Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future

[Jonathan Thill]

I disagree.

It creates clicks & clicks drive ad revenue.

Meet me in the middle and agree drama drives clicks

 

[LogicExtremist]

You are completely missing the point, probably because you can't see past your own desires.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with anyone wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses. Noting at all! Personally, I have bought 3rd party EF lenses when they met my needs, and I would buy 3rd party RF lenses if they met my needs.

The problem is not wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses or expressing that desire. The problem is when people claim that Canon will lose market share over this issue, that a huge swath of their users will switch brands in disgust, that because Sony and Nikon do something Canon must also do that same thing or 'suffer the consequences'. People making such claims 1) have no actual evidence to support them, and 2) are ignoring the simple fact that choosing to block 3rd party RF lenses is a reasonable and logical action for Canon to take, given their market position and the ample data they have to inform such a decision. If people lack the business acumen to understand that, it’s not the fault of those who do understand it and try to explain it.

I'm not sure why you and others seem to believe Canon has a duty to do the things you want, to make your life easy, or to save you money by facilitating cheaper lenses for their system. They don't. They are a business, it's their duty to generate a return on investment for their shareholders. For reasons that I find baffling, some people can't seem to grasp the reality that Canon is a business and their job is to make money. It's not excusing or defending Canon's actions, it's stating an objective fact.

If you don't like Canon's actions, that’s your personal value judgement on those actions and the way they impact you, and doesn't change the reality of the situation. But refusal to acknowledge or accept that reality is ridiculous, and as I keep saying, ridiculous arguments invite ridicule.

The bottom line is that the only real power you have in this situation is how you spend your money. But you also need to realize that how you personally spend your money is totally irrelevant in the ILC market – what matters is how the aggregated masses of users spend their money.

It's sad to watch these CR forumers complain about this or that thing that Canon has done or not done and threaten dire consequences for Canon as a result of something they personally don't like, only to see Canon's market share remain unaffected despite their complaints that they erroneously believe represent the opinions of the majority of camera buyers, but it's happened before and will happen again. It does make those people look rather foolish, though. Still, maybe this time you'll be right and Canon will actually suffer the consequences of your ire.

View attachment 205507

But probably not, Charlie.

Thanks for the explanation, you're being reasonable here.

Well, it's hard to say what impact this decision of Canon's will have on market share. Doing unpopular things with the market would likely result in negative outcomes for a company, but if this is the point, you're making an argument you're making about, then yes, agreed, it's speculation either way, because only time will tell. Sometimes companies get away with dodgy behaviour, sometimes it backfires magnificently.

The only power people have in the markets is to vote with their wallets. If people don't like something, every single individual makes their decision and collectively that adds up, hence 'the market decides'.

Forums are full of emotions, people making hopeful wish lists, or whining about features missing from the latest camera body. That doesn't negate factual criticism, which fanboys get defensive about, such as R5 overheat issues. Objective criticisms which lay out a products limitations are valuable for new buyers, who want an unbiased product evaluation. This conflicts with the fanboy need for validation of their product purchase, so they try censor any negative facts to preserve their feelings. We probably feel the same about that point.

I see the discussion as a lot of venting, and of people expressing where they stand on the issue. It's harmless and it's fine for people to state that if a situation which they dislike continues, they will consider changing brands. Describing it as a threat emotionalises the everyday action that all consumers do with every product and have always done. What they're stating is their opinion, which is essentially a fact, but if you get into a defensive mindset, you can read that as someone declaring my favourite brand is 'bad' and threatening to abandon loyalty and leave the tribe. What part of the brain is responsible for such primal thinking?

The consequences of Canon's decision and the impact on its market is something we will be able to assess in retrospect, so as you mentioned before, we need to patient, not for new lenses (if you really need them to earn a living, you'll ether use adapted EF, buy into a second system or switch brands), but for seeing where the market goes. The past is not an indication of the future because the environment in which the business activities are taking place have changed. We are dealing with lots of unknowns here, and humans psychologically have a hard time dealing with uncertainty (and are having to in more significant areas than camera lenses currently), so only time will tell.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

I know I'm ripe after a day but do we really need to lock the thread because of that?

Sorry my bad I know I should not type on my phone...

 

[Jonathan Thill]

I know I'm ripe after a day but do we really need to lock the thread because of that?

Damn you!!! You quoted before I could fix my fat fingered reply.

 

[LogicExtremist]

It’s Gollum, and you want to make it a class war. You need to lighten up. Seriously.

It's sarcasm, just suggesting everyone is in a different boat here, photography as a hobby draws diverse groups of people from far and wide who share the same interest, and it doesn't take much to be considerate of other people's financial situations to keep our pastime/profession more inclusive.

