discontinue Tamrons license? That would makes for neither party.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Honestly, what answer do you expect? There is no statement from Sigma itself and their CEO´s probably told everybody to shut the ****** until they've figured things out on their own or successfully negotiate with Canon. So, you won't get an answer that you can count on.
> 
> Furthermore, I visited the photokina in 2019 and the Sigma hostesses (or workers) did not know squad about their lenses. They had the Sigma 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG on display and when asked by someone (not me) why it's so expensive the first hostess said: "well, it's very big, bigger than most lenses"  The second one, which the asking visitor called over, said: "I think it works in the dark, but I´m not sure".
> 
> So, I am looking forward to what response you'll get. Unfortunately, I can't go myself (would love though).


I hope the hostesses were at least hot . I also saw the Sigma 200-500 at Photokina, but the line was too long and I was already exhausted. I hope Photokina will come back. Photopia was quite tiny, but at least I had the chance to test the R3 and the Sony A1 there. The guy at the Canon stand was surprised that O was able to get a sharp handheld indoor shot at 1/30 sec with the RF 800 f/11.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 6, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Both Tamron and Sigma have IS that work on some of their telephoto zooms for E and L mount. Sigma don’t tend to add IS to their mirrorless primes.


But how does that IS interact with the IBIS in the body? With Canon RF lenses on an RF body you get something substantially better compared to just ILIS, with Sigma EF lenses on an RF body you get something substantially worse.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Please oh please tell me, how Sony should do that?


Doesn't Sony limit the burst rate and even the number of autofocus points, if you use a third party lens? I think one reviewer mentioned that you only gat the maximum burst rate, if you use Sony glass. That is a "soft" restriction.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 6, 2022)

If this is really true, then I think there could be hope for Sigma and Tamron soon. Sigma has hinted the would not reverse engineer any other mount (though they clearly have in the past). Tamron has been silent. But Sigma would also not likely pay a license fee for a mount when others are (illegally) benefiting from the proprietary mount info for free. So this could be Canon going around and cleaning up the IP theft rampant in China so that it can set up a revenue stream from licensing. 

This would be keeping with some older rumors that Canon and the big 3rd parties had entered an agreement with an exclusion period on the RF mount of 3-5 years. 

Of course, it could be that Canon will not allow anything on the RF mount that they don't make. But only time will tell. 

-Brian


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [..]Here in Germany "Die Hard" was on TV on Good Friday every year for many years,[..]


But it's a christmas movie!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> We had a very spectacular court decision about OEM software a long time ago, that basically ended all OEM ristrictions in Germany. As a result, we can now buy full versions of Microsoft Windows or Office (even Professional versions) for very little money, because companies who bought licences on bulk, can now trade the ones they do not need. Fpr Windows 10 Professional I paid about 25 Euros and for Office 2016 Professional I paid 15 Euros or so. That is only a tiny fractions of the official retail price and still those are valid licenses due to the strong consumer protection in Germany and often the whole EU.


That's a different case though. The court decision is from the year 2000 I believe. In this decision Microsoft was forbidden to exclusively sell their software by tying it to hard ware components. From their on out, Microsoft was forced to also sell (or let others sell) their software in bundles not tied to hardware components. Microsoft still sells and gets paid for their software. 

So how are comparing this to Canon and their mount policy? If they open their mount, they don't get paid, they just lose out. I think you're comparing pears and apples.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> That's a different case though. The court decision is from the year 2000 I believe. In this decision Microsoft was forbidden to exclusively sell their software by tying it to hard ware components. From their on out, Microsoft was forced to also sell (or let others sell) their software in bundles not tied to hardware components. Microsoft still sells and gets paid for their software.
> 
> So how are comparing this to Canon and their mount policy? If they open their mount, they don't get paid, they just lose out. I think you're comparing pears and apples.


You can think as the lenses being third party software installed on an operating system by Microsoft. That software ony works with the operating system, but still Microsoft does not get any money from the third party software company. I am sure developing a new operating system is much more expensive than developing a new camera mount.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually the closed App Store of Apple is the main reason why I would never buy an iPhone and other people should neither. Android allows you to install .apk files from any source. The problem with Apple is censorship. For example we have a very evil newspaper in Germany called "Bild". It is only read by very dumb people, but that is another topic. Until a few years ago, "Bild" always had a topless woman on the cover and that woman also appeared on the start page of the app. Apple is is from the US and topless women seem to be a problem there - unlike machine guns or hate speech. Apple threatened "Bild" to get rid of the topless women in the app. Otherwise the "Bild"app would have been banned from the app store. So an American company prevents German citizens from downloading an app because of some strange American moral standards. Apple also banned an app that made fun of Jesus, which is not a problem in Germany either. Here in Germany "Die Hard" was on TV on Good Friday every year for many years, but Apple prevents us from installing apps that make fun of Jesus. There are more examples like that. Apple treats people like kids. Everybody should decide on his own what he wants to install on his phone, because he owns it.


Honestly, google throws apps as well. Just recently, they threaten to shut down a whole bunch of apps... 
Censorship isn't nice of course. But it happens all the time. Bild wasn't offered by a lot of distributors back in the days... as student I worked in a grocery retail for years. We weren't allowed to sell Bild newspapers for quite a while, so what? 

Apple developed iOS, takes care for its evolution and covers ALL the R&D costs. Its their system, so they get to decided what they offer or not. That's business. 

I don't get what people get upset about with android/ iOS. Imagine, somebody opens a retail store (that's what the app store and playstore are) and a third party walks into your building and says: "well, you should let me sell my stuff here. Btw, I don't wanna pay rent because I believe this should be an open space for everybody....

If you don't like android/ iOS, don't use it. Or create your own system, nobody will stop you from doing it...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Doesn't Sony limit the burst rate and even the number of autofocus points, if you use a third party lens? I think one reviewer mentioned that you only gat the maximum burst rate, if you use Sony glass. That is a "soft" restriction.


I heard that about certain lenses being used on the A1. But as it turned out, Sony lenses were affected, too. Apparently, aged lenses were/ are not always capable of shooting 30fps. Therefore, Sony is releasing a lot of mk ii lenses these days.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Android is not closed. You do not need the Play Store to install apps.
And for the "Bild" example there was an interesting court decision. One newspaper kiosk decided to no longer sell "Bild" (I applaud that!). The problem is that the newspapers come from a few central deliveries and the court decided that they can force the shops to either sell ALL newspapers they offer or none of them. So no shop has the option to refuse selling "Bild" unless it chooses not to sell any newspapers at all. That court decision is very problematic, because "Bild" really is full of hate speech and fake news and the world would be a better place if "Bild" did not exist.

You can't compare that with Apple and Android though. Those two have monopolies and combined they even have a duopoly over the whole smartphone market. Whenever you have a monopoly, your right to use that power is usually limited by laws and courts.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Yes. For example, VueScan in around 2000.
> 
> 
> Or downloads from the manufacturer's website.
> ...


F/OSS?

Dude, man cannot live on F/OSS alone! People need to get paid too!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You can think as the lenses being third party software installed on an operating system by Microsoft. That software ony works with the operating system, but still Microsoft does not get any money from the third party software company. I am sure developing a new operating system is much more expensive than developing a new camera mount.


Why must Canon provide others to use their mount? There is no right for it. Nintendo does not have to let other companies develop games for the switch... if they want do it, they have to pay for it and hope Nintendo agrees. If not, you simply have not right...


Honestly, if that was the case: nobody would ever develop anything because you'd be with R&D while others make the profit without having costs...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> One newspaper kiosk decided to no longer sell "Bild" (I applaud that!).


One grocery chain with thousands of stores.


----------



## EOS (Sep 6, 2022)

Canon still has no RF fast wide L primes.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Honestly, if that was the case: nobody would ever develop anything because you'd be with R&D while others make the profit without having costs...


The price of the cameras should recover the R&D costs. Those cameras are not cheap at all. I could understand the argument if Canon subsidized cameras for selling lenses later.


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 6, 2022)

At this stage I would say it's a risk buying a third party RF lens. The continued firmware updates in the RF system could make the lenses fail to work properly as it is not Canon's responsibility to ensure the continued support of any third party lens. If anyone has a third party RF lens that's currently working then the only way to guarantee it won't have issues is to not update the firmware and keep it on the same body. Adapting third party EF lenses to RF could also lead to issues in the future as well, but less of a chance.

If they really wanted to get rid of the third party lenses they could also remove the feature "Release shutter w/o lens" this would remove all of the unchipped manual focus and aperture RF/EF lenses as the shutter won't work if it can't see a lens attached.

I can see Canon getting a lot of support requests saying things such as "I just updated my R10 and now my Sigma lens doesn't work when I use this function"

It would probably be best if they can provide a license to the third parties in the future so they can have the official code to run the lenses.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

EOS said:


> Canon still has no RF fast wide L primes.


By 2026 they will.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The price of the cameras should recover the R&D costs. Those cameras are not cheap at all. I could understand the argument if Canon subsidized cameras for selling lenses later.


Lowering of economies of scale will increase MSRP to cover R&D costs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You can think as the lenses being third party software installed on an operating system by Microsoft.


So lenses are software now? You're stretching your analogy like a rubber band, and honestly, it's probably already snapped.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Canon have a long history of thousands of patents protecting their designs and concepts, all published and available for third parties to browse.
> 
> Did Viltrox fail to look at the patents, or did they realise they were infringing, but hope to get away with it?
> 
> I assume Canon threatened a lawsuit if Viltrox failed to stop production.


The only infringement possible is copying of Canon's communication protocols because hardware cannot be protected. Do these companies publish the codes in patents?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The price of the cameras should recover the R&D costs.


Based on your extensive knowledge of internal budgets of Canon and others in the business? Be honest, you're just making this crap up as you go.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

The World is falling apart. Pakistan is about a third under water, Europe is going bust because of fuel costs, poorer countries are facing starvation, Russia might nuke Ukraine, global temperatures are on the up and tensions are everwhere. Perhaps Canon is just a diversion from this - but they are among the least of my concerns.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The World is falling apart. Pakistan is about a third under water, Europe is going bust because of fuel costs, poorer countries are facing starvation, Russia might nuke Ukraine, global temperatures are on the up and tensions are everwhere. Perhaps Canon is just a diversion from this - but they are among the least of my concerns.


CR need clicks


----------



## navastronia (Sep 6, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> At this stage I would say it's a risk buying a third party RF lens. The continued firmware updates in the RF system could make the lenses fail to work properly as it is not Canon's responsibility to ensure the continued support of any third party lens. If anyone has a third party RF lens that's currently working then the only way to guarantee it won't have issues is to not update the firmware and keep it on the same body. Adapting third party EF lenses to RF could also lead to issues in the future as well, but less of a chance.
> 
> If they really wanted to get rid of the third party lenses they could also remove the feature "Release shutter w/o lens" this would remove all of the unchipped manual focus and aperture RF/EF lenses as the shutter won't work if it can't see a lens attached.
> 
> ...


Yep, I'm pretty much locked into my current work kit now - I have firmware 1.4 and firmware 1.6 on 2x EOS RPs. Both my Samyang RF autofocus lenses work at present, so yeah, I'm not updating in the future.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> F/OSS?


VueScan?

As far as I know, not.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The price of the cameras should recover the R&D costs. Those cameras are not cheap at all. I could understand the argument if Canon subsidized cameras for selling lenses later.


Hahahaha, so you expect Canon to make the RF bodies and lenses even more expensive?

Don't you think it's better for everyone if Canon sells *more* lenses (as opposed to giving part of the market to third parties), rather than increasing the price of their lenses and bodies even further?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Don't you think it's better for everyone if Canon sells *more* lenses (as opposed to giving part of the market to third parties), rather than increasing the price of their lenses and bodies even further?


Why wasn't that a problem for Canon DLRSs? They had a lot of third party competition, although they were cheaper than their RF counterparts. The R1 will probably cost $7500 or more in order to not cannibalize the R3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Why wasn't that a problem for Canon DLRSs? They had a lot of third party competition, although they were cheaper than their RF counterparts.


