Canon USA has announced a successful lawsuit against two eBay sellers who were allegedly peddling counterfeit 'Canon' batteries. The camera company had filed a complaint against the defendants in October 2019, claiming the sellers were using its trademarks and that doing so could 'mislead the public as to the source and authenticity' of the products, potentially to their peril.
The legal victory took place on December 12, 2019, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. According to Canon, the defendants in the case were barred from 'infringing and counterfeiting the valuable Canon trademarks.' The sellers will also be required to pay Canon a 'significant amount of money,' according to the camera company.
Below is a copy of the court documents, obtained by PetaPixel:
Counterfeit batteries put both the operator and their camera at risk, Canon explains on its website. These products may be poorly made and prone to overheating; they may also offer lackluster performance when compared to the real thing, resulting in frequent recharging and shorter lifetimes. Signs of a counterfeit battery include lack of an anti-hologram sticker on the bottom, modifications to the company's logo and an inability to communicate with the camera.
The sucker game is on! The real question is, will Canon continue to offer batteries for their older models, and for how long, or not? This just seems like an opportunistic way to force users to buy new tech with yet another mix of "soon-to-be-obsolete" + "proprietary tech" racket. Just like when your printer tells you to buy a new printer and refuses non-brand cartridges.
they should have taken the canon logo etc. of and sold it like that instead of selling fakes...at least if you buy non canon batteries you know the risks... ive got a couple of amazon 'compatible batteries" for my 80D and they work perfectly.... you never know
I wonder how much of this affect their leading edge design. When you're busy copying, you;re not on the leading edge. You're following. So that make outsiders in the rest of the world the real entrepreneurs who are developing the new products. Then the Vietnamese or some other country comes along with cheaper labor and then China is going to be left behind.
Is it Best Buy that sells the "green" brand but actually brown colored replacement batteries for the NB13l? I'm pretty sure it is because the in store price of $49 dollars makes me ask why someone wouldn't just order the real thing from Adorama or B&H.
I dont mind generic/third party batteries at all but the shameless counterfeiting is ridiculous as is ebay/Amazon's refusal to act on it unless one of the big companies gets involved.
Every time I've reported fake goods to ebay they have ignored it and happily kept on raking in the profits. There are even sellers on there with fake SD cards which have been programmed to report bigger capacities than they are. The sellers even try to cover themselves by saying stuff like "64gb average capacity, real world capacity may be as low as 8gb due to overheads" so obviously fake but ebay don't care.
I hope Samsung address all the fake phone batteries because ebay and Amazon are literally full of the things. You'd have to be the luckiest person on earth to actually get a genuine one.
I would think counterfeit chargers would be a bigger issue.
I've purchased one non oem battery, it was for my Sony V3. It never worked as good as the OEM battery. I saved 25%. Wasn't worth it. I suspect the counterfeit batteries perform even worse.
I've stuck to OEM batteries since then. Just not enough savings to make it worthwhile to me.
Of course it is illegal to use OEM brand names and trademarks on third party batteries, so this case was decided correctly. But I wonder about the ethics any manufacturer "disabling" your camera when you use a third party battery "for your safety."
I suppose the next step is for GM to disable your car when you use anything but a GM Delco battery in it.
Not so far fetched Marty. My Lincoln MKC went automatically into sleep mode after two weeks of inactivity when I was away traveling. Everything shuts down to preserve the battery. When I came home, all 4 windows were open all the way. Ford told me to bring it to the dealer to check out. Fortunately, it was in my garage protected from rain and snow. Apparently, the car talks to Ford and Lincoln headquarters mysteriously without telling me who have control over it like the KGB.
"But I wonder about the ethics any manufacturer "disabling" your camera when you use a third party battery "for your safety." But that is not what Canon is doing. The camera warns you IF the battery has a fake hologram pretending to be a genuine Canon battery. Watch that video again.
Franco, I did watch the video again, and it says that if you select "has a Canon logo" and the camera doesn't recognize it as a genuine Canon product then the the camera will be shut down for your protection. You are advised to call customer support.
This reminds me of when Keurig modified their K-Cups for their newer machines so third party K-Cups wouldn't work in them. This is called Digital Rights Management (DRM) and is a form of copyright protection. It really is done to protect the manufacturer, not the customer.
The video doesn't say if you an override that warning and use your camera with the non Canon battery. Hopefully, you could.
Without a doubt the original OEM batteries are better. They last longer, are better built, and hold a charge longer. But they can cost up to ten times more than a third party battery. So many of us would rather have 5 cheap batteries rather than one genuine OEM battery as spares.
IF the battery shows a Canon logo AND the camera cannot identify it as a Canon battery then it's one of three things: a counterfeit battery, a bad battery or a camera malfunction.
if you see the steps 52 seconds into the video, it's obvious.
It even shows the other steps 1:40 into the video
If the battery does not display a Canon logo then it's okay - the battery is fine.
it's not a DRM issue, or anything like that - it's identifying a counterfeit battery or some other systematic failure.
This has been going on for years in the printer consumables industry.
They send out firmware updates that will disable non genuine inks even if you are halfway through using them.
HP for example have done this, automatic update with no user permission required. Then they claimed it was an "accident" but to reverse it, instead of of being automatic like it was to begin with, you had to find some obscure page on their website and download a fix. They knew damn well 99% of people wouldn't even think to look for a fix and would have just switched to HPs own inks.
Let me repeat it once again : Canon is not stopping anyone using any battery , it's just warning you . Canon is not stopping anyone from using any battery. Canon is not stopping anyone from using any battery. (if you do understand that you are using a fake battery , just enter NO LOGO and you can go right ahead but you have been warned, it's NOT A CANON BATTERY !) Now, anyone that still does not understand this , just ask....
It's well established that companies are making it difficult to use third party accessories. Canon gives you a warning if you use non genuine batteries. If you think this isn't intended to scare people out of using non Canon then you must have been born yesterday.
The use of nags/scare messages is well known in various industries.
I really don't know why you're working yourself into a frenzy?
Maybe you'll understand better in your own language?
YES YOU CAN USE A NON CANON BATTERY BUT CANON CANNOT TELL IF THERE IS A LOGO ON THE BATTERY OR NOT SO THE WARNING MESSAGE POPS UP EITHER WAY AND EVEN IF YOU SAY NO LOGO YOU WILL STILL GET A SCARE MONGERING MESSAGE ABOUT POSSIBLE MALFUNCTION/HEALTH RISKS ETC.
If the camera genuinely could not communicate with a lithium battery but still gave you the option to use it then Canon would have lawsuits on their hands because it would be a ticking time bomb because there would be no means of determining the state of charge and lithium cells can became unstable both when they are over CHARGED and over DISCHARGED.
I believe Canon disable the battery charge level indicator for non Canon batteries. Given that no Canon compact I have ever used has even the remotest clue what charge is left in the battery, Canon battery or not, it is probably not a great handicap.
The video states the camera will shut down if you confirm battery claims to be Canon, but camera software confirms it is not genuine Canon, that is if it is a Counterfeit.
If the battery is a third party battery you simply enter “No” in response to the Canon label question. That battery does not claim to be a Canon product.
Given the high price for OEM batteries, I only respect those that have serial #s on them for warranty and recall purposes.
Thus, if I have a $2,000 camera, I am willing to pay $80 for an OEM battery, which can fail just as a 3rd party one can. How do I file a claim with the camera manufacturer if that OEM battery damages my OEM camera?
Fortunately, most all of these batteries do NOT fail in dangerous ways. However, I did have a Sigma battery that became dangerously hot-Sigma "OEM."
I would have all batteries send a code to camera. User would get a message "Canon genuine battery under warranty." or "This is not a Canon genuine battery. Do you wish to use it? If so, we are not responsible for battery damage or damage to the camera."
This is how some ink jet cartridges work. Epson will issue warning and ask if you want to continue. But I have used Canon 3rd party ink cartridges that report as genuine!
A COUNTERFEIT item is one that is made by someone else, but is a labelled and being sold as if it was from the mfr, in this Canon. The batteries supposedly have the Canon logo, stickers, etc on it, thus making buyers think it's a Canon battery.
A third party item is one that is branded and sold under a different name and DOES NOT claim to be from the mfr. For example, Wasabi and Watson batteries are sold and labelled as Wasabi and Watson batteries, and it's very obvious they are NOT OEM batteries.
The difference is one is being sold by someone else disguised as a geniune OEM battery, the other is being labelled and sold as a third party battery and is NOT claiming to be made by the mfr. This is why companies like Wasabi and Watson are not part of this lawsuit. They are legit 3rd party batteries not pretending to be something they aren't.
Well said. Nothing wrong with a third party manufacturer, selling as such and standing behind their product.
Selling a third party product labelled as OEM is obviously unethical, fraud and more likely a defective product, trying to pass off as genuine.
Third parties who sell own label *usually* are companies trying to make a name for themselves and create a recognised brand with true economic value.
That is why Wasabi and Watson are so popular.
Actually, For Nikon, Wasabi also make a (MH-26 I think) charger that is WAY cheaper ($80 vs $300) than the Nikon equivalent, which, if my Nikon goes awry, I will buy the Wasabi. A charger should not cost $300.
It is about using commonsense to buy where genuine, but reasonable, savings can be made, without undue risk of failure.
This also goes for other third party parts, for computers, cars etc.
Canon would obviously prefer us to buy Canon batteries.
The question really is whether it is ethical for them to *force* us to do so, by disabling cameras when they are fitted with third party batteries. Apparently this can and does happen, as shown in the video above.
I've used third party batteries in 6D, 7D, & 7DMkii without problems (other than short battery lifespan). I abandoned these batteries long ago as they had a tendency to die suddenly, without warning.
Nowadays I have 8 genuine Canon batteries for my 5DS & 5DMkiv. Some of them are now 5 years old and still holding their charge perfectly. Although expensive, I think they offer better value for money and much greater durability than the third-party brands I previously used.
Entoman, I just watched the video. It clearly illustrates: - the battery appears not to be genuine, so a message appears asking the user to tell the camera if the battery has a Canon logo. - if the user responds that battery shows the Canon logo, the camera shows a warning that the battery may be counterfeit and the camera shuts down. - if the user responds that the battery does NOT have a Canon logo, the camera shows a warning about compatibility but does not shut down.
The user with a counterfeit battery can simply tell camera the battery does not have a Canon logo, and can continue to use it.
So, no, the video does not show what you say it shows. Canon does not force users to use only genuine Canon batteries. They warn that there is danger but let the user decide whether or not to accept it.
The issue of "forced" is an interesting one. I have a relatively new Canon printer (coincidence that it should be a Canon). I had an older Canon printer whose ink tanks could be refilled by Costco. They not only worked fine but the printer recognized the tanks as being full. Not so with this one. They fill the tanks...no problem...and the printing is great. But, the printer does NOT recognize the tanks as being full, they still show as empty. All the comments on-line affirm this but tell you to go ahead and use until the print quality deteriorates, despite the warnings about possibly letting the print heads go dry since you now have no way to know how low they are on ink.
Not really relevant, unless you are admitting that refilling an ink tank and presenting it to the printer as still genuine is counterfeiting.
To maybe help solve your issue: what model? I have a Pro10 and use a chip resetter. I use third party inks and refill myself. It may be that Costco doesn’t have a resetter for this printer. Have you subscribed to the Facebook group “jtoolman printing techie?” Some smart people over there who also might be able to help.
fwiw.....The OEM canon battery for my 5D Mk III died after 3 years of moderate use. The wasabi backup battery that came with the camera kit at the same time is still going strong, so I bought a 2nd one for back-up.
I do get a message that it is not a canon battery, but just hit o.k. & everything works fine.
The scum that are producing (China?) and selling counterfeit goods of any kind should all be made to pay every penny they own in restitution to the makers of the original goods. If they do not pay then a long prison sentence is appropriate. Not only are they impacting the sales of the original maker but sometimes the fake goods they are producing can be dangerous to the user and/or damaging to the equipment they are used in.
Good job. Im living in the land of counterfeits sold openly everywhere. Here my rule is buy nothing that needs a brand name outside a big store, not a booth or stall somewhere.
If you are in the States, just buy a spare factory battery and pay for it. If you got to chase bargain batteries, you shouldnt be in this business.
Spend $$$ on gear,customer then cheaps out on brand name batteries & cards from a dubious source which are presented as genuine & then complains when the item does not last or perform as expected. Frustrating & no good for a brand name & wastes time with a possible warranty claim. Incredibly some question why Sandisk or Canon or others might not be interested & seem to accuse them or legitimate third party suppliers of having some imagined sinister intent. Noise, nothing more than noise & nonsense.Do the right thing & become a legitimate supplier rather than trying to make a quick dishonest buck by counterfeiting. There should be no confusion. The consumer of course is not completely absolved & should be able to recognise what the dubious sources are & if it is cheap then questions should arise.Some Ebay seller?