Now, hypothetically, if Canon does choose to become a premium brand, mainly focused on it's more profitable and expensive lines, then it may become an exclusive brand, which will by definition push lots of buyers away, as they target a specific demographic.

 

[navastronia]

You are completely missing the point, probably because you can't see past your own desires.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with anyone wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses. Noting at all! Personally, I have bought 3rd party EF lenses when they met my needs, and I would buy 3rd party RF lenses if they met my needs.

The problem is not wanting Canon to allow 3rd party RF lenses or expressing that desire. The problem is when people claim that Canon will lose market share over this issue, that a huge swath of their users will switch brands in disgust, that because Sony and Nikon do something Canon must also do that same thing or 'suffer the consequences'. People making such claims 1) have no actual evidence to support them, and 2) are ignoring the simple fact that choosing to block 3rd party RF lenses is a reasonable and logical action for Canon to take, given their market position and the ample data they have to inform such a decision. If people lack the business acumen to understand that, it’s not the fault of those who do understand it and try to explain it.

I'm not sure why you and others seem to believe Canon has a duty to do the things you want, to make your life easy, or to save you money by facilitating cheaper lenses for their system. They don't. They are a business, it's their duty to generate a return on investment for their shareholders. For reasons that I find baffling, some people can't seem to grasp the reality that Canon is a business and their job is to make money. It's not excusing or defending Canon's actions, it's stating an objective fact.

If you don't like Canon's actions, that’s your personal value judgement on those actions and the way they impact you, and doesn't change the reality of the situation. But refusal to acknowledge or accept that reality is ridiculous, and as I keep saying, ridiculous arguments invite ridicule.

The bottom line is that the only real power you have in this situation is how you spend your money. But you also need to realize that how you personally spend your money is totally irrelevant in the ILC market – what matters is how the aggregated masses of users spend their money.

It's sad to watch these CR forumers complain about this or that thing that Canon has done or not done and threaten dire consequences for Canon as a result of something they personally don't like, only to see Canon's market share remain unaffected despite their complaints that they erroneously believe represent the opinions of the majority of camera buyers, but it's happened before and will happen again. It does make those people look rather foolish, though. Still, maybe this time you'll be right and Canon will actually suffer the consequences of your ire.

View attachment 205507

But probably not, Charlie.

I'm impressed you can write such a wall of text and also fail to demonstrate basic literacy, arguing against a point I didn't make (That Canon is somehow making a bad business decision -- great strawman!) and then blessing us with a pedantic explanation of how money works.

I haven't "refused to accept reality" and I don't believe Canon "has a duty to do things I want," or "make my life easy." I'm flattered by your fan fiction, but all I've ever claimed is (1) other companies are allowing 3rd party glass, and (2) I'm unhappy Canon isn't.

That this is so triggering to you and others (who go to desperate lengths to avoid engaging with these ideas -- seriously, go back and read what you wrote!) is hilarious.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Who is saying it’s ok or ‘good’? It simply is. Canon made a business decision. They didn’t do it capriciously, they had a rationale. They believe it’s the right decision. This isn’t hard to understand.

I have ample personal experience with corporations doing things that are ‘bad’. However I personally feel about it, I can usually understand the rationale.

Obviously it would be good for customers if Canon opens up the mount. I believe that doing so would result in lost revenue, I suspect Canon believes that too, which is why they are blocking Viltrox. I don’t believe the revenue loss would be substantially detrimental to Canon, not to the point where it’s bad for customers because Canon’s bottom line suffers. But Canon is in the business of making revenue, not losing it.

Stating the logical conclusion that Canon has valid business reasons for their action is not defending them or throwing reason out the window. It’s merely stating the obvious. Your clearly emotional reaction to a factual matter is much closer to throwing reason out the window.

Depends on whether said facts are offered as a defense to justify the actions of Canon or just stated as an objective explanation.
I'm okay with the latter but I'm reading many posts which come across as defensive and carry an implicit value judgement that the actions are almost praiseworthy!

 

[LogicExtremist]

Thanks I aim for perfection.

I am dismissing him and his opinion on this issue because he is simply wrong. His video, like all the others that have popped up on this subject are serving there intended purpose.

Create drama.

Cheers!

Haha, that's a perfect comeback!

Saying you think he's incorrect in this instance is much clearer, it's your valid opinion, and that's all good.

Yes, YouTube is all about getting views, that's why the most viewed videos are often clickbait garbage, with titles such as "I bought all of Canon's cameras and guess what happened next!" with a thumbnail image of some idiot with their jaw jammed wide open like it's dislocated in that position!

