Canon Germany addresses recent Viltrox RF mount lens demands, and it’s a case of patent infrigement

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,336
16,810
Sometimes it annoys me though that a new technology is created to address problems that I did not have in the first place. Then I might have to experience the downsides without benefitting from the upsides. Mirrorless cameras are a good example for that. One of the big reasons they were introduced was the improvement of autofocus. Autofocus points from edge to edge, face recognition and other stuff are only possible without a mirror. Either in Live View or with a mirrorless camera. However for the subjects of my photography, I hardly ever had trouble with autofocus. Skyscrapers do not have faces and I almost always use the single autofocus point in the center. I also do not really need video. I see video more as a gimmick. You can't really hang a video to your wall. At least not that easily. Yet those new cameras are heavily influenced by the video aspect. For example when the camera manufacturer decides about the resolution of the sensor. Of course the sensor is read out all the time anyway. So video should not be expensive to implement. However I am sure that video is a part of the price calculation of each camera. You do not get any features for free. Even those you do not need. I wish there was a stills only R3 for less money.

It reminds me of notebooks that use a lot of space for a giant touchpad that I NEVER use. I usually even disable it. Or a smartphone with a front camera that punches a whole into the display although I never use my front camera. That design even makes it harder to put a sticker on it without hiding even more pixels. Hotels are also a good example. Good hotels offer some services you might enjoy, but also a lot of stuff that you do not really need, but still have to pay.

Mirrorless cameras come with a few huge downsides for me that are hard to swallow.
First I lose the optical viewfinder, which has a better resolution, brightness and durability than an electronic viewfinder will ever have. Loosing the optical viewfinder disconnects me from reality. I only see a copy of the world. Secondly the camera consumes a lot of energy during composing the photo. With a DSLR you can wait ten minutes for the perfect shot without losing a lot of power. At the same time the sensor also gets warmer and warmer, which leads to more noise. Maybe that gets compensated because newer sensors have a better noise performance, but the noise would be even lower if the sensor would only have to work during actual exposure. The sensor is the heart of the camera. It is a waste to use it outside of any exposure. That may introduce hot pixels or dead pixels much sooner than in the past.

I wish Canon simply continued to develope new DSLRs with all the new sensor technology (stacked BSI) and LiveView could still be optional instead of forced.
I have a slight feeling, though I could be far wrong, that there is a possibility that skyscraper shots might just represent a minority interest and that, if so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc might just think they may be satisfying a wider need by selling mirrorless cameras. Maybe, I am quite wrong and they should revert to DSLRs, and iPhones and Androids should install ovfs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
520
468
I have a slight feeling, though I could be far wrong, that there is a possibility that skyscraper shots might just represent a minority interest and that, if so, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc might just think they may be satisfying a wider need by selling mirrorless cameras. Maybe, I am quite wrong and they should revert to DSLRs, and iPhones and Androids should install ovfs.
They already developed all that DSLR technology. So I don't know why it is so hard for them to update them with the latest sensors, faster processors, CFexpress cards, faster buffers, maybe an internal storage and so on. If you look at the 1D X, 1D X Mark II and 1D X Mark III, they did not really reinvent the wheel. So why it is so hard to keep those old, but popukar cameras updated?

Especially for entry cameras DSLRs have some advantages. Entry cameras will not have IBIS anyway, but building an EVF into the camera that comes somehow close to the quality of an OVF will be quite expensive. So Canon might decide that entry cameras in the range below 400 Euros will not have a viewfinder at all. Those cameras will also have small batteries that will be empty very fast if they have to power the display all the time. So for customers it would be a big benefit if those cheap cameras - that even owners of expensive cameras like to have as a backup - would keep being DSLRs.

So is Canon's strategy now to keep producing DSLRs, but without any update? Are they not interested any more in the entry level market? For many people even the $999 for the R10 without a lens is still a lot. Does Canon want to be a premium brand now like Apple that does not offer any cheap products any more?
 
Upvote 0

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,610
1,133
32
34109
www.facebook.com
They already developed all that DSLR technology. So I don't know why it is so hard for them to update them with the latest sensors, faster processors, CFexpress cards, faster buffers, maybe an internal storage and so on. If you look at the 1D X, 1D X Mark II and 1D X Mark III, they did not really reinvent the wheel. So why it is so hard to keep those old, but popukar cameras updated?

