Canon: We are in talks with other [lens-]manufacturers

Myles Baker wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

antonio-salieri wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not reading much out of the quote. This is a MF lens and we know Canon is allowing third party MF RF mount lenses. I want to see where Canon specifically says there will be third party RF mount lenses with AF ability. Until then, I consider the RF mount closed for all practical purposes. Using a f/1.0 lens without the ability to take advantage of eye AF is a tough task.

No, it does say something significant. The other MF RF lenses are simply made to physically fit the mount, and are equivalent to M or FD or any other mount lenses that you can use without electronics. In fact, this Cosina 50mm f/1 is already such a lens (as it's been out in M-mount for a little while). Anyway, Canon never had any sort of case against any unauthorized lens without electronics. So all those Laowa, etc. RF lenses? Canon couldn't stop them, but it's hardly because Canon allowed them.

Cosina is one of the very small group of manufacturers that makes MF lenses that also do electronic communication. The other manufacturers that are in contact with Canon are almost certainly mostly makers of AF lenses. And Canon wouldn't be openly acknowledging the negotiations without being open to making a deal. Nor would they say they have no particular policy on third-party lenses.

As I've said before, though, "open" and "closed" is a very bad analysis of this. Many people are now saying the Nikon Z mount is "open," but the Sigma CEO says Nikon requires that companies propose each individual lens, and that they only approve them if they don't compete with Nikon lenses (this has been corroborated by other sources). Someone else on this forum called that "everybody winning," but I'd argue that there is very little material difference between that and a "closed" mount. After all, the only lenses Sigma can make are ones that Nikon decides don't matter enough for them to make. Is that really competition? I think not.

I mean, on Sony cameras, there are artificial limitations placed on third-party lenses, too. But at least Sigma gets to come out with optics like the 35mm f/1.2 that actually challenge Sony.

The only thing that matters to Canon users is if we see AF third party lenses. Otherwise, it is just status quo regarding Canon's position on closing off the RF mount to the types of lenses that the overwhelming majority of users want to see from third party lens makers

Well, I’m a Canon user and that’s not the only thing that matters to me!

I'm also a Canon user & while 3rd party lens availabilty would be nice, it's not a make or break for me because Canon has the lenses I want at a price that I find reasonable. As for the overwhelming majority of Canon users wanting the types of lenses 3rd parties are making, I don't see it outside of generally the same few posters complaining about it on DPR forums & comments on articles (many of whom don't use Canon anyway).

There is a reason so many third party lenses exist and it isn't because hardly anyone wants to use them. Also, if Canon didn't feel threatened by them then they wouldn't have closed the RF mount.

How many lenses do Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang, etc. sell in comparision to the OEM's? Any idea?

I agree that some people want certain lenses, only available from 3rd parties. I don't agree that it's the overwhelming majority of people.

And of course Canon is protecting its sales of RF lenses, as a business they have to make the calculation as to whether that helps them or hurts them. At this time they obviously think it's the former.

I personally think that they will allow 3rd party af lenses at some point and / or 3rd parties will find a way around the patents. It's just a matter of when and it doesn't bother me to wait, because Canon has what I need at this time.

I see 2-3 new third party lenses being announced every 1-2 weeks.  These days many of these lenses rival the OEM counterparts.  The demand for third party lenses are growing more as each year passes because they are representing a much greater value than many OEM lenses.  Third party lenses have obviously become enough of a threat to Canon's RF lens sales for them to risk alienating a large portion of their user base from closing the Rf mount.  There has been a constant barrage of bad press from some of the biggest photography bloggers and reviewers on the internet over this matter.

I do see why Canon is doing this.  They closed the RF mount because they can't fill out the R lens catalog fast enough.  This means third party lens makers will offer very affordable alternatives before they do if the RF mount is open.  Right now third party lens makers are doing quite well supplying lenses for the mounts that are open so they don't need to sell RF lenses.  I see time being on the side of third party lens makers and against Canon.  In the mean time I want to see the pressure continue on Canon to open up the RF mount.