"Spend $$$ on gear,customer then cheaps out on brand name batteries & cards from a dubious source which are presented as genuine & then complains when the item does not last or perform as expected."
Great news. I have little against third part batteries sold as genuine third party with their own branding , but just like we photographers are not accepting copyright theft camera manufacturers should go after counterfeit.
As we can see on the screenshot in the article, the camera says that the battery may be fake so it refuses to work with it. The question is: does the camera has some logo scanner inside to know that the battery has Canon logo on it? What if the camera refuses to work with a genuine third-party battery with their own branding? You think the problem is only with the brand?
So, if they had sold their batteries as Third Party, they could have avoided the lawsuit? What was the financial party of the judgement? Simply proclaiming victory seems like a waste if you're going to report it.
A battery with Canon logo, labels and other unique branding elements can only either be genuine or counterfeit. How can a counterfeit product be sold as "third party"?
They could sell their Canon-compatible batteries as, say, TCPHOTO1 batteries and would not be sued. In fact, various companies have been doing exactly that, including B&H with its Watson brand.
So many comments here misunderstanding what “counterfeit” is. Many think it means anything not made by the genuine manufacturer: no, that is incorrect.
Genuine: manufactured by or officially on behalf of the brand, with official and genuine branding elements, and sold by the brand through its official channels.
Counterfeit: manufactured by a non-approved party but with the brand’s elements, and marketed as if it is genuine. May or may not be identical quality; that is not the issue.
Third party: manufactured either with or without the brand’s blessing, and marketed under a separate brand. There is no attempt to deceive the buyer into thinking that the item is a genuine article of the original brand. May or may not be identical quality.
The lawsuit Canon won is about counterfeit, not about third party brands that sell fit-compatible products under their own names.
So when the camera tells you that the battery may be counterfeit, it means that the camera can see what brand elements are present on the battery? If those are Canon's brand elements, it will shut down, and if those are third party brand elements, it will continue to work, right?
Most likely the "good" 3rd party battery manufacturers have reversed engineered whatever codes the genuine battery sends to the camera. Same thing with 3rd party ink cartridges. Many of them, the printer "thinks" they are genuine OEM. In other cases, the printer (Epson in my experience) detects 3rd party cartridge, but will allow a bypass.
I am not talking about the code, I'm talking about the BRAND. Because countrfeit batteries have counterfeit BRAND. This whole news article is about the BRAND, not about 3rd party batteries. And the camera says about the battery that it is counterfeit. So either the camera can read a BRAND that is printed on the battery, or this problem can happen to all 3rd party batteries with legit brands. To be more clear, I present two use cases: 1) You put a 3rd party battery with Canon logo on it into the camera, and the camera says it's counterfeit. 2) You put a 3rd party battery with Wasabi logo on it into the camera, and the camera passes it? How?
I'll also cite the OP's message: > The lawsuit Canon won is about counterfeit, not about third party brands that sell fit-compatible products under their own names.
dr.noise - *If* the camera passes batteries with the Wasabi logo, it proves that the camera is not attempting to read the logo/brand name, and is only reading data transmitted electronically via the battery contacts.
I don't think Canon has any issues with people using *third party* batteries, after all they have no issues with people using third party lenses or flashguns!
They are only concerned with preventing the use of *counterfeit* batteries, i.e. those labelled with the Canon brand but not genuine, i.e. *illegal*.
Of course the camera cannot magically read the printed branding elements.
Genuine brand batteries tend to have identifiers in the electronics that control all Li-Ion battery packs. There could be five situations:
1. A genuine battery will return appropriate codes to the camera when queried, and it is properly seen as genuine.
2. A third-party battery whose manufacturer licensed the code tech from the brand would also return a legitimate code, though one that means “licensed third party.” In reality this probably doesn’t exist.
3. A third-party battery that is unlicensed and whose manufacturer just made up codes would present as non-genuine.
4. A counterfeit battery with made-up codes would present as non-genuine as well, but there would be no practical way for the device to determine if it was counterfeit or third party.
5. A third-party or counterfeit battery’s manufacturer could hack the genuine coding algorithm and these would present as genuine even though they are not.
I am glad we have some understanding here. Now please look again at the video preview screenshot posted in this article. It clearly shows that the camera won't work with some battery because it may be counterfeit. So let me ask again. Does Canon have issues with 3rd party batteries copying its logo, or with a more extended set of 3rd party batteries, including those with their own logos? The stories about battery being genuine or not are just a BS. A battery is a power source that has just two characteristics: a voltage and a discharge current that it can safely sustain. If both of those characteristics correspond to the camera's demand, any battery of any kind can be used. There is nothing else. Let's see, a camera can also be powered off the power source. Does Canon also determine which power source is counterfeit and which is not? No? Why?
dr.noise,,, Did you watch the video? The camera doesn't do anything other than recognise that the battery you just put in isn't a genuine Canon battery. Everything after that is a question and answer session between you and the camera. If you tell it that the battery looks genuine, the camera says it isn't and shuts down. If you tell it that the battery is made by a third party, the camera asks you if you want to continue using it and, if so, tells you that you do that at your own risk. It's simple enough.
@dr. noise: “ Does Canon have issues with 3rd party batteries copying its logo?”
Yes, absolutely. Every single brand in the world does, or should, have issues with a third party copying its logo. That is why trademark exists: to protect the expression of a brand. There is a term for a third party copying a brand’s logo: trademark infringement.
“I’m glad we have some understanding here.” I and some others understand what this article is about. I’m not sure you do, yet. So I’m not sure there is any “we” yet.
Counterfeit is a 3rd party attempting to pass its product as the genuine article of another brand. What is important is that there is a thing being marketed as something it is not.
Third party items aren’t counterfeits because they aren’t pretending to be genuine.
Canon is concerned with how well batteries perform. They test their batteries and code them so they know they are genuine. They don’t test 3rd party batteries, they can’t know if they will perform, so they warn.
"It clearly shows that the camera won't work with some battery because it may be counterfeit."
no it doesn't. you can use non-canon batteries which will pop up a warning. if you answer that Yes - the battery APPEARS to be a canon battery then it will shut down and ask you to contact support.
why it does this?
because the camera doesn't think it's a canon battery AND you are confirming it is, then it's either counterfeit or a malfunctioning battery, or a camera fault.
@PLShutterbug > I’m not sure there is any “we” yet.
Well you ruined it. Read yourself again:
> Counterfeit is a 3rd party attempting to pass its product as the genuine article of another brand. What is important is that there is a thing being marketed as something it is not.