How do you know it wasn't? I'd argue that the fact Canon is taking steps to block 3rd parties from making RF mount lenses suggests that it _was_ a problem for Canon's DSLRs, but not one they could solve legally because their intellectual property rights on the EF mount had lapsed. As I already stated, you really seem to be just making this crap up as you post it.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The World is falling apart. Pakistan is about a third under water, Europe is going bust because of fuel costs, poorer countries are facing starvation, Russia might nuke Ukraine, global temperatures are on the up and tensions are everwhere. Perhaps Canon is just a diversion from this - but they are among the least of my concerns.


Couldn't agree more, the world is in a decidedly scary place, and very unstable.

So why are you here, rather than posting on political websites, or challenging energy companies etc?

I'm here were here because I want to share my own experiences and opinions, and perhaps learn from others; and because I might occasionally get a glimpse of what future products Canon produce. Also, despite occasional rudeness from one or two individuals, being her is fun.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Couldn't agree more, the world is in a decidedly scary place, and very unstable.
> 
> So why are you here, rather than posting on political websites, or challenging energy companies etc?
> 
> I'm here were here because I want to share my own experiences and opinions, and perhaps learn from others; and because I might occasionally get a glimpse of what future products Canon produce. Also, despite occasional rudeness from one or two individuals, being her is fun.


I post 100s of images here and you post none. I post threads that are useful and share far, far more information than you. So don't be so damned rude yourself.


----------



## AutoMatters (Sep 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> Edit: I created this table for easier comparison
> 
> I googled this timeline so everyone's on the same page.
> ​
> ...


Thank you for creating this chart.
The lens that I, as a photojournalist/member of the Press, most want for my EOS R3's, is a native RF, L-Series 28-300. This broadly useful lens does not appear on the Canon roadmap, and no third-party lens manufacturers (especially Tamron and Sigma) make it as a native RF lens, so I am forced to compromise by shooting with the consumer-grade, non- weather sealed, no manual focus switch, 24-240 RF. I am too invested in Canon to switch now but should I have gotten the Nikon Z9 instead, since Nikon is playing nice with Tamron, regarding its Z mirrorless mount?


----------



## AutoMatters (Sep 6, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Nikon and Sony have both at times had more compelling options than Canon. That has never stopped Canon from selling more of one of their bodies like the 5D II or III than the entire combined bodies sold by both Nikon and Sony combined.
> 
> Canon right now have the technology lead and their sub super tele options are all fantastic. They won’t change how they do things unless/until somehow half of their user base switches their buying habits to another brand.
> 
> I switched to Nikon for the most part. Not because Canon where bad or too expensive. I switched to have a change of pace and it turned out fantastic as I now have a 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 that I can’t get anywhere else. It is incredibly rare for someone to switch and Canon knows it. It was only logical for me as my main lenses where ageing.


After 50 years of shooting Nikon, I sold my huge selection of Nikon F-Mount gear and switched cold turkey (long, painful, expensive story) to Canon: EOS R3, because of its excellent car-tracking auto-focus mode (I shoot auto racing). However, I desperately want a native RF, L-Series 28-300 (my favorite lens — BY FAR — for my photo journalism). In retrospect, perhaps I should have stayed with Nikon and waited for their Z9 pro mirrorless. I still am turning the lenses the 'wrong' way to zoom in and out at critical times.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 6, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> After 50 years of shooting Nikon, I sold my huge selection of Nikon F-Mount gear and switched cold turkey (long, painful, expensive story) to Canon: EOS R3, because of its excellent car-tracking auto-focus mode (I shoot auto racing). However, I desperately want a native RF, L-Series 28-300 (my favorite lens — BY FAR — for my photo journalism). In retrospect, perhaps I should have stayed with Nikon and waited for their Z9 pro mirrorless. I still am turning the lenses the 'wrong' way to zoom in and out at critical times.


I wouldn't go second guessing yourself now, I would say you made a good choice to switch to Canon. Perhaps not a logical choice, but assuredly a fun one if. Nikon do have some amazing lenses just now, but after 50 years you get to learn a new system and try out its lenses and the back catalog of EF lenses. I very much am enjoying the Z9 just now, perhaps in another 20 years I'll go back to Canon or maybe some new system. Presumably the RF and Z mounts wont live as long as the EF and F.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Sep 6, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Time for bed then!


Directed at those who are suddenly switching, cursing or throwing a tantrum over Canon doing what any business would do to stay in business and protect what is theirs. Next!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The price of the cameras should recover the R&D costs. Those cameras are not cheap at all. I could understand the argument if Canon subsidized cameras for selling lenses later.


Nope, doesn't work. Take the R7 for example: 
the price is very competitive because Canon expects an R7 will be about three lenses: 
- a wide APS-C
- an all-around lense
- at least one wildlife lense...maybe even such as 100-500mm plus an extender or a 800mm F11.

If cameras would cover all R&D costs, the cameras would be incredible expensive...


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I post 100s of images here and you post none. I post threads that are useful and share far, far more information than you. So don't be so damned rude yourself.


No rudeness or offence was intended, you are misinterpreting and over-reacting Alan. It was you who raised the changed the subject from photography and gear, to world problems. I agreed with you, and then asked why, if you are so concerned about these issues, are you spending your time here, rather than participating in political and environmental forums etc. Seems like a fair and straightforward question to me, and not in any way rude.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> No rudeness or offence was intended, you are misinterpreting and over-reacting Alan. It was you who raised the changed the subject from photography and gear, to world problems. I agreed with you, and then asked why, if you are so concerned about these issues, are you spending your time here, rather than participating in political and environmental forums etc. Seems like a fair and straightforward question to me, and not in any way rude.


There was no need for you to have posted a rhetorical question, which what it was.


----------



## entoman (Sep 6, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> After 50 years of shooting Nikon, I sold my huge selection of Nikon F-Mount gear and switched cold turkey (long, painful, expensive story) to Canon: EOS R3, because of its excellent car-tracking auto-focus mode (I shoot auto racing). However, I desperately want a native RF, L-Series 28-300 (my favorite lens — BY FAR — for my photo journalism). In retrospect, perhaps I should have stayed with Nikon and waited for their Z9 pro mirrorless. I still am turning the lenses the 'wrong' way to zoom in and out at critical times.


I'm afraid that's the price anyone pays when they switch brands - it can take quite a while for "muscle memory" to adapt to a new brand, or even a new model from a brand you're already using.

There's a bit of an anomaly here - I get the distinct impression that Canon and Nikon strive to deliberately make their cameras different in terms of button positioning and dial turning direction, (presumably to make it harder to switch), yet they allow us to customise the direction of turning of certain controls, which of course makes it *easier* to switch brands.


----------



## Videoboy (Sep 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Not another thread on this. It's being going on for far too long in other current threads, and posts and myths are being repeated over and over again.


Yet here you are


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

Videoboy said:


> Yet here you are


Triumph of hope over experience, I am afraid.


----------



## antonio_s (Sep 6, 2022)

UlfricStormcloak said:


> Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.


There are significantly older Sigma EF lenses, actually.


----------



## antonio_s (Sep 6, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> But how does that IS interact with the IBIS in the body? With Canon RF lenses on an RF body you get something substantially better compared to just ILIS, with Sigma EF lenses on an RF body you get something substantially worse.


Idk about pre-GV lenses, but this hasn't been my experience with any of the Sigma GV lenses (I have a bunch, including one with OIS).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2022)

antonio_s said:


> There are significantly older Sigma EF lenses, actually.


Correct, the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 for EOS was released in 1988.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> Thank you for creating this chart.
> The lens that I, as a photojournalist/member of the Press, most want for my EOS R3's, is a native RF, L-Series 28-300. This broadly useful lens does not appear on the Canon roadmap, and no third-party lens manufacturers (especially Tamron and Sigma) make it as a native RF lens, so I am forced to compromise by shooting with the consumer-grade, non- weather sealed, no manual focus switch, 24-240 RF. I am too invested in Canon to switch now but should I have gotten the Nikon Z9 instead, since Nikon is playing nice with Tamron, regarding its Z mirrorless mount?


Your welcome.

Pls see the table again as I added the remaining dSLR full frame bodies & lenses still being listed on BH Photo. This will help provide an idea what are the manufacturing challenges the camera makers have to deliver mirrorless equivalents & duplicates of dSLR bodies & lenses we are familiar with.

I also added Pentax's full frame bodies & lenses for both mirrorless & dSLR of what other brands are doing & provide links as to why they are doing it.

As for a RF equivalent to a 2004 Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM I expect it to come out within 4 years. To the best of my knowledge there are no Canon RF body or lens roadmaps. If there was then CR would not have a reason to be around. 

While we wait why not use the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R until the RF equivalent comes out?

I created the table to provide clarity as to where we are today after 4 years of RF & Z mount and what to expect in the next 4 years. Once 99% of transition bodies & lens SKUs are in-stores then I expect Canon & Nikon to halt any further production of EF & F mount products as the manufacturing plant resources & time are better spent with RF & Z mount products.

For the artists whose business experience is limited to their photo/video businesses should know that if a job/product/service is such low volume, too difficult, too boring or not worth your time is often outsourced to 3rd parties. That is why very unique lenses are often pioneered by 3rd parties and later replicated or make a near equivalent by Canon, Nikon & Sony.

This was a primary reasons why Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee in 2011. This helped Sony taking the #2 spot from Nikon in 2019. Nikon appears to be copying Sony's business strategy with their Z mount lens in 2021. It would be interesting to see how the market will react to this before 2030.

Canon is not inclined to follow Sony or Nikon's business decision because they're the #1 interchangeable-lens digital camera brand for nearly 2 decades. You only compromise future margins when you have no choice.

It is like Apple sticking to the iPhone's Lightning connector for exactly a decade by Sep 12 rather than micro USB or USB-C. 

They're the most profitable smartphone brand by taking 75% of smartphone profits. This is not worldwide shipping volume but pure profit margin.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm afraid that's the price anyone pays when they switch brands - it can take quite a while for "muscle memory" to adapt to a new brand, or even a new model from a brand you're already using.
> 
> There's a bit of an anomaly here - I get the distinct impression that Canon and Nikon strive to deliberately make their cameras different in terms of button positioning and dial turning direction, (presumably to make it harder to switch), yet they allow us to customise the direction of turning of certain controls, which of course makes it *easier* to switch brands.



What you mentioned is covered by this YouTuber. It isn't a good business decision to keep switching systems unless you're a product endorser or a YouTuber trying to get clicks.

Other than increasing the stickiness to a system/brand it has to do also with IPs like patents. You can do something functionally identically similar but has to be done in an ideally 180-degree manner to avoid getting sued.

This is being done to provide incentive to creators to innovate. If there are no financial reward to think out of the box then why even get out of bed?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

I don't think that anyone would say that buying into a Canon ecosystem is a bad idea... or that you would be disappointed!
They have a wide range of APS-C and full frame bodies in both EF/EF-S/EF-M and RF mounts to choose from.
They have a very wide range of lenses for EF-M (fit for its purpose - low cost/weight/size), for EF-S for cost/size, for EF on DLSRs and EF/EF-S and RF on RF mount bodies. On top of that RF bodies can support third party adapted EF/EF-S lenses!

There will always be niches that any OEM may not want to play in and can induce switchers or photographers having multiple systems for different purposes.
Canon has shown to be very capable to play in multiple niches, be dominant and profitable. 
Canon is now stating that the future is more rosy for them despite the decimation of the lower end of the market.

Where is all this angst coming from?!?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Where is all this angst coming from?!?


The same place it usually does around here – people want something that Canon isn't giving them, and they can't seem to accept the reality of the situation.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Canon really needs to clear that up, because otherwise many photographers - including me - will be hesitant to invest $6,000 into an RF body....
> For most use cases glass is more important than the body. So any limit on third party glass limits what a photographer can do with his expensive Canon body.


Yes, you are correct that glass will always be more important/valuable in a camera system but the people thinking of investing in a USD6k body will already have or want to buy suitably expensive glass to go with it. Most RF buyers will be migrating from existing DLSR systems so glass is the key issue keeping them with Canon (as was the case for me). I have certainly spend well in excess of USD6k in my migration.

New buyers into Canon will see a range of RF bodies and RF + adapted EF/EF-S lenses to choose from... including adapted 3rd party EF/EF-S lenses.
I don't see many scenarios where someone would buy a R3 and only use 3rd party EF glass on it for instance.