FourSite wrote:

If you have a canon camera, buy canon lenses, quite simple really

I have been practicing photography as a hobby for 45 years and have used many third party lenses in this time with great results. Many others have to and more will into the future. There really isn't a reason to not consider third party lenses. Especially with the quality and value these lenses have these days.

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

antonio-salieri wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not reading much out of the quote. This is a MF lens and we know Canon is allowing third party MF RF mount lenses. I want to see where Canon specifically says there will be third party RF mount lenses with AF ability. Until then, I consider the RF mount closed for all practical purposes. Using a f/1.0 lens without the ability to take advantage of eye AF is a tough task.

No, it does say something significant. The other MF RF lenses are simply made to physically fit the mount, and are equivalent to M or FD or any other mount lenses that you can use without electronics. In fact, this Cosina 50mm f/1 is already such a lens (as it's been out in M-mount for a little while). Anyway, Canon never had any sort of case against any unauthorized lens without electronics. So all those Laowa, etc. RF lenses? Canon couldn't stop them, but it's hardly because Canon allowed them.

Cosina is one of the very small group of manufacturers that makes MF lenses that also do electronic communication. The other manufacturers that are in contact with Canon are almost certainly mostly makers of AF lenses. And Canon wouldn't be openly acknowledging the negotiations without being open to making a deal. Nor would they say they have no particular policy on third-party lenses.

As I've said before, though, "open" and "closed" is a very bad analysis of this. Many people are now saying the Nikon Z mount is "open," but the Sigma CEO says Nikon requires that companies propose each individual lens, and that they only approve them if they don't compete with Nikon lenses (this has been corroborated by other sources). Someone else on this forum called that "everybody winning," but I'd argue that there is very little material difference between that and a "closed" mount. After all, the only lenses Sigma can make are ones that Nikon decides don't matter enough for them to make. Is that really competition? I think not.

I mean, on Sony cameras, there are artificial limitations placed on third-party lenses, too. But at least Sigma gets to come out with optics like the 35mm f/1.2 that actually challenge Sony.

The only thing that matters to Canon users is if we see AF third party lenses. Otherwise, it is just status quo regarding Canon's position on closing off the RF mount to the types of lenses that the overwhelming majority of users want to see from third party lens makers

Well, I’m a Canon user and that’s not the only thing that matters to me!

I'm also a Canon user & while 3rd party lens availabilty would be nice, it's not a make or break for me because Canon has the lenses I want at a price that I find reasonable. As for the overwhelming majority of Canon users wanting the types of lenses 3rd parties are making, I don't see it outside of generally the same few posters complaining about it on DPR forums & comments on articles (many of whom don't use Canon anyway).

There is a reason so many third party lenses exist and it isn't because hardly anyone wants to use them. Also, if Canon didn't feel threatened by them then they wouldn't have closed the RF mount.

How many lenses do Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang, etc. sell in comparision to the OEM's? Any idea?

I agree that some people want certain lenses, only available from 3rd parties. I don't agree that it's the overwhelming majority of people.

And of course Canon is protecting its sales of RF lenses, as a business they have to make the calculation as to whether that helps them or hurts them. At this time they obviously think it's the former.

I personally think that they will allow 3rd party af lenses at some point and / or 3rd parties will find a way around the patents. It's just a matter of when and it doesn't bother me to wait, because Canon has what I need at this time.

I see 2-3 new third party lenses being announced every 1-2 weeks. These days many of these lenses rival the OEM counterparts. The demand for third party lenses are growing more as each year passes because they are representing a much greater value than many OEM lenses. Third party lenses have obviously become enough of a threat to Canon's RF lens sales for them to risk alienating a large portion of their user base from closing the Rf mount. There has been a constant barrage of bad press from some of the biggest photography bloggers and reviewers on the internet over this matter.

I do see why Canon is doing this. They closed the RF mount because they can't fill out the R lens catalog fast enough. This means third party lens makers will offer very affordable alternatives before they do if the RF mount is open. Right now third party lens makers are doing quite well supplying lenses for the mounts that are open so they don't need to sell RF lenses. I see time being on the side of third party lens makers and against Canon. In the mean time I want to see the pressure continue on Canon to open up the RF mount.

