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

[scyrene]

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.

This is the key point that the thread revolves around: that is an assertion presented as fact. We simply don't know if it's relevant to overall profits. We don't know how many people buy bodies on that basis. Some are assuming it's (statistically) significant - maybe! But we have no figures. Others are saying, if this decision has been made as reported, they've run the numbers and decided it isn't. That's not fanboyism, however much you dislike it.

 

[scyrene]

Aww so cute, you think you made an argument that didnt come off as being some senile fanboy rant 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!

Nothing like resorting to a bit of casual ageism to demonstrate how solid your arguments are

 

[LogicExtremist]

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

That looks like a grey market AU retailer with remaining stock, but either way, thanks for finding it, they're quite hard to get these days, I'm considering getting one!

 

[LogicExtremist]

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.

Well spotted, it was late night and I missed that critical detail that they were tested on different cameras, I usually check that on the site's test results.
Thanks for the comparisons of similarly sharp lenses!

 

[unfocused]

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...

Well, actually, the lens mount is the innovation in the R system.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

What is so innovative about it? It is closer to to sensor, because their is no need for space for a mirror. Is that the innovation?

 

[Nemorino]

Is that the innovation?

The electronic part; 12 pins instead of 8 and how to transmit more data eg DLO data.

 

[Dragon]

Amazing how much ire is generated when folks think someone is getting in the way of what they WANT. Firstly, we have no real idea why there are so few third-party offerings for RF mount. Secondly, it IS Canon's business, and they are trying to stay in business in what is frankly a very difficult time. Canon is not the only company in the camera business, so you have choices, but remember that one of the factors in your choice should be whether that camera you buy will be supported in 3 or 5 years. Companies that don't survive don't support products. Bottom line, what we think we WANT isn't always the best long-term choice. Reading through many of the comments was like watching a bunch of spoiled brats.

 

[dlee13]

That looks like a grey market AU retailer with remaining stock, but either way, thanks for finding it, they're quite hard to get these days, I'm considering getting one!

Correct they are grey market, and one of the less trusted ones too.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

It is unlikely that Canon is in danger of going bankrupt. They just try to earn as much money as possible - like almost every company. I once had a Canon printer with very expensive Canon ink. Each time you unplugged it from the power source and plugged it in again, it made a "cleaning" that used more than two Euros worth of ink. A nice way for Canon to make money: Waste 2 Euros worth of ink just for a cleaning that happens even without the owner wanting it.

Apple for example also is a company that really is not on the brink of bankruptcy, but recently Apple decided that they want to show their customers more ads in future and generate at least $10 billion per year just from ads. So even the richest company is always looking for ways to make even more money, even if the users hate the way that money is made.

 

[dtaylor]

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?

You don't make false analogies out of silly hypotheticals.

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.

Only if you ignore the very thing everyone in this thread is complaining about. Since you're fond of analogies, let me explain it this way: you are insisting that the Titanic will continue on course because nothing has altered the course so far and we're already halfway across the ocean. I'm telling you I see an iceberg, dead ahead.

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?

You know very well that I'm making a prediction based on the news which recently broke.

If you want to claim the former, provide some proof.

As I've stated previously, people speculating based on the increasing number of complaints, as well as the growing statements of 'I will switch over this', is more evidence than you've presented. "Because it always has" is a non-starter when something this significant has changed.

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

Canon's marketshare rank can change in one year. (It could change in one quarter though it would likely take an 'act of God', such as loss of manufacturing capacity, to cause that.) The installed base would take more time, but Canon's bean counters don't care about that, they care about new sales.

I'm probably about as big of a Canon fan as you can find. And I will not invest in a closed mount. In all the years of people complaining about DR, I never knew anyone in my real life circle who thought about switching mounts over it. I'm already hearing complaints to that effect over this. Keep believing things will always stay the same if you wish. I think this is an incredibly foolish move by Canon.

Now if Canon turns around and licenses the mount, that will fix things. If the big three get around the patents legally, that will change things. But RF without 3rd party glass is a sitting duck for Sony.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

Hand waving all the people complaining online does not make them go away. Are they iron clad proof? No. Are they an indicator one would be foolish to ignore? Yes.

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?

It's difficult to have clear, indisputable evidence when nobody has been so foolish as to lockout 3rd party glass before this. On the other hand, it's also hard to miss that Sony's rise from last place to #1 in FF, and #2 overall, occurred simultaneously with a boom in 3rd party E-mount glass, and with Tamron's rise to become one of the heavyweights of the industry on glass alone.

 

[dtaylor]

Amazing how much ire is generated when folks think someone is getting in the way of what they WANT. Firstly, we have no real idea why there are so few third-party offerings for RF mount. Secondly, it IS Canon's business, and they are trying to stay in business in what is frankly a very difficult time. Canon is not the only company in the camera business, so you have choices, but remember that one of the factors in your choice should be whether that camera you buy will be supported in 3 or 5 years. Companies that don't survive don't support products. Bottom line, what we think we WANT isn't always the best long-term choice. Reading through many of the comments was like watching a bunch of spoiled brats.

If Canon cannot survive 3rd party glass on RF mount then they are in a lot more trouble than any of us suspect. I think that's a silly take as nothing in their financials or sales data even remotely suggests this. But if Canon executives are literally scared that Tamron glass on RF will ruin the imagining division, then Canon is...you remember the word.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You don't make false analogies out of silly hypotheticals.

The fact that you misunderstand something doesn't make it false. Canon leads the market because of their aggregate business decisions over the last two decades.

Only if you ignore the very thing everyone in this thread is complaining about. Since you're fond of analogies, let me explain it this way: you are insisting that the Titanic will continue on course because nothing has altered the course so far and we're already halfway across the ocean. I'm telling you I see an iceberg, dead ahead.

That's your opinion, not fact.

You know very well that I'm making a prediction based on the news which recently broke.

You stated it as a foregone conclusion, when it's merely your opinion.

As I've stated previously, people speculating based on the increasing number of complaints, as well as the growing statements of 'I will switch over this', is more evidence than you've presented. "Because it always has" is a non-starter when something this significant has changed.

It's only significant in your own mind and the minds of a handful of forum posters. There haven't been articles in the Nikkei about this, for example, merely some blog-type posts on a couple of photo-specific websites. The financial markets tell the tale, because stock trading is driven in large part by analysts who's job it is to watch the media and predict the effects of current events that affect the companies they track.

Here's what a company's stock looks like after a bad news day. This is Merck in 2004, the day the news broke that Vioxx was being withdrawn. It was just one of many of the company's blockbuster drugs, much like ILCs are just one of Canon's many product lines.

The stock price (the blue line) drops far below it's 6-month trend, and there's a huge spike in trading volume (the red/green columns at the bottom).

Now, here's what Canon's stock looked like the day after this 'news' broke:

Stock price within the normal fluctuations for the past 6 months, and no change in trading volume.

So, the people who's job it is to care about this sort of thing...don't. I get that you and a small number of others care deeply about it. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

Canon's marketshare rank can change in one year. (It could change in one quarter though it would likely take an 'act of God', such as loss of manufacturing capacity, to cause that.)

Yes, anything can happen. In much the same way you can be hit by lightning tomorrow. The probability of either happening is miniscule. Come back in a year and tell me 'told you so' when Canon has fallen to #2 in global ILC market share. I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm probably about as big of a Canon fan as you can find. And I will not invest in a closed mount. In all the years of people complaining about DR, I never knew anyone in my real life circle who thought about switching mounts over it. I'm already hearing complaints to that effect over this. Keep believing things will always stay the same if you wish. I think this is an incredibly foolish move by Canon.

Good for you. The complaints about Canon's poor low ISO DR on this forum and others were far more extensive, with far more complainers than we've seen over this issue, yet still that had no effect on Canon's bottom line. As is so common on this forum, you believe that your opinion represents the viewpoint of the majority, and that it will have a correspondingly significant effect. The reality is different. You believe this is a bigger issue than DR because it apparently matters to you. So, don't invest in the closed RF system. Canon doesn't care what you do, as an individual.

You and a few people you know are complaining about this. Me and a few people I know don't care. How many people feel the way either of us does about this issue? I have no idea, and neither do you. Who is more likely to be better able to estimate that for the global ILC market...you, me, or Canon?

