antonio-salieri
Well-known member
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 223
Yep, I have these (or similar random third party ones). They do what they're supposed to. The key element is empty space, which you can get from many suppliers!
-
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
Karl_Guttag
Senior Member
SNIPPED
A good point is that you can't enforce patent-type IP until the patent has been issued with the allowed claims. So if they are using patents rather than copyright, the patents must exist.
A patent on the communication protocol would not necessarily have to give the specific implementation away. A good patent would be more generic and broadly applied, but this is a special case as Canon is probably not worried about Sony or Nikon copying their protocol.
Design patents are extremely weak and only go to the aesthetic value and are easy to get around unless you are trying to make it look like it is another company's product.
I have NOT looked at Canon's patents. But there could be something in how the lens locks onto the mount.
The other area is in the optics that might be specific to the optical design for an RF camera. Granted, if it is just the optical physics of adapting, say Sony mount to the RF mount with a slightly different flange distance, it might not hold up in court even if Canon has a patent. But would the 3rd party risk it?
My main point is that Canon has many possible layers of defense if they want to make it unpalatable to 3rd parties and not all the defenses may be obvious yet.
The EF mount was introduced in 1987 with very primitive technology. I would expect that anyone doing an "unfriendly" RF mount would have to hold closely to EF protocols.
We are seeing reports that the Sigma EF150-600 is having erratic focusing issues with servo AF. Specifically, Duade Paton has reported the problem (
"Sigma have responded that the Sigma 150-600C is not compatible with the Eye Tracking Servo mode of the Canon mirrorless bodies. You will need to use single shot AF to get accurate autofocus. The AF will still work in tracking mode but you will get inconsistent focus as I have demonstrated."
Whether by design or omission, there will be problems with at least some 3rd Party EF mount lenses even is "properly adapted." Canon will probably feel obligated to develop firmware to fix Canon EF lenses, but no obligation for 3rd parties.
We also don't know if there was some "future-proofing" in the RF interface that may only be deployed on new bodies that may cause problems for 3rd party lenses.
We are over 3 decades of technological advancement from the EF mount. Canon was much more hamstrung even with their newer EF lenses that supported firmware based on their legacy lenses and bodies. As I mentioned before, there may be features built into their roadmap that could screw up 3rd party lenses (maybe totally by accident, as they will verify Canon lenses.
Even though I have no plan right now to buy a 3rd party lens. I think it would be good for the RF ecosystem to have a 3rd party licensing program. I would prefer it to be a formal program to assure interoperability. They could, like Sony has done, hold back some features from the 3rd party, but at least consumers would know what works are what does not when they buy a lens.
I believe that Canon at least has to think about their strategy to nix 3rd party lenses completely in the wake of all the bad press they are getting. They have gotten pretty much uniformly bad press from every reviewer, even ones that are highly favorable to Canon. While I own about $20K worth of RF bodies and lenses, I would not recommend to a family member or friend to buy into the RF system, I would recommend Sony (I think Nikon is riskier than Canon).
David Pavlich
Veteran Member
This is the kind of response that is becoming more and more common. Canon is uppity, Canon is arrogant, etc. Society demands instant gratification. Canon doesn't do it fast enough, so it's off with their heads. How long did it take Sony to develop their lens collection? Canon's been at the FF mirrorless game for four years. They should have at least as many as Sony has. :eyesrolling:
At some point, Canon will license their stuff and Tamron and Sigma will be just fine with it. But, will it be fast enough? The story is yet to be written.....
David
A communication protocol is actually quite difficult to get a patent issued by the patent office.
A patent cannot have prior arts, cannot be obvious and need to be innovative.
Just making a protocol nobody has done before is easy, but that only will guarantee you get granted a copyright if it was just being different from others. (= no prior arts)
Need something innovative and not obvious such as your protocol can communicate faster or more reliable than previously known protocols
Photoclever
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 243
Yes, really. There's still a very large base of EF users who have not upgraded. Not to mention more and more people becoming interested in photography every day. Canon risks losing them over a misguided belief that they will go Canon regardless.Nah not really.Exactlywell said on Canon Short Sight Profit. Allowing 3rd party lens actually open door bring new customers that would otherwise go to another camera system. Once you hook yr customers, they nearly always UPGRADE up to Canon lens like a DISEASE.
