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

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,191
1,433
UK
As for that 800m prime its an F11. If I where to take that to my local nature reserve my ISO would be very high even in daylight and I would have reduced subject isolation in my images which is not acceptable for the images I want to create and others will feel the same.
It would be very nice indeed to have an 800mm F8 to let in a bit more light, and I've argued here in favour of one, but it would probably cost at least twice as much, and wouldn't have the advantage of very light weight, which is what makes the F11 lens so popular.

Regarding the 800mm F11, I've owned this lens for several months, and used it for bird photography in the UK, Gambia, Kenya and Peru, with very satisfactory results. It's great to be able to have a lens of this focal length that is truly easy to carry all day long - certainly far more comfortable than lugging my RF 100-500mm around! The stabilisation of the RF 800mm is extremely good, and more than offsets the disadvantage of a F11 lens, because it enables the use of slower shutter speeds.

F11 on an 800mm lens provides *plenty* of subject isolation too.

I find the lens is perfectly usable in overcast conditions, although *not* suitable for use at dawn or dusk. Typically, I'll be shooting at shutter speeds between 1/500 - 1/4000 depending on lighting conditions, and at ISO settings between 400-1600. At ISO 1600, I can still easily crop my R5 images down to 5120x2880 pixels, thereby entirely filling the screen of my 27" 5K Mac. I loathe noisy images, but with this set-up noise just isn't an issue, when using Topaz DeNoiseAI, or even the more basic noise reduction in Lightroom Classic.

It's clear from your post that you're condemning the lens without actually having used one. I'd seriously recommend that you consider getting it. While it won't of course match the sharpness, light-gathering abilities or AF speed of a RF 800mm F5.6, it will definitely enable you to get superb shots in anything but the poorest light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,795
1,418
Never is a long time, and Canon has led the ILC market for >20 years.
Arguing that they will continue to do so, regardless of market changes, simply because they have in the past is a logical fallacy even if they've held it for 1,000 years.

That's strong evidence that they make good business decisions.
They do have a history of making good business decisions. That does not render them immune to making bad ones. And I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend they aren't making a bad one simply because they have a history of making good ones.

But suggesting Canon will lose market share over this is not supported by any evidence.
Sony's #1 position in FF mirrorless sales would like a word with you. All the people who have switched or are saying this will cause them to switch would also like a word with you.

Believing your opinion is fact is also a fallacy in case you didn't know.
When did I claim that one of my opinions was fact?

You are basing your prediction on a handful of statements on the internet.
I've repeatedly acknowledged that things may not be as they seem. If Viltrox did not properly, legally reverse engineer the mount and that's why they got legally stomped on, then it may have no bearing on Sigma/Tamron/Tokina who have a history of legally reverse engineering mounts. I can still speculate on the scenario of Canon using lawfare to prevent any 3rd party RF lenses, as that remains a potential scenario. And even if the former scenario is true, I can comment on the stifling impact this is having when their #1 competitor offers a license to their mount.

Canon sells millions of cameras a year. Do you honestly believe this forum and others are industry bellwethers?
Stop worshipping management. The history of economics is a history of more businesses failing than succeeding. It's also a history littered with successful companies suddenly failing on bad decisions which were obvious to consumers and competitors while management was blind to the truth.

Not that I find that surprising, some people still believe the earth is flat, which just goes to show there are plenty of idiots out there.
Are we resorting to subtle ad hominem arguments now?

Canon has ~50% of the ILC market share. Sony is in the #2 spot with ~25% of the ILC market. Millions of users need to switch from Canon to Sony to change the ranking. Do you honestly see that happening, and if so, do you honestly think it can happen in just a year or two?
Installed base? That would take time. New sales? Yes, I can see Canon falling to #2 rather quickly in this market.

And can you honestly say that a lack of 3rd party RF mount lenses will be the reason?
Yes, lens availability and cost is that important.

If you do, well, maybe you also believe the earth is flat.
That sounds like something Canon management believes if they think lens catalog size/cost no longer matters to buyers.

