But how does that IS interact with the IBIS in the body? With Canon RF lenses on an RF body you get something substantially better compared to just ILIS, with Sigma EF lenses on an RF body you get something substantially worse.
Upvote
0
Canon Germany addresses recent Viltrox RF mount lens demands, and it’s a case of patent infrigement
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Doesn't Sony limit the burst rate and even the number of autofocus points, if you use a third party lens? I think one reviewer mentioned that you only gat the maximum burst rate, if you use Sony glass. That is a "soft" restriction.
Upvote
0
If this is really true, then I think there could be hope for Sigma and Tamron soon. Sigma has hinted the would not reverse engineer any other mount (though they clearly have in the past). Tamron has been silent. But Sigma would also not likely pay a license fee for a mount when others are (illegally) benefiting from the proprietary mount info for free. So this could be Canon going around and cleaning up the IP theft rampant in China so that it can set up a revenue stream from licensing.
This would be keeping with some older rumors that Canon and the big 3rd parties had entered an agreement with an exclusion period on the RF mount of 3-5 years.
Of course, it could be that Canon will not allow anything on the RF mount that they don't make. But only time will tell.
-Brian
This would be keeping with some older rumors that Canon and the big 3rd parties had entered an agreement with an exclusion period on the RF mount of 3-5 years.
Of course, it could be that Canon will not allow anything on the RF mount that they don't make. But only time will tell.
-Brian
Upvote
0
That's a different case though. The court decision is from the year 2000 I believe. In this decision Microsoft was forbidden to exclusively sell their software by tying it to hard ware components. From their on out, Microsoft was forced to also sell (or let others sell) their software in bundles not tied to hardware components. Microsoft still sells and gets paid for their software.
So how are comparing this to Canon and their mount policy? If they open their mount, they don't get paid, they just lose out. I think you're comparing pears and apples.
Upvote
0
You can think as the lenses being third party software installed on an operating system by Microsoft. That software ony works with the operating system, but still Microsoft does not get any money from the third party software company. I am sure developing a new operating system is much more expensive than developing a new camera mount.
Upvote
0
Honestly, google throws apps as well. Just recently, they threaten to shut down a whole bunch of apps...
Censorship isn't nice of course. But it happens all the time. Bild wasn't offered by a lot of distributors back in the days... as student I worked in a grocery retail for years. We weren't allowed to sell Bild newspapers for quite a while, so what?
Apple developed iOS, takes care for its evolution and covers ALL the R&D costs. Its their system, so they get to decided what they offer or not. That's business.
I don't get what people get upset about with android/ iOS. Imagine, somebody opens a retail store (that's what the app store and playstore are) and a third party walks into your building and says: "well, you should let me sell my stuff here. Btw, I don't wanna pay rent because I believe this should be an open space for everybody....
If you don't like android/ iOS, don't use it. Or create your own system, nobody will stop you from doing it...
Upvote
0
I heard that about certain lenses being used on the A1. But as it turned out, Sony lenses were affected, too. Apparently, aged lenses were/ are not always capable of shooting 30fps. Therefore, Sony is releasing a lot of mk ii lenses these days.
Upvote
0
Android is not closed. You do not need the Play Store to install apps.
And for the "Bild" example there was an interesting court decision. One newspaper kiosk decided to no longer sell "Bild" (I applaud that!). The problem is that the newspapers come from a few central deliveries and the court decided that they can force the shops to either sell ALL newspapers they offer or none of them. So no shop has the option to refuse selling "Bild" unless it chooses not to sell any newspapers at all. That court decision is very problematic, because "Bild" really is full of hate speech and fake news and the world would be a better place if "Bild" did not exist.
You can't compare that with Apple and Android though. Those two have monopolies and combined they even have a duopoly over the whole smartphone market. Whenever you have a monopoly, your right to use that power is usually limited by laws and courts.
And for the "Bild" example there was an interesting court decision. One newspaper kiosk decided to no longer sell "Bild" (I applaud that!). The problem is that the newspapers come from a few central deliveries and the court decided that they can force the shops to either sell ALL newspapers they offer or none of them. So no shop has the option to refuse selling "Bild" unless it chooses not to sell any newspapers at all. That court decision is very problematic, because "Bild" really is full of hate speech and fake news and the world would be a better place if "Bild" did not exist.
You can't compare that with Apple and Android though. Those two have monopolies and combined they even have a duopoly over the whole smartphone market. Whenever you have a monopoly, your right to use that power is usually limited by laws and courts.
Upvote
0
Why must Canon provide others to use their mount? There is no right for it. Nintendo does not have to let other companies develop games for the switch... if they want do it, they have to pay for it and hope Nintendo agrees. If not, you simply have not right...
Honestly, if that was the case: nobody would ever develop anything because you'd be with R&D while others make the profit without having costs...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
At this stage I would say it's a risk buying a third party RF lens. The continued firmware updates in the RF system could make the lenses fail to work properly as it is not Canon's responsibility to ensure the continued support of any third party lens. If anyone has a third party RF lens that's currently working then the only way to guarantee it won't have issues is to not update the firmware and keep it on the same body. Adapting third party EF lenses to RF could also lead to issues in the future as well, but less of a chance.
If they really wanted to get rid of the third party lenses they could also remove the feature "Release shutter w/o lens" this would remove all of the unchipped manual focus and aperture RF/EF lenses as the shutter won't work if it can't see a lens attached.
I can see Canon getting a lot of support requests saying things such as "I just updated my R10 and now my Sigma lens doesn't work when I use this function"
It would probably be best if they can provide a license to the third parties in the future so they can have the official code to run the lenses.
If they really wanted to get rid of the third party lenses they could also remove the feature "Release shutter w/o lens" this would remove all of the unchipped manual focus and aperture RF/EF lenses as the shutter won't work if it can't see a lens attached.
I can see Canon getting a lot of support requests saying things such as "I just updated my R10 and now my Sigma lens doesn't work when I use this function"
It would probably be best if they can provide a license to the third parties in the future so they can have the official code to run the lenses.
Upvote
0
So lenses are software now? You're stretching your analogy like a rubber band, and honestly, it's probably already snapped.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