I see that you have a vivid imagination.

No. I have the ability to reason.

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

antonio-salieri wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not reading much out of the quote. This is a MF lens and we know Canon is allowing third party MF RF mount lenses. I want to see where Canon specifically says there will be third party RF mount lenses with AF ability. Until then, I consider the RF mount closed for all practical purposes. Using a f/1.0 lens without the ability to take advantage of eye AF is a tough task.

No, it does say something significant. The other MF RF lenses are simply made to physically fit the mount, and are equivalent to M or FD or any other mount lenses that you can use without electronics. In fact, this Cosina 50mm f/1 is already such a lens (as it's been out in M-mount for a little while). Anyway, Canon never had any sort of case against any unauthorized lens without electronics. So all those Laowa, etc. RF lenses? Canon couldn't stop them, but it's hardly because Canon allowed them.

Cosina is one of the very small group of manufacturers that makes MF lenses that also do electronic communication. The other manufacturers that are in contact with Canon are almost certainly mostly makers of AF lenses. And Canon wouldn't be openly acknowledging the negotiations without being open to making a deal. Nor would they say they have no particular policy on third-party lenses.

As I've said before, though, "open" and "closed" is a very bad analysis of this. Many people are now saying the Nikon Z mount is "open," but the Sigma CEO says Nikon requires that companies propose each individual lens, and that they only approve them if they don't compete with Nikon lenses (this has been corroborated by other sources). Someone else on this forum called that "everybody winning," but I'd argue that there is very little material difference between that and a "closed" mount. After all, the only lenses Sigma can make are ones that Nikon decides don't matter enough for them to make. Is that really competition? I think not.

I mean, on Sony cameras, there are artificial limitations placed on third-party lenses, too. But at least Sigma gets to come out with optics like the 35mm f/1.2 that actually challenge Sony.

The only thing that matters to Canon users is if we see AF third party lenses. Otherwise, it is just status quo regarding Canon's position on closing off the RF mount to the types of lenses that the overwhelming majority of users want to see from third party lens makers

Well, I’m a Canon user and that’s not the only thing that matters to me!

I'm also a Canon user & while 3rd party lens availabilty would be nice, it's not a make or break for me because Canon has the lenses I want at a price that I find reasonable. As for the overwhelming majority of Canon users wanting the types of lenses 3rd parties are making, I don't see it outside of generally the same few posters complaining about it on DPR forums & comments on articles (many of whom don't use Canon anyway).

There is a reason so many third party lenses exist and it isn't because hardly anyone wants to use them. Also, if Canon didn't feel threatened by them then they wouldn't have closed the RF mount.

How many lenses do Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang, etc. sell in comparision to the OEM's? Any idea?

I agree that some people want certain lenses, only available from 3rd parties. I don't agree that it's the overwhelming majority of people.

And of course Canon is protecting its sales of RF lenses, as a business they have to make the calculation as to whether that helps them or hurts them. At this time they obviously think it's the former.

I personally think that they will allow 3rd party af lenses at some point and / or 3rd parties will find a way around the patents. It's just a matter of when and it doesn't bother me to wait, because Canon has what I need at this time.

I see 2-3 new third party lenses being announced every 1-2 weeks. These days many of these lenses rival the OEM counterparts. The demand for third party lenses are growing more as each year passes because they are representing a much greater value than many OEM lenses. Third party lenses have obviously become enough of a threat to Canon's RF lens sales for them to risk alienating a large portion of their user base from closing the Rf mount. There has been a constant barrage of bad press from some of the biggest photography bloggers and reviewers on the internet over this matter.

I do see why Canon is doing this. They closed the RF mount because they can't fill out the R lens catalog fast enough. This means third party lens makers will offer very affordable alternatives before they do if the RF mount is open. Right now third party lens makers are doing quite well supplying lenses for the mounts that are open so they don't need to sell RF lenses. I see time being on the side of third party lens makers and against Canon. In the mean time I want to see the pressure continue on Canon to open up the RF mount.