"Limits" are a personal rationalisation. If you see a limit then that is your decision. If you must have xyz focal length/aperture etc then buy the system that best suits your need. Canon has a wide range of lens options and a much wider range again with adapted lenses.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Why wasn't that a problem for Canon DLRSs? They had a lot of third party competition, although they were cheaper than their RF counterparts. The R1 will probably cost $7500 or more in order to not cannibalize the R3.



Probable reasons why

- they did not build their EF system with the help of lawyers
- they did not know the future

The digital still camera market has been decimated by smartphones pushing down worldwide shipment from an all time high of more than 121+ million in 2012 to near the all time low of under 7.9 million for 2022 forecast. 1999 worldwide shipment was under 5.1 million & 2020 was under 10.1 million.

The market for RF system is ~80% full frame & L lenses unlike before it was ~80% Canon Rebel & Kiss dSLR & consumer EF & EF-S lenses.
​
Brand​Canon​Sony​Nikon​Pentax​Age of Full Frame Mirrorless Mount​4​12​4​0​Mirrorless Full Frame Lens-only SKU with USA warranty​30​63​29​0​Mirrorless APS-C Lens-only SKU with USA warranty​13​22​3​0​Mirrorless Full Frame Body-only SKU with USA warranty​5​9​4​0​Mirrorless APS-C Body-only SKU with USA warranty​2 (RF-S mount)​4​3​0​Future mirrorless lens roadmap by 2026​32​N/A​3​0​dSLR Full Frame Lens-only SKU with USA warranty​34​4​59​23​dSLR Full Frame Body-only SKU with USA warranty​5​0​3​1​


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> ​
> Brand​Canon​Sony​Nikon​Pentax​Age of Full Frame Mirrorless Mount​4​12​4​0​Mirrorless Full Frame Lens-only SKU with USA warranty​30​63​29​0​Mirrorless APS-C Lens-only SKU with USA warranty​13​22​3​0​Mirrorless Full Frame Body-only SKU with USA warranty​5​9​4​0​Mirrorless APS-C Body-only SKU with USA warranty​2 (RF-S mount)​4​3​0​Future mirrorless lens roadmap by 2026​32​N/A​3​0​dSLR Lens-only SKU with USA warranty​34​4​59​23​dSLR Full Frame Body-only SKU with USA warranty​5​0​3​1​


Just to point out a disconnect, you count EF-M lenses among Canon's APS-C MILC lenses, but you do not count M cameras under Canon APS-C MILC bodies. As you know, EF-M lenses don't mount on R bodies and RF/RF-S lenses don't mount on M bodies.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Canon has potentially done a bait and switch, which has caught people off guard, hence the various reactions we've been seeing here.
> Going from EF to RF, anyone would assume would be much the same, where third parties exist, a somewhat open system, as it's been in the past. If Canon has decided to run a closed system at some point, without telling the market that's their intention, then it's not surprising that some people will feel caught out if that's the case, and Canon really do go that way.


Can you clarify this? EF was never even close to a "somewhat open system" in the past. EF/RF protocols have always been a closed system. Even Sony's E mount (closed system) was still licensed albeit at a symbolic price.



LogicExtremist said:


> So what to do now? The solution is quite simple.
> If people only buy native Canon lenses, and are potentially happy to be part of a closed camera ecosystem, and accept whatever Canon throws out to them (at whatever price Canon chooses), then none of this matters at all, they can keep buying to their heart's content!


All systems are closed. there is no open source/open standards for lens protocols.
Canon offers a range of RF/EF/EF-S lenses at different quality and price levels and adapted 3rd party EF/EF-S lenses work better on RF than EF bodies (AF spread/IBIS etc)


LogicExtremist said:


> Using adapted EF lenses is only a stop-gap measure, which becomes less viable as time progresses, because of factors such as cessation of production, eventual lack of parts for repair, increased size/weight and inconvenience of using an adapter, inability to utilise all the benefits of the RF platform.


True but the length of time that EF lenses will be actively sold and subsequently still maintained under warranty and then end-of-Canon-service date and the supported by 3rd party maintenance is very long. I can imagine that this will be at least a decade before any significant issues for more popular EF lenses take place.
By that time, multiple RF bodies will be updated and more RF glass added to the list.

I don't get that people are disappointed that adapted EF glass is cheaper than RF and also wouldn't have all the benefits of the RF protocols. They still have more benefits using them on RF body vs EF body.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> Probable reasons why
> 
> - they did not build their EF system with the help of lawyers
> - they did not know the future
> ...


So what is the number of lenses that the RF bodies support ie Canon RF/RF-S/EF/EF-S lenses + adapted 3rd party EF/EF-S lenses currently available?
Perhaps the best solution is a complete list for people to see how "closed" the ecosystem is if they buy a R full frame mount body


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> So what is the number of lenses that the RF bodies support ie Canon RF/RF-S/EF/EF-S lenses + adapted 3rd party EF/EF-S lenses currently available?
> Perhaps the best solution is a complete list for people to see how "closed" the ecosystem is if they buy a R full frame mount body



1st party is below






Compatibility Guide for Lenses - Canon Ireland


Browse through our technical guide to find out everything about mounts & lenses compatibility with Canon's range of cameras.




www.canon.ie





3rd party I outsource to 3rd party owners.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Actually the closed App Store of Apple is the main reason why I would never buy an iPhone and other people should neither.


YMMV of course but I disagree completely. 
The predominant reason that my personal PC and whole family got into the Apple ecosystem (iMac, MBP, MBA,iPad, iPod, iWatch, airpods, appleTV etc) is simply because they work nicely together. I purposely decided that I didn't want to be the system admin for a disparate range of OEMs and products. 
I use Windows PCs at work and would never want to at home. 
The number of times that I have wanted to airdrop a file etc to someone else's device only to be told that they don't have an apple has been disappointing.
Apple sells equipment and charges a premium but I have recovered that premium just in the length of time that I can use their products rather than buying other more frequently. Apple also makes money out of the app store of course.
There hasn't been an app that I have desperately needed that I wouldn't have thought I needed to jailbreak or somehow sideload onto my iPhone.


Skyscraperfan said:


> With cameras it is similar. If YOU bought the camera, the camera manufacturer should not be able to prevent you from using third party lenses.


You can buy 3rd party EF lenses and adapt them onto R bodies. Canon doesn't prevent you from doing this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> YMMV of course but I disagree completely.
> The predominant reason that my personal PC and whole family got into the Apple ecosystem (iMac, MBP, MBA,iPad, iPod, iWatch, airpods, appleTV etc) is simply because they work nicely together. I purposely decided that I didn't want to be the system admin for a disparate range of OEMs and products.
> I use Windows PCs at work and would never want to at home.
> The number of times that I have wanted to airdrop a file etc to someone else's device only to be told that they don't have an apple has been disappointing.
> ...


Same here. Collectively at home, we have 4 MBPs, 2 MBAs, 3 iPad Pros, 5 iPhones, 3 Apple Watches, 3 AirPods Pros, an Apple TV, and a partridge in an apple tree. They all work flawlessly together, and I need to do almost nothing to keep it that way. I'm also fortunate that I get to decide what we use at my company – the policy I put in place allows people to choose Mac or PC (I pay someone else to administer them, manage the MDM, etc.), and 80% of people choose Macs (which, of course, means nothing as far as market share or installed base).

As an example of working together, I have my personal MBP open on my desk, and my work MBP closed but connected to an 5K:2K external display along with an Apple external keyboard/trackpad. If I want to copy a file from my personal Mac to my work Mac, I can literally drag it off the edge of the edge of the open laptop and onto the external display. I can use the trackpad and keyboard on my open laptop or the trackpad and keyboard connected to the closed Mac to control either Mac – the cursor literally just floats from the laptop display to the external display like you'd expect if the open laptop was connected to the display...except that it's not, my other Mac is. I open a webpage on my iPhone, and with one click on either Mac I can pick up where I left off. If I have my AirPods in and I get a call, I can accept it on my phone or on either Mac (or on the AirPods themselves) and the call just connects. Really an amazing level of interconnected productivity, and not something even remotely possible on Windows.

Fine, it's a closed system / walled garden. But if everything I need is growing harmoniously inside the garden, I have nothing to complain about.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

EOS said:


> Canon still has no RF fast wide L primes.


And their previous efforts (besides 16/2.8) have been very expensive and haven't had good coma in the corners. 
Canon does go to 14mm @ f4 and 15mm @f2.8 though with their zooms which should meet most needs albeit at a cost.
No one is going to beat the bang/buck value of the Samyang 14mm primes though.


----------



## AutoMatters (Sep 7, 2022)

Hi Dolina,

I'm sorry if this message has accidentally been published twice.

While I am certainly well aware of the option to use the old and outdated 2004 Canon 28-300mm with an EF to RF converter, with my Canon EOS R3 bodies, I came from 50 years of shooting with Nikon (with an intervening and hugely costly detour to Sony's A1, lenses, etc.). I had no Canon EF lenses or the converter. To waste even more money now by purchasing Canon's old, poorly rated and very expensive 28-300mm EF lens, plus an EF to RF converter, when what I really want (and am reluctantly willing to continue waiting for) is a Canon 28-300mm (or similar) RF lens — preferably L-Series, with weather-sealing, etc. for shooting on dusty race tracks, with rubber particles and sometimes heavy rain.

In case you are curious, my reason for switching cold turkey from 50 years of shooting Nikon (most recently with a D5, D4S and Z6, a large group of Nikon and Tamron lenses, and all sorts of accessories) which I prematurely and foolishly sold at a huge loss, was because of a friend's demonstration of the Sony A1's incredible focus tracking of a hummingbird in flight. I wrongly assumed that since the A1 could track a tiny hummingbird in flight so well, then surely it would do an awesome job tracking race cars on the track. I sold my Nikon and Tamron gear and bought a two-camera A1 system and accessories, only to discover through experience that it would lose the cars if anything came between me and them.

That is when I had to make a critical decision: to start all over again with Nikon (the Z9 was not yet available) or try Canon by ordering two EOS R3 bodies. That is what I chose to do.

Now I have a small selection of RF glass, Canon flashes, batteries, memory cards, etc., and I have been trying hard to learn how to shoot with Canon and overcome decades of muscle memory experience with Nikon. Rotating the zoom ring on lenses the Canon direction instead of the Nikon direction continues to be a recurring problem, when I have to react quickly to get shots. I am also unable to change important settings nearly as quickly as I did with Nikon.

All that said, the EOS R3 has been great for shooting car racing, as is (for the first time) having two identical camera bodies. When shooting car races, I quickly switch back and forth between a long zoom lens on one body and a wider zoom lens on the other.

Changing lenses while on the track is not a viable option, due to the likelihood of flying dust and rubber contaminating the image sensor.

You can see the results of me shooting with Canon R3 bodies and (mostly L-Series) glass by searching for my most recent (2022+) auto racing coverage on my AutoMatters.net website.

Jan


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> 1st party is below
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just went through the list of the 30 RF lenses (certainly more than listed in the "Canon RF Lens Roadmap") and it is already pretty comprehensive. More to go of course!
There are 46 3rd party RF lenses (non cinema) listed in the "Third Party Lenses for RF" excluding Viltrox. I am assuming that they are currently conforming to the EF protocols on a RF mount and not infringing on RF protocols.
There are at least 230 lenses listed on B&H's Canon EF search page including 3rd parties. But I notice that some lenses should be added eg the EF pinhole lenses and Laowa lenses for instance
There are lots of weird and wonderful stuff out there!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 7, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> Hi Dolina,
> 
> I'm sorry if this message has accidentally been published twice.
> 
> ...


Now that is a story of the cost/difficulty with switching systems!
You have a very specific genre though it looks like you have found a solution but it is really hard to unlearn the zoom direction from Nikon.
I don't see a solution for your 2 body/lens combo though. 
Even if Canon released a new 28-300mm L lens, the AF focus speed would be compromised over that focal length. I think that getting a sufficiently sharp image across that focal range would either be difficult or very, very expensive.
I have only seen one of those in the wild and it was heavy and unwieldy. I am not surprised that it didn't sell very well... too many compromises.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I just went through the list of the 30 RF lenses (certainly more than listed in the "Canon RF Lens Roadmap") and it is already pretty comprehensive. More to go of course!
> There are 46 3rd party RF lenses (non cinema) listed in the "Third Party Lenses for RF" excluding Viltrox. I am assuming that they are currently conforming to the EF protocols on a RF mount and not infringing on RF protocols.
> There are at least 230 lenses listed on B&H's Canon EF search page including 3rd parties. But I notice that some lenses should be added eg the EF pinhole lenses and Laowa lenses for instance
> There are lots of weird and wonderful stuff out there!


Thank you for doing the work. 

All 3rd party EF lenses are all unlicensed by Canon.

I remember RED cameras tried to license the EF mount but were denied.

Why? Because Canon came out with Cinema EOS a few years later.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> Hi Dolina,
> 
> I'm sorry if this message has accidentally been published twice.
> 
> ...


Hi Jan,

You have a long and storied history in shooting.

If I were in your position I'd get a used babied copy of the lens that is being sold at a great discount because everyone's in a rush to move to mirrorless.

I am fairly certain the RF equivalent will be released within 4 years will delight you always.

Unload the EF copy at the equivalnent of rent expense of less than 4 years.

It is a herculean task to output 8 new lens SKUs per year for the past 4 years & the next 4 years.

Canon & Nikon need to match Sony's lens system. That was the selling point of their EF & F mount.

If I were starting from scratch to do bird work I'd opt for the Nikon Z system because their lenses are lighter on the back & in the back pocket.

But like you I have concerns about relearning how to ride a bike with the different physical button placements & menu system other brands use.

This is what I discovered with the 2015 Sony a7R II & my worry with the 2021 FujiFILM GFX 100S medium format

BTW how do you like the 2021 EOS R3 for bird photography? I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

I copy pasted your site and your body of work is worth emulating. 

Paolo


----------



## AutoMatters (Sep 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> Hi Jan,
> 
> You have a long and storied history in shooting.
> 
> ...


Hi Paulo,
Sorry but I did not explain my predicament sufficiently.

I do not do bird photography. What I most enjoy shooting is car racing. Someone showed me that the Sony Alpha 1 was great for bird photography, so I just assumed it would be great for car racing photography also. That is why I switched from 50 years of shooting Nikon to the Sony Alpha 1. I should have tried it before selling my Nikon gear, because after using it for three months, I concluded that its autofocus system was not very good for shooting car racing. That is why I switched again — this time to the Canon EOS R3. Its CAR MODE AUTOFOCUS is GREAT for car racing photography. I have no idea how good it is for bird photography.
Jan


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 7, 2022)

entoman said:


> If you don't want to buy genuine Canon RF lenses, why not just use Canon or third-party EF glass via the EF-RF adaptor?


Because STM sucks.
Because I want a better 85mm 1.4-1.8 that isn't the heavyweight 1.2
Because I want a fast 24mm 1.4 that's sharp

If they can create a smaller lens due to the R design then that would be great. Currently the lightweight options from Canon 24,35,50 and 85mm are all STM and they hunt in low light.

I've a comprehensive lineup of RF glass already. But I don't need 1.2 a lot of the time. 1.8 is fine. It's just that Canon has made it all crappy STM. Slow, irregular STM. There was absolutely no excuse to not use nano usm but they went ahead and excluded it anyway.

Adapted EF glass is heavier on the body as well.

Having something like an 85mm f2 Batis or Zeiss 55mm 1.8 would be a much better user experience but I'll be damned if I'm going to use a Sony to get it.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 7, 2022)

wockawocka said:


> [..]I've a comprehensive lineup of RF glass already. But I don't need 1.2 a lot of the time. 1.8 is fine. It's just that Canon has made it all crappy STM. Slow, irregular STM. There was absolutely no excuse to not use nano usm but they went ahead and excluded it anyway.[..]


The difference in focus speeds is what gets me, I realize that focussing the 16mm takes less travel and effort than focussing the 85mm, but it still surprises me when changing between the STM lenses. Switching between the RF85 f/2 and the RF100L has an opposite effect, I fully plan to make some coffee and drink it while the lens tries to focus, but the 100L instantly snaps to the right distance


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2022)

Regarding Canon muscle memory vs Nikon since I do birding and have spent a fortune in Canon equipment I have only bought a single Nikon lens the 500mm f5.6 PF which since it is a fixed one I have no issues trying to zoom in the opposite direction. I have programmed the button that my thumb rests upon the same as with Canon (full AF area) so muscle memory is no issue. There are still differences but there are no issues. I still find using a Canon DSLR (5DIV and 5DsR) a little easier that using my R5 although I use my R5 more often (talking mostly about birding though, R5 is more versatile in other uses). But even the placing of a cup at the back of the lenses is easier on EF than on RF.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 7, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The difference in focus speeds is what gets me, I realize that focussing the 16mm takes less travel and effort than focussing the 85mm, but it still surprises me when changing between the STM lenses. Switching between the RF85 f/2 and the RF100L has an opposite effect, I fully plan to make some coffee and drink it while the lens tries to focus, but the 100L instantly snaps to the right distance


Exactly. For years I've been hoping for some L series 1.8 glass. Not the budget offerings. I'm on my feet shooting for 10 hours a wedding. The 1.2 stuff is heavy.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 7, 2022)

Folks want to argue about Cannon's business acumen but that's not what it's all about. Canon has a huge crevice in between their so called budget lenses with low quality optics and the super expensive L lenses. THIS is the problem. 

For example - Canon has no middle ground 50mm and has no intention of making one. Sure they know for a fact that a good 50/1.4 would make most photographers not need their massive expensive 50/1.2.... well they just don't give you the choice..its either $200 or $2,200. 

Next, the original RF lenses they came out the gate with was spectacular. Apparently they had no such plans for the non-l lenses which look like a heap of junk for the most part especially if you compare them to the EF versions. 

I had I had to kill my interest in the RFS line because the lens situation is pathetic, and knowing canon it's going to be a very long time before that gets better.

And of course you have one of the elephants in the room, the crippled hammer of the R6 to 20 megapixel to protect the R5. I don't care what whoever wants to say about the differences between a 20 megapixel FF and a crop 24 megapixel, but I actually do care about the file sizes and many others also. And that whopping 20 megapixel body is $2,500. Before tax.

We all know they are moving up market, but at least have a middle to fill in. Right now there's nothing for advanced users, you're either spending 6,000 Plus on a real RF body and a few lenses or you're really circling the bottom of the barrel with a lot of caveats and no access to third party glass.

I'm not letting go of my cannons as I'm too much invested in ef, but I am definitely looking at a Nikon z or a Sony body so when sigma and Tamron comes out with these new cool lenses I can say at least I have the choice. And that's the worst part about Canon right now, you have a very limited options and no choices in too many areas. It sucks because I really enjoyed my Canon gear but RF is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

wockawocka said:


> Exactly. For years I've been hoping for some L series 1.8 glass. Not the budget offerings. I'm on my feet shooting for 10 hours a wedding. The 1.2 stuff is heavy.


Didn't happen with EF in the heyday of ILCs. Hope springs eternal, but I would not hold your breath waiting for relatively slow (for the lens type) L-series lenses. The idea of them isn't really consistent with Canon's L-series philosophy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> We all know they are moving up market, but at least have a middle to fill in. Right now there's nothing for advanced users, you're either spending 6,000 Plus on a real RF body and a few lenses or you're really circling the bottom of the barrel with a lot of caveats and no access to third party glass.


Perhaps that strategy reflects the market. Entry level buyers or those on a tight budget on one end, affluent amateurs and successful professionals on the other end, and a much smaller middle comprising people who post on forums but don't buy much. 

People in the middle will undoubtedly argue that they represent a massive market...but as usual, they have no data to support that argument, and most won't even acknowledge that Canon undoubtedly _does_ have those data.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Canon have a long history of thousands of patents protecting their designs and concepts, all published and available for third parties to browse.
> 
> Did Viltrox fail to look at the patents, or did they realise they were infringing, but hope to get away with it?
> 
> I assume Canon threatened a lawsuit if Viltrox failed to stop production.


Sometimes it's about what it might cost to fight. Canon is the 800 lb gorilla. Viltrox is a lightweight.

Several years ago I bought a product from a boutique manufacturer. They were a small machine shop with a fantastic product. A large manufacturer in the same space sued for patent infringement. For the life of me, I, nor anyone else in that field could figure out how in the world there was any infringement. They were very different designs. The small shop quit making the product. They had a far superior product, but no money to fight a giant.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Folks want to argue about Cannon's business acumen but that's not what it's all about. Canon has a huge crevice in between their so called budget lenses with low quality optics and the super expensive L lenses. THIS is the problem.
> 
> For example - Canon has no middle ground 50mm and has no intention of making one. Sure they know for a fact that a good 50/1.4 would make most photographers not need their massive expensive 50/1.2.... well they just don't give you the choice..its either $200 or $2,200.
> 
> ...


Aw c'mon. The "real" bodies start at $6k? The "REAL" ones?


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Folks want to argue about Cannon's business acumen but that's not what it's all about. Canon has a huge crevice in between their so called budget lenses with low quality optics and the super expensive L lenses. THIS is the problem.
> 
> For example - Canon has no middle ground 50mm and has no intention of making one. Sure they know for a fact that a good 50/1.4 would make most photographers not need their massive expensive 50/1.2.... well they just don't give you the choice..its either $200 or $2,200.
> 
> ...


All your concerns should be addressed within the next 4 years.

The goods you want are either slow moving or thinner margin.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Aw c'mon. The "real" bodies start at $6k? The "REAL" ones?


Yeah, all the others turn back into pumpkins at midnight!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Yeah, all the others turn back into pumpkins at midnight!


My lowly R was about $1,900. I wouldn't have paid so much if I knew it was fake. Takes great fake photos though. I'm thinking my photos will be 3x better if I ever get one of them "real" cameras.     Someday I might own some "real" lenses.


----------



## Curahee (Sep 8, 2022)

BC said:


> Working pro in the field. I have a blend of Canon and third-party lenses, all great performers, even adapting my EF lenses to RF. Unfortunately, as Canon ages out its lineup it will no longer be worth it for me to stay with them. If I don't at least have that choice, my next camera won't be a Canon.


What's wrong with your EF lenses?
They work the same or even better on RF bodies except you get an added control ring just like the RF lenses. So in reality if you have the lenses both Canon and third party you have lost NOTHING but gained mirrorless and added capabilities with a $200 control ring adapter to upgrade ALL your EF lenses. Pretty sweet deal. When you lenses all die 6-10 years from now there will likely be RF mount third party to buy.
Look at Nikon and how they screwed their F mount owners with the Z mount and lack of compatibility for such a huge portion of lenses including auto focus ones.
Oh well good luck.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

Curahee said:


> What's wrong with your EF lenses?
> They work the same or even better on RF bodies except you get an added control ring just like the RF lenses. So in reality if you have the lenses both Canon and third party you have lost NOTHING but gained mirrorless and added capabilities with a $200 control ring adapter to upgrade ALL your EF lenses. Pretty sweet deal. When you lenses all die 6-10 years from now there will likely be RF mount third party to buy.
> Look at Nikon and how they screwed their F mount owners with the Z mount and lack of compatibility for such a huge portion of lenses including auto focus ones.
> Oh well good luck.


Nothing wrong with EF lenses! BC explained why "_as Canon ages out its lineup it will no longer be worth it for me to stay with them_". To explain in further detail, EF works fine, no real need to upgrade to RF until it needs replacement or repair. As Canon phases out EF lenses (they already have discontinued quite a few of the EF and EF-S lenses), and EF lenses are no longer available to buy, or replacement parts are no longer available for repair, which will happen in time, then EF users will need to upgrade to RF.

Many new photographers get a misleading impression from forums, which often filled with lots of gear heads who love buying the latest tech, much like iPhone users do, and few pros, who usually keep their gear until it stops either working, or the new gear provides a compelling advantage that make it more cost effective to use because it allows them to work faster/more efficiently or provides some other financial advantage in their business.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> To explain in further detail, EF works fine, no real need to upgrade to RF until it needs replacement or repair. As Canon phases out EF lenses (they already have discontinued quite a few of the EF and EF-S lenses), and EF lenses are no longer available to buy, or replacement parts are no longer available for repair, which will happen in time, then EF users will need to upgrade to RF.


That pokes a rather large hole in the lens selection argument. The EF lens catalog is over 60 lenses, the RF catalog will be at that point in 4 years (~30 now and Canon’s promise of ~30 more in the next few years). Canon generally keeps supporting discontinued lenses for >5 years. That suggests that there will be RF replacements for almost all the EF lenses before they ‘age out’ even if the entire catalog were discontinued today. 

Granted, not _all_ the EF lenses will get RF versions (lenses like the 28-70/2 and 5.2 dual fisheye have no EF counterparts), but the non-replaced lenses will likely not be popular ones (for example, I love my MP-E 65 but I’m not sure there will ever be an RF version). 

Also granted, that doesn’t help with the cost of buying the RF replacements. But people tend to ignore the time component of that as it pertains to aging out. If your EF 70-200/2.8 IS MkI dies and can’t be repaired, sure you’d pay a lot more for the RF version, but you’d also pay a lot more for the EF MkIII than you paid for the MkI 15 years ago.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> [..]Granted, not _all_ the EF lenses will get RF versions (lenses like the 28-70/2 and 5.2 dual fisheye have no EF counterparts), but the non-replaced lenses will likely not be popular ones (for example, I love my MP-E 65 but I’m not sure there will ever be an RF version).[..]


I wonder which way Canon would go for 'improvements' over the original. I'd love to have the option to go smaller than life size, being limited to 1:1 can be an issue for larger insects. This was a big motivation for me to move from APS-C to FF, a wasp would only fit diagonally in the frame on the EOS-M  I could live with a 0.5x - 2.5x range.

IS would be nice, but I'm not sure how much can be done when going beyond 1:1. An EF-M 28mm style integrated ringlight would be great, provided it can go much, much brighter and can be controlled from the camera.

It's not quite autofocus, but it would be interesting to have a motor integrated that would move the whole optical assembly forward a bit. It would only be used by the built-in focus stack modes. 

Rear filter slot for filters 

Having the magnification ratio and focus distance displayed in the EVF wouldn't require any changes to the lens, nor would having a focus assist mode that doesn't use a point, but an area to show what is in focus. Kinda like focus peaking, but based on DPAF instead of local contrast.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That pokes a rather large hole in the lens selection argument. The EF lens catalog is over 60 lenses, the RF catalog will be at that point in 4 years (~30 now and Canon’s promise of ~30 more in the next few years). Canon generally keeps supporting discontinued lenses for >5 years. That suggests that there will be RF replacements for almost all the EF lenses before they ‘age out’ even if the entire catalog were discontinued today.
> 
> Granted, not _all_ the EF lenses will get RF versions (lenses like the 28-70/2 and 5.2 dual fisheye have no EF counterparts), but the non-replaced lenses will likely not be popular ones (for example, I love my MP-E 65 but I’m not sure there will ever be an RF version).
> 
> Also granted, that doesn’t help with the cost of buying the RF replacements. But people tend to ignore the time component of that as it pertains to aging out. If your EF 70-200/2.8 IS MkI dies and can’t be repaired, sure you’d pay a lot more for the RF version, but you’d also pay a lot more for the EF MkIII than you paid for the MkI 15 years ago.


The EF native and third-party lens selection is quite broad and comprehensive, as you'd expect from a mature platform. If discontinued lenses are supported for around 5+ years, that's a handy guideline for decision making when that happens. Depending on how heavily lenses are used, they can last quite a while.

Granted, the Canon claim of that number of future lenses is a _promise_, and enthusiasts who buy gear for pleasure are able to wait four years, despite the inconvenience, but working professionals don't have that luxury when they need to purchase the tools of their trade here and now. 

Judging by Canon's L-series lens releases, which must provide pros with the tools they need very early in the product cycle, the demand professionally (or Canon's opinion based on sales?) is on a traditional holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms (15-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm), with the RF 50mm f /1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 as the prime offerings, with the 28-70mm f/2 as a flagship zoom lens offering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Judging by Canon's L-series lens releases, which must provide pros with the tools they need very early in the product cycle, the demand professionally (or Canon's opinion based on sales?) is on a traditional holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms (15-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm), with the RF 50mm f /1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 as the prime offerings, with the 28-70mm f/2 as a flagship zoom lens offering.


Indeed. There's also the f/4 trinity of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-200. Plus supertele L primes, and a macro lens. And an affordable (for the industry) non-L trinity of 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400, plus several non-L primes including some with macro capability.

Honestly, I think Canon has done a great job of providing RF lenses to meet the needs of the majority of photographers at multiple levels. Canon has provided an appetizer and a good meal, but people complain because the dessert hasn't been served yet or because they didn't get their favorite amuse-bouche. Or because they'd rather dine at a cheaper restaurant. Those are valid complaints, but as the world's largest restaurant chain Canon has no real need to cater to a minority of disaffected diners.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. There's also the f/4 trinity of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-200. Plus supertele L primes, and a macro lens. And an affordable (for the industry) non-L trinity of 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400, plus several non-L primes including some with macro capability.
> 
> Honestly, I think Canon has done a great job of providing RF lenses to meet the needs of the majority of photographers at multiple levels. Canon has provided an appetizer and a good meal, but people complain because the dessert hasn't been served yet or because they didn't get their favorite amuse-bouche. Or because they'd rather dine at a cheaper restaurant. Those are valid complaints, but as the world's largest restaurant chain Canon has no real need to cater to a minority of disaffected diners.


True, they have a complete set of f/2.8, f/4 and variable aperture zooms at each price point. Classic 80-20 rule scenario, perhaps 20% of the lenses cater for 80% of people's most common needs. 

Primes are a different story though. You've been in the photography scene much longer, were primes generally more popular and now less in demand now that the quality of zooms has improved?

Without the discussions and speculation about the 'desserts' though, there wouldn't be much happening on the photography forums! People tend to get excited a lot about the additional, unusual and exotic that probably sells in the lowest numbers!


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 9, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I hope Photokina will come back.


Me too. Do you think it will be back after covid? Or is the ILC market just too small any more?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Primes are a different story though. You've been in the photography scene much longer, were primes generally more popular and now less in demand now that the quality of zooms has improved?


I think that's true. Long ago, film SLRs shipped with a 50mm prime as the kit lens. Zooms were convenient, but you took a big hit on image quality for that convenience. Modern zooms can be as good as primes, even contemporary ones. You still pay a price for the convenience, but now that's more about size/weight/cost than IQ. 

Looking at the 'current' lineup of Canon FF lenses, there are ~14 EF-mount zooms and ~24 EF-mount primes, and there are 11 RF-mount zooms and 16 RF-mount primes. The slightly higher ratio of zooms to primes for RF indicates Canon has prioritized zooms (the difference goes up if you omit the RF 5.2mm VR lens and don't count the RF 85/1.2 and its DS version separately). 

Zooms seem to have a much broader appeal, with the exception of the 50/1.8 prime which is a perennial best-seller because it's a cheap supplement to a kit zoom lens. 

I'm sure Canon doesn't plan to make lenses that won't sell, so obviously they perceive a market for prime lenses. But fast ultrawide lenses, tilt-shift lenses, and 'great white' supertelephoto lenses are niche products. One of the reasons they have higher price tags is that Canon prices them to recoup R&D expenses in a certain period of time. At the lower end of the market, cost of goods has a higher impact on pricing. At the higher end, amortization of R&D costs plays a bigger role. 

If you look at the R6, R5 and R3, certainly the unit production cost goes up in that order, but I expect the magnitude of production cost increase is far less than the jumps in retail pricing of those three models. The R3 is priced higher in part because Canon knows they will sell fewer units. 

As a more extreme example, look at the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 vs. the RF 800/5.6 and 1200/8. The R&D costs for the longer two were probably relatively low (they didn't exactly 'bolt on' a 2x TC, but the designs are clearly the shorter two with a optimized 2x TC group behind them. It seems very unlikely that the 800/1200 lenses cost 42% and 54% more to produce. I suspect those two lenses are very profitable for Canon, at least on a unit basis (though they likely won't sell many, relatively speaking). 



LogicExtremist said:


> Without the discussions and speculation about the 'desserts' though, there wouldn't be much happening on the photography forums! People tend to get excited a lot about the additional, unusual and exotic that probably sells in the lowest numbers!


True. Lots of car forums discuss Ferraris and Lamborghinis, and they're fun to discuss even though very few people will ever own one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Why don't you stop being such a dick to other forum members.


Asinine comments make those who post them look like asses. Ridiculous suggestions invite ridicule. Puerile comments, like this one, are simply pathetic.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Me too. Do you think it will be back after covid? Or is the ILC market just too small any more?


I have little hope for Photokina, because CeBIT, the world's largest computer fair and also once the world's largest fair overall, also was cancelled for good a few years ago and I think that was even before Covid. That decision really shocked me. CeBIT was such a huge place. The size of more than 90 football fields of indoor exhibition space. There were years when even Bill Gates visited CeBIT every year. Then it became smaller and smaller and no it is gone. 

I still hope Photokina can come back in some form in 2024 or so. Maybe not in Cologne, bit somewhere else. It could become a part of "IFA" in Berlin for example, which is the world's largest fair of consumer electronics. Canon always had a huge tent there in the outdoor area:


I have not been at IFA for a while, but that could still be the place to go in Germany, if you want to see the latest Canon gear. I do not know though if the Canon tent still exist. IFA 2022 just ended this week. So the next chance for Canon gear is Photopia in Hamburg from October 13 to 16. I will probably go there on a Sunday because during Covid I love empty trains.


----------



## dolina (Sep 10, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I have little hope for Photokina, because CeBIT, the world's largest computer fair and also once the world's largest fair overall, also was cancelled for good a few years ago and I think that was even before Covid. That decision really shocked me. CeBIT was such a huge place. The size of more than 90 football fields of indoor exhibition space. There were years when even Bill Gates visited CeBIT every year. Then it became smaller and smaller and no it is gone.
> 
> I still hope Photokina can come back in some form in 2024 or so. Maybe not in Cologne, bit somewhere else. It could become a part of "IFA" in Berlin for example, which is the world's largest fair of consumer electronics. Canon always had a huge tent there in the outdoor area:
> View attachment 205529
> ...


With plummeting global shipping numbers... I'd imagine they'd scale back a bit.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 10, 2022)

The more reviews I see about the wider RF lenses, the more I think that while the shorter flange distance makes some new formulas and lighter lenses possible, it also has a huge disadvantage: As the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that brings. If you use an EF lens with an adapter instead, the angle of the light has a much higher minimum steepness. I always thought about the short flange distance as one of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras and Nikon was very proud that its flange distance is even shorter than the one of Canon's mirroless cameras, but I am not so sure any more if it really is an advantage. For long lenses it is not used anyway (the additional space is just filles with air) and at wide angle lenses it could lead to heavy vignetting. The RF 14-35 f/4 for example has four (!) stops of vignetting in the corners at 14mm and f/4. That means a handheld shot with ISO 1,600 for example is ISO 25,600 in the corners, as you have to amplify the corners by 16 times (four stops). Of course you could just crop the image, but then you lose the advantage of heaving a 14mm lens. Compare that with a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens also at 14mm and f/4 and you will only the a fraction of the vignetting of the RF lens. Maybe if Sigma built a real RF version, it would be lighter than the EF version, but also show that heavy vignetting. That is not a trade off that I am willing to make. Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF lens. Not sure if that also has to do with those new optical formulas. 

After observations like that I doubt more and more that I will ever buy RF glass except the 800mm f/11.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 10, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The more reviews I see about the wider RF lenses, the more I think that while the shorter flange distance makes some new formulas and lighter lenses possible, it also has a huge disadvantage: As the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that brings. If you use an EF lens with an adapter instead, the angle of the light has a much higher minimum steepness. I always thought about the short flange distance as one of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras and Nikon was very proud that its flange distance is even shorter than the one of Canon's mirroless cameras, but I am not so sure any more if it really is an advantage. For long lenses it is not used anyway (the additional space is just filles with air) and at wide angle lenses it could lead to heavy vignetting. The RF 14-35 f/4 for example has four (!) stops of vignetting in the corners at 14mm and f/4. That means a handheld shot with ISO 1,600 for example is ISO 25,600 in the corners, as you have to amplify the corners by 16 times (four stops). Of course you could just crop the image, but then you lose the advantage of heaving a 14mm lens. Compare that with a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens also at 14mm and f/4 and you will only the a fraction of the vignetting of the RF lens. Maybe if Sigma built a real RF version, it would be lighter than the EF version, but also show that heavy vignetting. That is not a trade off that I am willing to make. Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF lens. Not sure if that also has to do with those new optical formulas.
> 
> After observations like that I doubt more and more that I will ever buy RF glass except the 800mm f/11.


> the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that brings

I believe this is called cos^4 falloff.

However, the light ray doesn't come from the glass, exactly, but the "exit pupil." That's the APPARENT hole the light's coming out of, which is not necessarily (and probably never is) the surface of the rear glass.

I don't know that a mirrorless design has a closer exit pupil than an SLR design.
That said, they could clearly give you a lens with the space of an SLR lens between it and the sensor if they thought that would get the best results. Yet clearly they don't think that will give best results anymore, and see some advantages (size? price? resolution? compactness and weight?) to doing it this way.

And most of the tones even in the corner got a lot of light and so are low noise. EG, something that was Zone III is now Zone V. And Zone I stuff in the corners is still Zone I, flat black, so no noise there either. The only thing you have to worry about (and it IS a worry) is noise in things that are in Zone II-III in the result, as these had nearly no photons hit them (if the photo's already higher ISO) but still have to be multiplied significantly.

Something else to understand though is the R5 and other top Canon sensors have like 12.6 stops of dynamic range, so adding 4 stops is not the big deal it was on film or early digitals.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 10, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF


This is usually a smart tradeoff. Distortion can be corrected easily in software at the cost of like 1 pixel's worth of blur at most., and lenses that don't need to be so corrected for distortion can instead correct better for things you can't easily fix in software, whether optical aberrations, or size and price. It's TRIVIAL to get the geometry perfect. You simply have to sacrifice other things (coma, chromatic aberration, size, price, weight, fragility, etc.) to get it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 10, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> As some users on CR and other forums have noticed, the Viltrox lens has been identify as EF 85mm F1.4 in post-production, so I guess the company might have copied Canons firmware.


3rd party lenses have identified themselves as Canon lenses for a long time without copying their firmware. Cameras don't look at the lens' firmware. The camera and lens communicate digitally over the mount, and somewhere in one of the messages, the lens inserts a number identifying its model. Third party lenses insert the same codes used by original Canon lenses, and the cameras accept it at face value.


----------



## antonio_s (Sep 12, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The more reviews I see about the wider RF lenses, the more I think that while the shorter flange distance makes some new formulas and lighter lenses possible, it also has a huge disadvantage: As the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that brings. If you use an EF lens with an adapter instead, the angle of the light has a much higher minimum steepness. I always thought about the short flange distance as one of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras and Nikon was very proud that its flange distance is even shorter than the one of Canon's mirroless cameras, but I am not so sure any more if it really is an advantage. For long lenses it is not used anyway (the additional space is just filles with air) and at wide angle lenses it could lead to heavy vignetting. The RF 14-35 f/4 for example has four (!) stops of vignetting in the corners at 14mm and f/4. That means a handheld shot with ISO 1,600 for example is ISO 25,600 in the corners, as you have to amplify the corners by 16 times (four stops). Of course you could just crop the image, but then you lose the advantage of heaving a 14mm lens. Compare that with a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens also at 14mm and f/4 and you will only the a fraction of the vignetting of the RF lens. Maybe if Sigma built a real RF version, it would be lighter than the EF version, but also show that heavy vignetting. That is not a trade off that I am willing to make. Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF lens. Not sure if that also has to do with those new optical formulas.
> 
> After observations like that I doubt more and more that I will ever buy RF glass except the 800mm f/11.


But it's not really a _disadvantage of the RF mount_, because a lens can always be designed leaving extra room. After all, a bunch of the Sigma EF lenses were just extended to become Sony FE lenses, and the Canon 400mm f/2.8 RF is the EF version optically. It's an additional level of flexibility for the lens designer; no possibility was eliminated by switching to the shorter flange distance.
It's not really fair to compare a 14-24mm f/2.8 to a 14-35mm f/4, although I agree that the Sigma is a better lens.

As for Sigma's mirrorless design, you don't need to guess. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...sComp=1182&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 Sigma produced a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens for Sony FE and Leica L. The L and RF mounts have the same flange distance. If/when Sigma eventually offers RF lenses, this would be almost certainly the design they'd use for porting over a 14-24mm f/2.8. There is stronger vignetting on the mirrorless-native design at 14mm and stronger vignetting on the DSLR design at 24mm.

As for distortion, see: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...&FLI=0&LensComp=1182&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0 --- I would say the Canon EF version is better than the Sony FE version by a little bit.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 12, 2022)

antonio_s said:


> But it's not really a _disadvantage of the RF mount_, because a lens can always be designed leaving extra room.


Of course they could, but the "disadvantage" is that lens designers might use the option to sacrifice image quality for a more compact design that is made possible by the shorter flange distance. As you say, in the past some third party EF lenses were just extended for mirrorless, as that of course was a cheap option. 

What also worries me is that mirrorless cameras hide distortion from the owner by correcting it even in the viewfinder. So lens designers have less incentive to build a lens with low distortion.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 12, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> the "disadvantage" is that lens designers might use the option to sacrifice image quality for a more compact design that is made possible by the shorter flange distance


I've already responded to your potentially mistaken point that there's any sacrifice at all. 

I just edited my responses a little so if you didn't understand before you may understand now.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 12, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I've already responded to your potentially mistaken point that there's any sacrifice at all.
> 
> I just edited my responses a little so if you didn't understand before you may understand now.


I understand what you mean. It is mathematical set theory. If you increase a set (like a set of options for example), the maximum of that set can't go down. It can only stay the same or go up. For example the best tennis player from California can't be worse than the best tennis player from Los Angeles, as Los Angeles is part of California. Either the guy from Los Angeles is already the best or there is someone better in California, but outside of Los Angeles.

However the same also is true for a minimum of a set. If you increase the set, the minimum either stays the same or you get a new, even lower minimum. So if you take the worst tennis player from Los Angeles and then look at whole California, you might find and even worse tennis player than the worst from Los Angeles.

Coming back to the lenses that means that if you increase the set of possible distances from the sensor to the closest lens element, you get better options to create a lens, but also worse options, that are just built because of the lighter weight or lower production costs. Over time we will see if my fears will really become true. Will manufcaturers really only use the shorter flange distance if that does not affect the image quality in a negative way?

Imagine regulations for planes would be reduced. That would mean that there are more possible options to built a plane. Would that really be an advantage for the passenger? Of course you could still build the same planes as before, as you still have all those old options, but it is more likely that the new planes would be less safe after the regulations go away.

It's also a general "problem" in life. Getting more options is not always an advantage. Rich people for example have more options than average people in many parts of life. Good looking people have more options of getting a partner. Smart people have more options of getting a job, but very often those options are more a curse than a benefit. It is not easy to choose the best option once the number of options increases. That increase in options also means that you have more options to make a terrible mistake. That's why smart, rich or good looking people do not always have a better life.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 12, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I've already responded to your potentially mistaken point that there's any sacrifice at all.
> 
> I just edited my responses a little so if you didn't understand before you may understand now.


The way engineering works is that _there's always a compromise_, you just have to select the area where the compromise will be.
A simple way to look at the case for camera lenses this is - 1. size/weight, 2. image quality, 3. price, pick any TWO only!.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Sep 12, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> Hi Dolina,
> 
> I'm sorry if this message has accidentally been published twice.
> 
> ...


Jan, 

Excellent post! Sorry to hear about the switching systems issues. 

One thing that is only really of minor value but might help in a pinch is with the R systems the shutter comes down to protect the sensor when the camera is off and I have gotten away swapping lenses a couple of times in a hurry on an active runway. Not as ideal as the grail lens you are after but figured you shared your experience I could maybe share some of mine. 

I spoke to my local CPS center on another matter and told them they need to have at least one L quality super zoom in the line up at some point. 

Cheers


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 13, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> However the same also is true for a minimum of a set. If you increase the set, the minimum either stays the same or you get a new, even lower minimum. So if you take the worst tennis player from Los Angeles and then look at whole California, you might find and even worse tennis player than the worst from Los Angeles.


The parallels you draw are quite good I think.

However Canon's not TRYING to deliver crappier and crappier lenses, and now suddenly is reveling in their brand new way to deliver crappier lenses.

It's a competitive market, and Canon needs to ship lenses that are not only equal or superior to competitors, but also comfortably exceed specs on the massive ocean of used EF glass out there, no?

I think you were also assuming that rangefinder/mirrorless lenses would automatically have greater cos^4 vignetting due to the rear lens being closer. I'm not sure this is the case. Optically speaking, the light doesn't appear to come from the surface of the rear element but someplace behind it. Look at the "light circle" coming out the back of a lens that is close to the sensor, and tip the lens side to side to see what the corners of the sensor would "see." You'll see it is nowhere near as an extreme angle as you might think.

Finally, I don't think you're appreciating that some lens aberrations are trivial to correct in software where others are impossible. Lateral CA, distortion and vignetting are trivial to fix. Axial (longitudinal, bokeh) CA is impossible, as is coma and several other aberrations, and including simply nice out-of-focus highlight shape and so on. Distortion or lateral CA correction, both at once, _at absolute worst_ will average four neighboring pixels, yet lenses can't deliver details that fine anyway. (An R5 has 8200 pixels horizontally, which is 228 per millimeter. A lens would need not only 100 lp/mm resolution _but also_ actually be focused _exactly _perfectly on that corner detail, or it would be nearly impossible to see the theoretical resolution loss of distortion correction even when pixel-peeping.

Likewise, vignetting correction requires effectively increasing the ISO up to say 4 stops in the corners, as you say. But first, the area needing a full 4 stops correction is only the outermost, corner-most, few percent of the area of the photo. And then, an R5 has 14 stops of dynamic range. I think photo prints only have a DR of 7-8 stops, and typical LCD screens only about 10. Anything in the corners brighter than 10 stops less than the sensor's maximum range will not be suddenly "noisy," as it has ample light to have high signal-to-noise ratio. It is only the _darkest shadows_ in the _furthest corners_ that would possibly be suffering from increased noise: _shadows so dark they are literally black on most LCD screens!_

And it seems in tests that things like coma and axial CA are indeed far improved in today's offerings. Further, there are other key benefits. I loved the EF 14mm f/2.8 I paid $2500 for (back when that was real money!!) but it was no sharper than the RF 16mm 2/.8 I just paid $300 for. Yet it _was_ maybe 5x the size and seemed a lot more fragile. I have the 16mm in my backpack at all times and don't even notice it. In fact it's hard to even find in there. I would be surprised to find it was destroyed by a drop! And yet if it was I would shrug it off! By leaning heavily on the camera's ability to fix distortion almost without even technically observable impact at the pixel-peeping level, today's 14-35/4 is surprisingly small and light, while beating the EF glass on resolution, while also beating it on zoom range. Or, take the 24-105/4, which has the size of the EF MkI but the sharpness of the EF MkII.

Really, I would commend you to go try to purposefully compose photos that show off these theoretical issues. If you're right, you'd be doing the whole world of camera users a huge favor. But I suspect you'll be very frustrated at the lengths you have to go to to get any kind of result that can be seen even in pixel-peeping raw images, and I'm not even sure how you could make a good web page to show it as LCDs literally don't have the dynamic range to even see the levels of darkness that I think any possible issue would be confined to.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

Ramage said:


> I spoke to my local CPS center on another matter and told them they need to have at least one L quality super zoom in the line up at some point.
> 
> Cheers



Canon has 30+ lenses to release in the next 4 years. I assume Nikon so do as well. Tagging @AutoMatters as this is important to him. That lens will come out before the year 2030.

As an indicator of popularity among users or production priority among brands, the 28-300mm focal length from any brand has only the Canon EF L model showing up. My assumption is this is the last batch to be made and will not be replenished.

No other brand whether it be 1st party like Sony, Nikon or 3rd party like Sigma or Tamron currently has it "in production" for dSLR or mirrorless. On bhphotovideo it is labeled as "No Longer Available".

In the 63 E lens SKUs Sony has the 28-300mm focal length was never released in the dozen years of E mount.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 13, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Finally, I don't think you're appreciating that some lens aberrations are trivial to correct in software where others are impossible. Lateral CA, distortion and vignetting are trivial to fix. Axial (longitudinal, bokeh) CA is impossible, as is coma and several other aberrations, and including simply nice out-of-focus highlight shape and so on.


Maybe the difference is that I try to avoid bokeh whenever possible. So I do not really care too much if out-of-focus area appear green or magenta oder even have an annoying colour fringing. I also do not care about the shape of the bokeh balls. My focus are skyscrapers and I try to get them into focus as much as possible. That of course is very different for portrait photographers. I also have to admit though that even vignetting is only a problem in the rare circumstances when I am forced to shoot wide open die to the lack of light. Usually I use f/8 or f/11.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 13, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe the difference is that I try to avoid bokeh whenever possible. So I do not really care too much if out-of-focus area appear green or magenta oder even have an annoying colour fringing. I also do not care about the shape of the bokeh balls. My focus are skyscrapers and I try to get them into focus as much as possible. That of course is very different for portrait photographers. I also have to admit though that even vignetting is only a problem in the rare circumstances when I am forced to shoot wide open die to the lack of light. Usually I use f/8 or f/11.


OK, but you may be losing more resolution from diffraction at f/11 than you possibly could from geometry correction. And I believe the geometry correction will correct perfectly, more rectilinear than even the most accurate uncorrected primes. In your field, the geometry correction is likely to be visible even at internet resolutions where I can promise you the at-most 1/2-pixel blur from geometry correction will not be.

I'm trying to hear you out and put myself in your place, but I am still convinced that you are rejecting the new technology due to an incorrect understanding of the cost and benefit. You seem think the cost is many orders of magnitude higher than it is, in terms of sharpness lost (distortion correction) and noise introduced (vignetting correction), and don't value the resulting savings in cost, size, portability. I grant not every shooter has issues about every possible gain. Lateral and axial CA and out-of-focus rendering apparently don't affect you. I understand that. Still, it's not common for a photographer to work in such a narrow niche as that. It's possible that most of the improvements simply don't affect you, so if you can make use of the far far cheaper ocean of EF lenses, I can only be envious!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> It's possible that most of the improvements simply don't affect you, so if you can make use of the far far cheaper ocean of EF lenses, I can only be envious!


Sometimes it annoys me though that a new technology is created to address problems that I did not have in the first place. Then I might have to experience the downsides without benefitting from the upsides. Mirrorless cameras are a good example for that. One of the big reasons they were introduced was the improvement of autofocus. Autofocus points from edge to edge, face recognition and other stuff are only possible without a mirror. Either in Live View or with a mirrorless camera. However for the subjects of my photography, I hardly ever had trouble with autofocus. Skyscrapers do not have faces and I almost always use the single autofocus point in the center. I also do not really need video. I see video more as a gimmick. You can't really hang a video to your wall. At least not that easily. Yet those new cameras are heavily influenced by the video aspect. For example when the camera manufacturer decides about the resolution of the sensor. Of course the sensor is read out all the time anyway. So video should not be expensive to implement. However I am sure that video is a part of the price calculation of each camera. You do not get any features for free. Even those you do not need. I wish there was a stills only R3 for less money.

It reminds me of notebooks that use a lot of space for a giant touchpad that I NEVER use. I usually even disable it. Or a smartphone with a front camera that punches a whole into the display although I never use my front camera. That design even makes it harder to put a sticker on it without hiding even more pixels. Hotels are also a good example. Good hotels offer some services you might enjoy, but also a lot of stuff that you do not really need, but still have to pay.

Mirrorless cameras come with a few huge downsides for me that are hard to swallow. 
First I lose the optical viewfinder, which has a better resolution, brightness and durability than an electronic viewfinder will ever have. Loosing the optical viewfinder disconnects me from reality. I only see a copy of the world. Secondly the camera consumes a lot of energy during composing the photo. With a DSLR you can wait ten minutes for the perfect shot without losing a lot of power. At the same time the sensor also gets warmer and warmer, which leads to more noise. Maybe that gets compensated because newer sensors have a better noise performance, but the noise would be even lower if the sensor would only have to work during actual exposure. The sensor is the heart of the camera. It is a waste to use it outside of any exposure. That may introduce hot pixels or dead pixels much sooner than in the past.

I wish Canon simply continued to develope new DSLRs with all the new sensor technology (stacked BSI) and LiveView could still be optional instead of forced.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Sometimes it annoys me though that a new technology is created to address problems that I did not have in the first place. Then I might have to experience the downsides without benefitting from the upsides. Mirrorless cameras are a good example for that. One of the big reasons they were introduced was the improvement of autofocus. Autofocus points from edge to edge, face recognition and other stuff are only possible without a mirror. Either in Live View or with a mirrorless camera. However for the subjects of my photography, I hardly ever had trouble with autofocus. Skyscrapers do not have faces and I almost always use the single autofocus point in the center. I also do not really need video. I see video more as a gimmick. You can't really hang a video to your wall. At least not that easily. Yet those new cameras are heavily influenced by the video aspect. For example when the camera manufacturer decides about the resolution of the sensor. Of course the sensor is read out all the time anyway. So video should not be expensive to implement. However I am sure that video is a part of the price calculation of each camera. You do not get any features for free. Even those you do not need. I wish there was a stills only R3 for less money.
> 
> It reminds me of notebooks that use a lot of space for a giant touchpad that I NEVER use. I usually even disable it. Or a smartphone with a front camera that punches a whole into the display although I never use my front camera. That design even makes it harder to put a sticker on it without hiding even more pixels. Hotels are also a good example. Good hotels offer some services you might enjoy, but also a lot of stuff that you do not really need, but still have to pay.
> 
> ...


I have a slight feeling, though I could be far wrong, that there is a possibility that skyscraper shots might just represent a minority interest and that, if so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc might just think they may be satisfying a wider need by selling mirrorless cameras. Maybe, I am quite wrong and they should revert to DSLRs, and iPhones and Androids should install ovfs.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have a slight feeling, though I could be far wrong, that there is a possibility that skyscraper shots might just represent a minority interest and that, if so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc might just think they may be satisfying a wider need by selling mirrorless cameras. Maybe, I am quite wrong and they should revert to DSLRs, and iPhones and Androids should install ovfs.


They already developed all that DSLR technology. So I don't know why it is so hard for them to update them with the latest sensors, faster processors, CFexpress cards, faster buffers, maybe an internal storage and so on. If you look at the 1D X, 1D X Mark II and 1D X Mark III, they did not really reinvent the wheel. So why it is so hard to keep those old, but popukar cameras updated?

Especially for entry cameras DSLRs have some advantages. Entry cameras will not have IBIS anyway, but building an EVF into the camera that comes somehow close to the quality of an OVF will be quite expensive. So Canon might decide that entry cameras in the range below 400 Euros will not have a viewfinder at all. Those cameras will also have small batteries that will be empty very fast if they have to power the display all the time. So for customers it would be a big benefit if those cheap cameras - that even owners of expensive cameras like to have as a backup - would keep being DSLRs.

So is Canon's strategy now to keep producing DSLRs, but without any update? Are they not interested any more in the entry level market? For many people even the $999 for the R10 without a lens is still a lot. Does Canon want to be a premium brand now like Apple that does not offer any cheap products any more?


----------



## dolina (Sep 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> They already developed all that DSLR technology. So I don't know why it is so hard for them to update them with the latest sensors, faster processors, CFexpress cards, faster buffers, maybe an internal storage and so on. If you look at the 1D X, 1D X Mark II and 1D X Mark III, they did not really reinvent the wheel. So why it is so hard to keep those old, but popukar cameras updated?
> 
> Especially for entry cameras DSLRs have some advantages. Entry cameras will not have IBIS anyway, but building an EVF into the camera that comes somehow close to the quality of an OVF will be quite expensive. So Canon might decide that entry cameras in the range below 400 Euros will not have a viewfinder at all. Those cameras will also have small batteries that will be empty very fast if they have to power the display all the time. So for customers it would be a big benefit if those cheap cameras - that even owners of expensive cameras like to have as a backup - would keep being DSLRs.
> 
> So is Canon's strategy now to keep producing DSLRs, but without any update? Are they not interested any more in the entry level market? For many people even the $999 for the R10 without a lens is still a lot. Does Canon want to be a premium brand now like Apple that does not offer any cheap products any more?


iPhone & Android pretty much destroyed the consumer demand for digital still cameras that cost less than $1k

This is reflective on how many point & shoots released this year.... which is zero

This is refelctive of how long Canon took to come out with the R10 from the time RF mount was announced... which is 5 years.

Something to consider as to why Canon was very slow in releasing 30 lenses over 5 years at an average rate of 6 lens SKUs annually.

~80% of these lenses have such a high volume that production capacity cannot keep up especially with supply constraints caused by COVID & the Ukranian-Russian war.

Canon CEO commited to a 8 lens SKU annual release for the next 4 years because the lens coming out in the future will not be that highly demand even when Canon photo forum members tend to make it seem that the missing focal length they desire appears to have millions of users waiting for them

As for the dSLR... it's a dead end tech. Canon/Nikon spending any more R&D money on it is just pissing money away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> So is Canon's strategy now to keep producing DSLRs, but without any update? Are they not interested any more in the entry level market? For many people even the $999 for the R10 without a lens is still a lot. Does Canon want to be a premium brand now like Apple that does not offer any cheap products any more?


Interesting opinion. The facts are that the last DSLR launched by Canon was an xxxD model >2.5 years ago. Last year, 44% of the ILCs sold by Canon were DSLRs, and given the shipment values the vast majority of those were entry-level DSLRs kits. 33% of the ILCs sold were EOS M bodies, and that line is weighted toward less expensive bodies, too.

So 70-75% of the ILCs Canon sold last year were entry level kits. How do you conclude that Canon is no longer interested in the entry level market? I suppose ignorance of the facts, willful or not.

Your talk of CFe cards and fast buffers suggests that you don’t care about the entry level market either, but rather you want Canon to keep updating high-end DSLRs, or maybe you think if Canon were to do that they’d sell those high-end DSLRs at entry-level prices.

I doubt either of those will happen. It’s in Canon’s best interest to shift the high end of their ILC base to mirrorless, to drive RF lens sales.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Sometimes it annoys me though that a new technology is created to address problems that I did not have in the first place. Then I might have to experience the downsides without benefitting from the upsides. Mirrorless cameras are a good example for that. One of the big reasons they were introduced was the improvement of autofocus. Autofocus points from edge to edge, face recognition and other stuff are only possible without a mirror. Either in Live View or with a mirrorless camera. However for the subjects of my photography, I hardly ever had trouble with autofocus. Skyscrapers do not have faces and I almost always use the single autofocus point in the center. I also do not really need video. I see video more as a gimmick. You can't really hang a video to your wall. At least not that easily. Yet those new cameras are heavily influenced by the video aspect. For example when the camera manufacturer decides about the resolution of the sensor. Of course the sensor is read out all the time anyway. So video should not be expensive to implement. However I am sure that video is a part of the price calculation of each camera. You do not get any features for free. Even those you do not need. I wish there was a stills only R3 for less money.
> 
> It reminds me of notebooks that use a lot of space for a giant touchpad that I NEVER use. I usually even disable it. Or a smartphone with a front camera that punches a whole into the display although I never use my front camera. That design even makes it harder to put a sticker on it without hiding even more pixels. Hotels are also a good example. Good hotels offer some services you might enjoy, but also a lot of stuff that you do not really need, but still have to pay.
> 
> ...



I can feel your frustration. Most of what the new camera does is stuff you don't need. 
As for the "why" of mirrorless, I can add another couple why's but again they may be things you don't need. 1) shooting is now instantaneous. SLR's needed like 70ms to flip the mirror out of the way and we don't have that. Faster release can be really useful for some. I've got a small number of Leica rangefinder shots that couldn't have been made on an SLR for this reason. 2) allows more freedom for the lens maker to make optical and size/weight/cost tradeoffs, now that they no longer have the extra limitation that the back of the lens had to be at least 45mm from the sensor/film. I think we absolutely profit from this with the RF 24-105 being as small as the EF MkI despite being as sharp as the EF MkII. (And "as sharp" means, about as sharp as an EF prime.) You may not need the sharpness or portability that can result. It's possible the RF just doesn't serve you well.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2022)

I’ll say this again. The market will determine the future of DSLRs, not companies. If Canon finds that a certain percentage of the market is not going to switch to mirrorless and that percentage is sufficiently high they will release new DSLR models. In a shrinking market they can’t afford to leave a bunch of customers on the table. 
However, if I we’re taking bets, I would bet that almost all customers will eventually switch.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 14, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I’ll say this again. The market will determine the future of DSLRs, not companies. If Canon finds that a certain percentage of the market is not going to switch to mirrorless and that percentage is sufficiently high they will release new DSLR models. In a shrinking market they can’t afford to leave a bunch of customers on the table.
> However, if I we’re taking bets, I would bet that almost all customers will eventually switch.


