Opinion: The difficulty facing Canon (and everyone else)

[E_ATL]

I agree, it’s standard practice when writing to define an abbreviation at the first use. But I can’t help pointing out the irony of you posting this with your username.

It would have been ironic if I used abbreviations in my post.

 

[Richard CR]

More statements of things..... (snip)

Hey Scott!

I'm ecstatic that you enjoyed the article. Thank you for your kind words.

 

[Richard CR]

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.)

This is some fantastic analysis and thoughts, thank you so much for sharing this.

IMO - open mounts are the Next Big Problem with Canon™ after dynamic range became a non-issue for Canon cameras. People had to find something, but Canon's actions are very disappointing.

 

[Loswr]

This is some fantastic analysis and thoughts, thank you so much for sharing this.

IMO - open mounts are the Next Big Problem with Canon™ after dynamic range became a non-issue for Canon cameras. People had to find something, but Canon's actions are very disappointing.

I think late to mirrorless came in between poor low ISO DR and blocking 3rd party AF lenses, and all of them are non-issues for Canon.

Complainers gonna complain.

 

[Walrus]

Canon's actions are very disappointing.

I'm sure many agree with this, that's for sure.

 

[P-visie]

I think late to mirrorless came in between poor low ISO DR and blocking 3rd party AF lenses, and all of them are non-issues for Canon.

Complainers gonna complain.

You forgot overheating as a non issue (i.e. the camera working as specified in the user manual) .

 

[Sporgon]

after dynamic range became a non-issue for Canon cameras.

I don’t think dynamic range was ever really an issue for Canon and their overall camera sales because of the way the vast majority of people use their cameras, but between 2013 and ‘16 the ability to make extreme adjustments to extreme shadows was a difference that some people and the internet warriors in particularly jumped on.
I remember an interview from some on line review with the Canon CEO, around 2014/15, and the interviewer said “what are you going to do about your cameras poor image quality”. The CEO nearly fell off his chair in surprise ! So thanks internet, Canon have responded by adding baked in noise reduction to the low lights at base ISO to ensure they chart out with the highest DR.

 

[cayenne]

A good Blackrapid strap would do the job; I had done weddings, but also music festivals in the past (I was younger then, tbh) with two gripped cameras with 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 for 12+ hours, I just wear two straps in an X shape, one per shoulder, and I'm good to go.
Yes, at the end of the day you feel it on your upper body, but it's not so bad tbh, and you hold up to the eye only when needed, so the arms are not working hard.

I LOVE the Holdfast "Money Maker" Dual and single straps....made shooting concerts a breeze!!

Dual

Money Maker Dual Camera Strap | Bridle Leather | Hold Fast

The Bridle Leather MoneyMaker Dual Camera Harness is an essential tool for the modern photographer and is made from U.S. native steer hides.

holdfastgear.com

Single

Money Maker Solo | Hold Fast

The MoneyMaker Solo is a sling strap single camera, cross body version of the legendary MoneyMaker. Choose the color & size on our website!

holdfastgear.com

Worth every penny...and if you're not too picky...search around they have a place where it's a mystery what color you get, supposedly slightly flawed (a scratch or something on leather)...for HEAVY discounts.

cayenne

 

[christianf]

I agree completely. My DSLR gear is pretty heavy. I have been using it less and less on vacation. I still shoot kids sports but that too will be ending in the next year when my youngest kid goes off to college. I would love to replace my 7dmk2 and 17-55 f2.8 with a lighter RF CANON body and similar lens RF-S lens. CANON is a no show with that setup. Why canon why?
My iPhone 14 pro shoots pretty amazing pictures but it is not the same as the face to viewfinder can be.

 

[Walrus]

I LOVE the Holdfast "Money Maker" Dual and single straps....made shooting concerts a breeze!!

Dual

Money Maker Dual Camera Strap | Bridle Leather | Hold Fast

The Bridle Leather MoneyMaker Dual Camera Harness is an essential tool for the modern photographer and is made from U.S. native steer hides.

holdfastgear.com

Single

Money Maker Solo | Hold Fast

The MoneyMaker Solo is a sling strap single camera, cross body version of the legendary MoneyMaker. Choose the color & size on our website!

holdfastgear.com

Worth every penny...and if you're not too picky...search around they have a place where it's a mystery what color you get, supposedly slightly flawed (a scratch or something on leather)...for HEAVY discounts.

cayenne

Looks like nice stuff thanks for pointing out to me!

But personally I really HATE leather, in any form possible...camera straps, clothes belts, car seats, etc.
Years ago I bought a used car, a nice Alfa Romeo, which I'm still driving today; price, colour and conditions were perfect for me, but being the model with the most powerful engine available in the range, it had those leather seats I cannot withstand.
I purchased it because it was a great deal, but the day after I went on an Alfa Romeo forum, asking if someone was into trading au pair my leather seats with tissue seats (they would pay for the mech work, as I was giving them more expensive seats), and after a couple of weeks I found out a guy in my area willing to trade seats of my taste (there were different secondary colours to the seats, I wanted them red or full black...gray or blue were not of my liking), and we were both pretty happy.

 

[Loswr]

I don’t think dynamic range was ever really an issue for Canon and their overall camera sales because of the way the vast majority of people use their cameras, but between 2013 and ‘16 the ability to make extreme adjustments to extreme shadows was a difference that some people and the internet warriors in particularly jumped on.

Yeah, the DRone Wars were a tempest in a teapot. Same for opening the mount. A few people will complain online, and the majority will keep buying Canon cameras and lenses.

 

[GeraldPerkins]

A thought on roadmaps, as consumers we want more information to make informed purchases. Manufacturers and storefronts have to walk a tightrope. A roadmap may delay purchase decisions, manufacturers and store fronts want us to purchase what is available today, not a year from today. However, if a competitor has a superior product, then it may be beneficial to announce a product in the hopes that it will delay purchasing the competitor's product until you have a worthy competitor.

 

[Richard CR]

A thought on roadmaps, as consumers we want more information to make informed purchases. Manufacturers and storefronts have to walk a tightrope. A roadmap may delay purchase decisions, manufacturers and store fronts want us to purchase what is available today, not a year from today. However, if a competitor has a superior product, then it may be beneficial to announce a product in the hopes that it will delay purchasing the competitor's product until you have a worthy competitor.

yes. agreed. but ~ 50% of the market share provides them. including Canon's competitors in the mirrorless space and also, Canon is attempting to transition two mounts over to the RF mount. People do need more details than times in the past.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] Personally, I didn't switch fully to FF, or at least I haven't yet. The M system is really good for daytime and travel, hard to beat for the combination of portability and IQ. Having said that, I took an R8 on my last trip. But one of my kids took the M6 with the M18-150 and M11-22.

I also took the R8 instead of the M6II with me on my last trip. I'm used to seeing the R8 next to my R5, but after trying to cram everything needed for a week into a 20L backpack, the R8+28mm seemed quite large I did enjoy using it on the trip. Using ES + HF flicker reduction makes indoor shots silent compared to the clack-clack of the M6II shutter.

 

[koenkooi]

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.

The RF28mm lens is FF and tiny, so is using that lens on e.g. the R100 such a hardship?

 

[Diko]

I've read everything very carefully and here are my $0.05 on the topic.

1/ Thank you Richard & Craig
Richard I really enjoyed your article and I'm very happy that your opinion here will open goods discussions for both cultivating and self reflecting on versatile topics of the day. Thank you Craig, for making it possible.

2/ "Smuggling" got out of hand ;-)
The only minor set back of that article was the mentioning off airlines (as a valid argument making a point) and "smuggling" photo equipment on board of airplanes (which on its own unpredictably took half of this discussion here) actually I believe deserves a dedicated article on its own.

3/ Are really most of the big photo equipment vendors condemned?
I found mostly intriguing the zoomers consumer behavior, since they are the future of this market. I believe the points from candyman showing that they want cheap and efficient tools that ease their lives is a pretty good observation.
a) With 4) the new and better easing our lives
b) In addition with 5) the better usability in the age we live

4/ Developing novel functionalities VS incorporating pre-existing ones from elsewhere
I strongly believe that Lightroom & Apple Camera computational functionalities have nothing to do on the digic processor unit in the Canon bodies. Instead we could have a good use of:
a) AI improved pixel binding and doubling; (probably right now there is in the making a separated dedicated AI chip)
b) Even further more advanced focus detection AI based scrapping the old algorithms for photo adjustments settings in order to deliver even sharper natively images.
c) Smart dynamic sensor crop for both even further improved image video stabilization and lights enhancement

5/ Connectivity connects the generation gap
it is really weird that up to that very moment as far as I know I'm unable to take my RAW file import it on my mobile phone (iPhone) in Lightroom and do whatever I please from there just with the use of a mere button. The younger people and a lot of the pro's would truly enjoy to deliver instantaneously awesomely captured moment on social medias but not before well edited with their favorite apps.

6/ The Lens Wars agenda
I'm pretty surprised that most of the people here are so consumed by the auto focus licensing and how it technically happens. Probably it is a simple firmware update where the new licensed vendors are permitted with accepting code to use that feature.

Anyways I see nothing so bad in Canon doing the expensive lenses and leaving the cheap ones to be created by the competition. As many others here I as well have a Sigma ART 50 f/1.4.

The situation looks a little bit like Canon is trying to imitate Apple indeed (at least to some extent). And as far as we can all see Apple is everything else but losing money.

7/ Perception VS Reality
I haven't seen (around in Europe) Canon pro users to be more than Sony so whatever you talk to me about Canon's Japan market leadership I don't care. For the United states I could hardly know or care as well. But wherever I go all the time I'm looking around for what camera bodies people use and to be honest my observations are still the same (OK, not ONLY SONY, but definitely very few Canon bodies). Many people went away from the brand a decade ago. The time we remember as ISO, DR & Resolution Wars. And YES, for me personally - I've always wanted and will never go back to 12 or 24 MPs ever again. The bare minimum starts with 30.