So I am trying again, but for the last time: How does a camera know how a battery is being *marketed*? You see, it calls the battery counterfeit and you just gave a definition of what counterfeit is. So how?
@rrc1967 > why do you care anyways?
> you don't even have any canon gear to speak of.
You won't get far with that method of thinking. I have Canon gear, but that is not relevant. I have logic, and I care about the logic.
you don't have logic considering this was explained to you already many times. watch the freaking video. Literally 52 seconds and 1:40 minutes into the video is your answer.
you know, the one everyone keeps on telling you? Instead of spending 2 minutes watching the video you'd rather keep on asking the same question over and over.
and what you clipped out of my response was the answer to your question that you keep on asking.
it's stupid, and it sounds like you all you are doing is trolling.
and you have canon gear? really? considering you show a complete history of your gear and it's not canon. that's intriguing.
> and what you clipped out of my response was the answer to your question that you keep on asking.
Yes, and your answer is the following: counterfeit batteries are those that are marketed as original. So those that are not marketed as original are not counterfeit, right? Now do I have to watch a video to see that the camera says the battery is counterfeit? Does the camera know how this battery is marketed? No, it does not. But why does it call it counterfeit? See the logic? No? And how do you know I show a complete history of my gear? Why should I? Do I have to? That's a logic exercise too.
A long time in coming and no doubt it took Canon's deep pockets to get this far.
I wish they would go after fake Canon ink that clogs your printer, but good luck claiming bogus ink is a potential danger. This is one small step for mankind, but a nice legal settlement is more effective than politicians negotiating promises to not steal intellecutal property.
For OEM batteries it really seems quite simple..... None of the major manufacturers are going to give eBay sellers much of a discount to sell their batteries to end users....
On a real OEM battery you might save 10% maximum by buying from somebody other than the original manufacturer......
Third party compatible batteries are a different story..... they can be much cheaper but from my experience only have 3/4 of the capacity of an OEM battery..... This may not be true anymore as there's no reason they can't be equal or better
There are virtually zero cases of counterfeit battery causing any harm (let's not forget original batteries can do that too). So I cringe every time I read about how they "care" about "protecting" me. They only care of protecting their money and they should state so.
Your comment is interesting and perhaps true ..... but
It is quite impossible to compare the failure and danger rate of OEM and third party batteries. First it is a completely biased comparison as third party batteries are made by many manufacturers. It is like blaming Toyota for failures and risk in a Ford.
There is also the question of how information flows. OEMs will sponsor media material that says third party batteries are dangerous and will build anti -competitive devices right into their cameras and chargers.
On the other hand when an OEM battery catches fire it has a good chance of making the news.
They also care about protecting their brand. Fake batteries have inferior performance and may cause your camera to quit when you need it most. I've experienced this first hand, so I know it happens.
Fake batteries with "Canon" logo on them - yes, of course they bring harm to the brand. But as we can see on the screenshot in the article, the camera says that the battery may be fake so it refuses to work with it. The question is: does the camera has some logo scanner inside to know that the battery has Canon logo on it? I very much doubt it. Therefore, a non-Canon-branded battery is not counterfeit, but the camera can still refuse to work with it, as we can see. That is something else than protecting the brand.
read again, slowly 1) they do not care about my safety 2) the camera does not know what logo is printed on the battery which it thinks is counterfeit, so referring to faking a brand is invalid, the camera may not work with legit 3rd party brands and that is a whole different deal
Do you guys ever figured out how much he earned in this case? A total of 23.8M USD over 5 yrs through selling all sorts of counterfeit batteries. The person (28 Yr old) operating in US pocketed kept 5.8M USD in US and he owns a Maserati. The remaining 18M USD was wired to accounts in China.
Always get surprised how much money fake merchandise can make, right?
Total BS we’re aloud to use any battery for most other electronic devices.. Maybe if camera manufacturers did not over price there batteries they would not have this problem...
Yes, I absolutely understand your cynicism. Canon obviously wants people to buy *their* batteries. And yes, they're bloody expensive.
BUT....
In the event that some mismatch or fault with a 3rd party battery (e.g. overheating) caused damage to the camera, Canon could hardly be expected to pay for the repair.
So they might just be saving owners from a potentially expensive repair bill.
The article is clear... it's about using Canon trademark on batteries and implying it's genuine when in reality is a counterfeit. There's a big difference. There are a lot of batteries being sold fro Canon batteries but this lawsuit concerns peddlers using Canon trademarks and misleading the public to think the batteries are genuine Canon batteries.
Hi everyone! I haven't chimed in with my usual impertinent two cents in awhile, but I really gotta ask: Does Rolex and Timex? Toyota and Subaru? The Yankees and the Brewers? Of course they might. A current dilemma such as this can be easily foisted upon the end of the long line of dilemmas throughout human history, though most cannot see, and some will not see by their own choice. The court has pulled back the curtain for you, and divulged its canonical edict, and now you, too, can easily see and know. There is no way I can make any more sense. The charges have been made. The shock, however electrifying it may be, is going to be what it is, and watts like bygones will be watts. But the most important thing is that now you, with a nod to the law, and inasmuch as a mere battery of words can emphasize, can go forth and asunder, and shoot every bit as authentically as reality can augment. Who among you can produce a similar reply? I say none! Now raise your frothy mugs in good cheer!
Actually, this reader wonders that there may be no way you can make any LESS sense.
This is commonly called a “screed.” A long and rambling, mostly nonsensical tirade that mostly reveals the author’s state of mind rather than stating any truths.
No, wait! I read until the end and now I see this really is a brilliant bit of satire. Well done, Davids8560! You battered down the arguments and made all of them pancake to the ground!
It makes sense to me that a company would protect it's trademark and it's reputation. I guess it is like a photographer protecting their copyright on their images. In both cases protecting their bottom line.
Good on Canon. I have no problem with knock off batteries, but if I choose to purchase a genuine 'brand' battery I want a genuine 'brand' battery, not a knock off with a 'brand' label.
It shouldn't be that hard for the OEMs like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, ..., etc. to put counterfeiters out of business. Simply sell your batteries at a reasonable price where the consumer doesn't have a need or an incentive to buy the counterfeits or the cheaper brands. $80 plus camera battery is a ripoff, and it doesn't make sense.
It is perfectly fine for someone to sell a cheaper brand as long as it is identified as a third party battery. There is however no justification whatsoever for selling a counterfeit and pretending it is from OEM. And consumers lose out with counterfeits because they pay a lot more for then than what they would normally pay for a third party product.
sh10453 - Yes, cheaper OEM batteries would be nice. But human nature being what it is, even if Canon halved the price, there would be plenty of people searching for even cheaper alternatives.
