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

[koenkooi]

[..]but all I've ever claimed is (1) other companies are allowing 3rd party glass, and (2) I'm unhappy Canon isn't.[..]

My, admittedly very naive, reading of this situation is that Canon isn't dis-allowing 3rd party glass (just look at Laowa and TTartisans), but specifically has an issue with how Viltrox did theirs.

A more cynical reading is that Canon will send C&D letters to companies that make lenses that overlap with Canons offerings. Canon might not even have a strong case, but a C&D letter is very low-effort and seems to have had the effect on Viltrox that Canon wanted.

I really hope the naive reading it the correct one!

 

[AlanF]

These are feelings and everyone will have different ones. The white lens one is classic Canon halo branding irrespective of it they are the best or if Sony also uses white now.

I use Canon products because they suit my needs best. I have no more brand loyalty to them than I would to any mega corporation, and I dislike a lot about them as a company, especially their price gouging of certain regions. As for branding features like the white lens, Minolta used white lenses before Canon. Sony bought up Minolta and took over its lens division for its own brand. Sony could argue that they as the continuation of Minolta lenses are being copied by Canon! I personally prefer black telephotos and cover my white ones with camo.

 

[Sigurd2]

My gosh, maybe Ford should make their car engines hot swappable with Chevy. It's just weird thinking, man. Really weird.

This is nothing like expecting Ford to make it easier to fit third party parts in their cars...
It is more like Ford taking legal action to forbid any other company of selling parts, or a whole engine, custom made to fit in a Ford car.

I'm sure the negative views on this in media will make some choose to go for Sony or Nikon instead when buying their next camera.
But Canon must have made a calculation that those losses will be less, than if they let competition in on RF glass.

 

[Ozarker]

It is more like Ford taking legal action to forbid any other company of selling parts, or a whole engine, custom made to fit in a Ford car.

Canon is not preventing the manufacture of parts. Canon is preventing the theft of tech they paid dearly to research and develop. A Chevy engine can be installed in a Ford, however, Ford doesn't make the mounts for that, Ford doesn't provide any guidance on how to do so. And shouldn't.

I'm sure the negative views on this in media will make some choose to go for Sony or Nikon instead when buying their next camera.

Doubtful, because people would be buying more than a camera. Very few can afford to make the total swap. Imagine being so pissed that you can't get RF Sigma that you'd sell off your body, lenses, flash, familiarity, etc. And then go buy all that stuff NEW for your new brand fetish... because you wanted the Sigma lens. Not happening. Ain't saved no money. Gotta learn a new system. You got your Sigma! But it cost many times what that Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L woulda cost if you'd not got spun up. Oh? You'll adapt your old Canon glass to the Sony? Then why not just adapt the Sigma to RF? You sure won't be adapting RF to Sony.

In the meantime, all EF glass works in the RF world, including 3rd party.

 

[entoman]

My take home from using both systems for birds and bugs is that you use the Olympus to be smaller and lighter, maybe to use the more computational modes, but not to save money or have higher quality.

I've just spotted that OM Systems intend to release a 90mm F3.5 IS macro next year, that will go to 2x magnification. It seems highly likely that they'll also release a 25MP body too. I find the computational aspects of OM cameras, such as in-camera stacking and merging are very appealing, as is the Pro Capture facility. Olympus weather-sealing and durability are legendary. I've long said that ultimately, as M43 quality and MP counts improve, FF will be ousted by smaller formats due to the light weight and compactness of the latter.

I'm heavily committed to Canon RF, with 2 bodies, 6 lenses and 3 flashguns, but as I get older (now 72) a light weight system will become increasingly desirable, and I can seriously see myself switching to OM.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

Lol. My wife and I once discussed our gas fireplace (verbally), and later that day my weather app ads were Home Depot gas fireplaces.

It’s not random coincidence, that’s how modern advertising works. You’re browsing this thread, and being tracked while doing so.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]I find the computational aspects of OM cameras, such as in-camera stacking and merging are very appealing, as is the Pro Capture facility.[..]

For what it's worth: the R7 has all 3 of those things, the M6II has 2, stacking, pr(e/o)-capture but not merging.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

I see. You were responding to someone else and addressing ‘CR forumers’ with general comments, but you took my reply as a personal attack on you as you talk about ‘being triggered’. Lol.

