The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved

[UlfricStormcloak]

A couple of years ago there were no agreement between sony and major reporters agencies, because the canon was the main supplier of cameras and lenses. Now canon is rely on its loyal customer more heavily that it was before. It is obvious, they are want to have a customers that would buy r3 like and not rp like me. But the ones who upset about this news are those who would actually buy low budget lenses. We were simply just deprived from that opportunity.

I'm upset that I was waiting for 3rd parties, to have more options in purchase decisions. If I would knew how this would end up I would probably take a7c than rp.

But now its not a problem. a7c + sigma 100-400 performs and costs the same as 100-500 for my rp.

If Canon can produce a sufficiently broad range of lenses to satisfy most (not all) users there will be no need for third-party lenses.

the edges and corners in these images are full of satisfactory. </sarcasm> (rf 16mm and rf 24mm)

 

[LogicExtremist]

Yes, responses have been negative. I don’t disagree with that at all. What is disagree with is your conclusion that this will impact Canon’s bottom line. You claim that will happen, and you have no data to support that. Canon has been making business decisions since their inception, and over the past 20 years those decisions have overwhelmingly been correct.

You also have no data to support that it won't impact Canon's bottom line - this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the scientific thing to say is that we don't know whether their business decision which is revcceiving some negative responses from buyers will result in a negative business outcome!

Nor do I. But I believe that Canon has a very good idea of that proportion, with ample data to support decisions they make regarding 3rd party lenses. They didn't achieve market leadership and keep it for >20 years by making poor business decisions

It's good that you prefaced that statement with "I believe", otherwise as an argument it would be an appeal to tradition fallacy, where it's argued that something will happen in the future because it has happened in the past. Canon has never made this particular decision before, so we have no precedent, but even then, the attitudes of the market, and the economic environment could change things even if it had happened before.

Moreover, Viltrox isn’t the only 3rd party lens maker. Or even a major one. You may assume that Canon has taken action against others, but there’s no evidence for that. Why did Samyang stop making RF lenses? Maybe they just aren’t selling well, so they consolidated products at their subsidiary, Rokinon.

Maybe Samyang didn't, and Canon did take action, both assumptions are equally probable, but the fact that there's no third party AF lenses and the ones that appeared have now disappeared should at least raise some suspicions, rather than a 'nothing to see here' dismissal, like this is a normal situation..

I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?

RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 $550

Pair that with an EOS RP and you have an excellent FF kit costing $2500.

Here's an answer, that's a composition and division fallacy which makes the assumption that one part of something will apply to the whole. One special case where a set of three slow aperture lenses covers a specifically wide focal length neither proves or disproves anything about the value of Canon RF lenses nor whether Canon is screwing over its buyers. It just tells us that anyone who needs a very wide range of focal lengths at a relatively dark aperture for whatever reason for around USD $1500 would be reasonably well served in the US!

I know you're being lax with your reasoning here, not your usual form lol!

 

[LogicExtremist]

That’s true. However, your comment is merely an echo of a common refrain on these forums.

“Canon is d00med because they’re doing X, so people will switch to SoNikon.”

“Canon dominates the market and knows how to run a business better than you.”

“Canon’s d00m is coming, doing X will alienate their users and so many will switch that Canon will suffer. It just takes some time. Remember Kodak. Remember Nokia.”

**a couple of years pass, during which Canon’s market share grows a bit more**

“So, it seems Canon knows more about the camera business than you, and doing X was the right decision.”

—silence—

Until…

“Canon is d00med because they’re doing Y, so people will switch to SoNikon.”

Rinse and repeat.

This has happened many times over the years. It always seems that X or Y, the issue that spells certain d00m for Canon, is an issue that the poster is has a strong personal desire to have. They assume that because it’s important to them, it’s important to a majority of users. I’m still not sure why it’s so hard for people to accept that Canon knows more about the ILC market than they do. But somehow they’re convinced their personal issue is the one that will break Canon. Lol.

Well, it works both ways!

Sony fanboys have been claiming that Canon is d00med for myriad reasons for a long time, but that doesn't logically follow that Canon is therefore immune from making mistakes, and will never make a mistake when faced with a novel situation, such as a shrinking market, where camera companies need top reposition themselves to ensure survival and profitability. To conflate the two would be an incomplete comparison fallacy, as this would involve comparing two phenomena that are not really related. A negative response to a negative situation by a company's market (if this is potentially the case) is not the same as a hate campaign from a competing company's fanboys!

Beyond all the competing opinions, there are a few things here which people are ignoring.

The camera market is shrinking as more everyday photographers and newbies gravitate to smartphones, it's becoming more of a niche market and it's gradually moving to mirrorless. How will companies survive, and grow in such a novel market situation that is being experienced the first time?

The most profitable cameras and lenses are in the mid-range and top-tier, a market populated by enthusiasts (who buy often for pleasure) and pros (who only buy when they need to replace gear or can gain a viable cost-benefit from new gear).This is a sector that Canon has stated it's focusing on in the development of the RF platform. Will Canon try to become an exclusive, top-tier like a quasi-Leica company, or will they continue to cater to the mid-range enthusiast market?

The bulk of cameras sold still are cheap, entry level DSLRs, and this puts Canon in number one position, but that market is declining. The mirrorless pro-am market which everyone fusses about here is lead currently by Sony, and has been for a long time. With the ongoing DSLR decline trends we've been witnessing, which company will adopt a business model that will provide the needs of 1. pros and enthusiasts that want IQ at any price? 2. enthusiasts who want reasonable IQ mid-tier gear that's good value for money? 3. travelers and oldies who want lighter gear? 4. beginners who want affordable entry level gear when taking a step up from smartphones? These four groups may indeed be served by four different companies, depending on what happens in the future, and what strategies they adopt to cope with the ever more competitive shrinking market they occupy.

No one really knows which way this will all go, but in this unpredictable environment, it's natural for people to go into "fear of the unknown mode" psychologically, and start clinging to various mental comforts such as primal tribalism brand loyalty in an irrational emotional attempt to feel they have some control of events in a corporate world they're merely passive observers of (unless they exert influence with their wallets, which might be a better idea)!

 

[neuroanatomist]

In that over 20 year history their EF mount had substantial 3rd party support. Many Canon users assumed that this would continue on RF but it seems that assumption was wrong. Canon may well have made a decision to actively block 3rd parties or the situation is that 3rd parties can not reverse engineer the mount without infringing Canon’s IP and currently they have not issued licenses to anyone.

They did, all reverse engineered as far as AF goes. That has continued for RF with Rokinon. The assumption is based on a comment to a customer by one employee (or subcontractor) of one 3rd party manufacturer. Probably a low-level employee, since CSRs are generally not part of a company’s leadership team.

I haven’t said Canon is stupid or incompetent but in my opinion as a consumer I don’t like it and if someone asks me which system I recommend before this news I would have recommended RF but now I will mention it but also make it very clear the the situation regarding the lenses. Instead I would recommend Sony, Nikon or Fuji.
I’m just 1 person, not foolish or full of hubris as you have claimed about me but rather thinking of fellow shooters and what this potentially means for the industry as a whole.

That’s your prerogative. Your individual actions are utterly irrelevant to the ILC market, of course.

Business works both ways, if a company makes a decision that some customers don’t like they’ll vote by spending their money elsewhere. I fully acknowledge that this might end not meaning much at all but we don’t know that yet. Time will tell.

Yes, it will. See my response to dlee13 summarizing how that’s worked out on this forum.

 

[LogicExtremist]

The noise in your image due to low light is not caused by the iso number but the noise in the amount of light. If you are taking a photo of a duck in your local nature reserve, there will be as many photons hitting the duck at the same shutter speed with an 800mm f/11, 400mm f/5.6 and 200mm f/2.8. So, an 800mm f/11 at iso 1600, 400mm f/5.6 at iso 800 and a 200mm f/2.8 at iso 400 will all have the same shutter speed and the same signal/noise in the image of the duck. Not many complain that 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 100-400 f/5.6 is unacceptable. Those who complain about the isos with the 800mm f/11 are too high to be usable tend to be those who have never actually tried out the lens. Here's a thread with some images going up to very high isos with the RF 100-500mm with the RF 2x at 1000mm and f/14.