I see that you have a vivid imagination.

No. I have the ability to reason.

As do all of us here. You are very annoyed that Canon does not put your perspective ahead of their considered business perspective, and you have been repeating your complaint for a considerable time. Many of us do not share your annoyance. It’s not that I wouldn’t be interested in RF AF lenses from third parties. Rather, I don’t think the absence thereof so far is all Canon’s fault and a poke in the eye at me to boot. It’s just business, and that applies to the third parties too. That said, there are at least some signs that you will eventually get what you say you want. Instead of being pleased you double down on the complaints.

Pressure? 32% increase in sales, 106% increase in profit -

Canon thanks you for the pressure. Push harder!

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

antonio-salieri wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not reading much out of the quote. This is a MF lens and we know Canon is allowing third party MF RF mount lenses. I want to see where Canon specifically says there will be third party RF mount lenses with AF ability. Until then, I consider the RF mount closed for all practical purposes. Using a f/1.0 lens without the ability to take advantage of eye AF is a tough task.

No, it does say something significant. The other MF RF lenses are simply made to physically fit the mount, and are equivalent to M or FD or any other mount lenses that you can use without electronics. In fact, this Cosina 50mm f/1 is already such a lens (as it's been out in M-mount for a little while). Anyway, Canon never had any sort of case against any unauthorized lens without electronics. So all those Laowa, etc. RF lenses? Canon couldn't stop them, but it's hardly because Canon allowed them.

Cosina is one of the very small group of manufacturers that makes MF lenses that also do electronic communication. The other manufacturers that are in contact with Canon are almost certainly mostly makers of AF lenses. And Canon wouldn't be openly acknowledging the negotiations without being open to making a deal. Nor would they say they have no particular policy on third-party lenses.

As I've said before, though, "open" and "closed" is a very bad analysis of this. Many people are now saying the Nikon Z mount is "open," but the Sigma CEO says Nikon requires that companies propose each individual lens, and that they only approve them if they don't compete with Nikon lenses (this has been corroborated by other sources). Someone else on this forum called that "everybody winning," but I'd argue that there is very little material difference between that and a "closed" mount. After all, the only lenses Sigma can make are ones that Nikon decides don't matter enough for them to make. Is that really competition? I think not.

I mean, on Sony cameras, there are artificial limitations placed on third-party lenses, too. But at least Sigma gets to come out with optics like the 35mm f/1.2 that actually challenge Sony.

The only thing that matters to Canon users is if we see AF third party lenses. Otherwise, it is just status quo regarding Canon's position on closing off the RF mount to the types of lenses that the overwhelming majority of users want to see from third party lens makers

Well, I’m a Canon user and that’s not the only thing that matters to me!

I'm also a Canon user & while 3rd party lens availabilty would be nice, it's not a make or break for me because Canon has the lenses I want at a price that I find reasonable. As for the overwhelming majority of Canon users wanting the types of lenses 3rd parties are making, I don't see it outside of generally the same few posters complaining about it on DPR forums & comments on articles (many of whom don't use Canon anyway).

There is a reason so many third party lenses exist and it isn't because hardly anyone wants to use them. Also, if Canon didn't feel threatened by them then they wouldn't have closed the RF mount.

How many lenses do Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang, etc. sell in comparision to the OEM's? Any idea?

I agree that some people want certain lenses, only available from 3rd parties. I don't agree that it's the overwhelming majority of people.

And of course Canon is protecting its sales of RF lenses, as a business they have to make the calculation as to whether that helps them or hurts them. At this time they obviously think it's the former.

I personally think that they will allow 3rd party af lenses at some point and / or 3rd parties will find a way around the patents. It's just a matter of when and it doesn't bother me to wait, because Canon has what I need at this time.

I see 2-3 new third party lenses being announced every 1-2 weeks. These days many of these lenses rival the OEM counterparts. The demand for third party lenses are growing more as each year passes because they are representing a much greater value than many OEM lenses. Third party lenses have obviously become enough of a threat to Canon's RF lens sales for them to risk alienating a large portion of their user base from closing the Rf mount. There has been a constant barrage of bad press from some of the biggest photography bloggers and reviewers on the internet over this matter.

I do see why Canon is doing this. They closed the RF mount because they can't fill out the R lens catalog fast enough. This means third party lens makers will offer very affordable alternatives before they do if the RF mount is open. Right now third party lens makers are doing quite well supplying lenses for the mounts that are open so they don't need to sell RF lenses. I see time being on the side of third party lens makers and against Canon. In the mean time I want to see the pressure continue on Canon to open up the RF mount.

I see that you have a vivid imagination.

No. I have the ability to reason.

As do all of us here. You are very annoyed that Canon does not put your perspective ahead of their considered business perspective, and you have been repeating your complaint for a considerable time. Many of us do not share your annoyance. It’s not that I wouldn’t be interested in RF AF lenses from third parties. Rather, I don’t think the absence thereof so far is all Canon’s fault and a poke in the eye at me to boot. It’s just business, and that applies to the third parties too. That said, there are at least some signs that you will eventually get what you say you want. Instead of being pleased you double down on the complaints.

I am not annoyed with Canon. Actually, with the announcement of the R8 I will be staying with them and it will be my only ILC camera moving forward. Between it and the S23 Ultra I just bought, I will have my photography needs met. This said, I do have the right to complain about what Canon does that affects its users since I am one of them and have been for two decades. Especially so when complaining can have an impact on what they do in the future. I see cracks developing in Canon's closed mount policy. I think the negative press and feedback from its user base and others considering a move to Canon is having an influence on them. They can only keep this policy in place for so long before it causes serious problems for them in the long term. IMO, these problems will take the form of some people leaving Canon, others deciding not to move to Canon and/or many deciding to adapt Canon and third party EF lenses instead of buying RF lenses. In the long term, I see no way Canon will be able to grow the R system beyond a certain point without healthy support from third party RF lenses. Third party lenses help to sell camera bodies and without healthy camera sales there will be fewer RF lenses being sold as time passes.

chipman wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Myles Baker wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

antonio-salieri wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not reading much out of the quote. This is a MF lens and we know Canon is allowing third party MF RF mount lenses. I want to see where Canon specifically says there will be third party RF mount lenses with AF ability. Until then, I consider the RF mount closed for all practical purposes. Using a f/1.0 lens without the ability to take advantage of eye AF is a tough task.

No, it does say something significant. The other MF RF lenses are simply made to physically fit the mount, and are equivalent to M or FD or any other mount lenses that you can use without electronics. In fact, this Cosina 50mm f/1 is already such a lens (as it's been out in M-mount for a little while). Anyway, Canon never had any sort of case against any unauthorized lens without electronics. So all those Laowa, etc. RF lenses? Canon couldn't stop them, but it's hardly because Canon allowed them.

Cosina is one of the very small group of manufacturers that makes MF lenses that also do electronic communication. The other manufacturers that are in contact with Canon are almost certainly mostly makers of AF lenses. And Canon wouldn't be openly acknowledging the negotiations without being open to making a deal. Nor would they say they have no particular policy on third-party lenses.

As I've said before, though, "open" and "closed" is a very bad analysis of this. Many people are now saying the Nikon Z mount is "open," but the Sigma CEO says Nikon requires that companies propose each individual lens, and that they only approve them if they don't compete with Nikon lenses (this has been corroborated by other sources). Someone else on this forum called that "everybody winning," but I'd argue that there is very little material difference between that and a "closed" mount. After all, the only lenses Sigma can make are ones that Nikon decides don't matter enough for them to make. Is that really competition? I think not.

I mean, on Sony cameras, there are artificial limitations placed on third-party lenses, too. But at least Sigma gets to come out with optics like the 35mm f/1.2 that actually challenge Sony.

The only thing that matters to Canon users is if we see AF third party lenses. Otherwise, it is just status quo regarding Canon's position on closing off the RF mount to the types of lenses that the overwhelming majority of users want to see from third party lens makers

Well, I’m a Canon user and that’s not the only thing that matters to me!