Those that left have already left. Those that stayed are super loyal. They waited years for RF mount cameras.
How many lenses does Canon sell to someone with a Sony body?
How profitable will they be after Sony takes the #1 spot?
Photoclever
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 243
Consumers don't owe Canon another 4 years to fill out their lens catalog or finally license 3rd party lenses. If the lenses a photographer needs today are on E-mount but not RF, then that's a new Sony user, and Sony sales for years to come. Canon is blowing it on this one.
Why should a consumer wait and do without for Canon?
BackToNature1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 2,509
You are mostly right, This is an longer term issue in what is Now, a still shrinking Camera Market. Folks can go and on and on about 3rd Party agreements although nobody really has any real idea about moving forward what Canon has in the works with other 3rd party players.Nah not really.Exactly
Those that left have already left. Those that stayed are super loyal. They waited years for RF mount cameras.
Some will cry and moan, but most will forget about it and carry on shooting Canon.
Profit is in lenses not bodies. Canon will hook you in with the body.
Canon is doing the right thing for its shareholders. A profitable company means it will be around in the long term, better for the consumer to have a healthy Canon.
So I believe some folks are spouting off with the intent to Harm Canon's future health. Especially those whom have always pushed for other Brands before Canon. Which was long before this thing with VILTROX started. Just go back to the days when the R5 and R6 were introduced and Who or Whom stated what.
BackToNature1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 2,509
Well Sony is hardly the only player in town. There is Fuji, Panasonic, Nikon, plus a handful of other smaller players. So if folks don't prefer Canon, they hardly have to turn to Sony. Yet funny how some want folks to only go straight to Sony.
Consumers waited and did without for Sony, so why can't they do the same for Canon or even Nikon as both transition from their Massive DSLR lineups. Which is no small task by the way. Plus Canon or Nikon users can use all their older FF DSLRs glass seamlessly on their Mirrorless gear. So start actually telling the entire story, not just part of it.
Vandyu
Veteran Member
Non-rich old Boomer here. With the announcement of the R7 and no comparable model in the Nikon lineup, I've been pretty much convinced to make the brand switch. But, I have to say that this decision is on hold for a while as I ponder how my values align with those of Canon's. Whether I purchase the R7 or not is of little consequence to the photography behemoth. I'm not the type of photographer that will continue to fill the coffers of Canon Inc. with five-figure purchases.Exactly
I'm the same way as you. I went from Tamron 17-50/2.8 → Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro → Canon 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Most people use 3rd party as an entry way into the system before they committed to paying more for the "real" Canon Nikon Sony or Fuji lens.
I think Canon is being incredibly Short Sighted. If Canon continues this kind of Arrogance, it may find itself
Push future customers into the arms of Sony Nikon & Fuji
While rich Old Boomer maybe loyal to Canon, most young people are poorer and will buy into other affordable brands over Canon.
Then Canon RISK become an Old People brand like a high priced Cadillac, MBZ, and BMW valued by older GenX & Boomer but ridicule by Gen Z and Millennial as old people car.
I understand the importance of protecting one's intellectual property, whether it is an essay, book, musical piece, sculpture, design, or other creation from one's mind. But, it seems like Canon could find a better way of working with other lens manufacturers. Those who support the concept that third-party lenses eventually lead to increased purchases of Canon bodies and Canon-branded lenses see the future. The use of the word arrogance seems to hit home here to some extent. I would at least like the choice.
Even if I were a rich old Boomer!
--
If someone is important to you, let them know every day. Life is never fair, it seems, and time is always too short. Every day give the world your very best.