Extenders and high iso with the R5

Concerns are frequently expressed about lenses like the RF 100-500mm with f/7.1 being narrow and so the images must surely be noisy because high isos are necessary in dim light? Some claim the 400mm f/5.6 is superior in low light because it is 2/3 of a stop faster (or a 1/3rd faster than the...

www.canonrumors.com

And here are some images taken last month with the 800mm f/11 on the R7 at a distance of 60-120m or so of Bee-eaters, as close as you could get to an extremely rare visit of these small birds to the UK. They are at the limit of resolution, but noisy they are not, and subject isolation was irrelevant at that distance and backgound. The 800mm f/11 is much, much more useful than an 800mm f/5.6 to a vast number of nature shooters who could never afford that lens and those who do have the money but could not carry it.

Ye Bee-eaters of Merrie England

Now, for those who thought it was a typo and were hoping to see photos of those guardians of the Tower of London, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The European Bee-eater is an extremely rare visitor to the UK but this summer a flock of 8 has taken up residence in Norfolk and are breeding in...

www.canonrumors.com

Hey Alan, I saw the test results on ephotozine's site and they report that the 800f/11 resolves 3000 LW/PH while the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 at 400mm resolves around 2200 LW/PH @ f/8 and its best of around 2300 @f/11.

Is this consistent with your findings, and is the difference visible to you in the photos in real-world use?

Canon RF 800mm F/11 IS STM Lens Review

John Riley has been putting the Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM through its paces to find out if it's a lens wildlife and sports photographers should be looking at.

www.ephotozine.com

Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM the perfect lens for photographers capturing wildlife and sports images? John Riley has been finding out.

www.ephotozine.com

Thanks!

 

[neuroanatomist]

You also have no data to support that it won't impact Canon's bottom line - this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the scientific thing to say is that we don't know whether their business decision which is revcceiving some negative responses from buyers will result in a negative business outcome!

Not a good week for you. First, your dead wrong in stating there are no 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount. Now, you failed to actually read what I wrote. I did not claim I had data to support the contention that locking out third-party lenses won’t impact the bottom line for Canon. I stated that Canon has such data and they used those data to make their decision.

They have years of data on their buyers’ purchasing decisions including 3rd party EF mount lenses. They have sales data from their own lenses and from the financial reports of their competitors, and probably more detailed data from competitive intelligence.

The point is, if this is in fact a decision that Canon made (which is by no means certain), then it was most likely made with due consideration for the effects, and the decision was most likely informed by the ample relevant data to which Canon has access.

History supports the contention that the decision is likely to Canon’s benefit, since their decisions over the past 20 years have resulted in them dominating the ILC market.

One special case where a set of three slow aperture lenses covers a specifically wide focal length neither proves or disproves anything about the value of Canon RF lenses nor whether Canon is screwing over its buyers.

It’s an anecdote, that’s why in at least one case I mentioned it as a footnote. The existence of a 3rd party f/2.8 zoom trinity for the E mount is also an anecdote. However, in general lenses costing <$1K (like Canon’s cheap, slow zooms) will likely sell better than lenses costing >$1K (like Sigma’s f/2.8 zooms).

I know you're being lax with your reasoning here, not your usual form lol!

No, there’s nothing lax about my logic, but you seem to be missing the point (intentionally or not). I have routinely claimed that Canon knows more about the ILC industry than anyone on this forum, myself included. If Canon has, in fact, decided to block 3rd party RF autofocus lenses from being sold, it’s because they expect that course of action to benefit them. Could they be wrong? Of course. But history supports the belief they they’re not.

In the decade-plus I’ve been on this forum, many people have complained about a wide variety of actions Canon has taken or not taken, and predicted a negative impact for Canon. Over that same period, Canon has not lost market share, they’ve gained to the point where they now hold nearly 50% of the ILC market. Logically, all of those dozens of predictions of a negative impact on Canon’s bottom line have been proven wrong. Therefore, it’s logical to predict that this prediction of d00m is also wrong.

Hope I didn’t go too fast for you there…

 

[LogicExtremist]

Not a good week for you. First, your dead wrong in stating there are no 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount. Now, you failed to actually read what I wrote. I did not claim I had data to support the contention that locking out third-party lenses won’t impact the bottom line for Canon. I stated that Canon has such data and they used those data to make their decision.

They have years of data on their buyers’ purchasing decisions including 3rd party EF mount lenses. They have sales data from their own lenses and from the financial reports of their competitors, and probably more detailed data from competitive intelligence.

The point is, if this is in fact a decision that Canon made (which is by no means certain), then it was most likely made with due consideration for the effects, and the decision was most likely informed by the ample relevant data to which Canon has access.

History supports the contention that the decision is likely to Canon’s benefit, since their decisions over the past 20 years have resulted in them dominating the ILC market.


It’s an anecdote, that’s why in at least one case I mentioned it as a footnote. The existence of a 3rd party f/2.8 zoom trinity for the E mount is also an anecdote. However, in general lenses costing <$1K (like Canon’s cheap, slow zooms) will likely sell better than lenses costing >$1K (like Sigma’s f/2.8 zooms).


No, there’s nothing lax about my logic, but you seem to be missing the point (intentionally or not). I have routinely claimed that Canon knows more about the ILC industry than anyone on this forum, myself included. If Canon has, in fact, decided to block 3rd party RF autofocus lenses from being sold, it’s because they expect that course of action to benefit them. Could they be wrong? Of course. But history supports the belief they they’re not.

In the decade-plus I’ve been on this forum, many people have complained about a wide variety of actions Canon has taken or not taken, and predicted a negative impact for Canon. Over that same period, Canon has not lost market share, they’ve gained to the point where they now hold nearly 50% of the ILC market. Logically, all of those dozens of predictions of a negative impact on Canon’s bottom line have been proven wrong. Therefore, it’s logical to predict that this prediction of d00m is also wrong.

Hope I didn’t go too fast for you there…

I've been having a great week thanks! Apologies, haven't been following this discussion too much, considering I was talking about this topic weeks before CR and Petapixel posted articles on the topic, so it's old news to me. Just been reading every now and then to see how the cognitive dissonance progresses as the facts progressively clash with tribal fanboy groupthink denial and conformation bias for my amusement. I find human psychology fascinating. The R5 overheating denial was a wonderful demonstration of human irrationality. I love how some people on some forums totally denied the video evidence, claiming they don't believe it to be the case, despite irrefutable evidence. If the world was logical it wouldn't be in the state it is lol! I'm not overly invested in the emotional reactions to the disbelief that some people's favoutite company might possibly screw them over for profits lol! Amusing, but not worth caring about other than trying to keep the discussions logical. You know better than most how the emotional centres of the brain mess with human reasoning lol! Sure the Samyang Rokinon AF lenses you claim to found aren't just old stock on retail sites, or retained posts on manufacturer sites, reports are that you can't buy them. If you can point me to a Samyang RF 85mm AF f/1.4 that I can purchase online, that would be good, I'm considering purchasing one, thanks!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've been having a great week thanks! Apologies, haven't been following this discussion too much, considering I was talking about this topic weeks before CR and Petapixel posted articles on the topic, so it's old news to me. Just been reading every now and then to see how the cognitive dissonance progresses as the facts progressively clash with tribal fanboy groupthink denial and conformation bias for my amusement. I find human psychology fascinating. The R5 overheating denial was a wonderful demonstration of human irrationality. I love how some people on some forums totally denied the video evidence, claiming they don't believe it to be the case, despite irrefutable evidence. If the world was logical it wouldn't be in the state it is lol! I'm not overly invested in the emotional reactions to the disbelief that some people's favoutite company might possibly screw them over for profits lol! Amusing, but not worth caring about other than trying to keep the discussions logical. You know better than most how the emotional centres of the brain mess with human reasoning lol! Sure the Samyang Rokinon AF lenses you claim to found aren't just old stock on retail sites, or retained posts on manufacturer sites, reports are that you can't buy them. If you can point me to a Samyang RF 85mm AF f/1.4 that I can purchase online, that would be good, I'm considering purchasing one, thanks!

Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point, which was that IF Canon has made that decision, then they have a rationale for doing so and have decided the decision is likely to benefit them. Thus, predictions of a negative impact from such a decision on Canon’s bottom line are more likely to be false than true.

You ignoring that logical argument is also irrelevant to its correctness.

Incidentally…

New Samyang AF 85mm f/1.4 Lens for Canon RF (FREE DELIVERY + 1 YEAR WARRANTY) BecexTech™ | Digital Cameras, Lens, Phones, Tablet Global Premier Retailer

becextech.com

 

[takesome1]

Once again Canon's action make a very small group of people angry. They must be oblivious to the needs of the small minority, or they just choose not to care.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Once again Canon's action make a very small group of people angry. They must be oblivious to the needs of the small minority, or they just choose not to care.