My experience, having used both OEM and various 3rd party batteries, with Canon and Sony cameras, is that the genuine products retain their charge quite a lot longer, and can accept a great deal more discharge/recharge cycles than the 3rd party stuff.
I haven't calculated which type is most cost-effective in the long term.
The name brands might cost more at the beginning but they will offer far more in value and performance. I've been buying lithium-ion batteries for over 20 years, and there is little reason to buy anything by name brand.
@Dan totally true. I have two Canon LP-E6N's, and ten third party batteries (three different brands) to power my two 5D mkIVs throughout a wedding day. The oldest ones are the Canon ones and yet they perform the best. This despite the fact that the third party ones still show full charge capacity in the camera's battery menu, while the Canon LP-E6N's both only show two out of three bars in the capacity meter. The third party ones will start with a "full" charge and then suddenly die at random. These ones are obviously not providing actual accurate data to the camera.
I'm about to take the ten third party ones out of rotation and buy probably six or eight more Canon LP-E6N batteries. At $60 each they're pricey for a battery but it's still a pretty small expense all things considered for something so vital. And they last for years even with heavy use.
I do not disagree or dispute the quality of the OEM batteries. I have always used OEM batteries on my Canon 5D-series, and the batteries never disappointed me except one time where a battery suddenly died on me on a 5D at a wedding session. On my Sony, I use a mix of Sony and 3rd party products. I still believe that the OEMs should get more reasonable when it comes to their battery pricing.
I’m genuinely interested: what mental exercise made you conclude that the original brand should have any obligation to make customers whole due to the illegal activities of a third party?
My fellows at the camera store made a battery teardown recently. Had a dead BP-511 and an LP-E6. Both original, Canon brand. What they found inside was 2 couples of a standard 18500 cells and some wires. Too bad they we did not shot the whole thing on video.
Some are a few hundred mA, 3.2 V that'll last you an hour of shooting, and some are 3.7 V, well over 2000 mA that'll last you a full day of shooting (e.g. Panasonic 2040mA).
Haven’t you noticed how 3rd party batteries are much mightier than OEM units? Plus the 3rd party are often having higher capacity ratings, but that doesn’t mean they are correct nor that they hold a charge as long as OEM.
@Jack Jian Is there another manufacturer that can match the £85.49 price on Canon's UK site for the NB-L13 compact battery. You tell me. Nikon and Sony batteries are half the price on their sites.
@AllFlawed - don't know about UK but in US Canon/Sony/Nikon batteries are about the same price. For example BHPhotoVideo has Canon NB-13L (1250 mAh) for $50 and Sony NP-FW50 (1020mAh) for $53 :
@random78 If they can actually sell them at these prices why not market them as such in the first place. The Canon NB-L13 is £65 on Park and Wex who are our major suppliers so that is $85 but with 20% VAT taken out is $70. Buying Nikon and Sony direct from their own sites is still cheaper. Finding the £85.49 on Canon's site has made me rather angry and disenchanted with Canon. I will duck out of this as nothing will change.
If you don’t want to pay Canon’s price no one is holding a gun to your head. Just don’t buy Canon. There are other brands that deliver quality batteries.
They demand a high price because they are the best. In the end, your money was better spent on the genuine brand name product. It will last longer, perform to a higher standard, and have greater longevity. Your camera is also less likely to quit working in inopportune times.
@AllFlawed There is nothing wrong about Canon direct pricing higher than its distributor. This is normal business practice to protect distributors. Basically all brands do the same thing. As long as you can buy them for a cheaper price elsewhere I see no reason to bash Canon.
What Nikon and Sony does in UK is abnormal as this will make distributors unwilling to carry those products. Then it will return in reduced sales in the long run. Then price will either go up or you will have a hard time acquiring things.
@PLShutterbug I'm gonna disagree that there's a third party battery out there that performs as well as Canon's, at least for the LP-E6n. I've tried several versions of third party and they all equally suck, especially after putting them to work for a while. They may be 1/5 the price, sure and if they work for you then all power to you but they are definitely not equal.
@AllFlawed - what kind of research did you do? Let me show you what is it in my country:
Pro Canon Battery: LP-E6N (this is the new one): INR 4695 Pro Nikon Battery: EN-EL15a: INR 4250 (about $6 cheaper than the Canon) Pro Sony Battery: NP-fz100 : INR 5490 - The costliest of all
Now Justify your over exaggerated hate statement: "..Nikon and Sony batteries are half the price on their sites..."
I think more companies should follow canon's lead and go after the fraudsters selling counterfeit batteries. I used to like eBay and amazon but until they find a way of preventing criminals from selling fake goods I will avoid and buy my gear through a reputuable camera store. Fraud hurts manufactorers and consumers.
A batch of counterfeit Nikon batteries at one stage were being sold by authorised dealers. There is no guarantee anywhere and until this pricing stops there will be a problem.
I must say looking at the batteries in the Nikon store for compacts they look cheap though compared with Canon. £34.99 for an EN-EL12 against £84.49 for a NB-13L in the Canon store which is beyond outrageous. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Canon and they only have themselves to blame being in a war on 2 fronts as much with their user base forced to pay stuffing prices as with the counterfeiters trying to cash in on the game.
Granted the price of canon batteries are not cheap. However surely you are not defending criminals selling fake goods that mislead consumers and may for example not have been subject to quality and safety checks. I have heard of batteries exploding the proprietary charger risking fires and personal injury. Depending on your perspective canon originals may be cheap by comparison.
George1958 No I am not defending counterfeit goods. But the outrageous recommended pricing of Canon's batteries creates a fertile ground for it to prosper.
I would be more impressed with canon's concern for the safety of myself as a customer if they could provide me with batteries at what seem a reasonable price without having to agonise over third party options or at least they could explain why their 1250 ma compact battery has to retail at £84.49 on their site.
I do have a canon battery as a spare but the price of it leaves a sour taste in my mouth even discounted. Canon are a commercial company so do what suits them so obviously the loss of any goodwill in their battery dealings pays in margins.
They have to be careful being the market leaders as this cosy old way of doing camera business assuming the customer will always comeback whatever and buy the stuff however expensive and stripped back could always bite them as times get harder.
