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

[dolina]

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

My read on this is

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

vs

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

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

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

 

[danfaz]

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

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

 

[illadvisedhammer]

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

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

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

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

 

[navastronia]

Being detached from reality is not the same as speculating.

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

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

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

 

[dolina]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



But probably not, Charlie.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

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

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

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

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

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

=====

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

But their latest showed up on my YouTube feed:

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

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

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

Canon is getting scalded in the comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Enough about that...

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

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

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

 

[LogicExtremist]

View attachment 205501

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

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

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

 

[LogicExtremist]

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

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

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


Enough about that...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dlee13]

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

 

[Jonathan Thill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

- faster inventory turnover
- better profit margins

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

- slower inventory turnover
- worse profit margins

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

Sticky this and close the thread!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

 

[LogicExtremist]

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

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

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

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

 

[dolina]

Stinky this and close the thread!

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

 

[LogicExtremist]

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

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

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jonathan Thill]

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

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

Thanks I aim for perfection.

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

Create drama.

Cheers!

 

[dolina]

Thanks I aim for perfection.

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

Create drama.

Cheers!

I disagree.

It creates clicks & clicks drive ad revenue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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