And once again, that very small group of people believe they represent a majority of Canon’s users, and claim that Canon is d00med for the decision or inaction that makes them angry.

 

[Johnw]

And once again, that very small group of people believe they represent a majority of Canon’s users, and claim that Canon is d00med for the decision or inaction that makes them angry.

Even better, I love how certain some of them are that they are making Canon pay dearly by exercising their single data point of choice and choosing another system. Some of them truly seem to feel that Canon will be rocked by this decision of theirs.

 

[chasingrealness]

Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.

I for one would love to see a canon ILC module on an Apple product.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even better, I love how certain some of them feel that they are making Canon pay dearly by exercising their single data point of choice and choosing another system. Some of them truly seem to feel that Canon will be rocked by this decision of theirs.

Far more than that, they’re telling all their friends and all those who seek their advice to eschew Canon as well. Plus all those other people they know who’ve already switched or are about to do so. Plus the fact that they see lots of people not using Canon.

Canon…you have been warned.

 

[Del Paso]

I fully admit that I don’t know for sure if this will have any impact on Canon but I speculate that it will.

In the screenshot that that started this whole discussion the Viltox rep clearly states that they weren’t the only ones to have been stopped from making RF glass. Samyang where quite vague when they pulled their lenses from the market but the speculation at the time was that Canon told them to stop. While there’s no evidence to confirm that, recent events make it very likely. Rokinon isn’t available in Europe, Samyang is but they don’t even mention RF lenses on their website anymore.

In my comparison I mentioned f2.8 glass which is what a lot of enthusiasts and professionals would want. That $1500 kit will be perfect for many users on small budgets. Again I ask what about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?

Where I live (France & Germany), I have never ever seen a single Rokinon lens...not in the last 25 years.
But many from the parent brand, Samyang, still available in RF mount.
And, sorry, you'll even find them on the French and German Samyang websites...

 

[AlanF]

Hey Alan, I saw the test results on ephotozine's site and they report that the 800f/11 resolves 3000 LW/PH while the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 at 400mm resolves around 2200 LW/PH @ f/8 and its best of around 2300 @f/11.

Is this consistent with your findings, and is the difference visible to you in the photos in real-world use?

Canon RF 800mm F/11 IS STM Lens Review

John Riley has been putting the Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM through its paces to find out if it's a lens wildlife and sports photographers should be looking at.

www.ephotozine.com

Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM the perfect lens for photographers capturing wildlife and sports images? John Riley has been finding out.

www.ephotozine.com

Thanks!

He measured the RF 800 on the 45 Mpx R5 and the RF 100-400 on the 20 Mpx R6 so the results are not directly comparable. Roughly speaking, 2200 on the R6 would be about 3000 LW/PH on the R5. Both lenses are pretty sharp. In my testing on my copies, the 800mm f/11 is similar to the EF 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 800mm and the RF 100-400mm is pretty close to the EF 100-400mm II.

 

[kten]

Where I live (France & Germany), I have never ever seen a single Rokinon lens...not in the last 25 years.
But many from the parent brand, Samyang, still available in RF mount.
And, sorry, you'll even find them on the French and German Samyang websites...

I presume he meant the AF RF versions which have been pulled including here in Europe they aren't listed on the official websites any longer although the MF versions are. I've not seen the AF RF ones for sale for a while now. I'd be interested in where you're seeing them for sale because I did actually look recently and can't find them on official site or official dealers as they seem to be removed from all Euro stores and I'd be interested in picking up an af 14mm RF for one of my kids from the French/German stores you're seeing them in thus asking.

 

[Del Paso]

I presume he meant the AF RF versions which have been pulled including here in Europe they aren't listed on the official websites any longer although the MF versions are. I've not seen the AF RF ones for sale for a while now. I'd be interested in where you're seeing them for sale because I did actually look recently and can't find them on official site or official dealers as they seem to be removed from all Euro stores and I'd be interested in picking up an af 14mm RF for one of my kids from the French/German stores you're seeing them in thus asking.

Check on "idealo.de" for Samyang AF 14mm f2,8 Canon RF, you'll get a list of dealers.