I'm also a Canon user & while 3rd party lens availabilty would be nice, it's not a make or break for me because Canon has the lenses I want at a price that I find reasonable. As for the overwhelming majority of Canon users wanting the types of lenses 3rd parties are making, I don't see it outside of generally the same few posters complaining about it on DPR forums & comments on articles (many of whom don't use Canon anyway).

There is a reason so many third party lenses exist and it isn't because hardly anyone wants to use them. Also, if Canon didn't feel threatened by them then they wouldn't have closed the RF mount.

How many lenses do Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang, etc. sell in comparision to the OEM's? Any idea?

I agree that some people want certain lenses, only available from 3rd parties. I don't agree that it's the overwhelming majority of people.

And of course Canon is protecting its sales of RF lenses, as a business they have to make the calculation as to whether that helps them or hurts them. At this time they obviously think it's the former.

I personally think that they will allow 3rd party af lenses at some point and / or 3rd parties will find a way around the patents. It's just a matter of when and it doesn't bother me to wait, because Canon has what I need at this time.

I see 2-3 new third party lenses being announced every 1-2 weeks. These days many of these lenses rival the OEM counterparts. The demand for third party lenses are growing more as each year passes because they are representing a much greater value than many OEM lenses. Third party lenses have obviously become enough of a threat to Canon's RF lens sales for them to risk alienating a large portion of their user base from closing the Rf mount. There has been a constant barrage of bad press from some of the biggest photography bloggers and reviewers on the internet over this matter.

I do see why Canon is doing this. They closed the RF mount because they can't fill out the R lens catalog fast enough. This means third party lens makers will offer very affordable alternatives before they do if the RF mount is open. Right now third party lens makers are doing quite well supplying lenses for the mounts that are open so they don't need to sell RF lenses. I see time being on the side of third party lens makers and against Canon. In the mean time I want to see the pressure continue on Canon to open up the RF mount.

I see that you have a vivid imagination.

No. I have the ability to reason.

As do all of us here. You are very annoyed that Canon does not put your perspective ahead of their considered business perspective, and you have been repeating your complaint for a considerable time. Many of us do not share your annoyance. It’s not that I wouldn’t be interested in RF AF lenses from third parties. Rather, I don’t think the absence thereof so far is all Canon’s fault and a poke in the eye at me to boot. It’s just business, and that applies to the third parties too. That said, there are at least some signs that you will eventually get what you say you want. Instead of being pleased you double down on the complaints.

Pressure? 32% increase in sales, 106% increase in profit -

Canon thanks you for the pressure. Push harder!

It is hard to tell what these numbers really represent with sales numbers from 2020 and 2021 being highly influenced by COVID and its effect on manufacturing capacity etc. I would expect there to be a big jump in growth from 2021 to 2022 as manufacturing issues were being resolved and economies were opening up again. So far this year camera sales are down 29% for January YOY.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not annoyed with Canon. Actually, with the announcement of the R8 I will be staying with them and it will be my only ILC camera moving forward. Between it and the S23 Ultra I just bought, I will have my photography needs met. This said, I do have the right to complain about what Canon does that affects its users since I am one of them and have been for two decades. Especially so when complaining can have an impact on what they do in the future. I see cracks developing in Canon's closed mount policy. I think the negative press and feedback from its user base and others considering a move to Canon is having an influence on them. They can only keep this policy in place for so long before it causes serious problems for them in the long term. IMO, these problems will take the form of some people leaving Canon, others deciding not to move to Canon and/or many deciding to adapt Canon and third party EF lenses instead of buying RF lenses. In the long term, I see no way Canon will be able to grow the R system beyond a certain point without healthy support from third party RF lenses. Third party lenses help to sell camera bodies and without healthy camera sales there will be fewer RF lenses being sold as time passes.

Like all predictions in economics/business, that, and a hefty bank loan, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

You have done a fair amount of these supposedly worthless predictions too.