SIGMA RF mount lens information finally coming in February 2024? [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

Fair but it's a way for a person with complaints to get feedback on how relevant these are with other users or potentially being presented with solutions to overcome the hurdles.

Complaining on CR forum about this or that decision Canon makes is like spitting into the wind.

What I personally find much less valuable: if "every" (hyperbole) complaint and remark is met with apologies by other consumers on behalf of the OEM.

I see. So supporting someone’s complaints is valuable, but explaining why those complaints are irrelevant (usually because people think their own opinions represent those of tre majority) is apologizing on behalf of an OEM.

Sorry, no. Case in point, this thread. People want mainstream 3rd party lenses for the RF mount. Canon has, so far, shown no inclination to allow that, much less support it. There are valid business reasons for Canon’s decision. Explaining those reasons to people claiming Canon must open up the mount isn’t apologizing, it’s explaining reality.

Is explaining to a Flat Earther that our planet is (nearly) spherical apologizing on behalf of physics?

I know that many long-term CR and Canon users will disagree, but hence I say let's agree to disagree.

I have no problem with that. Or we could try parallel agreement. For example, if you agree to call some posts apologies, I’ll agree to call some posts irrelevant whining.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What were the reasons supporting about microUSB? I can't think of anything reasonable

Lower production cost because the part was available cheaply?

 

[AlanF]

Is explaining to a Flat Earther that our planet is (nearly) spherical apologizing on behalf of physics?

It's an apology from you for shattering their illusions.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While what you say about the positive side of responses to complaints is true, I think you must have witnessed in practice there are people who never want to accept the benefit of responses that don't support whatever was said before.

And in practice, some take that unwillingness to accept or even acknowledge contrary responses to the point of trolling.

I think the main problem is that people have a hard time accepting reality. One need look no further than American politics to see that.

Someone complains about a decision Canon made, they believe their complaint is universal and Canon made an incorrect decision. While that’s certainly possible, it’s rarely the case. Even if the complaint is reasonable, and many are, people can’t accept the valid reasons for the decision. For example, they don’t want to hear that a manufacturer used a cheaper part to increase profits. That reason doesn’t matter to them, so it’s an ‘apology on behalf of the OEM’ instead of a reasonable explanation for a business decision.

More importantly, what does the complaint accomplish? In most cases, the only decision a consumer can make is whether or not to buy a product. If a product is selling well, what does that say about the validity of one person’s complaint? (Yes, I know…’but it could have sold so much better’…except that can’t ever be proved, and in any case it ignores the reality that profit is the main driver, lower unit sales don’t necessarily mean lower profit, and no doubt the manufacturer had done that calculation before making the decision).

I’ll weigh in with a complaint of my own. With the RF 100-300/2.8, Canon eliminated the drop-in filter slot, and while the lens does take a front filter they didn’t provide a ‘window’ in the lens hood to allow rotation of a CPL (as they did for lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500). Personally, I’d like to be able to use a CPL with my 100-300/2.8, and I’m frustrated that Canon limited that ability (sure, I can leave off the hood, but many of the use cases for a CPL are conditions where a lens hood is beneficial).

Having said that, I’m sure that Canon considered this issue and decided to not facilitate CPL use. I can think of several reasons:

• Lens design precluded a drop in slot
• Hood can mount in any orientation, so a CPL window would not have a consistent location
• Production cost savings
• Sales data showing buyers of the 300/2.8 rarely owned a drop-in CPL
• Market research showing few people would use a CPL with such a lens

While I don’t like the decision they made, I prefer to try to understand the rationale for the decision instead of just complaining. More importantly, I know my complaints don’t really matter. The issue didn’t keep me from buying the lens. Plus, posting it here means Canon won’t even know.

Evidently there are plenty of people here who don’t care about understanding, they’d rather just whine and have people agree with them. Or spit into the wind and have people alongside them doing the same. Well, that’s their choice. If they don’t like the blowback, whether that’s replies to their posts or saliva in their eyes, it’s their problem.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's an apology from you for shattering their illusions.

I never apologize for shattering idiotic illusions.

 

[koenkooi]

Lower production cost because the part was available cheaply?

I was involved in a product when ‘the world’ was moving from mini-usb to micro-usb and we decided to go with mini-usb because most people already had the cables already. For version 2 we switched to micro-usb and included a cable. That wasn’t done lightly, since this was a very cost optimized product, that had to compete against subsidized products.

For both connectors we received a lot of returns because a lot of people don’t want to spend the mental energy of reading the specs or looking at the actual port.

I can see why they went with micro-usb, they probably didn’t realize how fast usb-c would take over, especially within the expected life cycle of the camera. Maybe the design lead used an iphone as well

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can see why they went with micro-usb, they probably didn’t realize how fast usb-c would take over, especially within the expected life cycle of the camera. Maybe the design lead used an iphone as well

Holy deprecated cables, Batman!

Here’s a FireWire 400 to 30-pin dock connector cable, the power source for my 15 GB iPod Dock Connector bought 20 years ago:



In a nice testament to the longevity of Apple products, it still works fine!

 

[Surab]

View attachment 213344
I remembered wrong, 2 of the lenses fit inside, not all three.

I went with the Caruba hood, the JJC version wasn’t in stock anywhere in this country.

Thank you! I guess the Canon one really isn't worth the extra cost?

While what you say about the positive side of responses to complaints is true, I think you must have witnessed in practice there are people who never want to accept the benefit of responses that don't support whatever was said before.

What were the reasons supporting about microUSB? I can't think of anything reasonable

You have a good attitude

You're right. Trolls exist and must not be fed. When I can tell someone is just trying to rile others up I stop engaging or outright block them.

I do think if someone mentions something important to them and gets immediately walled with irrelevance claims they will end up getting defensive and become a troll.

There were several:
- One was as @neuroanatomist mentioned below: lower cost. But I'm calling BS on a 5 dollar part other cameras of the same brand already use, especially in the OM5 which costs 1000 USD ish and was released this year
- USB C isn't as great as everyone says and compatibility isn't necessarily guaranteed...
- Stop whining we've been using other forms of charging for a long time, so it doesn't matter...

I am sure there was other stuff but I can't remember.

Thank you! Not going to enter a new forum and declare war. I've got a lot to learn and I'm hoping to pick up tricks here and there.

Complaining on CR forum about this or that decision Canon makes is like spitting into the wind.


I see. So supporting someone’s complaints is valuable, but explaining why those complaints are irrelevant (usually because people think their own opinions represent those of tre majority) is apologizing on behalf of an OEM.

Sorry, no. Case in point, this thread. People want mainstream 3rd party lenses for the RF mount. Canon has, so far, shown no inclination to allow that, much less support it. There are valid business reasons for Canon’s decision. Explaining those reasons to people claiming Canon must open up the mount isn’t apologizing, it’s explaining reality.

Is explaining to a Flat Earther that our planet is (nearly) spherical apologizing on behalf of physics?


I have no problem with that. Or we could try parallel agreement. For example, if you agree to call some posts apologies, I’ll agree to call some posts irrelevant whining.

I agree that it might be less fruitful but sometimes people just want to rant. After all this is a rumor forum and not the economics department of some university. Surely Canon is acting in its own financial interests, but they are the market leader with a very strong image (you see what I did there) and they have thus power they can abuse.

The flat earther thing is a bit of a straw man and doesn't really support your argument (though there is the fallacy fallacy that I might be falling into.).

Parallel agreement is very fair. I'm not going to claim every complaint is justified, necessary, useful or without malicious/trolling intent.

 

[Surab]

I was involved in a product when ‘the world’ was moving from mini-usb to micro-usb and we decided to go with mini-usb because most people already had the cables already. For version 2 we switched to micro-usb and included a cable. That wasn’t done lightly, since this was a very cost optimized product, that had to compete against subsidized products.

For both connectors we received a lot of returns because a lot of people don’t want to spend the mental energy of reading the specs or looking at the actual port.

I can see why they went with micro-usb, they probably didn’t realize how fast usb-c would take over, especially within the expected life cycle of the camera. Maybe the design lead used an iphone as well

Except that the OM5 was released this year. Starting with the Nexus 6P in the fall of 2015 I've not bought anything with micro USB (or lightning) and I'm happy I didn't. We customers get to vote in some way after all.

Surely it's a different thing on 20 dollar earbuds (which plenty do have USB C) than 600 or 1000 dollar cameras. In fact Panasonic just updated the G100 to have USB C and OM System might have to next year thanks to the EU.

 

[koenkooi]

Thank you! I guess the Canon one really isn't worth the extra cost?

When a 3rd party hood is available for a non-L lens, the Canon version is never worth the extra cost. Most of my non-L hoods are from JJC, they are still working great.

20 years ago you’d get a flocked hood from Canon and plain plastic from 3rd parties, it might be worth the difference in that case (EF 100 non-L macro for me in 2005).

 

[Surab]

When a 3rd party hood is available for a non-L lens, the Canon version is never worth the extra cost. Most of my non-L hoods are from JJC, they are still working great.

20 years ago you’d get a flocked hood from Canon and plain plastic from 3rd parties, it might be worth the difference in that case (EF 100 non-L macro for me in 2005).

Ok, that makes sense! I'll keep it in mind.

 

[koenkooi]

Except that the OM5 was released this year. Starting with the Nexus 6P in the fall of 2015 I've not bought anything with micro USB (or lightning) and I'm happy I didn't. We customers get to vote in some way after all.

Surely it's a different thing on 20 dollar earbuds (which plenty do have USB C) than 600 or 1000 dollar cameras. In fact Panasonic just updated the G100 to have USB C and OM System might have to next year thanks to the EU.

I detest micro-USB, it’s a fragile and badly designed connector. USB-C has a lot going for it, provided it not a USB 2.0 interface with USB-C plug

I really appreciate only needing a single charger when going on vacation, although 2 phones, 2 smart watches, 2 e-book readers, a laptop and a camera when going on family vacations means the single charger needs a lot of ports or we need an above average amount of planning

But people are right when saying that USB-C is a mess, the USB-PD 3.1 spec fixed most the problems with earlier versions, but it also made previously mandatory things optional. One step forward, 10 steps back :/

 

[Surab]

I have always used my Google or Apple USB C chargers and never had an issue with them. I actually tried to use one from Hyper but that almost fried my Laptop... Actually since then I've switched to Apple chargers only.

I usually take a 65W and 30W Apple charger with me (as I can exchange the plug and then don't need to bring travel adapters) to charge laptop, tablet, phone, headphones, action camera and now finally main camera.

Still looking for an USB C dual LP-E6NH charger though I think I'll go for the Patona one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I usually take a 65W and 30W Apple charger with me (as I can exchange the plug and then don't need to bring travel adapters) to charge laptop, tablet, phone, headphones, action camera and now finally main camera.


Still looking for an USB C dual LP-E6NH charger though I think I'll go for the Patona one.

When I travel with my 16” Mac, I take a 96W brick (not the 140 W one), and use that to charge the Mac and the battery in the R3 or R8 (separately). That and a little 20W charger for the folding Apple Duo charger for my phone/watch/airpods.

 

[AlanF]

I have always used my Google or Apple USB C chargers and never had an issue with them. I actually tried to use one from Hyper but that almost fried my Laptop... Actually since then I've switched to Apple chargers only.

I usually take a 65W and 30W Apple charger with me (as I can exchange the plug and then don't need to bring travel adapters) to charge laptop, tablet, phone, headphones, action camera and now finally main camera.

Still looking for an USB C dual LP-E6NH charger though I think I'll go for the Patona one.

I use the Neewer triple charger but the 30W Apple dual output charger doesn't power it for 3 and I use an Apple 45W charger for it. I travel with the 45 and 30W or 2x30W if my wife with me as we have to charge iPads, laptop and phones.

 

[EricN]

Lower production cost because the part was available cheaply?

I thought of that, but I can't imagine it being much difference. It does add up and these companies surely know more than I.

 

[basketballfreak6]

And in practice, some take that unwillingness to accept or even acknowledge contrary responses to the point of trolling.

I think the main problem is that people have a hard time accepting reality. One need look no further than American politics to see that.

Someone complains about a decision Canon made, they believe their complaint is universal and Canon made an incorrect decision. While that’s certainly possible, it’s rarely the case. Even if the complaint is reasonable, and many are, people can’t accept the valid reasons for the decision. For example, they don’t want to hear that a manufacturer used a cheaper part to increase profits. That reason doesn’t matter to them, so it’s an ‘apology on behalf of the OEM’ instead of a reasonable explanation for a business decision.

More importantly, what does the complaint accomplish? In most cases, the only decision a consumer can make is whether or not to buy a product. If a product is selling well, what does that say about the validity of one person’s complaint? (Yes, I know…’but it could have sold so much better’…except that can’t ever be proved, and in any case it ignores the reality that profit is the main driver, lower unit sales don’t necessarily mean lower profit, and no doubt the manufacturer had done that calculation before making the decision).

I’ll weigh in with a complaint of my own. With the RF 100-300/2.8, Canon eliminated the drop-in filter slot, and while the lens does take a front filter they didn’t provide a ‘window’ in the lens hood to allow rotation of a CPL (as they did for lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500). Personally, I’d like to be able to use a CPL with my 100-300/2.8, and I’m frustrated that Canon limited that ability (sure, I can leave off the hood, but many of the use cases for a CPL are conditions where a lens hood is beneficial).

Having said that, I’m sure that Canon considered this issue and decided to not facilitate CPL use. I can think of several reasons:

• Lens design precluded a drop in slot
• Hood can mount in any orientation, so a CPL window would not have a consistent location
• Production cost savings
• Sales data showing buyers of the 300/2.8 rarely owned a drop-in CPL
• Market research showing few people would use a CPL with such a lens

While I don’t like the decision they made, I prefer to try to understand the rationale for the decision instead of just complaining. More importantly, I know my complaints don’t really matter. The issue didn’t keep me from buying the lens. Plus, posting it here means Canon won’t even know.

Evidently there are plenty of people here who don’t care about understanding, they’d rather just whine and have people agree with them. Or spit into the wind and have people alongside them doing the same. Well, that’s their choice. If they don’t like the blowback, whether that’s replies to their posts or saliva in their eyes, it’s their problem.

Agree with Neuro here; I've shot Canon all my life even through the days of getting constantly reminded that Canon sensors are sh!t etc compared to the competitors (as a landscape shooter). I can easily acknowledge that Sonikon were producing better sensors and while I did want Canon to do better I liked many other things that Canon does and provided me with so I never considered switching, nor do I felt the constant need to whinge on forums. I'd instead feedback to Canon directly if I felt strongly enough, or if it's truly stopping me from what I want to do I'd just make the switch instead of again, constantly complaining on forums about what Canon should be doing which they'll never read anyway. If Canon gets enough feedback I am sure they'll take it seriously; otherwise I am just in the minority and my demands are no more important than the other person. Canon wouldn't be the market leader they are today if they didn't know what they were doing, pretty simple deduction there.

Having said all that I do find it amusing the amount of circlejerking that happens with the brand; I don't understand the mindset in some people that Canon is the best and can do no wrong, or that it's not possible that third party manufacturers are actually producing lenses that are as good, if not better, than what Canon currently has in its lineup and filling gaps in the system coming from someone who's owned (owning) his share of L lenses. Especially disgusting are the thinly veiled attempts at poor shaming if you preferred or can only afford third party lenses.

For me personally I would love to see the RF mount open up to third party, that Sigma 14mm f/1.4 looks tasty as for an astro shooter such as myself. Until then I'll keep adapting (which works perfectly well minus small inconvenience) my current EF lenses and shoot away.

 

[EricN]

And in practice, some take that unwillingness to accept or even acknowledge contrary responses to the point of trolling.

I think the main problem is that people have a hard time accepting reality. One need look no further than American politics to see that.

Someone complains about a decision Canon made, they believe their complaint is universal and Canon made an incorrect decision. While that’s certainly possible, it’s rarely the case. Even if the complaint is reasonable, and many are, people can’t accept the valid reasons for the decision. For example, they don’t want to hear that a manufacturer used a cheaper part to increase profits. That reason doesn’t matter to them, so it’s an ‘apology on behalf of the OEM’ instead of a reasonable explanation for a business decision.

More importantly, what does the complaint accomplish? In most cases, the only decision a consumer can make is whether or not to buy a product. If a product is selling well, what does that say about the validity of one person’s complaint? (Yes, I know…’but it could have sold so much better’…except that can’t ever be proved, and in any case it ignores the reality that profit is the main driver, lower unit sales don’t necessarily mean lower profit, and no doubt the manufacturer had done that calculation before making the decision).

I’ll weigh in with a complaint of my own. With the RF 100-300/2.8, Canon eliminated the drop-in filter slot, and while the lens does take a front filter they didn’t provide a ‘window’ in the lens hood to allow rotation of a CPL (as they did for lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500). Personally, I’d like to be able to use a CPL with my 100-300/2.8, and I’m frustrated that Canon limited that ability (sure, I can leave off the hood, but many of the use cases for a CPL are conditions where a lens hood is beneficial).

Having said that, I’m sure that Canon considered this issue and decided to not facilitate CPL use. I can think of several reasons:

• Lens design precluded a drop in slot
• Hood can mount in any orientation, so a CPL window would not have a consistent location
• Production cost savings
• Sales data showing buyers of the 300/2.8 rarely owned a drop-in CPL
• Market research showing few people would use a CPL with such a lens

While I don’t like the decision they made, I prefer to try to understand the rationale for the decision instead of just complaining. More importantly, I know my complaints don’t really matter. The issue didn’t keep me from buying the lens. Plus, posting it here means Canon won’t even know.

Evidently there are plenty of people here who don’t care about understanding, they’d rather just whine and have people agree with them. Or spit into the wind and have people alongside them doing the same. Well, that’s their choice. If they don’t like the blowback, whether that’s replies to their posts or saliva in their eyes, it’s their problem.

I suspect the reason is market research about the use of CPL. I always think it would be good for people like us if Canon would explain their decisions, but I recognize it would be a disadvantage for Canon to allow other manufacturers to know their thinking on these things.

 

[MythPlayer]

IS look like coming in February 30