 

[InchMetric]

I asked a question that you may be able to answer. Do companies like Canon actually patent and publish the code for their communication protocols?

Code is usually not patentable (since the Alice decision). Need more than basic hardware in the system to patent.

There are exceptions, but the bar is much higher and far less likely to patent any software innovation than it used to be.

 

[entoman]

For what it's worth: the R7 has all 3 of those things, the M6II has 2, stacking, pr(e/o)-capture but not merging.

Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few caveats with the R7 though, e.g. no merging, very limited pre-capture mode, questionable ergonomics, lack of battery grip option, and prosumer build quality. It is however good value. Unfortunately I don't believe that Canon has any intention of producing a pro-grade APS model.

 

[UlfricStormcloak]

So, after all these pages to what conclusion community agreed on?

Will canon be d00med because some part of their client base, which is cant spend $3000 per lens would goes to another company?
Will this ban helped to develop good, sharp and cheap lenses like %lens name% (16, 24, 100-400 or whatever cheap zoom)? <sarcasm/>
Does a logic of a giant corporation helps to comprehend and accept the needs a raise the price for 70-200 f4 from $1600 to $1800 ( $2k in my country )?

 

[dolina]

So, after all these pages to what conclusion community agreed on?

Will canon be d00med because some part of their client base, which is cant spend $3000 per lens would goes to another company?
Will this ban helped to develop good, sharp and cheap lenses like %lens name% (16, 24, 100-400 or whatever cheap zoom)? <sarcasm/>
Does a logic of a giant corporation helps to comprehend and accept the needs a raise the price for 70-200 f4 from $1600 to $1800 ( $2k in my country )?

Canon's d------med as much as Apple is dooooooooooooooomed for the past 3 decades.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon's d------med as much as Apple is dooooooooooooooomed for the past 3 decades.

But what if Apple had locked third-party headphones out of the iPod?

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few caveats with the R7 though, e.g. no merging, very limited pre-capture mode, questionable ergonomics, lack of battery grip option, and prosumer build quality. It is however good value. Unfortunately I don't believe that Canon has any intention of producing a pro-grade APS model.

This side-by-side detailed comparison of the R7 and OM-1 prefers the ergonomics of the R7. What did you find questionable about the R7 ergonomics when you were using it?

Canon R7 vs. OM Systems Olympus OM-1: An In-Depth Camera Comparison & Review — Oxbow Photography

A detailed review and comparison of the OM Systems OM-1 and Canon R7 crop sensor mirrorless cameras and their respective kit lenses.

www.oxbowphoto.com

 

[entoman]

This side-by-side detailed comparison of the R7 and OM-1 prefers the ergonomics of the R7. What did you find questionable about the R7 ergonomics when you were using it?

Canon R7 vs. OM Systems Olympus OM-1: An In-Depth Camera Comparison & Review — Oxbow Photography

A detailed review and comparison of the OM Systems OM-1 and Canon R7 crop sensor mirrorless cameras and their respective kit lenses.

www.oxbowphoto.com

Thanks for the link, it's interesting reading.

Ergonomics are very much a personal thing, and some may like the R7, but I didn't like the dial around the joystick, I found it too easy to nudge the dial when using the joystick. I'm left-eyed, which aggravates the situation. Also I found the * button awkwardly positioned, and the rear buttons/d-pad a bit cramped. The EVF is a bit of a let-down compared to the one on my R5, and has lower resolution and lower magnification than on the OM1. Apart from that, it's OK, although I would have greatly preferred a slightly larger, more rugged pro-grade body.

There also are things about the OM1 that I don't particularly like, e.g. I find the GUI and menu descriptions confusing. It does however fit my hands very comfortably, and is easy to operate. But the main attractions for me are the ruggedness of the body*, the wide choice of compact lenses, and the announcement of a 90mm F3.5 macro that goes down to 2x life size. That would be roughly equivalent on my R5 to the "compact 180mm F5.6 L IS macro" which I've pleaded for Canon to introduce. I also like the Pro Capture which is better implemented than on the R7, and the fact that the OM can focus-stack *and* merge in-camera. I've used an OM D E-M1 Mkii (bloody silly name), and the OM1 is even better. I think OM Systems will have a very bright future if they are able to market themselves better.

