Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

[EricN]

EF-S isn't full frame.

I'm going to assume you are feigning misunderstanding in order to avoid admitting that your earlier statement was incorrect.

 

[Richard CR]

Canon’s unit sales are higher than Sony’s, Sony’s revenue is higher (therefore Sony’s average unit price is higher). By the numbers, in 2022 (the most recent full year data available), Canon sold 3.35 million cameras yielding 507 billion yen, while Sony sold 1.88 million cameras yielding 565 billion yen (source).

So, the data show the opposite of what the guy said, namely that Canon sells a lot of cheaper cameras while Sony sells fewer, more expensive cameras. Likely that derives from Sony’s focus on FF MILCs.

that's wrong. or inaccurate.

just becuase I'm prepping for canon's financials today and the DILC sales were 2.86m last year - from Canon's own summaries.

I presume they mean "all cameras" including compact.

it should be noted that in 2022 there was 1.8m DSLR's shipped as well.

if Canon / Nikon split is the same globally as it is in Japan, the vast majority of those may be Canon's.

Even if we do a 50/50 split it means 1m of Canon's total 2.86 is DSLR's but I suspect it's more like a 2/3's split for Canon as Nikon seems to have walked away from DSLR's entirely.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I presume they mean "all cameras" including compact.

I presume so, as well.

 

[David_B]

I'm going to assume you are feigning misunderstanding in order to avoid admitting that your earlier statement was incorrect.

I've got no idea what you think I said was incorrect.

 

[David_B]

What a ridiculous comment to make about a company. Allegedly, there is a Nikon camera in the recently launched North Korean spy satellite. What does that say about Nikon? Are they now an accomplice of the North Korean regime?

Nikon camera used in North Korean spy satellite - Nikon Rumors

The North Korean Malligyong-1 spy satellite uses a Nikon camera: Shin said he finds incredible North Korea’s claim that its Malligyong-1 spy satellite placed into orbit last month began to work on its mission early this month. “It takes at least five to six months (after the launch) even for...

nikonrumors.com

It says they've only been able to rob 1 tourist that brought a Nikon camera to NK. Stupid tourist.

 

[David_B]

All of us Canon owners are suffering because of the topic that started this thread. We're suffering because Canon is stifling competition in the lens market. So what, you say, buy another brand camera. That's missing the point. What if Canon decided to bring out Canon tripods, and Canon cameras would only mount on Canon tripods because of some technology in the camera/tripod that was required to keep the two together? The same could be said for every other accessory used with Canon cameras. Maybe you don't think you're suffering because you're perfectly happy with whatever Canon sells you. That is an excellent illustration how we have been conditioned to accept/ignore the harm that is being done in the name of capitalism and has been done through restrictions placed on the free market.

To continue this converstaion for another 9 pages, I'm going to introduce a car analogy. Imagine if Ford started a new thing on all of its new model cars where there was special electronics in the wheel and tyres such that the car wouldn't move unless in had confirmation that all 4 wheels and 4 tyres were made by Ford. if you want to use non-Ford tyres, buy another brand of car. Most of the loyal Ford owners wouldn't care because the Ford tyres would be good enough for them. And many of those Ford owners would go to great lengths to point out how the Ford tyres were better for Ford cars anyway. (Change "Ford" to be your car manufacturer of choice.) This is what we're facing - the vendor restricting the competition they face from alternate vendors that could make compatible parts.

Richard gets why this situation is bad, the rest of us, I'm not so sure.

 

[EricN]

I've got no idea what you think I said was incorrect.

Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

Where does the f/9 come from? My understanding is that it would have the depth of field and light gathering ability of a 400 f/4.5 but the reach of an 800. (Not counting the built-in 1.25x TC of course.) In other words, f/4.5 is f/4.5 regardless of what the sensor size is. But a 400mm lens has...

www.canonrumors.com

I wonder if you will edit it now...