 

[kten]

Check on "idealo.de" for Samyang AF 14mm f2,8 Canon RF, you'll get a list of dealers.

thanks for the heads up on that, looks like I may be SOL as ones I can see won't ship to me, had that problem with lot of tools lately with places no longer shipping here with the Brexit paperwork and messing around issues making it not worth their time (I mostly bought from EU suppliers before that no longer ship here, in UK in case wonder). No UK stores or Euro photo stores that still ship here have them and after cheap but AF UWA for his R. I do know friends in Germany who could either ship or bring over when here next year so may go that route.

 

[dlee13]

That’s true. However, your comment is merely an echo of a common refrain on these forums.

“Canon is d00med because they’re doing X, so people will switch to SoNikon.”

“Canon dominates the market and knows how to run a business better than you.”

“Canon’s d00m is coming, doing X will alienate their users and so many will switch that Canon will suffer. It just takes some time. Remember Kodak. Remember Nokia.”

**a couple of years pass, during which Canon’s market share grows a bit more**

“So, it seems Canon knows more about the camera business than you, and doing X was the right decision.”

—silence—

Until…

“Canon is d00med because they’re doing Y, so people will switch to SoNikon.”

Rinse and repeat.

This has happened many times over the years. It always seems that X or Y, the issue that spells certain d00m for Canon, is an issue that the poster is has a strong personal desire to have. They assume that because it’s important to them, it’s important to a majority of users. I’m still not sure why it’s so hard for people to accept that Canon knows more about the ILC market than they do. But somehow they’re convinced their personal issue is the one that will break Canon. Lol.

I never said they were doomed, I simply said they would lose traction which is entirely possible. Nikon for example sat on their hands for a long time and didn’t really do anything to stand out so they ended up losing a bunch of market share and Sony became number 2.

Canon likely wouldn’t let themselves go bankrupt altogether, but they could easily drop a huge amount of market share to Nikon and Sony, especially if the former has opened to third parties. I would say the personal issue that some are such strong Canon loyalists and fanboys that they deny what’s clearly best for users which is opening their mount like every other major manufacturer has done

Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point, which was that IF Canon has made that decision, then they have a rationale for doing so and have decided the decision is likely to benefit them. Thus, predictions of a negative impact from such a decision on Canon’s bottom line are more likely to be false than true.

You ignoring that logical argument is also irrelevant to its correctness.

Incidentally…

New Samyang AF 85mm f/1.4 Lens for Canon RF (FREE DELIVERY + 1 YEAR WARRANTY) BecexTech™ | Digital Cameras, Lens, Phones, Tablet Global Premier Retailer

becextech.com

So how come they aren’t available widely through any and every major retailer when they were previously then disappeared? How often do you see a lens manufacturer just suddenly decide to stop selling their products? Someone can have the rationale that laying in the middle of a highway to take a nap makes sense, that doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea just like blocking third parties.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I think EU and US competition authorities should step in if a manufacturer uses its patents of a mount to keep the competition out. The fact that each manufacturer has their own mount is unfortunate enough for the consumer. The least that should be done now is forcing companies to open their mounts for others.

Canon already was infamous for putting chips into their ink cartridges just to make it harder for their party manufacturers to copy them. Canon ink was always extremely expensive and Canon hated the fact that other companies offered ink for Canon printers for a fraction of the cost.

Of course I can understand that Canon wants to keep the competition out and instead sell its own lenses. So goverments have to step in.
The EU forced manufacturers of electric cars and chargers for example to all be compatible. They all have to use the same plug now. They can have additional plugs of course, but one EU standard plug has to be on all electric cars in the EU and on all chargers. Tesla for example had to add that plug in Europe. The consumer wins. He can now charge any electric car at any charger in the EU. That is something that is not possible in the US, where Tesla and "Electrify America" chargers have mutual incompatible plugs.

The question is if a new camera mount is really an "innovation" that has to be protected or just a standard to keep others out. That would be anticompetitive and third party manufacturers could even sue Canon for compensation.

At the moment consumers have a lot of power. The RF mount is still quite new and many people have not yet bought a Canon mirrorless camera. They are not yet "locked" into the RF system by the amount of RF gear they have already bought. A current Canon EF shooter could easily switch to Sony, EF lenses also work on Sony cameras. Each new Tamron or Sigma mirrorless lens design, that is available for Sony, but not for Canon is another argument for chosing Sony over Canon. For example the Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD. Canon has to be very careful now. If potential Canon RF users hear the new that Canon might want to lock them into their system and they might only be able to purchase expensive Canon lenses, they will lose at least those customers.