I think this is an interesting line of thought.

How much money may Sony not-be-making by having their mount open to third parties?

We know Canon makes a lot of money with cheap cameras and lenses. They get most beginners with very attractive and affordable entry level cameras, then sell them a cheap 50mm, to attach them to the system. If beginners can't buy anything else, in a way, it is what it is - most likely, they'll commit.
Additionally, we see Canon is clearly trying to tackle the desire for third party manufacturers, with cheaper lenses that perform very well, like the 28-70 f/2.8, 16-28 f/2.8, and possibly this upcoming 45mm f/1.2 so then, a beginner that's looking to upgrade, will have attractive lenses available with the logo of the brand he trusts the most, which may help mitigate the desire for third party glass.

Sony is not that attractive to unknowing beginners, so a significant part of the line of though I just wrote will not apply - let's be real, a true beginner may not detach the kit lens for years. They have some outdated beginner cameras, and a few that are updated, but much more expensive, like the a6700. Also, their cheapest models are significantly more expensive than Canon's offerings (R100, R50).

At the moment, several of the most spectacular lenses for Sony FE are NOT made by Sony. Most of their users are not beginners either, for the reasons mentioned above, so they're not that afraid of buying third party - in fact, many go Sony because of the existence of such offerings.
There's the Tamron 35-150mm, Sigma's 28-45mm f/1.8, 28-105mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.2 (two versions already!), 200mm f/2, 300-600mm f/4, and now the SongRAW 85mm f/1.2 and Laowa's 200mm f/2. There are probably a lot more awesome third party lenses I'm not aware of.
Sony has been repeatedly beaten on the race to groundbreaking lenses.

In an era where cameras are lasting longer and longer, due to slower improvements that can lead users to upgrade less often (hence camera brands pushing so hard on marketing for us to upgrade), and the use of electronic and, more recently, global shutters, if a brand with an open mount is not selling lenses, because there's so many decent third party options available, what will they sell then?

The price and the quality is one point, another point is the availability. I'm probably willing to pay a little bit more for original Canon lenses, but many lenses still doesn't exist with an RF mount! And without 3rd party lenses Canon will never be able to get a similar large amount of lenses for the RF cameras as we have for the EF mount. That effect will rather become visible on the long run when fever people will select the small Canon world.

Click said:

Beautiful shots.

Nicely done, shire guy.

Click to expand...

Thank you Click

No mention of Yongnuo? They made their long way from reverse engineer NifftyFiffty to better price-performance ratio 50/85mm f1.8 than Canon/Sony /Nikon.

EF mount was never open officially like Sony E and Fuji X ever did. It was open because it was out more than 10 years. And times were slower back in the days.

Right now Canon needs to bring more affordable zooms. Cheap primes both Canon and Yongnuo provide adequate amount. And RF-S has Sigma covered.

What will be the price point? It cant be as same as of xt 50

Nikon has created a new Instagram account for its Z mount cinema gear called ‘zcinema’ and immediately showed off an upcoming lineup of lenses that certainly are cinema in appearance, with what appears to be focus and iris (aperture) gearing. Nikon’s Aihara Takashi talked to DCW about this, and Nikon seems to be going all […]






See full article... geometry dash scratch

Click to expand...

I expect these lenses to be high end at mid end prices, around 5,000~6,000 US$ a piece, T1.5, very fast and silent AF capabilities using their new AF motors, top class image quality. They will want to appeal to photographers also hence the AF capability even if they come in more cine like packaging. My guess is that optically this is basically a full line up derived from the technologies used in the Noct/Plena lenses. Sort of SX lenses above the S line.

Why not get a used EF 300 f/2.8 L Mk. II? You can get them between 2.800 - 3.500€. It's still quite ligthweight and compact and works great with the 1.4x and 2.0x Extenders, without sacrificing much image quality. It works stellar on the R Cameras.

I must say, I saw it coming...
The same occurred when the German optical industry started to face stiff competition from Asahi Pentax, Canon, Nikon and the likes. The ones who in the seventies still spoke of Japanese garbage were quickly taught a lesson...
I guess the same ones are nowadays stupidly speaking of those crappy Chinese cars.
I also keep wondering how many Sony cameras are fitted with Sony lenses. Could it be that Canon got it right and Sony all wrong? Time will tell. Fact is, licensing certainly brings far less profit than selling OEM lenses.
The market is shrinking while competition keeps growing. And tariffs don't help...

Noreaster said:

I thought they were all gone for the year. View attachment 226544

Click to expand...

Darters are still abundant here, as well as pebbles.

tomscott said:

but the issue I have with Canon is that upgrading to the newest lenes is a significant cost increase over the EF line.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the RF lenses are expensive. I still use my 100-400 II, the 70-200 II f/4, the TS-E 24 II, and the 16-35 f/4. I did replace the 24-105 f/4 with the RF version and also bought the 10-20. I bought both lenses on the gray market, though. That saved me almost €1000. For my R8, I did buy the 16mm, 28mm, and 50mm. For now, I'm holding off on replacing my EF lenses. This is also because I prefer an internal zoom lens for both the 16-35 and the 70-200. I hope these will become available in the future.

So the thing is everything is so much more expensive in life atm but the issue I have with Canon is that upgrading to the newest lenes is a significant cost increase over the EF line. Often a lot of these lenses perform similar to the EF lenses they replace. For example the RF 24-70 IS F2.8 actually performs worse than the EF24-70MKII it replaces, sun flare is awful. RF600 is a repackaged EF600MKIII etc etc but they are significantly more expensive. Yet the EF lenses perform incredibly well.

I am not one that wants to use 3rd party lenses but I havent adopted the RF lenses because honestly they are too expensive. I bought the RF24-70 2.8 IS as I use that a lot and the RF35 F2 for video. Instead of replacing the rest of my lenses im using adapting my old ones because in most cases they work better than on my DSLRs.

Im sure im not the only one.

This is why the 45mm 1.2 STM for $599 is an interesting lens. Is this Canon's answer to Viltrox &co killing it with value? Can they do it? The quality expectations have become very high, for both build and IQ.

Del Paso said:

And, if I'm not mistaken, the R8 cannot be fitted with a battery-grip, should you need one.

Click to expand...

There is, 3rd party battery grips are available to RP/R8 as their doors are detachable. Unlike R7&the rest of the RF APS-C bodies. The only downside is you need an external shutter cable in order to make the shutter button works. Other than that it it's still light and provides much batter run-time for the R8.

No birds on that trail today... When I was thinking I will go home empty-handed (just in the last ~10 min.!!!) I saw these. I don't know what kind of Bolete it is, it grows on, and only on that trail (so far what I have seen...), and is not mentioned in any article/book about the Hawaiian mushrooms.
I had (or maybe not!!!) to remove a piece of wood in front of the smaller fruit-body and damage it little bit. On other hand it shows no blueish-brown bruising on that place. The well known for Hawaii Pulveroboletus xylophilus has no net on the stem and is bruising when damaged!

ERHP said:

Just a few from August, sorting through the shots of multiple coveys of CA quail and others visiting the rapidly depleting seep.

One of the pair of surviving juvenile CA Thrashers who consider the seep part of its area.

Only one juvenile Steller's Jay this year.

Juvenile CA Quail male molting slowly.

This trio of juvenile CA Quail were navigating through the boulders.

A CA Quail crossing the 'bridge'. Always find it interesting how the feathers develop.

Click to expand...

These photos need bigger screen (magnification!) to be seen properly! Really great shots.

John Wilde said:

The primary target audience of incremental upgrades is people who don't have the previous model.

Click to expand...

I have the original R6 and I don't feel like I need to update to the new R6 mk III. All being said, I have an R3 too, but the original R6 still doubles as a great second camera.

Great shots, ERHP.

Just a few from August, sorting through the shots of multiple coveys of CA quail and others visiting the rapidly depleting seep.

One of the pair of surviving juvenile CA Thrashers who consider the seep part of its area.


Only one juvenile Steller's Jay this year.


Juvenile CA Quail male molting slowly.


This trio of juvenile CA Quail were navigating through the boulders.


A CA Quail crossing the 'bridge'. Always find it interesting how the feathers develop.

Very nice series, Noreaster. I especially like the last one.

Very pretty in the middle of these rocks.

Bob Howland said:

Wouldn't Canon have to disclose the RF implementation to Sigma for Sigma to make fully compatible APS-C lenses?

Click to expand...

To some extent for sure. Canon may just take Sigma's existing lens and then provide back to them a profile correction and firmware.
Alternatively, Canon may license access to SW for them to test with draconian damages claims if they expose/leak or implement into non-agreed lenses.
Canon may also provide an encryption key per lens to be able to work with Canon bodies unless used with manual AF etc.
I imagine that they could be quite innovative to protect their protocols and others on the forum could better thoughts on options.