Opinion: The difficulty facing Canon (and everyone else)

[kmrahe]

In a related discussion, Canon was asked about the future of APS-C RF-S lenses, of which the company declined to answer, stating that all of its lenses are available to use on the crop-sensor format, even if the optics were designed for full-frame.

“As you know, the RF mount can be used with both full-frame and APS-C cameras, and all lenses are suitable. Some of these full-frame lenses can be attached on top of APS-C cameras, so you can attach an existing full-frame lens to your APS-C camera and enjoy shooting scenes to your heart’s content,” the Canon executives said.​

In short, APSC users are told to quit whining and just buy a full-frame lens. Thanks for nothing, Canon.

That is exactly where I've been getting the feeling Canon was heading. What they're ignoring, however, is ergonomics. Unlike a FF lens on an EF/EF-S->EF-M adapter, which leaves one's fingers almost as much room to grip an M50 camera body as a native EF-M lens does, a FF lens on an R50/R100 sounds much more challenging ergonomically according to reviews I've read, as it's full-frame diameter from the body outward.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think you’re making too much of the carry-on limits. The domestic airlines here in Australia have often enforced the 7kg limit, as well as a size limit, for carry-on, going back at least 10 years. It’s nothing new, and I managed to travel with a 1Ds Mk III and multiple lenses. The kit for my upcoming trips will be the R3 + 100–500 + EF 24–70 f/4 IS + adapter + 77mm C-POL and then either the EF 16–35 f/4 IS + adapter or the 1Ds Mk III. This is either 4.17kg or 4.9kg. My Crumpler bag is 1.6kg.

People need to revise their idea of a lightweight kit. I see kits including a 600mm f/4 described as lightweight. Is a laptop really needed, or could the images just sit on cards until you get home?

Very true although they don't always include women's handbags for instance. There has been more and more ad hoc enforcement locally though.
What gets me is that some airlines allow you to upgrade to 10kgs from 7kgs for a fee and I am happy to pay it. They should all do this and would be a better income stream for them than annoying/stressing both passengers and staff enforcing the policy.

 

[David - Sydney]

I’ve done this in the past with bodies that aren’t worth much, with tripods and the chargers.

The problem these days is whether the checked baggage will get there at all. In DSLR days, I probably wasn’t going to need to charge anyway, but this is no longer true with mirrorless, and that huge R3 charger needs to go in the checked baggage. On the other hand, if my hiking/wet weather gear was in that checked baggage and is lost I would also have a real problem.

Very true! Mine got lost for 11 days last year for a trip to Iceland. I did have everything bar tripod and filters in hand carry though including my drone so was not lost. Biggest issue I had was no power point adaptor which was tricky to manage with only 2 USB-A outlets in the hire car

 

[David - Sydney]

What has changed is the existence of AirTags and similar items.

Yes and no. For my trip last year where my luggage was "Lost". I could tell them it was at Heathrow but that didn't help them or me at the time. They eventually got it to me (the day before I left Iceland) otherwise I would have walked into Heathrow to show them where it was.
Going through a lost luggage claim is a nightmare as they wanted everything itemised with receipts and calculation of current value.

 

[David - Sydney]

In the USA you could carry a small fridge as your carry-on and you'd be fine. I swear that I've seen one.I believe it's just size limited in the US for most carriers, and even then the size constraints are bigger for the domestic USA than almost everywhere else.

The rest of the world.. is a little different

As someone who works for a very large US company but outside of the US.... they wanted to call us RoW (Rest Of World) which was somewhat insulting but we have insisted (and they agreed) that we are now called MoW (Most of World).
They still believe that anything "domestic" relates only within the US vs meaning within the boundaries of any country on a relative basis.

 

[David - Sydney]

Where do they weigh the carryon bags – at check-in or at the gate? I’ve only had checked bags weighed at check-in, and I’ve often had them let a bag that’s 1-2 kg overweight the usual 23 kg limit slide with no hassle or fee (though in some cases I have a higher allowance with airline status, e.g. BA allows me 32 kg, but American just allows additional 23 kg bags and has let me slide).

I have seen checks at both check-in and at the gate. At check-in, they sometimes weigh and then specifically tag the bag to say it is weighed.
At the gate, checks have been made both where bags checked at check-in or not. In most cases, they are interested in over-size items. My wife literally flew from Brisbane to Sydney and got checked at the gate and the size was what they were looking at... and yes, she was over 7kgs and got away with it.

The absolute weird thing is that anything you buy within the international duty free area is okay to bring onboard unless very large.

 

[David - Sydney]

I do think carry-on is going to change once the 100ml liquid rule changes next year. Though I don't know how far reaching that is going to be. I guess I should check.

I doubt that it will change. Note that the liquid rule will only change for airports that have the upgraded scanning machines ie it will be different per country/airport potentially rather than by airline

 

[David - Sydney]

You can squeeze a hell of a lot of small heavy stuff into a safari vest. BA's race to the bottom began, or was consolidated, with their merger with Iberia.

^^^^^ THIS

My main contribution to this discussion is to recommend to use a Scott-eVest (or similar) when flying. Virtually all the pockets are on the inside so somewhat disguised.
I carry the RF100-500 and my MBP + medication etc in my Lowepro AW450 backpack which gets to ~7kgs and put everything else in my vest. My wife HATES it with a passion but it has been a cost and lifesaver for me and has kept me warmer as well. Easily load up with 4-5 smaller lenses, bodies, batteries/powerbank, chargers etc and then reload into my backpack after security. Carrying a lot of weight is not an issue for me.
Never had any questions for my vest during screening. If an additional check is at the gate then I can transfer everything again which is a pain but would still meet their requirements.
https://www.scottevest.com/
If I had big whites then I assume that they would be checked with their carry cases but I am happy with my little RF100-500mm big white

 

[David - Sydney]

One area that should be highlighted in the OP was that we are yet to see more advanced computational / in-camera options keeping (somewhat) in touch with advances with phones. Phones went to multiple sensors/lenses to cover more focal lengths but their HDR and use of video with electronic stabilisation to handle low light is pretty amazing. Even using slow panning to build panoramas with a panning guide is great.

Clearly phones don't have excellent quality but I imagine that Canon et al could develop those techniques and have a better final result.
Although Canon's implementation of their pixel shift image in the R5 has a lot to be desired.

 

[Sporgon]

What was this clever reply about?

Ryanair hardly has a reputation as the best carrier in the world; you’ve travelled many times with them and survived.
Apologies; my joke is so bad I’ve had to explain it !

 

[antonio_s]

Quite honestly? I have no idea. I would LOVE To see what they said to Viltrox (and Samyang) besides veiled threats.

I wrote this on the meike rumor, it doesn't make any sense to me.

1) it's not the mechanical patents - since they allow non-AF and also adapters to be created for the RF mount.
2) it's not the electronic interconnects - since they allow for adapters and also macro extension tubes, etc.

There was one (or maybe two) patent back before the RF mount was released that discussed the camera body switching between the two protocols automatically but that really dealt with the camera

I'm pretty sure most of the companies doing lenses right now are mimicking EF lenses, which would skirt the entire RF protocol. It would make the most sense since they already KNOW how to do the EF protocol. Obviously, that's too old to have enforceable patent rights.

I'm not an IP lawyer but by any stretch, it doesn't sound right - I suspect these smaller companies just decided it wasn't worth taking on Canon over it, and it was far easier to back down. Obviously, Canon said something to them that made them think that Canon had a good case, but I really don't know. It doesn't really pass the sniff test. As we all know .. there's nothing stopping a lens from looking like an EF lens and talking to an RF camera body. So going after these guys would be the same as going after RF to EF adapter third party folks or going after people creating EF lenses that have compability with the RF mount. ie: when tamron updates firmware to make their EF lenses work on the RF mount.

For all we know Viltrox reversed-engineered the RF protocol and that got Canon a little upset. It doesn't explain Samyang though.

Supposedly Yongnuo is coming out with an RF AF lens, so maybe that's exactly what they are doing - just using the EF protocol and telling Canon to go stuff it.

I'm on the same page as you are. But it seems that very few people are actually getting to the facts on this issue — that's both in the gear-blogging/YouTube world and (especially) on forums. I've actually considered writing an article myself to discuss some of the concrete facts (and things we don't know) to try to set the record straight (and I'd be happy to help do so for this site, if only to clear the air and actually ask the questions out in the open).

Personally, I have no impression and no indication that the Meike lens was in any way "approved" by Canon. So many people seem to be just assuming that it was, but without evidence, I can't really buy it, for a few reasons:

1. I don't think that Meike (a cheap Chinese manufacturer that already makes MF lenses and accessories for the RF mount) is likely to be the first licensee for AF lenses. This would go against everything I know about Canon.
2. Canon confirmed Cosina was a licensee, but not Meike, despite the announcements taking place at the same time.
3. Meike never claimed to be authorized by Canon (and has no qualms about other products that aren't authorized).

I concur with you on both of your points about what it could not (or should not) be. Of course, the implication is that if Canon did have a case against either of those categories of product, they'd go after them — and I think that seems at least somewhat reasonable as an assumption (though we don't know that it's true).

By the way, although Viltrox did delist all their RF-mount products (adapters, etc.), Samyang never did — they stopped (very slowly) selling them and still market their manual-focus RF lenses. (By the way, the Rokinon website still does list the RF lenses with AF, albeit only on the product list and not on the shop site.)

By the way, speaking of Yongnuo, they're not just planning on coming out with lens. They in fact already apparently offer 35mm and 85mm RF lenses for sale (both are listed on B&H's site; the Yongnuo website seems to only list the 85mm on the main page, listing the 35mm as out of stock). Interestingly, Yongnuo calls these "YNEOSR" lenses. The mount list for Yonguo is, at present:

• Sony E
• Nikon Z
• Nikon F
• Canon EF
• YNEOSR
• Fujifilm X
• Micro Four Thirds

Interesting! This is kind of like how Voigtländer calls their M-mount lenses "VM-mount" and says that they are "compatible with" M-mount cameras.

Anyway, contrary to PetaPixel's Jaron Schneider's claims that Meike would be first company to "successfully sell" a third party RF lens (https://petapixel.com/2023/04/17/me...e-first-3rd-party-autofocus-lens-for-canon-rf), it seems that Yongnuo is indeed doing exactly that right now — anyone with a few hundred dollars should feel free to verify that. And, as I can personally verify (having used one myself), Samyang did sell AF lenses for RF. (Plenty of people could say the same about Viltrox.) Whether or not what Samyang and Viltrox did counts as "successful" is, I suppose, dependent on what "successful" means.

Some other major points worth bringing up:

• There was not a long wait before third-party EF lenses. There were third-party EF lenses since at least the 1980s. I have an early 1980s Sigma EF lens (it's not very good). Notably, these very early Sigma lenses (which have full autofocus and electronic aperture) had a bad implementation of the EF protocol and do not function properly (not stopping down) on later EF-mount cameras.
• At least according to Canon (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/in...earch&viewlocale=en_US&searchid=1521051389589), these EF lenses were not "approved" and were based on reverse-engineering. That, however, is information from (apparently) the mid-2000s.
• There have been third-party EF-M lenses since at least 2014 (Tamron had one then) - see https://dustinabbott.net/2014/10/tamron-18-200mm-vc-review/
• Of course, Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox et al. make EF-M lenses. Worth noting that Viltrox, even though they did pull their EF-RF adapters and speed boosters [note: Metabones still sells their EF-RF speed boosters], never pulled their EF-M ones.

So, really, none of this makes much sense. I have yet to see anyone explain what Canon actually threatened. And that's presuming that the quote from an apparent Canon Germany press response to a magazine (the only word on this to seem to come from Canon) was even actually true (and that it was patent and not trademark at hand — who's up for some YNEOSR lenses?)

What comes to mind was that Canon may have said that, in order to participate in a future RF licensing scheme, the companies (Samyang and Viltrox) would have to pull their (AF) lenses for now --- but who knows. I think that CR (or another site with a significant readership) should perhaps try to get to the bottom of this — or at the very least put these unanswered questions out there in the open.

***

Now, besides this, people on forums have had very weird responses to this issue. I've seen many people claim that it's within Canon's authority to "ban" third-party lenses from their cameras (with no evidence of that presented). Many people say it's "only right" in order to allow Canon to "recoup their investment," while others vehemently disagree. But I don't think that it makes sense to conclude that Canon really can ban third-party autofocus lenses from their cameras. (They of course don't need to assist third-party manufacturers, but they cannot prevent them from doing things when their IP rights aren't infringed — whether those are patents, copyrights (very limited, esp in light of the Sega case) or trademarks.)

I've also seen some pretty off-the-wall conspiracy theories, including one on DPReview by a user who was certain that Canon was getting ready to disable support for all EF lenses on their RF bodies! (I'm willing to bet against that one.)

There's also been much said about "open mounts," but it's worth mentioning that Sony still imposes arbitrary limits --- such as FPS limits when using third-party lenses (not the case with my RF cameras and third-party EF glass) --- and Nikon reportedly only allows for a small handful of third-party lenses to be made when they decide not to make them themselves! (Oh, and of course, Tamron is really a second-party on Sony, considering Sony owns part of Tamron --- and, of course, their zooms conspicuously avoid replicating Sony's more "traditional" ranges, if that means anything.)

 

[FrenchFry]

I've travelled in the Far East on Air Asia flights to Borneo for a birding safari, and they actually do check your baggage weight! But Canon has made it easier still. The R7 + RF 100-400mm comes in at a working weight of 1.3kg, under half the weight of your R3 + RF 100-500mm, and has an equivalent reach in terms of pixel-level resolution of a 740mm lens on an R3. And believe me, it has about the same resolution as my R5 + RF 100-500mm at long distances and beats it close up for insects. It's certainly better than the 5DIV + EF 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC I took to Borneo. And, you can throw in an RF 800mm f/11 into your hold luggage without too much worry that you will lose or damage an expensive lens. I also travel with a small iPad for downloading and backing up to a lightweight SSD or uploading to the cloud. My wife and I routinely travel on European holiday flights with just carry-on luggage, which contains of all of our clothes etc plus a an R5, R7 and RF 100-400 and 100-500, as well as iPads MacBook Air and two each of all chargers and cables.

I will be traveling on Air Asia soon. I have purchased the max carry on allowances, but will certainly exceed them as is my custom (the rf lenses are not light).

Can you please let me know if they weighed your carry on suitcase and personal item, or just the suitcase? I can put the heaviest lenses in the personal item if they don’t weigh it, otherwise I will get a new Scottevest in XXXL so it fits my MacBook in back and most of the bodies and lenses in front. I had a the 100-500 in a pocket last time and it was a little tight. Supposedly the larger vest sizes have larger pockets. Large enough for the 100-300? Only one way to find out.

 

[Walrus]

I've also seen some pretty off-the-wall conspiracy theories, including one on DPReview by a user who was certain that Canon was getting ready to disable support for all EF lenses on their RF bodies! (I'm willing to bet against that one.)

They're stupid (imho), but not THAT stupid.

 

[David - Sydney]

I will be traveling on Air Asia soon. I have purchased the max carry on allowances, but will certainly exceed them as is my custom (the rf lenses are not light).

Can you please let me know if they weighed your carry on suitcase and personal item, or just the suitcase? I can put the heaviest lenses in the personal item if they don’t weigh it, otherwise I will get a new Scottevest in XXXL so it fits my MacBook in back and most of the bodies and lenses in front. I had a the 100-500 in a pocket last time and it was a little tight. Supposedly the larger vest sizes have larger pockets. Large enough for the 100-300? Only one way to find out.

Best advice is to be prepared for any eventuality.
I found that my 16" MBP didn't fit well in the XL vest back "pocket" I got a couple of years ago. The pocket in landscape which might be good for smaller laptops but it should be portrait as I couldn't have it in the vest and carry the backpack.
I can't fit the 100-500mm in the vest but I can get to ~7kgs with only the 100-500 + MPB in the backpack.
Hard to believe that the USD9.5k RF100-300/2.8 only comes with a soft case. I guess that it is ~2.6kgs so could fit in a backpack if your MBP is in your vest.

 

[Stu_bert]

That started this article off. the first 10 or so revisions were pretty nasty.

Surprise their customers. sure. that's what they call it..


Thank you for your thoughts, I'm going to snip this out but I liked your entire response, so forgive me.

I always thought that Canon (or SOMEONE) should step in with Samsung, Apple or really ANYONE and create mobile 5G data capable grips.

or frankly just damned well design your own grip that allows for the adding of a SIM card and go.

I get not adding it to the camera body - but there should be no reason some straightforward functionality can't be added a grip - even if you have to create different grips for regional use. Even if it just uploaded a JPEG image to the cloud, which would then do a series of automated tasks based on a new image uploaded.

Sort of like Zapier for our image ingestion.

Yes a grip would be good. Maybe even have it’s own slim battery. When you need it you have it, when you wanna save a few ounces leave it behind.

 

[Sporgon]

They're stupid (imho), but not THAT stupid.

Interesting, and slightly worrying, that Tamron lenses such as the 85/1.8, 45/1.8 among others work 100% on the R & RP, but give errors on the later R bodies. At first I thought this might be to do with conflicting IS, but then found Tamron reported the same issue with their 35/1.4 which doesn’t have IS. The errors didn’t appear to be to do with IBIS; it will be interesting to see if the issues continue with the likes of the R8, which doesn’t have IBIS.

 

[candyman]

Disclaimer: English is not my native language.
I don't think it is about whining. It is about a customer critical view on products and services they use in a changing world.
The world is moving. And in that movement new technologies, new insights, different needs arise and different choices are made. An organization will move along with these developments. The time when an organization thinks it can determine the market is behind us. The customers decide. It is not for nothing that more and more organizations develop their products and services much more stringently with direct customer involvement (hence the agile / devops transitions in organisations around the globe). Also look at the needs of younger generations compared to the baby boomers and generation X. My children (generation Z) have a very different view of society. They deal with products and services very differently. They are users (less or not technical interested) They look for the best tools that make their lives, work and hobbies easier, and contributes to realization of their goals. It also plays a role that they do not go for a career in which the goal is to earn as much as possible. A nice and pleasant life is more important. They are only willing to spend (a lot of) money if they get the desired functionality and ease of use. They are not interested in expensive cameras with expensive lenses that do not offer the functionality and ease of use of camera functionality in a telephone (like multiple type of lenses without changing lenses or in camera long exposure feature et cetera). The upsurge of growth in mirrorless is temporary. This boom (and growth) is driven by the baby boomers, generation x and millennials moving to mirrorless. To attract the younger generations, the cameras will have to offer much more functionality and ease of use at competitive prices (compared to mobile phones). Of course there are young people who purchase a (mirrorless camera), but I bet that the percentage ratio among the younger generation is different from the baby boomers, generation X. There are plenty of organizations that have not yet realized that we have hit a huge turnaround. This will become very noticeable in the next 10 to 20 years. Traditional thinking needs to be overhauled. But is is not easy to develop a new vision en appropriate strategy.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I agree with your entire message; and I would say that even a RF 35-105 f2 without IS would be perfectly fine for me

Are you a body builder or perhaps an actual walrus?

 

[Walrus]

Are you a body builder or perhaps an actual walrus?

I'm a cyclist, so arms power is not exactly my strength ahah I do much better with the legs!

 

[Walrus]

Interesting, and slightly worrying, that Tamron lenses such as the 85/1.8, 45/1.8 among others work 100% on the R & RP, but give errors on the later R bodies. At first I thought this might be to do with conflicting IS, but then found Tamron reported the same issue with their 35/1.4 which doesn’t have IS. The errors didn’t appear to be to do with IBIS; it will be interesting to see if the issues continue with the likes of the R8, which doesn’t have IBIS.

I can partially comment on that; when I bought the R6 I had the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC G1 (coming from 6D), and I found out it was not focussing properly on the R6. I went to look for Tamron compatibility FAQ's, and I found out that the lens was deemed (on Tamron official websites) NOT compatible with R cameras, and NOT updatable. Otherwise G2 lenses were deemed compatible and upgradable with the Tamron docking station.

So I traded it au pair with a guy that was selling a Sigma 24-105 f4 Art (that I was sure was OK with R cameras as I already had 50 and 135 Art), and few months later I was lucky enough to find the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II used for 610€.

Then, while looking for other Tamron lenses (I was interested in the 15-30), I later found out that Tamron updated their compatibility list; now the 24-70 G1 was deemed as updatable, but being incompatible with the dock, you should have sent it to the service repair for being flashed directly by Tamron.
For the sake of curiosity I sent an email to the local Tamron branch to ask confirmation and check the price of that firmware update, but I never got any answer from them (in my country, Italy, it's know that Sigma service works, and I can directly confirm to that, while Tamron service is not good...and judging by the missed answer, I could partially confirm), and then ends my experience with Tamron and R cameras. Hope I could help somewhat.

P.s. I got R6 on October 2021, while I got my backup RP just last month; so I haven't tried the Tamron G1 on any R camera prior to the R6