Even with the shifts in the market, FF comprise the small minority of ILCs sold (<20%).
Is Canon allowing 3rd party glass on APS-C? Are cost effective solutions less important to APS-C users who typically choose APS-C over...costs?

My point is that locking out 3rd party lenses is not likely to have a significant impact on market share either way.
And you have no evidence to back that up. "Canon has been #1!!!" conveniently ignores the fact that while Canon has been #1 Canon EF has also enjoyed the largest 3rd party catalog of lenses. Off the top of my head, without modeling, I cannot tell you how much that 3rd party support played a part in their marketshare position. But you likewise have no basis for claiming that it had nothing to do with it. Your confidence in your predictions is completely unwarranted. At least the people complaining are thinking about what they will do and what their friends are doing. You'll counter that this is a statistical drop in the bucket. But it's at least an indicator. You don't even have that. You just have "past performance." But never in that past, not even in the FD days, was Canon in the position of being the only manufacturer with no 3rd party lens support.

From 2020 to 2021, Sony gained ~5% FF market share. Canon also gained ~5% FF market share. Seems that Canon is retaining their customer base.
Everyone has also assumed that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina were coming 'real soon now' based in part on the availability of Samyang and Viltrox. I'm not confident that Canon will continue to retain their base in light of this news.

You should also consider that Canon executives are satisfied with this decision, after all they're the ones that made it.
Why should I consider that? Because executives are never wrong? There's a graveyard full of companies that would like a word with you. Start with Kodak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
I never said they were *******, I simply said they would lose traction which is entirely possible.
Over this issue? LOL.

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
Again, you’re missing the point. Canon deciding to block 3rd parties from making autofocus RF lenses has nothing to do with what’s best for users, and everything to do with what’s best for Canon.

The other major manufacturers opened up their mounts to attempt to take market share away from Canon, who dominates the ILC market, by allowing a broader range of lenses to be used with their cameras.

None of this is being done because it’s what is best for users. As I’ve said before, some people here have less business acumen than a bowling ball.

Obviously more choice is generally better for users. I have bought 3rd party lenses myself. I’m arguing against you, and you take that as arguing for Canon. I’m merely stating facts and logical deductions based on those facts. It’s too bad those facts dispute your opinions, but that’s your personal issue, not mine.

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.
Do you even realize that the statement to which you’re replying here began with, “Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point…” I guess not, since you went on to argue that they’ve done just that.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,795
1,418
As far as I can tell, Canon didn't claw their way to the top of the market by making bad business decisions. If this is a bad business decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Canon is foolish. So if all the people claiming this will hurt Canon are right, then we will see them take another path. Everything else is just noise.
I feel the same way about Kodak. They've got a century of being at the top of the market by making good decisions. If ignoring this digital fad is a bad decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Kodak is foolish. So if all the people claiming that this digital nonsense will hurt Kodak are right, then we will see Kodak take another path. Everything else is just noise.

Oh...wait...what year is it again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,795
1,418
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.
This is not an extra stop of DR or a video codec. This is a lens catalog. Want to know why I went with Canon 22 years ago? Because their lens catalog...3rd party support included...beat Nikon's hands down on cost/performance/options. Someone new to, but serious about, photography might not care that much about a DxO test. They are going to care that they can get a reasonably affordable 28-70 f/2.8 on E-mount but not on RF. They are going to care that on RF they have to choose between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a super expensive 50mm f/1.2L, but on E-mount they have their choice of 50mm lenses. I could go on.

Even at the peak of EF development and sales, Canon could not fill every need and price point. Sometimes for politics (why would Canon make a more affordable 50mm f/1.4L to compete with their own 50mm f/1.2L?), sometimes for lack of available resources. How are they going to do that now in a market which is collapsing to 1990-levels of sales and revenue? At this moment they are still coasting on adapted EF lenses. How long can that last? I mean...I could happily shoot my EF collection for the next decade. But how long will new buyers think it's viable to go RF and then have to buy used EF lenses to fill the gaps or fit the budget?

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.
Is this a church? Are we to accept X because God...I'm sorry, Canon executives...knows more about X than we do? Am I to have faith that Canon will have options which match the Sigma ART line or the Tamron SP line on price/performance, real soon now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
302
195
Australia
Over this issue? LOL.


Again, you’re missing the point. Canon deciding to block 3rd parties from making autofocus RF lenses has nothing to do with what’s best for users, and everything to do with what’s best for Canon.
Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.

The other major manufacturers opened up their mounts to attempt to take market share away from Canon, who dominates the ILC market, by allowing a broader range of lenses to be used with their cameras.

None of this is being done because it’s what is best for users. As I’ve said before, some people here have less business acumen than a bowling ball.

Obviously more choice is generally better for users. I have bought 3rd party lenses myself. I’m arguing against you, and you take that as arguing for Canon. I’m merely stating facts and logical deductions based on those facts. It’s too bad those facts dispute your opinions, but that’s your personal issue, not mine.


Do you even realize that the statement to which you’re replying here began with, “Whether or not Canon has decided to actively block 3rd party AF lenses for RF is irrelevant to my point…” I guess not, since you went on to argue that they’ve done just that.
And even if they did do that to take share away from Canon they have grown so it’s worked for them. Canon have claimed they want to have over 50% market share and if they opened their mount, they could probably have a even bigger monopoly of the market.

You say you are stating facts but you are ignoring the FACT that Canon make money from opening their mount. Even companies reverse engineering their lenses, the users need to buy a Canon body to use it so they are still making the money off body sales. If it was a case of they give out their license for free then yes it wouldn’t be beneficial for Canon but they do make money from it so that would irrelevant.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
1,060
740
Colorado, USA
Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.

It's not necessarily a win win situation. You've got to look at both sides of the equation. Canon is looking at both the number of additional bodies they would sell and the number of lenses they would not sell. But not just the numbers, the revenue/profits from both. So it they get sigificantly less revenue/profits from the increased body sales than the revenue/profits they lose from the reduced lens sales, Canon would consider that a losing scenario.

Also, many of the body sales in your scenario are likely tied to a mixture of Canon and third party lenses, so they would be sold regardless, not just because a third party lens is available. So Canon doesn't get to sell any additional bodies in this scenario and loses lens sales. It is likely a much smaller number of bodies that will be sold for use with only third party lenses that you would count as incremental body sales.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
Arguing that they will continue to do so, regardless of market changes, simply because they have in the past is a logical fallacy even if they've held it for 1,000 years.

They do have a history of making good business decisions. That does not render them immune to making bad ones. And I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend they aren't making a bad one simply because they have a history of making good ones.
I'm not claiming it does. But if you flip a coin 100 times and 96 of those times it comes up tails, do you conclude that the 101st flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails? Personally, I'd conclude there was something not balanced about the coin, and that it was far more likely to come up tails on the 101st flip. In case the analogy eludes you, making mostly right decisions doesn't preclude making a wrong one, but it does suggest that subsequent decisions will be more likely to be correct than not.

Sony's #1 position in FF mirrorless sales would like a word with you. All the people who have switched or are saying this will cause them to switch would also like a word with you.
If you've watched the trend of Canon gaining FF MILC market share, you'll know that Sony remaining #1 in FF MILC sales is not a foregone conclusion.

I like how you state that Canon's history of making good business decisions does not suggest this recent decision was the right one, but then imply Sony's history of being #1 in FF MILC sales means they'll continue in that position. That's sadly hypocritical.

When did I claim that one of my opinions was fact?
For example, when you stated, "I'm not going to pull any punches here: this is a rotten policy by Canon, and one which will financially hurt them in a market this competitive." You even emphasized the word 'will'. Guaranteed accurate clairvoyance on your part, or an opinion stated as fact? If you want to claim the former, provide some proof. Good luck with that.

Are we resorting to subtle ad hominem arguments now?
My fault there, sorry. I did not intend it to be subtle at all. But hey, I was just stating my opinion. All's fair, right?

Installed base? That would take time. New sales? Yes, I can see Canon falling to #2 rather quickly in this market.
No, the current numbers of close to 50% market share for Canon and ~25% for Sony are the unit sales from the 2021 calendar year. Given that Canon has had between 40-50% market share in annual unit sales for a decade or more, their installed base is much higher than 50%. Those data aren't available (in part because there's no way to really measure who has stopped using their cameras), but Canon has led the market for >20 years. Canon has averaged ~45% market share over the past 10 annual cycles, and if the useful life of a camera is assumed to be 5 years (which is a guess), Canon's installed base is somewhere north of 80% of the ILC market. Some big assumptions in there, so that number is a rough estimate. Could be 70%, could be 90%. Keep in mind that Sony's gains in recent years have come at the expense of Nikon, not of Canon. I'm not sure who holds second place in installed base, but regardless Sony and Nikon are basically fighting over scraps in that calculation.

So no, neither Canon's rank in annual market share nor especially their installed base are likely to change quickly.

Everyone has also assumed that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina were coming 'real soon now' based in part on the availability of Samyang and Viltrox. I'm not confident that Canon will continue to retain their base in light of this news.
So you think an ~80% installed base will just evaporate because of this one issue? Sure, and that 101st coin flip will land on the edge.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.
Next time, think then type. You evidently skipped that first step.

You went to great pains to support the idea that Canon has, in fact, chosen to block 3rd party manufacturers from making RF-mount AF lenses. So, since Canon has already decided to not work with 3rd parties, how do you reconcile that with your statement above that only a fanboy can't understand it's a win-win for Canon? Canon manifestly doesn't think working with 3rd parties is a win-win for them, since they apparently have decided not only to not work with them, but to actively block some of them from making lenses for the RF mount.

So as before, this boils down to you believing you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe something so asinine? Only a @dlee13 fanboy would believe that, and I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there's only one of those in the world.

You say you are stating facts but you are ignoring the FACT that Canon make money from opening their mount. Even companies reverse engineering their lenses, the users need to buy a Canon body to use it so they are still making the money off body sales. If it was a case of they give out their license for free then yes it wouldn’t be beneficial for Canon but they do make money from it so that would irrelevant.
fact \ ˈfakt \ noun
1: something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Read the above definition, which it's clear you are unfamiliar with. The FACT is that the vast majority of bodies Canon sells are sold with a kit lens. Since a 3rd party lens in a Canon mount cannot be used without a Canon camera, Canon has already recorded the income from the camera when the 3rd party lens is bought.

I hesitate to use numbers, since your posts so far suggest they will confuse you even more than you already are, but here goes. Canon sells close to 50% of the ILCs sold globally each year. As I indicated in my response to @dtaylor that likely means that somewhere around 80% or more of the ILCs in use today are made by Canon. By opening up their mount to 3rd parties, Canon grants them access to the vast majority of the camera body market. By keeping it as closed as possible (with the understanding that they cannot prevent legal reverse-engineering), Canon retains sales of lenses for that vast majority of cameras out there.

Canon has stated in their financial reporting that they expect RF lens sales to be a major driver of future revenues. Why would they want to reduce those revenues by opening the mount up to competition? They wouldn't. I'd further suggest that one of the reasons Canon designed the RF mount the way they did, including multiple patents on the AF protocols transmitted through the interface, was specifically so that they could use that patent portfolio to exclude 3rd party AF lenses that they know cut into their revenue from EF lens sales.

Could they structure a licensing deal that would mean they did not lose money by opening up the RF mount? In theory, yes. But the fees they'd need to charge for that almost certainly be more than 3rd parties would pay, because it they did they'd have to charge much more for their lenses, which would negate the lower costs that comprise their main advantage over OEM lenses.

Try to come back with some cogent arguments next time, please.

vader.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,903
4,953
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I feel the same way about Kodak. They've got a century of being at the top of the market by making good decisions. If ignoring this digital fad is a bad decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Kodak is foolish. So if all the people claiming that this digital nonsense will hurt Kodak are right, then we will see Kodak take another path. Everything else is just noise.