 

[neuroanatomist]

All of us Canon owners are suffering because of the topic that started this thread. We're suffering because Canon is stifling competition in the lens market.

Oh, so now you speak for all Canon owners? I'm not suffering. Well, maybe a little from impatience for the R1 to be announced and the RF 10-20/4 to start shipping in quantity.

So what, you say, buy another brand camera. That's missing the point. What if Canon decided to bring out Canon tripods, and Canon cameras would only mount on Canon tripods because of some technology in the camera/tripod that was required to keep the two together? The same could be said for every other accessory used with Canon cameras.

Perhaps you've never heard of the Sony Memory Stick, or their PS Vita memory cards? It would be ok, though, because like those no doubt there would be readily available counterfeit tripods for Canon.

Maybe you don't think you're suffering because you're perfectly happy with whatever Canon sells you. That is an excellent illustration how we have been conditioned to accept/ignore the harm that is being done in the name of capitalism and has been done through restrictions placed on the free market.

Ahhh, I see. You addressed my lack of suffering...apparently I've just accepted or am ignoring the harm. Since you clearly know everything about everyone, please describe in detail the harm I'm ignoring due to Canon's evil, malicious stifling of the market for 3rd party RF lenses. Lenses that I have no need for.

News flash: the way the free market works, if paying customers are actually suffering because of something a company doesn’t offer that a competitor does, that company's revenue suffers and they either change their practices or lose business to the point that they no longer remain a going concern. Given the FY23 financials that Canon just released, it's clear they're not suffering...quite the opposite.

Evidently you are suffering (and manifestly from more than just a lack of 3rd party RF lenses). That sucks for you. If you're entitled enough to think that Canon should cater to your wants, I'd say the suffering is your due.

To continue this converstaion for another 9 pages, I'm going to introduce a car analogy. Imagine if Ford started a new thing on all of its new model cars where there was special electronics in the wheel and tyres such that the car wouldn't move unless in had confirmation that all 4 wheels and 4 tyres were made by Ford. if you want to use non-Ford tyres, buy another brand of car.

Your analogy is as lame as most of your asinine posts. Tires would be like lens filters. Canon makes them (or more likely, has their logo put on another OEM's filters, and does Ford even make tires?), so do plenty of 3rd parties. Canon uses standard filter threads, and anyone's filters work as long as you buy the correct size.

But if a car analogy will help you understand, let us know when you can easily drop a Chevy engine into your Ford. Sure, some manufacturers enter agreements to do just that (e.g. the combination of the Toyota electric motor with the Subaru drivetrain that is used in both the Toyota BZ4X and the Subaru Solterra) just like Sony and Nikon have entered into agreements with 3rd parties. In both cases, a business need drove those arrangements, and it's a need that Canon as the dominant player in the market doesn't have. Note that Canon did enter into a mount-sharing agreement with Red. It's not that they're unwilling to do so, it's a business decision. Apparently you can't understand that simple fact.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've got no idea what you think I said was incorrect.

Look here, most of it is incorrect.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/members/david_b.379550/#recent-content

 

[EricN]

All of us Canon owners are suffering because of the topic that started this thread. We're suffering because Canon is stifling competition in the lens market. So what, you say, buy another brand camera. That's missing the point. What if Canon decided to bring out Canon tripods, and Canon cameras would only mount on Canon tripods because of some technology in the camera/tripod that was required to keep the two together? The same could be said for every other accessory used with Canon cameras. Maybe you don't think you're suffering because you're perfectly happy with whatever Canon sells you. That is an excellent illustration how we have been conditioned to accept/ignore the harm that is being done in the name of capitalism and has been done through restrictions placed on the free market.

To continue this converstaion for another 9 pages, I'm going to introduce a car analogy. Imagine if Ford started a new thing on all of its new model cars where there was special electronics in the wheel and tyres such that the car wouldn't move unless in had confirmation that all 4 wheels and 4 tyres were made by Ford. if you want to use non-Ford tyres, buy another brand of car. Most of the loyal Ford owners wouldn't care because the Ford tyres would be good enough for them. And many of those Ford owners would go to great lengths to point out how the Ford tyres were better for Ford cars anyway. (Change "Ford" to be your car manufacturer of choice.) This is what we're facing - the vendor restricting the competition they face from alternate vendors that could make compatible parts.