Last edited:
time has nothing to do with it. You can’t have an entitlement or expectation to license whatever you want
Why would FRAND terms apply here? There are already other camera makers. This is specific to canon and nothing to do with a wide spectrum standard
what type of terms otherwise? It only matters if you can be specific about the grounds on which you expect to be licensed. The default is people don’t get a license to stuff you own unless you agree to give it to them
An argument can always be made, that’s what people do in courts. But you need to have a strong basis to win that argument and I don’t see any here. You cannot argue this is a bad decision which will make people switch to other manufacturers, and that canon has a monopoly here in the same breath. And I see both arguments being made on the forum here. That pretty much makes trade, anti-competitive concerns a weak point
That doesn’t come into play unless you have separately shown that its an outcome of anti-trust behaviour. Otherwise companies can jack up prices if they want. Cameras and Lenses aren’t essential good either
I absolutely agree. This is what I believe has happened. Canon made the decision to develop the RF mount and the entire R system a long time ago, probably even ten years ago. At that time it might have appeared as a good idea to keep the mount closed. Then there came competition dynamics from Sony and Nikon, and of course also the coronavirus pandemic with major production and marketing delays. Now the years-old decision to keep the mount closed makes much less sense, and there is also a major outcry in the social media. But Canon being Canon, they are probably not able to change course quickly. It's just not in their culture.
It will be interesting to see whether they open up the RF mount or at least comment on when this might happen.
If they decide to keep the mount closed to 3rd party producers for at least a few more years it would be very helpful if they at least announced a road map for their lineup. Many (but not all) of those who complain currently would be happy if they knew that a fast 24L, a fast 35L, a 135L, and perhaps the rumored 10-24L as well are forthcoming within the next year or so.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
Which is kind of ironic, considering the context of this discussion!
That's an interesting argument. If you look at sony, they've been maintaining a steady profit even in a declining market, while canon's profit has been decreasing year after year.Nah not really.Exactly
Those that left have already left. Those that stayed are super loyal. They waited years for RF mount cameras.
Some will cry and moan, but most will forget about it and carry on shooting Canon.
Profit is in lenses not bodies. Canon will hook you in with the body.
Canon is doing the right thing for its shareholders. A profitable company means it will be around in the long term, better for the consumer to have a healthy Canon.
Lenses bring money, but first you need to be able to sell the body. If people can't afford the lenses, they won't buy the bodies.
Indeed. It's not like a lot of people buy a €2500 or €4500 body without looking at the lens options first. They will certainly loose market share over this, but might sell some more expensive L glass to some.
KEG
Veteran Member
Except RF is not only R5 or R3, you also have to consider the buyers of R10, R7, RP, R and possibly R6.
If you’re buying a FF camera or even an advanced APS, you’ll check the lenses first.
and that’s specially true if we’re talking about a budget conscious user, like the R, RP or R6 user would be more likely to be.
Only the target user of the R10 would buy a camera with a kit lens and not look at the rest of the system first.
Last edited:
BackToNature1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 2,509
Back when Canon introduced the R5 and R6, everyone should go back and look at the comments by Whom. Keep in mind for just how long those same folks kept bashing those releases. Be that on other sites like yTube an or anywhere else for that matter. This is literally almost no different.
Many didn't care about the facts then so many of them hardly do now. Plus, with all the other Brands besides Canon or Sony, why is Brand B always the recommend one as opposed to all the other brands outside of Canon.
Canon is not a Monopoly. Folks are free to pick and choose plenty of Old or New Gear from different brands. Folks from both Nikon and Canon can use the Lens that already OWN previously FF, seamlessly on their Shiny Brand New mirrorless bodies. In fact, I have been noticing more folks adapting their old EF lens to other Brands, which are neither Canon nor Sony. With excellent results.
Many didn't care about the facts then so many of them hardly do now. Plus, with all the other Brands besides Canon or Sony, why is Brand B always the recommend one as opposed to all the other brands outside of Canon.
Canon is not a Monopoly. Folks are free to pick and choose plenty of Old or New Gear from different brands. Folks from both Nikon and Canon can use the Lens that already OWN previously FF, seamlessly on their Shiny Brand New mirrorless bodies. In fact, I have been noticing more folks adapting their old EF lens to other Brands, which are neither Canon nor Sony. With excellent results.
And, in amongst all the fuss, TTartisan release a 17mm f1.4 RF mount lens.
Surprise: TTartisan releases a new 17mm f/1.4 lens for Canon RF-mount - Photo Rumors
Surprise: TTartisan releases a new 17mm f/1.4 lens for Canon RF-mount - Photo Rumors
Maybe people should see who was praising canon when they decided to implement the Touch Bar, or claiming that the overheating on the R5 was not a real problem.
Maybe even go back a little more and see who called the eye-af a gimmick feature when canon didn’t had it.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum