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

[David_B]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

The answer you're looking for is consumer choice.

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

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

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

 

[Chaitanya]

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

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

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

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[SnowMiku]

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

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

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

www.bhphotovideo.com

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

www.bhphotovideo.com

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

 

[Chaitanya]

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

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanF]

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

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

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

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

 

[unfocused]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanF]

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

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

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

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

 

[amfoto1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dolina]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding your lens numbers

Are these all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are the ILC bodies that are found on bhphoto.

These are filtered for

- USA warranty
- Single physical color
- In stock
- In production

​

Brand	Canon	Nikon	FujiFILM	Sony	Pentax
APS-C dSLR	3	3	N/A	N/A	2
APS-C Mirrorless	2 RF-S & 2 EF-M	3	6	4	N/A
Subtotal APS-C ILC	7	6	6	4	2
Full Frame dSLR	5	3	N/A	N/A	1
Full Frame Mirrorless	5	4	N/A	9	N/A
Subtotal Full Frame ILC	10	7	N/A	9	1
Grand Total ILC (Full Frame + APS)	17	13	6	13	3

My interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

Source

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

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

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

 

[dolina]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dolina]

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

This observation is very on point.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

 

[Chaitanya]

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

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

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

 

[dolina]

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

Good marketing

Cheaper than a digital still camera that feels redundant

Produces hard copies

It becomes an in person social interaction

 

[neuroanatomist]

Instax not instamatic.

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