SIGMA to make a major RF mount announcement in the near future [CR1]

[usern4cr]

Monopolies are generally considered as being bad for the consumer and most countries have set up legislation to prevent their worst effects. Monopolies are not illegal in the USA but the Sherman Anti-Trust act prevents them from abusing their power. We in the UK have a Competition and Markets Authority, a successor to the Monopolies Commission, to control monopolies and make sure there is competition. I think, and am willing to be corrected on this, it is illegal to prevent 3rd parties from making batteries, lenses etc to work with your products but you can make it difficult.

I do understand the problems with monopolies. But Canon is not a monopoly. There are many, if not dozens, of other camera manufacturers to choose from, and they are competing very aggressively against each other. But I don't know what the law actually is in the USA or in general (hence why I inquire here about it). I'd also like to say that I do enjoy having choices, and will choose what is best for me as others will do. I'd just like things to be fair to companies, as well as to their buyers. And "fair" is a very relative term to different people.

 

[Ozarker]

Thanks for the info. I can see Canon enjoying the benefit of unauthorized 3rd party lenses as long as it also increases Canon's overall market share and thus sales. I just wonder at what point lenses at a much lower price (& quality) can undercut Canon's high priced (premium quality) lenses to the point that Canon actually starts losing sales in general?

Sacrifice market share in lenses just to say they win market share in bodies? Sounds suicidal to me. Lenses are also sales.

 

[usern4cr]

Sacrifice market share in lenses just to say they win market share in bodies? Sounds suicidal to me. Lenses are also sales.

Well, I meant that maybe low price 3rd party lenses can cause many new people (who otherwise wouldn't buy into Canon) to buy Canon bodies and a 3rd party lens or 2 and maybe a Canon lens or 2. If there are enough of those new people to offset the existing Canon people who buy a 3rd party lens instead of a Canon lens, or buy Canon lenses at a forced lower price, then Canon will indeed make more money. I'm not saying Canon wants this, but maybe it's not worth waging all out war to avoid it.

 

[AlanF]

I do understand the problems with monopolies. But Canon is not a monopoly. There are many, if not dozens, of other camera manufacturers to choose from, and they are competing very aggressively against each other. But I don't know what the law actually is in the USA or in general (hence why I inquire here about it). I'd also like to say that I do enjoy having choices, and will choose what is best for me as others will do. I'd just like things to be fair to companies, as well as to their buyers. And "fair" is a very relative term to different people.

It would have a monopoly over what lenses you could use if it could prevent others from supplying lenses, and the law prevents that.

 

[motofotog]

I think they getting 150-600 RF mount lens from Sigma will be a very good choice for wildlife and bird photographers

 

[jolyonralph]

Monopolies are generally considered as being bad for the consumer and most countries have set up legislation to prevent their worst effects. Monopolies are not illegal in the USA but the Sherman Anti-Trust act prevents them from abusing their power. We in the UK have a Competition and Markets Authority, a successor to the Monopolies Commission, to control monopolies and make sure there is competition. I think, and am willing to be corrected on this, it is illegal to prevent 3rd parties from making batteries, lenses etc to work with your products but you can make it difficult.

This isn't the case here. Canon doesn't have a monopoly as Nikon, etc, also produce cameras.

The issue is down to whether you can stop someone else using your mount technology. The answer is you can do it quite easily nowadays. The best way to do this is to have a process in the lens where it sends a specific string of text to the camera body such as "This lens contains proprietary code and technology which is the property of Canon Inc and can only be used by Canon and/or its licencees."

If the text is not word-for-word identical, the camera does an ERR XX and refuses to operate the lens.

This way, the only way 3rd parties would be able to create a compatible lens would be to copy that text and transmit it, and it would be trivial for Canon to bring in an independent expert to court to show the company's lens was transmitting this copyrighted text.

Better still, Canon could write a haiku or similar, and publish it under their copyright, and send that as part of the string. Then their lens mount technology is protected by 75+ years copyright law rather than 12 years patent law.

 

[usern4cr]

This isn't the case here. Canon doesn't have a monopoly as Nikon, etc, also produce cameras.

The issue is down to whether you can stop someone else using your mount technology. The answer is you can do it quite easily nowadays. The best way to do this is to have a process in the lens where it sends a specific string of text to the camera body such as "This lens contains proprietary code and technology which is the property of Canon Inc and can only be used by Canon and/or its licencees."

If the text is not word-for-word identical, the camera does an ERR XX and refuses to operate the lens.

This way, the only way 3rd parties would be able to create a compatible lens would be to copy that text and transmit it, and it would be trivial for Canon to bring in an independent expert to court to show the company's lens was transmitting this copyrighted text.

Better still, Canon could write a haiku or similar, and publish it under their copyright, and send that as part of the string. Then their lens mount technology is protected by 75+ years copyright law rather than 12 years patent law.

That's brilliant! I wonder if Canon ever cared to consider this?

 

[AlanF]

This isn't the case here. Canon doesn't have a monopoly as Nikon, etc, also produce cameras.

The issue is down to whether you can stop someone else using your mount technology. The answer is you can do it quite easily nowadays. The best way to do this is to have a process in the lens where it sends a specific string of text to the camera body such as "This lens contains proprietary code and technology which is the property of Canon Inc and can only be used by Canon and/or its licencees."

If the text is not word-for-word identical, the camera does an ERR XX and refuses to operate the lens.

This way, the only way 3rd parties would be able to create a compatible lens would be to copy that text and transmit it, and it would be trivial for Canon to bring in an independent expert to court to show the company's lens was transmitting this copyrighted text.

Better still, Canon could write a haiku or similar, and publish it under their copyright, and send that as part of the string. Then their lens mount technology is protected by 75+ years copyright law rather than 12 years patent law.

I didn't say Canon had a monopoly over cameras. Read what I wrote and the subsequent posts. Canon like any other company are not allowed to have a monopoly over what accessories you use with their products and they cannot have patents to stop another company making such accessories. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer software: U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). So what you propose gives no legal protection whatsoever.

 

[jolyonralph]

I didn't say Canon had a monopoly over cameras. Read what I wrote and the subsequent posts. Canon like any other company are not allowed to have a monopoly over what accessories you use with their products and they cannot have patents to stop another company making such accessories. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer software: U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). So what you propose gives no legal protection whatsoever.

This is the case in the US, but these rules are not the same worldwide.

 

[koenkooi]

I didn't say Canon had a monopoly over cameras. Read what I wrote and the subsequent posts. Canon like any other company are not allowed to have a monopoly over what accessories you use with their products and they cannot have patents to stop another company making such accessories. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer software: U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). So what you propose gives no legal protection whatsoever.

Have a look at the "Right-to-Repair" efforts in the USA, there are a lot of exceptions and loopholes that manufacturers can use to prevent 3rd parties from making working accessories or replacement parts.

Anyway, I don't think Canon wants to actively prevent 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they just want you to buy all Canon gear.

 

[AlanF]

Have a look at the "Right-to-Repair" efforts in the USA, there are a lot of exceptions and loopholes that manufacturers can use to prevent 3rd parties from making working accessories or replacement parts.

Anyway, I don't think Canon wants to actively prevent 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they just want you to buy all Canon gear.

Could you please give an example of where and how they legally prevent 3rd party manufacturers making working accessories as I am intrigued how they have done it. The US Federal Trade Commission has ruled that manufacturers cannot automatically void a warranty because of the use of a 3rd party repairer or using third party components and the companies have to prove that the third party repairs or components are responsible for any subsequent failure.

 

[koenkooi]

Could you please give an example of where and how they legally prevent 3rd party manufacturers making working accessories as I am intrigued how they have done it. The US Federal Trade Commission has ruled that manufacturers cannot automatically void a warranty because of the use of a 3rd party repairer or using third party components and the companies have to prove that the third party repairs or components are responsible for any subsequent failure.

I think this article describes such a thing: John Deere repairs.

 

[usern4cr]

I think this article describes such a thing: John Deere repairs.

I read the John Deer article - wow! I've been suggesting that Canon should be able to protect it's sale of new lenses or bodies from unwanted competition, but that had nothing to do with repairing what you already own. This new law apparently seeks to bypass voter initiatives that allow people to repair things (like farm equipment) they have bought. It protects details (eg software) not specifically mentioned in those initiatives so that the initiatives are effectively gutted to become worthless. That's a sad thing.

 

[Ozarker]

I read the John Deer article - wow! I've been suggesting that Canon should be able to protect it's sale of new lenses or bodies from unwanted competition, but that had nothing to do with repairing what you already own. This new law apparently seeks to bypass voter initiatives that allow people to repair things (like farm equipment) they have bought. It protects details (eg software) not specifically mentioned in those initiatives so that the initiatives are effectively gutted to become worthless. That's a sad thing.

I didn't read the whole article, but I assume it concerns insurance claims and warrantee claims. You know, kinda like some insurance companies replace bady panels with inferior parts after you've been in a wreck to save them money? That's my assumption, anyway. Farm Bureau is mainly an insurance company.

 

[usern4cr]

I didn't read the whole article, but I assume it concerns insurance claims and warrantee claims. You know, kinda like some insurance companies replace bady panels with inferior parts after you've been in a wreck to save them money? That's my assumption, anyway. Farm Bureau is mainly an insurance company.

A snippet from the article:
"As an organization representing 2.5 million California agriculture jobs, the California Farm Bureau gave up the right to purchase repair parts without going through a dealer. Farmers can’t change engine settings, can’t retrofit old equipment with new features, and can’t modify their tractors to meet new environmental standards on their own."
Basically, farmers can't repair their own purchased equipment, and have to send everything in to the dealers to be fixed, and be without their equipment while that's being done.

 

[AlanF]

I didn't read the whole article, but I assume it concerns insurance claims and warrantee claims. You know, kinda like some insurance companies replace bady panels with inferior parts after you've been in a wreck to save them money? That's my assumption, anyway. Farm Bureau is mainly an insurance company.

I read the article. What it says is that the present law prevents John Deere having the right to dictate who repairs their products so they have colluded with an organization to get around the law. It won't go unchallenged. In general, it's the consumer who needs protection against big business, not the other way around. Look how a company that pretends to be Mr Ethical and Reliable, Volkswagen, cheated emission controls and polluted the environment. Of course, I am not saying Canon does this, merely pointing out in a series of posts that they cannot prevent other companies making lenses, flashes, grips etc that work with Canon. They can make it difficult, but they can't stop it.

 

[usern4cr]

I read the short article in Daily Camera News about Sigma's rumored development of RF lenses. The way it was worded led me to wonder if all of Sigma's DN (mirrorless short flange) designs are made for one optical set of parameters: (L-mount & Canon)20mm flange distance, and (Sony)46.1mm mount diameter? If so, this would be the cheapest/most efficient way they could do it. But it would mean that all their DN lenses were (optically)identical on Sony/L-mount/Canon/Nikon mounts, and that they were not "100% native" on a single one of them! More importantly it would mean that all of their DN lenses were throttled by the narrow APS-C mount diameter of Sony!

I don't know if this is true, or not. Does anyone know for sure if this is true or not?

 

[Ozarker]

I read the article. What it says is that the present law prevents John Deere having the right to dictate who repairs their products so they have colluded with an organization to get around the law. It won't go unchallenged. In general, it's the consumer who needs protection against big business, not the other way around. Look how a company that pretends to be Mr Ethical and Reliable, Volkswagen, cheated emission controls and polluted the environment. Of course, I am not saying Canon does this, merely pointing out in a series of posts that they cannot prevent other companies making lenses, flashes, grips etc that work with Canon. They can make it difficult, but they can't stop it.

Besides that, there is absolutely no way Farm Bureau can force a private citizen to go through Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau is not a government agency. Perhaps Farm Bureau finances some of the equipment or loans and also insures? That is the only way Farm Bureau has any say in the matter at all. Farm Bureau is just an insurance company and lobbying group for the agricultural industry.

 

[jolyonralph]

I read the short article in Daily Camera News about Sigma's rumored development of RF lenses. The way it was worded led me to wonder if all of Sigma's DN (mirrorless short flange) designs are made for one optical set of parameters: (L-mount & Canon)20mm flange distance, and (Sony)46.1mm mount diameter? If so, this would be the cheapest/most efficient way they could do it. But it would mean that all their DN lenses were (optically)identical on Sony/L-mount/Canon/Nikon mounts, and that they were not "100% native" on a single one of them! More importantly it would mean that all of their DN lenses were throttled by the narrow APS-C mount diameter of Sony!

I don't know if this is true, or not. Does anyone know for sure if this is true or not?

It's true.

However, you need to remember one thing - the Sony narrow mount diameter just makes it harder to produce compact lenses. It's perfectly possible to create f/1.0 or better lenses for the Sony E mount - in fact any optical design that would originally have worked with the EF mount would work with an E mount.

Sigma aren't going to produce a single product for a single mount - it's not worth their while. But yes, you're right, they are going to be compromise lenses. Hopefully, cheap though.

 

[secant]

Canon RF 35/1.8 or Sigma 45/2.8? Or maybe the Samyang 45/1.8?