Richard gets why this situation is bad, the rest of us, I'm not so sure.

I have an idea for you! Because are concerned about the harm of capitalism and seem interested in North Korea, why don't you go there?

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I'm not suffering. Well, maybe a little


I've just accepted or am ignoring the harm.

Keep beating that drum! Intermingling and extension of ecosystems is good for the user, but you want what's good for Canon and yourself, other photographers be damned. Can you remind me who the ILC market leader is again? I forgot.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Keep beating that drum! Intermingling and extension of ecosystems is good for the user, but you want what's good for Canon and yourself, other photographers be damned. Can you remind me who the ILC market leader is again? I forgot.

You don't need 3rd party lenses to work with Canon's bodies, it's not important to you and the lack of it isn't a problem for you.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

You don't need 3rd party lenses to work with Canon's bodies, it's not important to you and the lack of it isn't a problem for you.

Actually if I could get an RF native 85/1.4 that was less than half the cost of the 85/1.2L I would be all over it. Same for a 14/1.4. So it is a problem for me. But I don't need such a lens so bad that I'm willing to add an adapter and buy a legacy lens to get it. I can wait, but I understand why others don't want to, and I'm happy to advocate for them.

 

[EricN]

Actually if I could get an RF native 85/1.4 that was less than half the cost of the 85/1.2L I would be all over it. Same for a 14/1.4. So it is a problem for me. But I don't need such a lens so bad that I'm willing to add an adapter and buy a legacy lens to get it. I can wait, but I understand why others don't want to, and I'm happy to advocate for them.

Here you go:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1470026-REG/rokinon_rf85_c_85mm_f_1_4_lens_for.html

 

[AJ]

To continue this conversation for another 9 pages, I'm going to introduce a car analogy. Imagine if Ford started a new thing on all of its new model cars where there was special electronics in the wheel and tyres such that the car wouldn't move unless in had confirmation that all 4 wheels and 4 tyres were made by Ford. if you want to use non-Ford tyres, buy another brand of car.

Yes. Now suppose Ford starts filing patents for tyres with thread designs that they have no intention of making, just to spite third-party tire manufacturers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Actually if I could get an RF native 85/1.4 that was less than half the cost of the 85/1.2L I would be all over it. Same for a 14/1.4. So it is a problem for me. But I don't need such a lens so bad that I'm willing to add an adapter and buy a legacy lens to get it. I can wait, but I understand why others don't want to, and I'm happy to advocate for them.

Oh, so you would benefit from 3rd party RF lenses. I guess I had no right to speak for you. But it was ok that @David_B spoke for me along with all Canon users? It must be, because you defended him and are happy to advocate for him. The difference is that I knew I had no right going in and did so anyway to make a point...which you helpfully just proved on my behalf.

Keep beating that drum! Intermingling and extension of ecosystems is good for the user, but you want what's good for Canon and yourself, other photographers be damned. Can you remind me who the ILC market leader is again? I forgot.

You need to learn to read more carefully. Please point out where I have (ever) said that 3rd party RF lenses are not good for the user. Good luck finding that, I highly doubt I've ever said it because I don't believe it. My points are and have consistently been that this is Canon's decision, not the users', and that the only choice users can make is whether or not to buy Canon gear. The reality is that despite no supported 3rd party RF lenses for 5 years, Canon's market share remains unaffected. In aggregate, the users have shown that blocking 3rd party lenses is irrelevant...and Canon knows that. I get that it's relevant to some people, but you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that those people's opinions are irrelevant to Canon, and Canon is the only one who can open up their mount (or at least, stop sending cease-and-desist letters to 3rd parties making AF lenses). Obviously, you and others are welcome to share your opinions. You're welcome to piss into the wind, as well.