 

[David - Sydney]

How many could Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, and Viltrox combined have released? How many people would have gone RF if those lenses had been available?

How many people bought into the RF system because of the (mostly) wonderful RF lenses?

Net add metrics are needed to make meaningful discussions otherwise it is just wish lists/ people threatening switching vs work with what we have today the best we can. Unfortunately, switching camera systems is a lot more expensive and difficult compared to switching mobile carrier providers (and keeping the same number).

 

[dlee13]

Another video on the topic

Interesting to see the comments, most agreeing it’s a bad move that deters them from Canon

 

[David - Sydney]

This is what will likely be the first of many videos on the topic! Alex had been mostly using Canon but says in the comments he considering swapping now too over this.

Yes, but complaining and "considering" (not even threatening) to switch systems is just click bait.

Make a decision, switch, lose money in the process and feel somewhat justified that it was correct for them.
Maybe it is and maybe it won't be. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

People with youtube channels are like people with megaphones... more people can hear them but it doesn't make their words any more accurate or valid than anyone else.

Note that some people will feel regret that they didn't achieve everything they wished for by changing. They will find it harder to admit it their error.
Some people may feel trapped that it is too expensive/hard to switch from Canon and complain but still somehow manage to make great images using Canon gear.

I find is strange that the people complaining about this can be summed up by.... "imagine what I could do if only someone in Canon listened to me"

 

[David - Sydney]

Who is saying it’s ok or ‘good’? It simply is. Canon made a business decision. They didn’t do it capriciously, they had a rationale. They believe it’s the right decision. This isn’t hard to understand.
I have ample personal experience with corporations doing things that are ‘bad’. However I personally feel about it, I can usually understand the rationale.

There are many examples where leaders of private and even public companies (where they have large shareholdings) make decisions that are hard to understand.
I am not sure that anyone can fully comprehend the rationale of Elon's bid for Twitter for instance.
Inflated personal ego can have a lot to do with it with a self-proclaimed god-like status.

We (and shareholders) hope that there has been considered/good decision making process under a strategic vision but we all know that it isn't always the case.
I do believe that Canon has made a reasonable decision in this case though.

 

[dlee13]

Yes, but complaining and "considering" (not even threatening) to switch systems is just click bait.

Make a decision, switch, lose money in the process and feel somewhat justified that it was correct for them.
Maybe it is and maybe it won't be. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

People with youtube channels are like people with megaphones... more people can hear them but it doesn't make their words any more accurate or valid than anyone else.

Note that some people will feel regret that they didn't achieve everything they wished for by changing. They will find it harder to admit it their error.
Some people may feel trapped that it is too expensive/hard to switch from Canon and complain but still somehow manage to make great images using Canon gear.

I find is strange that the people complaining about this can be summed up by.... "imagine what I could do if only someone in Canon listened to me"

Well for someone like this, it would be pretty easy to tell if they do switch or not as if they do, you’d likely see a “I swapped to X” video. Plus majority won’t usually stick with one system as they can get much more reach when shooting all brands.

Swapping doesn’t actually cost or lose as much as you think. You’re also in Sydney so you know the prices here fluctuate like crazy. I’ve bought a lens, owned it for a year then sold it for $20 less than what I paid brand new for it purely due to a really good sale when I originally bought it.

You can definitely make great images with any brand but often when people spend money on something, they want to feel they made a good choice with their decision. On Reddit yesterday alone I seen a few threads from people who just bought R series bodies and wanted third party RF lenses and were now questioning their choices. Some don’t care, some will sell, others will stay and complain until Canon does allow them.

 

[dominic_siu]

I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good".
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!

I switched from 5D4 to EOS R then R5 solely because I want to use Canon made RF lenses.

 

[dominic_siu]

How many people bought into the RF system because of the (mostly) wonderful RF lenses?

Net add metrics are needed to make meaningful discussions otherwise it is just wish lists/ people threatening switching vs work with what we have today the best we can. Unfortunately, switching camera systems is a lot more expensive and difficult compared to switching mobile carrier providers (and keeping the same number).

I’m at least one of those, I hope I’m not the only one

 

[SnowMiku]

I got a random notification on my smart phone this morning about the third party lens news, so the news is getting around.

 

[David - Sydney]

Well for someone like this, it would be pretty easy to tell if they do switch or not as if they do, you’d likely see a “I swapped to X” video. Plus majority won’t usually stick with one system as they can get much more reach when shooting all brands.

And yet there are few of these videos published. You would think that they would be popular but you can only really switch a finite number of times just for clicks

Swapping doesn’t actually cost or lose as much as you think. You’re also in Sydney so you know the prices here fluctuate like crazy. I’ve bought a lens, owned it for a year then sold it for $20 less than what I paid brand new for it purely due to a really good sale when I originally bought it.