Maybe the big ones are waiting for the other(s) to announce a new DSLR and gauge the market reaction. I don't know where Canon wants the 'entry level' APS-C crowd to move to. On one hand I'm hoping for new EOS M models, but a small, EVF-less R body would interest me as well.

It amazes me that the M6II is still the only M model that allows eye-AF in servo mode and it's also the only M model that supports USB-C PD charging.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> It amazes me that the M6II is still the only M model that allows eye-AF in servo mode and it's also the only M model that supports USB-C PD charging.


Those are two of the reasons I bought the M6II a couple of months ago.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The facts are that the last DSLR launched by Canon was an xxxD model >2.5 years ago.


2.5 years is not a lot, but as I understood Canon, that will be the last DLSR. They are not planning any new ones. They have already stopped production of many EF lenses.


neuroanatomist said:


> Your talk of CFe cards and fast buffers suggests that you don’t care about the entry level market either, but rather you want Canon to keep updating high-end DSLRs, or maybe you think if Canon were to do that they’d sell those high-end DSLRs at entry-level prices.


My point is that many of the recent progresses of cameras could also be used for DSLRs. For example the stacked BSI sensor. That is not something that really comes as a benefit from mirrorless cameras. It was just as Canon decision that they do not offer the fabulous R3 sensor, which at the moment has the best low light performance of all full frame sensors on the market, in any future DSLR. At the same time they put the so far best DSLR sensor they have - the one of the 1D X Mark III - into the R6 which costs a little more than a third of the price. 

For me mirrorless cameras do not feel like the future, but instead like a step back. Evey cheap point and shoot camera is a mirrorless camera. I once bought a Canon Powershot S1 IS, as 3.2 megapixel mirrorless camera, which even offered video, an EVF and optical image stabilization. DSLRs have been in the premium category. Strange that this has changed and suddenly the old technology is called "progress".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> 2.5 years is not a lot, but as I understood Canon, that will be the last DLSR. They are not planning any new ones. They have already stopped production of many EF lenses.


Canon stated that the 1D X III would be the last flagship DSLR. They also stated they would continue to supply products as long as there is demand. Given that entry-level DLSRs represent the lowest price point for ILCs, and that 45% of Canon's ILCs are DLSRs, it appears that demand remains quite strong. We'll see what the R10 and R7 do to that, but the R10 kit is >2x the cost of the Rebel T7 kit.



Skyscraperfan said:


> My point is that many of the recent progresses of cameras could also be used for DSLRs. For example the stacked BSI sensor. That is not something that really comes as a benefit from mirrorless cameras. It was just as Canon decision that they do not offer the fabulous R3 sensor, which at the moment has the best low light performance of all full frame sensors on the market, in any future DSLR. At the same time they put the so far best DSLR sensor they have - the one of the 1D X Mark III - into the R6 which costs a little more than a third of the price.


Sure, and Canon could give cameras away for free, too. But they won't, they're a business. Canon has stated in their financial reporting that they expect RF lenses to drive significant revenue growth for the Imaging Division. For that to happen, they need users to switch from DSLRs to MILCs. Putting the latest technology in DSLRs would be a step back for Canon, and would negatively impact their revenue stream.



Skyscraperfan said:


> For me mirrorless cameras do not feel like the future, but instead like a step back. Evey cheap point and shoot camera is a mirrorless camera. I once bought a Canon Powershot S1 IS, as 3.2 megapixel mirrorless camera, which even offered video, an EVF and optical image stabilization. DSLRs have been in the premium category. Strange that this has changed and suddenly the old technology is called "progress".


That's fine, but unless you can construct your own cameras you are limited to what manufacturers choose to sell. Pentax released an APS-C DSLR last year with a BSI sensor, dual card slots, 11 fps, maybe you should look at that brand. Canon and Nikon have clearly decided to prioritize MILCs over DLSRs for new features, and Sony abandoned DLSRs entirely.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I can feel your frustration. Most of what the new camera does is stuff you don't need.
> As for the "why" of mirrorless, I can add another couple why's but again they may be things you don't need. 1) shooting is now instantaneous. SLR's needed like 70ms to flip the mirror out of the way and we don't have that. Faster release can be really useful for some. I've got a small number of Leica rangefinder shots that couldn't have been made on an SLR for this reason. 2) allows more freedom for the lens maker to make optical and size/weight/cost tradeoffs, now that they no longer have the extra limitation that the back of the lens had to be at least 45mm from the sensor/film. I think we absolutely profit from this with the RF 24-105 being as small as the EF MkI despite being as sharp as the EF MkII. (And "as sharp" means, about as sharp as an EF prime.) You may not need the sharpness or portability that can result. It's possible the RF just doesn't serve you well.


I read that R5's shutter lag is 50msec for electronic and 81msec for mechanical so no real advantage there.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> They also stated they would continue to supply products as long as there is demand.


You have to read between the lines there. They will still build those cameras, but they did not say the they will develope new ones. Nikon had as similar press statment. They wrote 

_Nikon is continuing the production, sales and service of digital SLR. _

The word "develope" is noticeably missing in that announcement. 

It seems both brands just create demand for mirrorless cameras by not given consumers any other choice. It is like the auto manufacturers who decided that they will focus on the production of electric vehicles now. Some will even stop making gas powered cars at one point. Governments also do their part in making EVs cheaper. So it gets more and more difficult to gind a good conventional car.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> You have to read between the lines there. They will still build those cameras, but they did not say the they will develope new ones. Nikon had as similar press statment. They wrote
> 
> _Nikon is continuing the production, sales and service of digital SLR. _
> 
> The word "develope" is noticeably missing in that announcement.


I understand full well what they stated, and did not state. Still, it would not surprise me personally if Canon releases an updated xxxD DLSR and an updated EOS M. 70-75% of a market is simply too large to ignore. Canon could also address the issue with an R100 and R1000, kit priced similar to the xxxD and xxxxD DSLRs, since it seems reasonable that the main draw for those entry-level DSLRs is the low price, not the fact that they have a mirror.

However, I certainly do not expect Canon to release anything at the xxD level or higher. Thus the R10 and R7. 



Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems both brands just create demand for mirrorless cameras by not given consumers any other choice. It is like the auto manufacturers who decided that they will focus on the production of electric vehicles now. Some will even stop making gas powered cars at one point. Governments also do their part in making EVs cheaper. So it gets more and more difficult to gind a good conventional car.


You say that like it's a bad thing. At the risk of an extreme derailment, climate change is not a hoax. 

As it pertains to cameras, as I've said many times these are for-profit businesses we're discussing, not philanthropic organizations. They want our money, and limiting our choice to more expensive items at the higher end of the brand is one way to increase the amount of our money they get. You don't even have to read between the lines to understand that.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2022)

tron said:


> I read that R5's shutter lag is 50msec for electronic and 81msec for mechanical so no real advantage there.


I think that he is not talking about lag but that it takes 70 ms for the mirror to flip out and back, so you are limited to about 14 fps with a mirror (the 1DXIII must be bit quicker as it does 16 fps in mechanical). The R7 and R3 do 30 fps in electronic shutter.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2022)

Good catch because he said "70msec to flip out and back" I hadn't noticed it.

I took literally "shooting is now instantaneous" and I responded to this because shooting is still not instantaneous at least for R5.

But now I saw that R3 has 20msec shutter lag so it seems that we are going towards instantaneous shooting. Now if only R5 II has prerelease shooting just like R7 (because human reactions are much slower...)


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2022)

tron said:


> Good catch because he said "70msec to flip out and back" I hadn't noticed it.
> 
> I took literally "shooting is now instantaneous" and I responded to this because shooting is still not instantaneous at least for R5.
> 
> But now I saw that R3 has 20msec shutter lag so it seems that we are going towards instantaneous shooting. Now if only R5 II has prerelease shooting just like R7 (because human reactions are much slower...)


I would be surprised if the R5 could not have it with a firmware upgrade as also fewer fps in ES. But, they will keep it back for the R5II.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I understand full well what they stated, and did not state. Still, it would not surprise me personally if Canon releases an updated xxxD DLSR and an updated EOS M. 70-75% of a market is simply too large to ignore. Canon could also address the issue with an R100 and R1000, kit priced similar to the xxxD and xxxxD DSLRs, since it seems reasonable that the main draw for those entry-level DSLRs is the low price, not the fact that they have a mirror.
> 
> However, I certainly do not expect Canon to release anything at the xxD level or higher. Thus the R10 and R7.


You are probably correct. But I think we have to at least entertain the idea that Canon could, at some point, decide to release at least one new full-frame DSLR. Just as 70-75% of the total market is too large to ignore, it's also true that the most lucrative segment of the market is the higher-end enthusiast. I think that Canon is having good success moving that market over to mirrorless, but I think there is a slim possibility that once they get a better handle on where the mirrorless enthusiast market is headed they may decide to offer an updated xD full frame body for the segment that doesn't want to buy mirrorless. 

One argument in favor of such a camera is that Canon already has significant investment in the DSLR ecosystem and the development of a single full-frame DSLR would not require a lot of new investment, especially if they concentrated on carrying over only the technologies from mirrorless that are easily ported to a DSLR. They kept the EOS 1V in the lineup for 18 years. I could see them releasing a similar 5D type body that they could keep around for another decade or so -- long enough for most of the DSLR die-hards to actually die out.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 16, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Aw c'mon. The "real" bodies start at $6k? The "REAL" ones?


Read that again, SLOWER this time. You can do it.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 16, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon has 30+ lenses to release in the next 4 years. I assume Nikon so do as well. Tagging @AutoMatters as this is important to him. That lens will come out before the year 2030.
> 
> As an indicator of popularity among users or production priority among brands, the 28-300mm focal length from any brand has only the Canon EF L model showing up. My assumption is this is the last batch to be made and will not be replenished.
> 
> ...



Im willing to bet none of those are the *50 1.4 EF replacement*. I'm glad mine is an actually good copy, when shooting 2.8+. Would be nice to use a 1.4 lens at 1.4 without hazy results though. I mean, _it says 1.4 on the barrel_...sigh

** PS- I CAN shoot 1.4 on my *SIGMA 30 1.4*. Yes, its a crop lens, but...seeing sharp 1.4 images for me is a revelation.


----------



## dolina (Sep 16, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Im willing to bet none of those are the *50 1.4 EF replacement*. I'm glad mine is an actually good copy, when shooting 2.8+. Would be nice to use a 1.4 lens at 1.4 without hazy results though. I mean, _it says 1.4 on the barrel_...sigh
> 
> ** PS- I CAN shoot 1.4 on my *SIGMA 30 1.4*. Yes, its a crop lens, but...seeing sharp 1.4 images for me is a revelation.


You'd lose that bet because you're too cynical for your own good.

On bhphotovideo their are these many 50mm f/1.4 lens SKUs

- 23 for SLR
- 21 for Mirrorless

There's already a manual focus RF mount lens

The lens is popular but probably does not have a great margin.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 17, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Read that again, SLOWER this time. You can do it.


"Rrrrreeeeeeaaaaalllll" Nope. Same results.


----------



## shadow (Nov 18, 2022)

RED Cameras licensed to use the RF mount by Canon as noted in this article, should support RF lens sales.

"Canon wants to sell lenses above all else, so much so that it will let another camera maker — one that it arguably competes with in the cinema space — use its mirrorless lens mount. Since Canon is the only manufacturer that can support RF, any sale of a RED camera means the sale of Canon lenses. That means more money. Seeing Canon block others from making lenses for RF while at the same time licensing it for use by a camera manufacturer only further drives home this strategy." : petapixel









RED Uses the RF Mount, So Why Won't Canon License it for Lenses?


Canon cares about selling lenses above all else.




petapixel.com


----------

