-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Regarding Canon RF dispute with Viltrox. Intellectual property violation, Canon says.
- Thread starter CC88
- Start date
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
I was told, in the most adamant and arrogant terms, by two different users, in both the news comments section and by PM, that this could not be because (A) I was ignorant on intelectual property law and (B) Canon had no way to make a related legal claim.
...My conclusions?
...My conclusions?
- DPR's community is quite amusing.
- Denial as replacement for frustration can be a female dog.
Last edited:
I think that Canon is protecting the RF protocol. And this is the correct way to do that.
I also think that Canon will reach an agreement with some players like Sigma and Tamron that by paying for licenses they will be able to produce RF optics.
Anyone who does not pay or does not want to pay for licenses is right to be dissuaded from infringing patents.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
As I said in another thread somewhere, if Canon is indeed discussing licensing agreements with Sigma/Tamron/whoever, then commercially speaking, protecting the IP from unlicensed use is a valid part of that. Essential in fact.
But let's not forget that this is the company which, *four years* after the launch of the RF mount, still hasn't even made an extension tube for it. This is also the company which is happy to sell you a TC for over £500, but then made a 70-200/2.8L which is not compatible with it. Yesterday I watched Tony Northrup's Youtube video on this subject, and for once I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything he said.
KEG
Veteran Member
I totally agree, even though one only uses Canon lenses one also wants a healthy used market and Canon's move might have practically killed the used market for RF gear.
Also I totally agree with the point in the video that if one needs an ultrafast wide angle lens then the only option is to go with Sigma and Sony or Panasonic camera.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
In my own case, the first lens I bought for digital (and crop) was a Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC Macro to use on my exciting new 400D. The original Canon 18-55 kit lens was cr@p, the EF-S 17-85 wasn't much better, and I couldn't afford the EF-S 17-55/2.8. I now have 20-something Canon lenses, mostly L's, including the EF 600/4L IS III - but if I hadn't been able to buy a third party lens for my 400D back in 2007, who knows where I would be now?
I do also have various other third party lenses now, but in recent years it has been less about cost and more about Canon not making the lens I want - so I couldn't have bought one anyway.
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,317
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
It's RF mount not being adaptable to any other camera that restricts the second-hand market for RF gear, not the unavailability of third party AF lenses. Used EF mount lenses generally work better on R cameras better than they do on EF mount cameras.
Or use EF mount lenses. Most of the Sigma Art lenses are still available new in EF mount.
KEG
Veteran Member
I currently own Sigma 16/1.4 and previously owned 15-30 and 50-500.
KEG
Veteran Member
My point and Northwoods, which I kind of not like agreeing with is that Sony with ultrawide Sigma weights less than the Canon does and probably works better.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,317
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
The EF lenses work very well for astro on an RF mount body. And Kolari do a mount adapter that takes their interesting array of filters too. The only fast Sigma Art lens that I can think of that won't fit is the 35mm f/1 2.
KEG
Veteran Member
Exactly.
I do not believe this is not what this is about. Canon has filed patents for (features of) the new RF mount and camera-lens communication. Viltrox could argue that they are not infringing on these patents but I think that argument is unlikely to prevail. It is a complicated issue, but I think there would have to be more to Canon's conduct in order to be anticompetitive under U.S. law. Not even clear whether the U.S. has jurisdiction.
Right now. I think it's likely that Canon will fill the main gaps in its L prime line-up (a fast 24 L, a fast 35L, a 135 L, perhaps something wider than 24) within a year or so. Of course, those people who what these lenses now or who feel that they have been waiting too long might switch. But how many are there? Certainly many on Youtube and DPR, but perhaps not enough to change Canon's strategy.
But so far demand for Canon's R cameras and RF lenses appears to have been pretty solid so they might not be worried about losing a few people in the short run. Who knows?
Four years in and no-one has been able to license these patents on FRAND terms or otherwise… so a restraint of trade, anti-competitive argument can be made.
And given the massive 50% price premiums for the RF versus the EF lenses… the argument has plenty of fuel.
Last edited:
That must have been a shocker :-O
Has Viltrox ever request a license? It looks to me like they have not.
BackToNature1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 2,509
The bottom has just about fallen out of the Camera Industry and folks are still behaving as if it is still Party Time in Camera Land. Well it isn't. Tony is just about the Last Person I would start agreeing with now. How many times has Tony announced A or B Camera Companies will no longer exist. Also, they change Cameras quicker than some folks change clothes.
Tony talked about an World that existed, over an decade ago. So I hardly thinks it is anywhere Fair, to compare that World to today's Camera markets. Also, Tony has ZERO insider information as to actually what Canon longer term plans are concerning Third Party options. So for him or anyone else to spout off as if they actually do, that is an disservice to the FACTS. That's an huge problem in today's World of so called Smart Phones. When folks don't care about who hit send and how factually it actually is.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum