Canon executives address third-party RF future

[AJ]

"Canon is considering licensing on a case-by-case basis." Yeah right. Not holding my breath on this one. I can see Sigma and Tamron submitting detailed design schemes to Canon, and then Canon engineers poring over the drawings, saying: "Well, how interesting. We can make that. License denied."
There has to be a loophole. If it's the RF protocol that's the issue, then why can't third-party manufacturers release lenses that communicate with reverse-engineered EF?
Or, can mirrorless lens designs be fitted with a physical EF-like mount, and then be connected to an RF-mount camera with an EF-RF converter? This would be similar to an EF-S lens that could physically be mounted to a FF mirrorslapper but may not clear the mirror. I realize that RF is not just flange distance, it's throat diameter as well. But some of the E-mount and L-mount designs should fit into an EF mount.
I realize this has been discussed before. Anyways, that's what came to my mind.

 

[Walrus]

"Canon is considering licensing on a case-by-case basis." Yeah right. Not holding my breath on this one. I can see Sigma and Tamron submitting detailed design schemes to Canon, and then Canon engineers poring over the drawings, saying: "Well, how interesting. We can make that. License denied."
There has to be a loophole. If it's the RF protocol that's the issue, then why can't third-party manufacturers release lenses that communicate with reverse-engineered EF?
Or, can mirrorless lens designs be fitted with a physical EF-like mount, and then be connected to an RF-mount camera with an EF-RF converter? This would be similar to an EF-S lens that could physically be mounted to a FF mirrorslapper but may not clear the mirror. I realize that RF is not just flange distance, it's throat diameter as well. But some of the E-mount and L-mount designs should fit into an EF mount.
I realize this has been discussed before. Anyways, that's what came to my mind.

That's what I don't understand, too.

1- RF mech mount is "open", as there are manual RF lenses and Canon is not battling them (but we don't know if they're somewhat approved/authorized, or they just accept their existence on the market).
2- RF to EF third party AF converters and SpeedBoosters are being sold, and Canon is not battling them
3- EF protocol has been reverse engineered, and Canon is not battling it (they even conceded in camera corrections to recent Sigma lenses, and corrections are available not only on DSLR bodies, but also on R bodies)

I really don't see how third parties cannot manufacture a lens with an RF mount (1), with RF electronic contacts (2) and an EF protocol which is internally converted in an RF signal (2 and 3); I'm pretty sure it's technically doable, and probably (but I don't know that) wouldn't infringe any Canon patent (as all this tech is on the market right now and Canon is not battling it).
If they're not doing, the only thing I can think of is they have some direct agreements with Canon for not doing that; otherwise for me it's inexplicable.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's what I don't understand, too.

Regardless of our lack of understanding, Canon evidently has a sufficiently strong IP position that a cease-and-desist sent to Viltrox and presumably Samyang was effective. No doubt those companies have their own IP lawyers.

 

[Snapster]

“Tough luck,” may be hard to swallow, but it’s honest. No one who is asking for 3rd party lens support from Canon has any control over what Canon does. You can complain on the internet, where some will agree and some won’t. But Canon doesn’t care. You can vote with your wallet and switch to a brand that does offer 3rd party lens support, but if Canon continues to increase MILC market share (as they’ve done steadily) or even maintains it as #1, odds are they won’t see any place for 3rd party lenses. So…tough luck.

Everyone understands how a business works and that they can switch brands. It doesn't have to be explained repeatedly.

If people are dissatisfied with Canon's lens strategy, get over it and let them vent. Canon doesn't need defending. Like you pointed out yourself, they are doing well. #1 in bodies, but in lens sales they are #2 behind Sony. They should be paying attention to sites like these to get an understanding what their customers want. That's where the "whining" becomes relevant.

 

[Snapster]

I didn't realize Nikon had also caught up in mirrorless.

A quick look shows both Sigma and Tamron for Z mount. High quality Nikkor 1.8 primes for 35/50/85mm under 1k. Nikon gets it. Z8 autofocus on-par with R5 and surpassing it in other areas. Wow. Interesting. Need to read some reviews for sure.

 

[AlanF]

That's what I don't understand, too.