Oh...wait...what year is it again?
Of all the strained and silly comparisons that have been floated on these forums, that is one of the worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,903
4,953
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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...
What would be the point of getting a patent on anything if the government forces you to open up your proprietary designs to competitors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,903
4,953
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Again, you’re missing the point. If Canon work with third parties they will sell more bodies for those who want Canon cameras but want options of third party lenses which they make money from, not to mention the licensing fees which they also make a profit from. It’s a win win situation for Canon and only a Canon fanboy can’t understand that.


And even if they did do that to take share away from Canon they have grown so it’s worked for them. Canon have claimed they want to have over 50% market share and if they opened their mount, they could probably have a even bigger monopoly of the market.

You say you are stating facts but you are ignoring the FACT that Canon make money from opening their mount. Even companies reverse engineering their lenses, the users need to buy a Canon body to use it so they are still making the money off body sales. If it was a case of they give out their license for free then yes it wouldn’t be beneficial for Canon but they do make money from it so that would irrelevant.
Gosh, you know so much about the best possible business decision for Canon. Maybe you should share your market research with Canon. I'm sure that once you explain it to them, they will see the light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
302
195
Australia
Next time, think then type. You evidently skipped that first step.

You went to great pains to support the idea that Canon has, in fact, chosen to block 3rd party manufacturers from making RF-mount AF lenses. So, since Canon has already decided to not work with 3rd parties, how do you reconcile that with your statement above that only a fanboy can't understand it's a win-win for Canon? Canon manifestly doesn't think working with 3rd parties is a win-win for them, since they apparently have decided not only to not work with them, but to actively block some of them from making lenses for the RF mount.

So as before, this boils down to you believing you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe something so asinine? Only a @dlee13 fanboy would believe that, and I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there's only one of those in the world.

Wow so I have my own fanboys, my ‘opinion’ must be correct then ;)


fact \ ˈfakt \ noun
1: something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Read the above definition, which it's clear you are unfamiliar with. The FACT is that the vast majority of bodies Canon sells are sold with a kit lens. Since a 3rd party lens in a Canon mount cannot be used without a Canon camera, Canon has already recorded the income from the camera when the 3rd party lens is bought.
Funny you mention facts as we do in fact have a screenshot from one of these third parties that proves Canon is actively blocking third parties and they refused to comment to DPR. You should know people who buy a kit lens either let that camera sit there gathering dust after a while or upgrade that kit lens to something better which is where third party options often come in. There are the more educated ones too who buy a body only, not to mention a lot of stores here split the kit and sell the lens separately so a lot of units sold appear to be kits, but they are in fact selling the body only.

I hesitate to use numbers, since your posts so far suggest they will confuse you even more than you already are, but here goes. Canon sells close to 50% of the ILCs sold globally each year. As I indicated in my response to @dtaylor that likely means that somewhere around 80% or more of the ILCs in use today are made by Canon. By opening up their mount to 3rd parties, Canon grants them access to the vast majority of the camera body market. By keeping it as closed as possible (with the understanding that they cannot prevent legal reverse-engineering), Canon retains sales of lenses for that vast majority of cameras out there.
You like to say you know the definition of facts, so where are the hard facts of how many units they’ve sold compared to every other manufacturer? Or are you doing that you try to claim others are doing and just speculating? :ROFLMAO:

Canon has stated in their financial reporting that they expect RF lens sales to be a major driver of future revenues. Why would they want to reduce those revenues by opening the mount up to competition? They wouldn't. I'd further suggest that one of the reasons Canon designed the RF mount the way they did, including multiple patents on the AF protocols transmitted through the interface, was specifically so that they could use that patent portfolio to exclude 3rd party AF lenses that they know cut into their revenue from EF lens sales.

Could they structure a licensing deal that would mean they did not lose money by opening up the RF mount? In theory, yes. But the fees they'd need to charge for that almost certainly be more than 3rd parties would pay, because it they did they'd have to charge much more for their lenses, which would negate the lower costs that comprise their main advantage over OEM lenses.
Key word there is expect. If people get sick of being cash cows and move to other brands, they won’t expect to sell anything if no one is buying bodies to use those overpriced RF lenses on.