Especially for entry cameras DSLRs have some advantages. Entry cameras will not have IBIS anyway, but building an EVF into the camera that comes somehow close to the quality of an OVF will be quite expensive. So Canon might decide that entry cameras in the range below 400 Euros will not have a viewfinder at all. Those cameras will also have small batteries that will be empty very fast if they have to power the display all the time. So for customers it would be a big benefit if those cheap cameras - that even owners of expensive cameras like to have as a backup - would keep being DSLRs.

So is Canon's strategy now to keep producing DSLRs, but without any update? Are they not interested any more in the entry level market? For many people even the $999 for the R10 without a lens is still a lot. Does Canon want to be a premium brand now like Apple that does not offer any cheap products any more?
iPhone & Android pretty much destroyed the consumer demand for digital still cameras that cost less than $1k

This is reflective on how many point & shoots released this year.... which is zero

This is refelctive of how long Canon took to come out with the R10 from the time RF mount was announced... which is 5 years.

Something to consider as to why Canon was very slow in releasing 30 lenses over 5 years at an average rate of 6 lens SKUs annually.

~80% of these lenses have such a high volume that production capacity cannot keep up especially with supply constraints caused by COVID & the Ukranian-Russian war.

Canon CEO commited to a 8 lens SKU annual release for the next 4 years because the lens coming out in the future will not be that highly demand even when Canon photo forum members tend to make it seem that the missing focal length they desire appears to have millions of users waiting for them

As for the dSLR... it's a dead end tech. Canon/Nikon spending any more R&D money on it is just pissing money away.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,915
7,997
So is Canon's strategy now to keep producing DSLRs, but without any update? Are they not interested any more in the entry level market? For many people even the $999 for the R10 without a lens is still a lot. Does Canon want to be a premium brand now like Apple that does not offer any cheap products any more?
Interesting opinion. The facts are that the last DSLR launched by Canon was an xxxD model >2.5 years ago. Last year, 44% of the ILCs sold by Canon were DSLRs, and given the shipment values the vast majority of those were entry-level DSLRs kits. 33% of the ILCs sold were EOS M bodies, and that line is weighted toward less expensive bodies, too.

So 70-75% of the ILCs Canon sold last year were entry level kits. How do you conclude that Canon is no longer interested in the entry level market? I suppose ignorance of the facts, willful or not.

Your talk of CFe cards and fast buffers suggests that you don’t care about the entry level market either, but rather you want Canon to keep updating high-end DSLRs, or maybe you think if Canon were to do that they’d sell those high-end DSLRs at entry-level prices.

I doubt either of those will happen. It’s in Canon’s best interest to shift the high end of their ILC base to mirrorless, to drive RF lens sales.
 
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
78
54
Sometimes it annoys me though that a new technology is created to address problems that I did not have in the first place. Then I might have to experience the downsides without benefitting from the upsides. Mirrorless cameras are a good example for that. One of the big reasons they were introduced was the improvement of autofocus. Autofocus points from edge to edge, face recognition and other stuff are only possible without a mirror. Either in Live View or with a mirrorless camera. However for the subjects of my photography, I hardly ever had trouble with autofocus. Skyscrapers do not have faces and I almost always use the single autofocus point in the center. I also do not really need video. I see video more as a gimmick. You can't really hang a video to your wall. At least not that easily. Yet those new cameras are heavily influenced by the video aspect. For example when the camera manufacturer decides about the resolution of the sensor. Of course the sensor is read out all the time anyway. So video should not be expensive to implement. However I am sure that video is a part of the price calculation of each camera. You do not get any features for free. Even those you do not need. I wish there was a stills only R3 for less money.

It reminds me of notebooks that use a lot of space for a giant touchpad that I NEVER use. I usually even disable it. Or a smartphone with a front camera that punches a whole into the display although I never use my front camera. That design even makes it harder to put a sticker on it without hiding even more pixels. Hotels are also a good example. Good hotels offer some services you might enjoy, but also a lot of stuff that you do not really need, but still have to pay.

Mirrorless cameras come with a few huge downsides for me that are hard to swallow.
First I lose the optical viewfinder, which has a better resolution, brightness and durability than an electronic viewfinder will ever have. Loosing the optical viewfinder disconnects me from reality. I only see a copy of the world. Secondly the camera consumes a lot of energy during composing the photo. With a DSLR you can wait ten minutes for the perfect shot without losing a lot of power. At the same time the sensor also gets warmer and warmer, which leads to more noise. Maybe that gets compensated because newer sensors have a better noise performance, but the noise would be even lower if the sensor would only have to work during actual exposure. The sensor is the heart of the camera. It is a waste to use it outside of any exposure. That may introduce hot pixels or dead pixels much sooner than in the past.

I wish Canon simply continued to develope new DSLRs with all the new sensor technology (stacked BSI) and LiveView could still be optional instead of forced.

I can feel your frustration. Most of what the new camera does is stuff you don't need.
As for the "why" of mirrorless, I can add another couple why's but again they may be things you don't need. 1) shooting is now instantaneous. SLR's needed like 70ms to flip the mirror out of the way and we don't have that. Faster release can be really useful for some. I've got a small number of Leica rangefinder shots that couldn't have been made on an SLR for this reason. 2) allows more freedom for the lens maker to make optical and size/weight/cost tradeoffs, now that they no longer have the extra limitation that the back of the lens had to be at least 45mm from the sensor/film. I think we absolutely profit from this with the RF 24-105 being as small as the EF MkI despite being as sharp as the EF MkII. (And "as sharp" means, about as sharp as an EF prime.) You may not need the sharpness or portability that can result. It's possible the RF just doesn't serve you well.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,952
5,090
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
I’ll say this again. The market will determine the future of DSLRs, not companies. If Canon finds that a certain percentage of the market is not going to switch to mirrorless and that percentage is sufficiently high they will release new DSLR models. In a shrinking market they can’t afford to leave a bunch of customers on the table.
However, if I we’re taking bets, I would bet that almost all customers will eventually switch.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,395
2,525
The Netherlands
I’ll say this again. The market will determine the future of DSLRs, not companies. If Canon finds that a certain percentage of the market is not going to switch to mirrorless and that percentage is sufficiently high they will release new DSLR models. In a shrinking market they can’t afford to leave a bunch of customers on the table.
However, if I we’re taking bets, I would bet that almost all customers will eventually switch.
Maybe the big ones are waiting for the other(s) to announce a new DSLR and gauge the market reaction. I don't know where Canon wants the 'entry level' APS-C crowd to move to. On one hand I'm hoping for new EOS M models, but a small, EVF-less R body would interest me as well.

It amazes me that the M6II is still the only M model that allows eye-AF in servo mode and it's also the only M model that supports USB-C PD charging.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
520
468
The facts are that the last DSLR launched by Canon was an xxxD model >2.5 years ago.
2.5 years is not a lot, but as I understood Canon, that will be the last DLSR. They are not planning any new ones. They have already stopped production of many EF lenses.
Your talk of CFe cards and fast buffers suggests that you don’t care about the entry level market either, but rather you want Canon to keep updating high-end DSLRs, or maybe you think if Canon were to do that they’d sell those high-end DSLRs at entry-level prices.
My point is that many of the recent progresses of cameras could also be used for DSLRs. For example the stacked BSI sensor. That is not something that really comes as a benefit from mirrorless cameras. It was just as Canon decision that they do not offer the fabulous R3 sensor, which at the moment has the best low light performance of all full frame sensors on the market, in any future DSLR. At the same time they put the so far best DSLR sensor they have - the one of the 1D X Mark III - into the R6 which costs a little more than a third of the price.

For me mirrorless cameras do not feel like the future, but instead like a step back. Evey cheap point and shoot camera is a mirrorless camera. I once bought a Canon Powershot S1 IS, as 3.2 megapixel mirrorless camera, which even offered video, an EVF and optical image stabilization. DSLRs have been in the premium category. Strange that this has changed and suddenly the old technology is called "progress".
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,915
7,997
2.5 years is not a lot, but as I understood Canon, that will be the last DLSR. They are not planning any new ones. They have already stopped production of many EF lenses.
Canon stated that the 1D X III would be the last flagship DSLR. They also stated they would continue to supply products as long as there is demand. Given that entry-level DLSRs represent the lowest price point for ILCs, and that 45% of Canon's ILCs are DLSRs, it appears that demand remains quite strong. We'll see what the R10 and R7 do to that, but the R10 kit is >2x the cost of the Rebel T7 kit.