I am happy for Canon. I am fine with 3rd party batteries being available, but if I'm looking for a name brand battery, I don't want to be sent a counterfeit. I've purchased enough batteries to know that name brand batteries are far superior, whether they're for electronics, electric bicycles or power tools. Manufacturers need to come up with better ways to ensure authenticity, more than just using hologram seals, which are easily counterfeited. They should print a unique code in the package that can be checked online.
I'm fine with 3rd party batteries too - once they're clearly sold as such. Kudos to Canon for taking on the counterfeit ers. But your Canon brand batteries are way overpriced!
If the genuine article performs far better, as others here and in other threads have said, and the genuine article costs more, then is it “way overpriced?”
You get what you pay for, it’s been proven over and over again with many types of things. Quality costs once: mediocrity costs every time you use it,
So many complain about price but don't seem to appropriately value dependability, performance or longevity. I have been buying lithium ion batteries for over 20 years, and I have learned a great deal about them. You may pay more up front, but in the end it will be more than worth the price difference, so they aren't really "overpriced." And this isn't just Canon. It's Sony, GoPro, Dewalt, and anything that uses batteries.
Sorry but buying LiIon batteries for over 20 years tells nothing as of now, batteries have been upgraded continuously since then, including even the cheapest Chinese brands. 99% of all branded batteries are OEM and Canon's are probably too.
I've been buying a well known 3rd party brand of batteries for at least 15 years and they have performed just as well as the Canon battery that comes with each camera I have bought. These 3rd party batteries cost between 50% and 70% less than the Canon ones depending on the model. I still have 2 that I bought in 2007 with for a 400D that still gets use for time lapse work. They show no signs of deterioration after 1000's of charges. In my experience a reputable 3rd party battery is every bit as good a branded one.
Maybe I should expand on my comment above. Reputable 3rd party batteries represent value without loss of performance for my particular needs. That may not be the case for everyone.
Imagine your camera quitting while you're trying to use it because it has a counterfeit battery in it. Virtually 100% of Sony NP-FV100 batteries sold are fake. The only way I've found to know if you're buying a real one is to test it and weigh it. It's very annoying.
This is a false equivalence. Lithium Ion batteries like the ones in cameras are dangerous and require reliable controllers to charge/power a device safely. It is not just a dumb open circuit when you slap the batter into the charger or camera. Do oem batteries have a mark up? Of course. But not as much as people want to believe. They are actually pretty complex pieces of technology that are not as cheap as people think to make correctly.
The reason counterfeit and third party batteries are cheaper is because they often lack as good or any at all controller chips to regulate the charging and prevent swelling and fires and dont' have the chips/firmware to properly communicate with the camera for safe and reliable powering of the device. They also usually use lower quality cells. Often the ones that didn't' meet the minimum specs to be sold to OEMs. Which is why they tend to not always hit their labeled capacities, not last as long, not function reliably, and swell.
That piece of technology is not complex in any way. And by the way, the charging controller is in the charger, not in the battery. Otherwise why would you need a dedicated charger instead of just a simple DC power source?
If brands are not making it impossible for third parties to manufacture batteries that claim to work in their cameras, then the incentive to counterfeit is diminished. Wasabi is one such brand that seems to have come up with decent batteries for Canon, Sony, etc cameras.
Wasabi might make some good batteries but their Sony camcorder batteries are a 50/50 hit or miss and their GoPro batteries don't last as long as the originals. Unless you have a really cheap camera you don't really care about, buying name brand is usually better.
Agree! I now use only original Canon batteries for my mirrorless bodies. I'm not willing to take the risk of lesser performance from third party options.
I bought Wasabi batteries and they didn't show exact charge %, they got overcharged and turned into a puffer fish, and wouldn't get inside the camera. They gave no indicator or cut-off mechanism. I wont be surprised if these are Wasabu batteries exploding too. I threw mine, so I won't know.
Canon previously offered a web portal or email address to report suspected counterfeit items. Now I only see a phone number. 2 years ago I sent detailed photos and descriptions of some Canon branded batteries I purchased from ebay which I became suspicious of after comparing them to the OEM units that came with my cameras.
Canon never responded to my queries.
The batteries came in authentic looking packaging but the labels on batteries themselves did not exactly match the OEM. Also they weighed several grams less than the OEM which made me suspect they lacked some internal safety components.
I bought Duracells from Amazon that had an expiration date on the battery of 7 months before the current calendar date. The package had an expiration date three years earlier! At first I assume it was just a package that Amazin left in their warehouse too long. But that doesn;t explain why the package and battery had different expiration dates.
I also found out that an Amazon supplied film had expiration date 8 months hence when B&H had an expiration date of slightly over two years. So that's it with Amazon when it comes to buying product with expiration dates. I also bought filters for my refrigerator that were $40-50 from Home Depot and the manufacturer LG direct., but $10-15 from other on Amazon. I wondered if there was even activated charcoal in the latter so I didn't buy it. There's a lot of phony stuff going on on the internet. Knockoffs, old stuff, who knows what?
Amazon has become the wild west. I use it a lot less than I used to, for these reasons. If I'm going to buy fake products on the strength of fake reviews, might as well use ebay and get a real deal. But I'd rather shop at a reputable place like B&H and not worry about it.
@TomFid indeed. That's a smart thing to do. Actually, you might also want to check Amazon as well for anything you buy off of eBay because it's common for people with drop shipping operations to find stuff that's cheaper on Amazon and sell it on eBay for a markup. When you place the order, the seller then actually orders from the real seller on the other site and punches in your information. The person you bought from pockets the difference and never touches your item. If you ever buy something from eBay and it shows up with Amazon pacakaging or vice versa, it's a dead giveaway that you just paid a middleman to place the order for you.
In my experience duracell was the most faked brand. All my comunnications with the company resulted in a waste of time. Frustrating especially when they were truly needed.
Well, there is Amazon, as in sold AND FULFILLED by Amazon, and there is the Amazon "Marketplace" (or whatever they are calling it now), as in a third party seller.
NEVER buy anything that is not FULFILLED by Amazon. Although I see now that Amazon has. once again, changed the nomenclature to confuse the buyer.
It seems Amazon is going the eBay route and just doesn't care who sells what on it's site. So I guess it's buyer beware.
The Duracell batteries that had been expired were fulfilled by Amazon. That's why I thought they may have been sitting on their shelves for years. Who knows?
"Fulfilled by Amazon" is meaningless. Third party vendors can send merchandise to be stored at Amazon warehouses where the items are then "fulfilled" directly by Amazon for faster "Prime" shipping. Goods sharing the same SKU from multiple sources are consolidated in one bin at an Amazon warehouse were any random one can be picked for your order. Counterfeit or defective items are intermingled with legitimate ones. I have received obviously pre-owned and defective items that were "fulfilled" by Amazon.