8/ In conclusion
I'm more looking into the future instead of being so pessimistic as Richard may sound.
- Is there space for improvement and challenging new market interests? Yes definitely I hope to have pointed out a few.
- Will Canon stay on track or will continue to chase Sony or (blank-fill it yourself)? Probably yes for sure. Would love to be wrong.

Richard, I'm really very happy about your article and await the next one! ;-)

 

[koenkooi]

[...]
5/ Connectivity connects the generation gap
it is really weird that up to that very moment as far as I know I'm unable to take my RAW file import it on my mobile phone (iPhone) in Lightroom and do whatever I please from there just with the use of a mere button. The younger people and a lot of the pro's would truly enjoy to deliver instantaneously awesomely captured moment on social medias but not before well edited with their favorite apps.
[...]

I just tried with with my R8: shoot a RAW picture, open Camera Connect on the phone and transfer the picture. It show up labeled 'RAW' in the default photos app and LR mobile can both access and edit it.
It is clunky, since I the R8 makes it very hard to connect to an existing wifi network (the R5 does that just fine), so you have to connect to the camera wifi, download the CR3, disconnect from the camera wifi.

I wasn't able to use the usb-c to lightning cable, even if the R8 has a specific "Canon apps for iphone" mode.

 

[kmrahe]

The RF28mm lens is FF and tiny, so is using that lens on e.g. the R100 such a hardship?

Despite the lens being short, its diameter is still huge relative to the size of the camera body, whereas a similar FF EF lens on my M50 leaves me with much more room to grip the camera. (Even more than using the same EF lens on the R50/R100 would, in fact.)

 

[Loswr]

I would love to replace my 7dmk2 and 17-55 f2.8 with a lighter RF CANON body and similar lens RF-S lens. CANON is a no show with that setup. Why canon why?

I see comments like this frequently, and I wonder if people who make them have a requirement for APS-C sensors (e.g. they also shoot birds with a 400mm lens). Consider the following two points:

• The FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, in terms of field of view and depth of field for the same subject framing.
• While exposure is determined by light per unit area (i.e., f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size), image noise is proportional to total light gathered, so the larger full frame sensor will have noise levels equivalent to 1.3-stops lower ISO on APS-C (e.g., ISO 1600 on FF looks like ISO 640 on APS-C).

Taken together, what that means is that an EF/RF 24-105mm f/4 lens on a FF camera is wider, longer and faster than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera.

The RF 24-105/4L on an R8 is a smaller and much lighter (400 g / 14 oz) package than the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on the 7DII, and the MILC price is actually slightly lower than the DSLR price if considering launch pricing (largely because the 17-55/2.8 launched at $1160), but even comparing what someone would have paid for the DSLR kit when the 7DII came out (~$2400), the MILC setup today is not much more ($2750) and you get a better kit. The R8 has a faster frame rate and better AF performance, and the IQ of the RF 24-105/4L is better than that of the EF-S 17-55/2.8.

The bottom line is that Canon has given you something even better than what you're asking for, for not much more money. Why haven't you bought it why?

 

[Old Sarge]

I see comments like this frequently, and I wonder if people who make them have a requirement for APS-C sensors (e.g. they also shoot birds with a 400mm lens). Consider the following two points:

• The FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, in terms of field of view and depth of field for the same subject framing.
• While exposure is determined by light per unit area (i.e., f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size), image noise is proportional to total light gathered, so the larger full frame sensor will have noise levels equivalent to 1.3-stops lower ISO on APS-C (e.g., ISO 1600 on FF looks like ISO 640 on APS-C).

Taken together, what that means is that an EF/RF 24-105mm f/4 lens on a FF camera is wider, longer and faster than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera.

The RF 24-105/4L on an R8 is a smaller and much lighter (400 g / 14 oz) package than the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on the 7DII, and the MILC price is actually slightly lower than the DSLR price if considering launch pricing (largely because the 17-55/2.8 launched at $1160), but even comparing what someone would have paid for the DSLR kit when the 7DII came out (~$2400), the MILC setup today is not much more ($2750) and you get a better kit. The R8 has a faster frame rate and better AF performance, and the IQ of the RF 24-105/4L is better than that of the EF-S 17-55/2.8.

The bottom line is that Canon has given you something even better than what you're asking for, for not much more money. Why haven't you bought it why?

As usual, you make a lot of sense. I have never had a full frame digitgal camera. I like my 7DMKII, enough to have two of them as a matter of fact. And have enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 2.8 I bought several years ago. I have a R7 which I'm really enjoying, mostly with EF glass or the RF 100-400, which is super light weight. But your R8/24-105/4L sounds tempting. I may need to quit reading your messages for a while...or put more money into my GAS fund.,