My point is that many of the recent progresses of cameras could also be used for DSLRs. For example the stacked BSI sensor. That is not something that really comes as a benefit from mirrorless cameras. It was just as Canon decision that they do not offer the fabulous R3 sensor, which at the moment has the best low light performance of all full frame sensors on the market, in any future DSLR. At the same time they put the so far best DSLR sensor they have - the one of the 1D X Mark III - into the R6 which costs a little more than a third of the price.
Sure, and Canon could give cameras away for free, too. But they won't, they're a business. Canon has stated in their financial reporting that they expect RF lenses to drive significant revenue growth for the Imaging Division. For that to happen, they need users to switch from DSLRs to MILCs. Putting the latest technology in DSLRs would be a step back for Canon, and would negatively impact their revenue stream.

For me mirrorless cameras do not feel like the future, but instead like a step back. Evey cheap point and shoot camera is a mirrorless camera. I once bought a Canon Powershot S1 IS, as 3.2 megapixel mirrorless camera, which even offered video, an EVF and optical image stabilization. DSLRs have been in the premium category. Strange that this has changed and suddenly the old technology is called "progress".
That's fine, but unless you can construct your own cameras you are limited to what manufacturers choose to sell. Pentax released an APS-C DSLR last year with a BSI sensor, dual card slots, 11 fps, maybe you should look at that brand. Canon and Nikon have clearly decided to prioritize MILCs over DLSRs for new features, and Sony abandoned DLSRs entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
I can feel your frustration. Most of what the new camera does is stuff you don't need.
As for the "why" of mirrorless, I can add another couple why's but again they may be things you don't need. 1) shooting is now instantaneous. SLR's needed like 70ms to flip the mirror out of the way and we don't have that. Faster release can be really useful for some. I've got a small number of Leica rangefinder shots that couldn't have been made on an SLR for this reason. 2) allows more freedom for the lens maker to make optical and size/weight/cost tradeoffs, now that they no longer have the extra limitation that the back of the lens had to be at least 45mm from the sensor/film. I think we absolutely profit from this with the RF 24-105 being as small as the EF MkI despite being as sharp as the EF MkII. (And "as sharp" means, about as sharp as an EF prime.) You may not need the sharpness or portability that can result. It's possible the RF just doesn't serve you well.
I read that R5's shutter lag is 50msec for electronic and 81msec for mechanical so no real advantage there.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
520
468
They also stated they would continue to supply products as long as there is demand.
You have to read between the lines there. They will still build those cameras, but they did not say the they will develope new ones. Nikon had as similar press statment. They wrote

Nikon is continuing the production, sales and service of digital SLR.

The word "develope" is noticeably missing in that announcement.

It seems both brands just create demand for mirrorless cameras by not given consumers any other choice. It is like the auto manufacturers who decided that they will focus on the production of electric vehicles now. Some will even stop making gas powered cars at one point. Governments also do their part in making EVs cheaper. So it gets more and more difficult to gind a good conventional car.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,915
7,997
You have to read between the lines there. They will still build those cameras, but they did not say the they will develope new ones. Nikon had as similar press statment. They wrote

Nikon is continuing the production, sales and service of digital SLR.

The word "develope" is noticeably missing in that announcement.
I understand full well what they stated, and did not state. Still, it would not surprise me personally if Canon releases an updated xxxD DLSR and an updated EOS M. 70-75% of a market is simply too large to ignore. Canon could also address the issue with an R100 and R1000, kit priced similar to the xxxD and xxxxD DSLRs, since it seems reasonable that the main draw for those entry-level DSLRs is the low price, not the fact that they have a mirror.

However, I certainly do not expect Canon to release anything at the xxD level or higher. Thus the R10 and R7.

It seems both brands just create demand for mirrorless cameras by not given consumers any other choice. It is like the auto manufacturers who decided that they will focus on the production of electric vehicles now. Some will even stop making gas powered cars at one point. Governments also do their part in making EVs cheaper. So it gets more and more difficult to gind a good conventional car.
You say that like it's a bad thing. At the risk of an extreme derailment, climate change is not a hoax.

As it pertains to cameras, as I've said many times these are for-profit businesses we're discussing, not philanthropic organizations. They want our money, and limiting our choice to more expensive items at the higher end of the brand is one way to increase the amount of our money they get. You don't even have to read between the lines to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,336
16,810
I read that R5's shutter lag is 50msec for electronic and 81msec for mechanical so no real advantage there.
I think that he is not talking about lag but that it takes 70 ms for the mirror to flip out and back, so you are limited to about 14 fps with a mirror (the 1DXIII must be bit quicker as it does 16 fps in mechanical). The R7 and R3 do 30 fps in electronic shutter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
Good catch because he said "70msec to flip out and back" I hadn't noticed it.