The flip side of this is when identical items are sold under multiple brand names by different sellers including Amazon. Want an example? Go search for label printers. One pops up and gets a bunch of negative reviews. The seller rebrands it and sells it under a different SKU so the old reviews don't show up on the new listing.
List price for Canon LP-E17 is $75 as Adorama. It is on sale now though. Compatible (good quality) battery like Artman is $15 for pair on ebay. 10 TIMES CHEAPER. Counterfeit makers have HUGE incentive created by Canon to mask their batteries as Canon (or any other brand as a matter of fact) as long as original batteries OUTRAGEOUSLY expensively prices while super cheap to make. Sell those for $500 a piece Canon, and you will have even more of those counterfeit batteries that cost $2 to make. It is up to Canon though.
It's true, the market for counterfeit items is driven by the greed of the name-brand companies. If they charged a reasonable price for their batteries, the counterfeit market would decline greatly. There are some companies that make substitute batteries, but label them with their own brands and make no attempt to falsely represent them. Some of these batteries are as good or better, than those sold by the camera manufacturers and they sell for a small fraction of the price that the camera manufacturers ask for theirs.
One vote here for RAVpower. In several years, several cameras, none of these have ever misbehaved, and frequently outlast SONY and Olympus original batteries.
@ Stephen McDonald You assumed expensive price is not reasonable. That is flaw in logic. Counterfeit are cheaper because they never invest in development of anything, and they can lower quality and ignore compliance. In return, many counterfeit items actually return more profit than genuine ones, especially in battery markets.
IMO it's not the greed of brand names driving the market (in fact these companies doesn't really have a crazy profit margin as you can see in their financial report) but greed of buyers.
Not all the camera manufacturers engaged in original research and development of those battery systems. The majority of them copied what had been done by some of the others, either in a legitimate licensing process or by industrial espionage and theft. If you want to pay Canon, Sony or whoever $40. each for two batteries and a charger-----$120. total, when some very good quality generics can be bought for about $24. for the three pieces, please go ahead and feel as righteous as you want about it.
And do you think that the camera makers actually produce their own branded batteries? Most of them probably job them out to those same generic factories. And you pay four times as much as for the ones with their own 3rd-party brands on them. I've never had a Wasabi battery go bad on me, in less than three years of steady use, but I have had some lemons that carried Canon or Sony brands. And there certainly are some 3rd-party batteries that are low-grade.
@ Stephen McDonald It is your personal choice and your justification of expenses. I have no problem with that.
I am just saying, counterfeit products are often the more profitable products. That's why there are so many manufacturers making them under the risk of being sued.
To Redfox88 Actually math IS my strong point my preschool friend. :) $75 for original compared to $15 for a pair of good quality generics. Pair means 2x. So each generic is $7.5 Divide 75 / 7.5 = 10 You see.
All produced in China all with government blessing. The whole of Quangzhou province is dedicated to counterfeiting, even the USA military is being sold counterfeit ammunition. Take down 1, a thousand more pop-up. You cannot win.
I don't buy from Amazon and it's not just batteries. The Chinese were producing counterfeit Canon flashes that were so good Canon had trouble telling them from the real thing. Even the packaging was spot on. Nearly all Samsung SD cards are counterfeit you buy on Ebay and Amazon, but every body gets caught out. It's pathetic.
@Alan: yes, B&H did report that they were shipped counterfeit Nikon batteries, they acted like the responsible company they are: they reported the problem and made their customers whole.
By the way: don’t blame Nikon for that situation. B&H buys from a distributor, not Nikon. Nikon didn’t ship counterfeit batteries, it was the distributor (whether by mistake or fraudulently I don’t know).
"Where is Quanzhou province?" Well, if you want to quibble about how the name is transliterated, just write 广州省 -- in your finest calligraphy, please.
Meanwhile, young women from distant provinces are in sweatshops there assembling the stuff, thanks to the business cooperation between Western corporations and the Chinese government.
That's like me saying the entire of New York is a murder state because of some incidents I heard about in Central Park. As you say, quibbling.
Are you talking about Quanzhou（泉州）in Fujian province or Guangzhou (广州) in Guangdong province? Or do you know not what you are talking about? (I vote for the last, since I am well acquainted with both cities).
@Charles2: So, back in the early days of our fine country (which one doesn’t really matter ... read on) young women were happy to move to the city and toil away in sweatshops in the cotton trade. It was far better than their previous existence on the farm. It also paid better. And they found they didn’t have to settle for just any drunken lout for a husband because more they had their own money. And when cotton moved on to less-expensive areas, the whole region found they were better off.
Not to advocate for sweatshops, but your blanket indictment fails to take into account much of anything except as a kneejerk reaction to something you probably know little about.
@PLShutterbug What a marvelous excuse for sweatshop exploitation! It is a wonder that Levi's and other textile companies that outsource have not used it in justification of their exploitation of cheap labor.
As I said, I don’t advocate for sweatshops. I merely point out that conditions before were probably worse.
The real problem today is that workers have fewer options to right wrongs due to the government control. It is advantageous to a government to keep most of its citizenry illiterate and rabidly misinformed. And yes, I did mean “rabidly.”
There is nothing illegal about MyFineBatteries selling “Canon-compatible” batteries - there are dozens of third party battery manufacturers selling low- or high-quality batteries at many price points. Some are great; some are terrible.
A third party attempting to pass their product as the genuine article of an original, is counterfeiting. It may not be illegal but it is a shady business practice.
@Dan, I've bought third party batteries for years and can attest to their reliability. Yes they have slightly lower battery life, but they come at a much lower price. A third of the price, 4/5th the battery life.
Yes, I know some might work for some people but I know for a fact that many have failed me, and that's enough for me to buy name brand only on the cameras/electronics I care about. One ruined recording is too many.
I understand where you're coming from. If it happened to me, I'd probably share the same opinion. For me the money saved has been worth it and I haven't had any assignments fail from buying third party. Good fortune?
It is hard in some cases because some of their batteries, like LP-E6, have been around for a long time and are used in tons of cameras. Their newer batteries, however, seem to have firmware that resists decoding.
Mariano, it would require a data point coded into the battery at manufacture that is virtually impossible to read correctly without the right programming in the target device.
Good luck enforcing any ruling against parties convicted of 'infringing and counterfeiting the valuable Canon trademarks.' Shut these guys down and there's a hundred others to take their place.