Even if they offer a licensing deal that makes those third party lenses available but so expensive that they are similar priced to Canon RF lenses, doesn’t that mean that people would often go for the similar priced first party lenses but still have those options which is a win for Canon?! You are all about what’s best for Canon and that scenario would be best for them.

Try to come back with some cogent arguments next time, please.

View attachment 205464
Aww so cute, you think you made an argument that didnt come off as being some senile fanboy rant :ROFLMAO: we can agree your points are typical of a Canon fanboy and agree to disagree on everything else. Can’t keep wasting my time arguing with someone thicker than a brick wall so have fun feeding the ducks!
 

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
302
195
Australia
Gosh, you know so much about the best possible business decision for Canon. Maybe you should share your market research with Canon. I'm sure that once you explain it to them, they will see the light.
Thanks for the suggestion, sending them my resume as we speak! Once they hire me, I’ll be sure to give you a few coins to wash my windshield :)
 

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,641
900
36
Pune
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Aug 7, 2018
458
406
What would be the point of getting a patent on anything if the government forces you to open up your proprietary designs to competitors?
I think only innovation should get the chance to get patended. So for example a lens design can be patented, but a mount is just a connection to the lens. Basically like a plug. It is anti-competitive to prevent third party manufacturers from selling their sometimes very innovative designs by patenting a plug or a mount.

Lenses are required accessories for cameras and the EU usually makes sure that the market for accessories is open for others, because the EU acts in the interest of the consumers. If a manufacturer wants to keep its market share for accessories, it should just produce better products than the competition. Then people will buy the product. Canon should just make better or cheaper lenses than Tamron and Sigma, but in the past that was not always the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,191
1,433
UK
I'm not claiming it does. But if you flip a coin 100 times and 96 of those times it comes up tails, do you conclude that the 101st flip has an equal probability of being heads or tails? Personally, I'd conclude there was something not balanced about the coin, and that it was far more likely to come up tails on the 101st flip. In case the analogy eludes you, making mostly right decisions doesn't preclude making a wrong one, but it does suggest that subsequent decisions will be more likely to be correct than not.
Actually each flip of a coin is entirely different, and statistically the likelihood of that 101st flip being heads or tails is equal, regardless of past history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
Wow so I have my own fanboys, my ‘opinion’ must be correct then ;)
Good job ignoring the main point of the discussion there. Did you think no one would notice that you failed to respond to the facts that specifically neuter your main point and make you look like a fool for stating it?

Let me repeat it for you: you claim that opening the RF mount is a win-win for Canon, and you also made (and continue to make) a concerted effort to show that Canon themselves have decided to close the mount to 3rd parties. So, Canon clearly does not see opening the mount as a win for them.

Therefore, either Canon is stupid, or you are wrong. You go on thinking you're right. But if you keep posting the same drivel, you just look ever more foolish.

You like to say you know the definition of facts, so where are the hard facts of how many units they’ve sold compared to every other manufacturer? Or are you doing that you try to claim others are doing and just speculating? :ROFLMAO:
CIPA publishes total ILC units produced and shipped every month. Canon publishes the number of ILC units sold every quarter in their financial reports. If you know how to do addition and division (hint: you should use a calculator!) then determining Canon's units sold relative to the other manufacturers is easy. Granted, it's an approximation because not every camera shipped in a quarter is sold in that quarter. But looking at a period of a year, during which time Canon ships and sells millions of cameras, the estimate is close enough to the true value. Particularly when the Canon is selling about half of all ILCs in the market, a small difference is irrelevant.

Unlike some, I don't pretend my opinions are facts. Again, by your own statements you look foolish.

Key word there is expect. If people get sick of being cash cows and move to other brands, they won’t expect to sell anything if no one is buying bodies to use those overpriced RF lenses on.
Sure, sure. Canon has close to 50% market share year over year and the vast majority of ILCs in use today are Canon. But all that's going to just evaporate because you're unhappy. Lol.

Can’t keep wasting my time arguing with someone thicker than a brick wall so have fun feeding the ducks!
I agree. As I said above, you state that Canon decided to close the RF mount to 3rd parties and then say it is obviously a win for them to open it. The thick person you're arguing with is yourself.

I recommended that you bring cogent arguments next time. You failed, utterly.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
Actually each flip of a coin is entirely different, and statistically the likelihood of that 101st flip being heads or tails is equal, regardless of past history.
Sheesh. Since you're being so obtusely literal, let me be clear – I was suggesting a biased coin flip. It's a theoretical concept used in probability statistics. If one flips a coin by catching it and placing it down, it's very easy to bias the outcome. It should be obvious that I was suggesting a biased coin flip, since the probability of getting 96 heads out of 100 ideal tosses is ~3.1 x 10^–24.

Physically, a modern coin cannot be biased (although one could be constructed that is thicker than modern coins and weighted on one surface, and that would yield biased results even when flipped properly and allowed to land untouched on a flat surface).

A loaded die would be perhaps have been a better example in that it's easily possible to make one. But I was trying to keep the example simple.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,044
1,273
UK
www.flickr.com
Arguing that they will continue to do so, regardless of market changes, simply because they have in the past is a logical fallacy even if they've held it for 1,000 years.


They do have a history of making good business decisions. That does not render them immune to making bad ones. And I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend they aren't making a bad one simply because they have a history of making good ones.


Sony's #1 position in FF mirrorless sales would like a word with you. All the people who have switched or are saying this will cause them to switch would also like a word with you.


When did I claim that one of my opinions was fact?


I've repeatedly acknowledged that things may not be as they seem. If Viltrox did not properly, legally reverse engineer the mount and that's why they got legally stomped on, then it may have no bearing on Sigma/Tamron/Tokina who have a history of legally reverse engineering mounts. I can still speculate on the scenario of Canon using lawfare to prevent any 3rd party RF lenses, as that remains a potential scenario. And even if the former scenario is true, I can comment on the stifling impact this is having when their #1 competitor offers a license to their mount.


Stop worshipping management. The history of economics is a history of more businesses failing than succeeding. It's also a history littered with successful companies suddenly failing on bad decisions which were obvious to consumers and competitors while management was blind to the truth.


Are we resorting to subtle ad hominem arguments now?


Installed base? That would take time. New sales? Yes, I can see Canon falling to #2 rather quickly in this market.


Yes, lens availability and cost is that important.


That sounds like something Canon management believes if they think lens catalog size/cost no longer matters to buyers.


Is Canon allowing 3rd party glass on APS-C? Are cost effective solutions less important to APS-C users who typically choose APS-C over...costs?


And you have no evidence to back that up. "Canon has been #1!!!" conveniently ignores the fact that while Canon has been #1 Canon EF has also enjoyed the largest 3rd party catalog of lenses. Off the top of my head, without modeling, I cannot tell you how much that 3rd party support played a part in their marketshare position. But you likewise have no basis for claiming that it had nothing to do with it. Your confidence in your predictions is completely unwarranted. At least the people complaining are thinking about what they will do and what their friends are doing. You'll counter that this is a statistical drop in the bucket. But it's at least an indicator. You don't even have that. You just have "past performance." But never in that past, not even in the FD days, was Canon in the position of being the only manufacturer with no 3rd party lens support.


Everyone has also assumed that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina were coming 'real soon now' based in part on the availability of Samyang and Viltrox. I'm not confident that Canon will continue to retain their base in light of this news.


Why should I consider that? Because executives are never wrong? There's a graveyard full of companies that would like a word with you. Start with Kodak.
You're clearly exercised about this, but other than the generic "companies can make bad decisions/successful companies can lose their dominance" you haven't offered any substantive reason for why this decision (if it's real) now. You seem to be working from the assumption that third party lens options are important for sales of bodies but you've not given any evidence - none of us has any idea what the reality is. Surely you concede that?