I only got the RF100-500mm as there was a 20% off sale in the early days. I was happy to pre-order the R5 (with spare battery/strap). I bought the RF70-200mm/2.8 on sale prior to owning a R body. That said... I wouldn't sell them!

The second hand market for EF lenses is a different story.
I bought my EF100mm and EF8-15mm second hand and they were the right price for me so I can be price conscious depending on the usage.
Generally you can get for 50% of list price or less. The EF100-400mm and the big whites can be more than 50%. Very few R5/6 bodies for sale so they are keeping their value moreso but again the standard 50% or less second hand price for the rest.
Given that my replacement (insured) value of my camera gear is 10s of thousands of dollars... this would add up to a lot of money lost if I switched.

 

[Stu_bert]

First of all totally agree Canon is a business and will do whatever it feels is the best course to maximise profits.

Also agree that any company has a right to protect their patents. I’d be interested to know whether Canon has created the RF patents in such a way to make it nigh impossible to make an RF lens without infringing, based on Canon also controlling the bodies.

I don’t think comparison with Apple is valid. Computers are hardware and software. 3rd parties can expand the hardware through ports (not storage), and the software ecosystem is extensive via 3rd parties. A better comparison might be a car manufacturer who previously allowed 3rd party spare or repair services and then moved to electric cars and prevented it. I’m not huge into cars so maybe this isn’t the case. But nor is comparison to Apple imho, sorry.

I do like the idea of a lens using the RF “mount” and EF protocol, even if that meant giving up IS (because you need Rf to work with the body IS) and lens correction. Again, if Canon has patented against that it would be interesting to know, and whether Vitrox went this route or not.

vitrox has been quiet on the details which perhaps indicates they are not being totally transparent on what they’ve done, and they seem to accept they’ve infringed IP, else why else would they stop selling.

YT is also a business and the content providers are also there to make money. Canon’s decision is a sell opportunity for content creators, but we cannot discount the influence Social Media has on the wider photographic community, even if it is considerably smaller. SM and internet sites did I believe help improve the video record times on the R5.

Competition however is good for us. It has provided us with better bodies and lenses. I have no data to know whether those who choose not to migrate to RF system because of Canon’s decision will be offset by the fact that only Canon can produce lenses atm for it. I suspect Canon doesn’t fully know, but given how long it takes to develop lenses, if they have made a mistake it won’t be quick to rectify.

In many ways, it probably helps me as a lot of the RF lenses don’t appeal based on cost, size/weight and that the improvements from the EF isn’t sufficient for me. Plus I like the drop in filter on the rf adaptor for landscape stuff. Thus I won’t be buying many (any) more RF lenses, unless the tilt and shift are amazing, ha ha, and may well continue with an occasional EF. Still, I did expect that 3rd parties would eventually be allowed onto the Rf ecosystem - Canon perhaps feels in the smaller market to remain as profitable then they need to restrict it more.

 

[Ozarker]

Isn't the solution for this to have Sony and Nikon just put in all of their advertising that their new lense mounts support third party autofocus lenses? If that drives consumers to their brands and Canon loses customers than Canon will change their mind sooner than 2024.

What is it with the incessant desire (by some) for a 1st party lens maker, like Canon, to give over trade secrets to the competition? You think Sony and Nikon should advertise that customers should buy third party? In case you've forgotten, they sell their own lenses too.

My gosh, maybe Ford should make their car engines hot swappable with Chevy. It's just weird thinking, man. Really weird. Do you think the camera body is so profitable that Canon can afford such suicide? That lens profits don't matter?

Well, they'll sell more cameras, you'd say. Maybe. They'd sell fewer lenses to. Hey! How about all these companies just toss it all in together and become a single entity, sharing all their secrets with each other? Forget competition, which drives innovation. This type of altruism sinks businesses. Micro 4/3 anyone?

 

[Ozarker]

Second thought:
What if Canon went for a "killer" move:
They license Sigma lenses for free, in return Sigma exclusively produces lenses for RF and L-mount. No other mount will be supported from that point on. Sigma would make a killing as Canon only third party option, they could easily afford losing the others.

Some people will rip this comment to pieces But I thought this strategy could have some merits.

Why would Sigma want to dump sales from Sony, Nikon, and their own Sigma cameras? Yeah, maybe Canon would make a killing (how?), but what's in it for Sigma? What about the lost Canon lens sales? Do you think the mount licensing change ($) on a Sigma lens will make up for the lost profit on a Canon? Nay nay
Canon wants to sell you a body and at least 1-3 lenses. Canon also wants to sell adapters.