Most counterfeit goods originate in China so inspection of the item can sometimes determine the point of manufacture. If a product states 'made in China' the best approach may be to refuse to purchase it, that is if you have any doubt it is the genuine article.
One question is, were the batteries the defendants sold any good? I didn't see any mention of a company or marketing name they used. Does anyone here know that they bought Canon-labeled batteries from them?
I remember going back 25 years ago, buying some Canon camcorders. The Ni-Cad batteries that came with them and any other batteries bought from the Canon Store, were junk. After 3 or 4 charge cycles, they were non-functional. It was a disgrace that Canon would do that to their customers. I bought some 3rd-party, NiMH replacement batteries for them that worked very well.
@HH, no the issue is trademark violation and skimming off a lucrative OEM accessories market. I've dealt with dozens of batteries and the only two I've had safety issue were original Canon that got swollen inside the battery chamber.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of counterfeit. Counterfeits are third-party items labeled and marketed to appear to be the genuine article. By definition, there is no other “company or marketing name” to discover, because the third party is attempting to fool the buyer into thinking they are buying genuine parts by making every part of the labeling and packaging as close as possible to the genuine article.
IMO, every manufacturer of batteries, SD cards, and, possibly, flashes, should have a page on their website showing how to spot a fake. Serial number ranges, text font, holograms, etc. so people could feel more comfortable buying online.
I'm very unlikely to use eBay for brand name stuff unless it is a seller I trust. I am usually OK with Amazon. But, if the Amazon comments are to be believed, people occasionally end up with fake SD cards bought directly from Amazon; not 3rd party sellers.
The easier it is for buyers to spot fakes, the easier it will be to get sellers to stop it at the source.
Because of the knockoff situation, I;ve been checking prices direct from manufacturers. Often I'll buy direct from them and many have competitive prices with only slightly higher prices. But I know I don;t have to worry about it. It;s worth the peace of mind.
Three problems with this: 1. If you put “how to tell if your <WhateverItem> is genuine” on your web site you are teaching counterfeiters how to get better at making fakes, for free. 2. Putting lists of problems to look for (different font here, misspelled word here, ...) is a moving target. Different counterfeiters will make different mistakes, so keeping such a page up-to-date would be a constant job. 3. It opens the original to potential liability if a counterfeit is found and causes harm, but was not reported on the page.
Better to embed something in the genuine item that is basically impossible to spoof, then present a warning on the device if a non-genuine item is discovered. Then ALL fakes (that haven’t figured a way around the code) are identified at use.
My Z7 does this. An EL-EN15b works fine; an “a” version causes a warning but will work; if a 3rd party battery is detected the camera shows an error identifying it as such and won’t function.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
It says Olympus on the front, but the OM System OM-1 is about the future, not the past. It may still produce 20MP files, but a quad-pixel AF Stacked CMOS sensor, 50 fps shooting with full AF and genuine, IP rated, weather sealing show OM Digital Solutions' ambition. See what we thought.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
The specification sheet, leaked by Photo Rumors, suggests we'll see Sony's next-generation a7R camera feature a 61MP sensor powered by its BIONZ XR image processor.
Canon's EOS R10 and R7 share a lot of their spec, including an impressive AF system, but the closer you look, the more differences emerge. We look at how the two models compare.
The SmartSoft Box allows the degree of its diffusion to be controlled electronically and varied in 100 increments from clear to heavily frosted via the main control panel of the Rotolight AEOS 2 light. Changes in electrical charge alter the diffusion and the angle of coverage of the light
Camera accessory company Nine Volt now offers a camera body cap that includes a secret compartment designed to hold an Apple AirTag tracking device, giving victims of camera theft hope for recovering a lost camera.
The R7's 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor is an interesting prospect for sports and wildlife shooters. Check out our shots from sunny (and scorching) Florida to see how it performs.
Canon just launched an entry level camera using the RF Mount! You should probably take a look at some photos it (and Chris Niccolls) captured in Florida.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
The Canon EOS R7 brings a 32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor to the RF mount. In addition to stills at up to 15 fps (30 fps with e-shutter), the camera offers IBIS and 4K/60p video.
While its lineage is clearly inspired by Canon's line of Rebel DSLRs, this 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera takes plenty of inspiration from Canon's more capable full-frame mirrorless cameras.
These two RF-mount lenses are designed to be paired with Canon's new APS-C mirrorless cameras, the EOS R7 and EOS R10. Both lenses offer seven stops of image stabilization and use Canon's stepping motor technology to drive their internal AF systems.
Late last week, DJI quietly released a firmware update for the Mini 3 Pro drone that adds, amongst other improvements, 10-bit video recording in the D-Cinelike video profile.
The patent explains how the auto-zoom feature could use a combination of digital and optical zoom to better frame subjects within a composition with little to no input from the camera operator.
360-degree action cam manufacturer Insta360 has shared a teaser video for a new product set to be announced tomorrow. And based on the visuals provided, it appears as though it might involve some kind of drone.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is a popular camera among photo enthusiasts thanks to its small size and 40mm (equivalent) F2.8 lens. Ricoh's GT-2 tele conversion lens is a 1.5X converter that extends this focal length, though it comes with some compromises. Learn more about it and check out our sample gallery shot with the GT-2 on the camera.
This 'Mark III' lens offers a few improvements over its predecessors to get even better image quality out of its ultra-fast design. The lens is available for Canon EOS R, Fujifilm X, Leica L, Micro Four Thirds, Nikon Z and Sony E-mount APS-C camera systems.
Chris and Jordan are out of the office this week, so we're taking a trip in the wayback machine to feature a classic episode of DPRTV: a review of the EOS R, Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera.
Last week, we featured Markus Hofstätter's scanner rebuild, which saw him spend three months bringing back to life a massive scanner to better digitize his collection of large format photographs. This week, we're taking a look at the results, kicked off by a beautifully detailed 30cm x 40cm collodion wet plate portrait.
The lenses lack autofocus and image stabilization, but offer a fast maximum aperture in an all-metal body that provides a roughly 50mm full-frame equivalent focal length on Fujifilm and Sony APS-C cameras.
Apple has responded to an open letter published last month, wherein more than 100 individuals in the entertainment industry asked Apple to improve the development and promotion of Final Cut Pro.
Venus Optics has launched its Indiegogo campaign for its new Nanomorph lenses, revealing additional details about the world’s smallest anamorphic lenses.
Most smartphones these days offer great-looking video and make vlogging very easy, but there are always accessories that can help to make your footage, and you, look even better
Comments