Now if Canon turns around and licenses the mount, that will fix things.

All that would fix is your angst. The business case for not doing so is very clear. I know you don't understand it, but Canon does and that's why they have not licensed the mount.

 

[Del Paso]

Am I really the only one fed up with this continuous Sony propaganda?

 

[unfocused]

The electronic part; 12 pins instead of 8 and how to transmit more data eg DLO data.

Also the Control Ring, which is even available on mount adapters independent of any lens, regardless of brand.

 

[takesome1]

Only if you ignore the very thing everyone in this thread is complaining about. Since you're fond of analogies, let me explain it this way: you are insisting that the Titanic will continue on course because nothing has altered the course so far and we're already halfway across the ocean. I'm telling you I see an iceberg, dead ahead.

Bad analogy, since the iceberg was spotted and the Titanic did attempt to make a correction but couldn't react in time. The flaw that kept the Titanic from missing the iceberg (other the stupidity of the Captain) was designed in to the ship years earlier. By your analogy Canon has set its course years ago and is doomed , no cry of iceberg ahead will save it.

Edit: I wonder why the word doom ed is stricken out.

 

[scyrene]

Hand waving all the people complaining online does not make them go away. Are they iron clad proof? No. Are they an indicator one would be foolish to ignore? Yes.


It's difficult to have clear, indisputable evidence when nobody has been so foolish as to lockout 3rd party glass before this. On the other hand, it's also hard to miss that Sony's rise from last place to #1 in FF, and #2 overall, occurred simultaneously with a boom in 3rd party E-mount glass, and with Tamron's rise to become one of the heavyweights of the industry on glass alone.

On your first point, we have literally no idea how many actual customers (or potential customers) are upset enough to jump ship - from my subjective position there was far more ire about the overheating issue, and this kerfuffle is akin to the older beefs about low ISO DR, reusing old sensors, tightly clustered AF points in the 6D2 etc. But none of us can quantify how big a deal each controversy is, because online chatter is hard to equate to real world decisions (and easily manipulated).

On the second issue - Canon has never licensed third parties, there's plenty of third party MF glass available, and for all we know the lack of AF options is no different to how it was with previous mounts - just a matter of time. I don't see it as a sky-falling-in situation. Incidentally when I checked a major UK retailer, I could find no AF 3rd party lenses for Nikon's mirrorless mount either (indeed the lineups were almost identical). Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe people are extrapolating wildly.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

What would be the point of getting a patent on anything if the government forces you to open up your proprietary designs to competitors?

The government gets involved with anti-competitive practices where they affect a large number of consumers and where a monopoly or near monopoly exists. Automobile makers were forced to allow for 3rd party parts, even forced to give enough data to make sure they fit. John deere is involved in a similar lawsuit where it requires that their farm equipment be repaired by their repair stations and is refusing to let owners fix their own equipment by keeping the necessary software under control.

It was obvious early on, well before the mirrorless series came out that Canon was methodically patenting every detail of the lens to camera interface and operation so that they could stop any third parties from churning out lenses using their patented details. The dimensions and configuration of the lens mount itself is covered by a patent.

 

[Dragon]

If Canon cannot survive 3rd party glass on RF mount then they are in a lot more trouble than any of us suspect. I think that's a silly take as nothing in their financials or sales data even remotely suggests this. But if Canon executives are literally scared that Tamron glass on RF will ruin the imagining division, then Canon is...you remember the word.

The issue may be far more complex than just the availability of Tamron or Sigma glass. The RF protocol may well hold some (or many) of the secrets to the impressive autofocus performance in RF cameras. Tamron is part owned by Sony and Sigma is formally part of the L alliance, so they are both to some degree in the "enemy" camp. OTOH, the hesitancy could be totally the other way around in that maybe neither Sony nor the L alliance wants to see Canon have the benefit of third-party glass. My point was that we really have no idea what is really going on and Viltrox getting curtailed for stepping on a patent is not informative with respect to either Tamron or Sigma. Samyang quit selling the 85m AF under the Samyang brand, but they seem to be continuing to sell it under the Rokinon brand, but it appears to be basically an EF lens with an RF mount, so that is not instructive either.