But you're not welcome to claim that your opinion is mine. And neither is @David_B or anyone else. Put that in your drum and beat it.

 

[EricN]

Oh, so you would benefit from 3rd party RF lenses. I guess I had no right to speak for you. But it was ok that @David_B spoke for me along with all Canon users? It must be, because you defended him and are happy to advocate for him. The difference is that I knew I had no right going in and did so anyway to make a point...which you helpfully just proved on my behalf.


You need to learn to read more carefully. Please point out where I have (ever) said that 3rd party RF lenses are not good for the user. Good luck finding that, I highly doubt I've ever said it because I don't believe it. My points are and have consistently been that this is Canon's decision, not the users', and that the only choice users can make is whether or not to buy Canon gear. The reality is that despite no supported 3rd party RF lenses for 5 years, Canon's market share remains unaffected. In aggregate, the users have shown that blocking 3rd party lenses is irrelevant...and Canon knows that. I get that it's relevant to some people, but you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that those people's opinions are irrelevant to Canon, and Canon is the only one who can open up their mount (or at least, stop sending cease-and-desist letters to 3rd parties making AF lenses). Obviously, you and others are welcome to share your opinions. You're welcome to piss into the wind, as well.

But you're not welcome to claim that your opinion is mine. And neither is @David_B or anyone else. Put that in your drum and beat it.

Well said.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I guess I had no right to speak for you.

But you're not welcome to claim that your opinion is mine.

I'm very sorry for putting my words in your mouth without your permission. Everyone is allowed to make generalized statements (though apparently this is equivalent to pissing in the wind), especially when they've observed sentiment from many folks that confirms a generalization. It seems I really do need to learn to read more carefully, because I have a hard time figuring out what any of your opinions are, when wading through the business strategy and market analysis explanations you regurgitate multiple times per day to silence/own the fools like me on this forum.

I hope Richard continues to post these opinions that get you so fired up; it seems many more people identify with them than those who don't, and Richard provides a platform for them - but for fear of putting any more words in mouths other than my own, I'll just stop there!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm very sorry for putting my words in your mouth without your permission.

To be clear, you didn't. I did that to you, but only to make a point (with your subsequent help).

Everyone is allowed to make generalized statements (though apparently this is equivalent to pissing in the wind), especially when they've observed sentiment from many folks that confirms a generalization.

I can't argue with that. Then again, a lot of people think 'alot' is a word.

 

[Del Paso]

All of us Canon owners are suffering because of the topic that started this thread. We're suffering because Canon is stifling competition in the lens market. So what, you say, buy another brand camera. That's missing the point. What if Canon decided to bring out Canon tripods, and Canon cameras would only mount on Canon tripods because of some technology in the camera/tripod that was required to keep the two together? The same could be said for every other accessory used with Canon cameras. Maybe you don't think you're suffering because you're perfectly happy with whatever Canon sells you. That is an excellent illustration how we have been conditioned to accept/ignore the harm that is being done in the name of capitalism and has been done through restrictions placed on the free market.

To continue this converstaion for another 9 pages, I'm going to introduce a car analogy. Imagine if Ford started a new thing on all of its new model cars where there was special electronics in the wheel and tyres such that the car wouldn't move unless in had confirmation that all 4 wheels and 4 tyres were made by Ford. if you want to use non-Ford tyres, buy another brand of car. Most of the loyal Ford owners wouldn't care because the Ford tyres would be good enough for them. And many of those Ford owners would go to great lengths to point out how the Ford tyres were better for Ford cars anyway. (Change "Ford" to be your car manufacturer of choice.) This is what we're facing - the vendor restricting the competition they face from alternate vendors that could make compatible parts.

Richard gets why this situation is bad, the rest of us, I'm not so sure.

Your car analogy is embarrassing at best. Can you fit a Ford with a Mercedes fuel injection?