*I've recounted this several times in threads on dpreview, but it probably bears repeating. In 2017, while in Papua New Guinea with one of my butterfly photography groups, we had to wade knee-deep along a fast-flowing stream in order to reach some spectacular butterflies mineralising further along on the opposite bank. One of the group tripped on a small boulder and went crashing into the stream, and her OM D E Mkii crashed into the water and sunk to the bottom. It was down there for almost a minute, before she rescued it. After wiping the camera down and drying it in the hot sunshine for half an hour, the camera was found to be undamaged and working perfectly. She still has this camera, and it still works perfectly.

 

[koenkooi]

Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few caveats with the R7 though, e.g. no merging, very limited pre-capture mode, questionable ergonomics, lack of battery grip option, and prosumer build quality. It is however good value. Unfortunately I don't believe that Canon has any intention of producing a pro-grade APS model.

The R7 actually does do in-camera merging, it saves the RAW files and then generates a merged jpeg.

 

[entoman]

The R7 actually does do in-camera merging, it saves the RAW files and then generates a merged jpeg.

Thanks, I think the reviews which I read must have failed to understand the "depth composite" setting. I'll look at the R7 more favourably.

 

[EOS]

Canon is a business.

RF mount started in 2018.

They're releasing ~8 lens SKU annually.

It has been 4 years so 32 lens SKUs so far.

These lenses have the fastest inventory turnover or a more favorable profit margin.

Next 4 years will be another 32 lens SKUs.

Odds are the low volume or/and thinner margin lens you want will be released within 4 years.

When you got into the EF mount odds are it was about 1-2 decades after its introduction in 1987.

LOL! You assume too much. I’ve been a Canon shooter since the A-1 and FD mount, and have lived through pseudo compatibility with FL and “R Series” glass. (Yes, Canon recycled the R name.) And then EF and autofocus, which of course broke compatibility with everything.

For now I’ve dumped as much EF glass as had resale value, except for some very special lenses like the TS-E 24 f/3.5 II that have no corollary in the RF or FE lines at this time. Still waiting. Hoping today’s RF wide L primes rumor comes through sooner rather than later.

 

[EOS]

Bob, is @EOS your other username?

Bob doesn’t LOL enough to be me.

 

[kten]

one thing worth mentioning that seems to be missed is Canon isn't blocking RF mount lenses

My, admittedly very naive, reading of this situation is that Canon isn't dis-allowing 3rd party glass (just look at Laowa and TTartisans), but specifically has an issue with how Viltrox did theirs.

A more cynical reading is that Canon will send C&D letters to companies that make lenses that overlap with Canons offerings. Canon might not even have a strong case, but a C&D letter is very low-effort and seems to have had the effect on Viltrox that Canon wanted.

I really hope the naive reading it the correct one!

They're manual focus though. Canon isn't blocking RF mount glass across the board but more specifically seems to be doing so with AF RF. Since there is no official way of supporting AF on RF mount all 3rd party are going to be copying or reverse engineering and Canon are blocking that. Again they're within their rights to do it and probably even have to to be seen to defend their IP (or legally they lose it) even if didn't care (doubtful).

Although it isn't the best move for consumers admittedly I think this is blown out of proportion a little. For pros they can just pass cost off to customers so isn't that big of a deal. As hobbyist I'm not earning my living from photography and maybe affects me more BUT but I can afford to simply not buy lots of Canon RF glass at current prices (in the UK and regional pricing here is more than other places + VAT) and it won't affect my livelihood. A shame maybe but not exactly life and death and stopping me putting bread on the table so I can afford to shrug it off, and for those who depend on it for business are likely to go 1st party anyway so not that big an issue.

For me the Canon RF L stuff is not worth the current cost and other things I'd rather spend that disposable income on before lenses when my current ones work well enough albeit heavier or larger with adapters etc. Even within the hobby niche I'd be likely to blow that amount replacing my old lights (godox qt600ii's) with smaller modern equivalents and accessories before glass since that is likely to make more of a difference to me.