I took literally "shooting is now instantaneous" and I responded to this because shooting is still not instantaneous at least for R5.

But now I saw that R3 has 20msec shutter lag so it seems that we are going towards instantaneous shooting. Now if only R5 II has prerelease shooting just like R7 (because human reactions are much slower...) :)
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,336
16,810
Good catch because he said "70msec to flip out and back" I hadn't noticed it.

I took literally "shooting is now instantaneous" and I responded to this because shooting is still not instantaneous at least for R5.

But now I saw that R3 has 20msec shutter lag so it seems that we are going towards instantaneous shooting. Now if only R5 II has prerelease shooting just like R7 (because human reactions are much slower...) :)
I would be surprised if the R5 could not have it with a firmware upgrade as also fewer fps in ES. But, they will keep it back for the R5II.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,952
5,090
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
I understand full well what they stated, and did not state. Still, it would not surprise me personally if Canon releases an updated xxxD DLSR and an updated EOS M. 70-75% of a market is simply too large to ignore. Canon could also address the issue with an R100 and R1000, kit priced similar to the xxxD and xxxxD DSLRs, since it seems reasonable that the main draw for those entry-level DSLRs is the low price, not the fact that they have a mirror.

However, I certainly do not expect Canon to release anything at the xxD level or higher. Thus the R10 and R7.
You are probably correct. But I think we have to at least entertain the idea that Canon could, at some point, decide to release at least one new full-frame DSLR. Just as 70-75% of the total market is too large to ignore, it's also true that the most lucrative segment of the market is the higher-end enthusiast. I think that Canon is having good success moving that market over to mirrorless, but I think there is a slim possibility that once they get a better handle on where the mirrorless enthusiast market is headed they may decide to offer an updated xD full frame body for the segment that doesn't want to buy mirrorless.

One argument in favor of such a camera is that Canon already has significant investment in the DSLR ecosystem and the development of a single full-frame DSLR would not require a lot of new investment, especially if they concentrated on carrying over only the technologies from mirrorless that are easily ported to a DSLR. They kept the EOS 1V in the lineup for 18 years. I could see them releasing a similar 5D type body that they could keep around for another decade or so -- long enough for most of the DSLR die-hards to actually die out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
  • Jul 28, 2011
    514
    91
    New Yawk
    photography.ashworld.com
    Canon has 30+ lenses to release in the next 4 years. I assume Nikon so do as well. Tagging @AutoMatters as this is important to him. That lens will come out before the year 2030.

    As an indicator of popularity among users or production priority among brands, the 28-300mm focal length from any brand has only the Canon EF L model showing up. My assumption is this is the last batch to be made and will not be replenished.

    No other brand whether it be 1st party like Sony, Nikon or 3rd party like Sigma or Tamron currently has it "in production" for dSLR or mirrorless. On bhphotovideo it is labeled as "No Longer Available".

    In the 63 E lens SKUs Sony has the 28-300mm focal length was never released in the dozen years of E mount.

    Im willing to bet none of those are the 50 1.4 EF replacement. I'm glad mine is an actually good copy, when shooting 2.8+. Would be nice to use a 1.4 lens at 1.4 without hazy results though. I mean, it says 1.4 on the barrel...sigh

    ** PS- I CAN shoot 1.4 on my SIGMA 30 1.4. Yes, its a crop lens, but...seeing sharp 1.4 images for me is a revelation.
     
    Upvote 0

    dolina

    millennial
    Dec 27, 2011
    2,610
    1,133
    32
    34109
    www.facebook.com
    Im willing to bet none of those are the 50 1.4 EF replacement. I'm glad mine is an actually good copy, when shooting 2.8+. Would be nice to use a 1.4 lens at 1.4 without hazy results though. I mean, it says 1.4 on the barrel...sigh

    ** PS- I CAN shoot 1.4 on my SIGMA 30 1.4. Yes, its a crop lens, but...seeing sharp 1.4 images for me is a revelation.
    You'd lose that bet because you're too cynical for your own good.

    On bhphotovideo their are these many 50mm f/1.4 lens SKUs

    - 23 for SLR
    - 21 for Mirrorless

    There's already a manual focus RF mount lens

    The lens is popular but probably does not have a great margin.
     
    Upvote 0