1- RF mech mount is "open", as there are manual RF lenses and Canon is not battling them (but we don't know if they're somewhat approved/authorized, or they just accept their existence on the market).
2- RF to EF third party AF converters and SpeedBoosters are being sold, and Canon is not battling them
3- EF protocol has been reverse engineered, and Canon is not battling it (they even conceded in camera corrections to recent Sigma lenses, and corrections are available not only on DSLR bodies, but also on R bodies)

I really don't see how third parties cannot manufacture a lens with an RF mount (1), with RF electronic contacts (2) and an EF protocol which is internally converted in an RF signal (2 and 3); I'm pretty sure it's technically doable, and probably (but I don't know that) wouldn't infringe any Canon patent (as all this tech is on the market right now and Canon is not battling it).
If they're not doing, the only thing I can think of is they have some direct agreements with Canon for not doing that; otherwise for me it's inexplicable.

It's basic patent law that Canon cannot prevent anyone making a lens with the RF mount - it's perfectly legal.
It's also basic patent law that it's perfectly legal to reverse engineer the protocols that allow the electronics of the lens and camera to communicate provided that there has not been illegal access to examining Canon's own protocols.

EF-RF converters and speedboosters that use the RF mount and dumb wires from the front to the back of them cannot be challenged by Canon applying the law - they are absolutely legal.

 

[Walrus]

It's basic patent law that Canon cannot prevent anyone making a lens with the RF mount - it's perfectly legal.
It's also basic patent law that it's perfectly legal to reverse engineer the protocols that allow the electronics of the lens and camera to communicate provided that there has not been illegal access to examining Canon's own protocols.

EF-RF converters and speedboosters that use the RF mount and dumb wires from the front to the back of them cannot be challenged by Canon applying the law - they are absolutely legal.

So if it's all legal, then it's even more inexplicable that no one is doing R(E)F lenses with AF and electronics, other then having a precise deal with Canon for not doing it. Or they just don't want to be caught in a legal dispute that they maybe would eventually win, but would burn a lot of money, and Canon certainly has much more money then them. It's good practice (I'm ironic of course) for reach people to sue poorer people just to scare them off.

 

[AlanF]

So if it's all legal, then it's even more inexplicable that no one is doing R(E)F lenses with AF and electronics, other then having a precise deal with Canon for not doing it. Or they just don't want to be caught in a legal dispute that they maybe would eventually win, but would burn a lot of money, and Canon certainly has much more money then them. It's good practice (I'm ironic of course) for reach people to sue poorer people just to scare them off.

It's possible that Canon has encrypted their communication protocols and no one has been able to reverse engineer them legally.

 

[Rudolf_Appel]

Canon invested in developing the RF system, it is their intellectual property to deal with, not the Conon customers intellectual property. Customers buy cameras and lenses, not intellectual property or the right to determine company policy. If you want third party lenses buy a different brand. Or complain with the third party lens manufacturers that they lack as good as cameras such as Canon. They will tell you that they don't have the means to develop and bring to market such cameras. Which brings us right to the point why Canon does not support third party lenses just like that.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon did not spend a ton of money making a new mount that is the old mount just a couple of mm larger.

The RF mount is exactly the same size as the EF mount.
I guess maybe you are referring to the EF-M mount.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

webshop@achatzi.de I bought a few from them, it works! Price is a bit excessive, but I guess they are a small scale production. You'll find them under "Objektivzubehör". 15 Euro a piece. Achatzi is (self-declared) "Europe's Canon Shop Nr.1"

This one?

Achatzi

## Build Setup

www.achatzi.de

 

[SNJ Ops]

For anyone who is wondering why the 3rd parties are not making lenses for RF, in the case of Sigma I was told by one of their UK reps last year that they are waiting on licenses from both Canon and Nikon. Since then Sigma has received licenses from Nikon and Fuji to release apsc glass on those platforms. Greys of Westminster reported on one of their youtube videos that they also spoke to a UK rep and they were told that Sigma won’t be reverse engineering. This video here at 20 minutes https://www.youtube.com/live/LGdpC1b2JUE?feature=share

 

[EOS 4 Life]

OTOH I just bought a set of 5 Blackrapid Lensbling EF caps (those: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/867683-REG/BlackRapid_RAA2C_1A3_LensBling_for_Canon_50mm.html )

"No Longer Available"

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If it's the RF protocol that's the issue, then why can't third-party manufacturers release lenses that communicate with reverse-engineered EF?

Sigma, Tamron, and Viltrox do not seem to want to.
That seems to be what Yongnuo is doing and Canon does not seem to have a problem with it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Z8 autofocus on-par with R5

No, it is not.
That being said, I am not claiming that the R5 is a better camera.

 

[Walrus]

"No Longer Available"

You don't even find them on Blackrapid website anymore, they surely are old discontinued products; I bought them (new) on eBay last week, they were 2€ each so super cheap, they probably were clearance items. The "50" goes perfectly on the RF 50mm 1.8 and can be twisted by any position, without alignment.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's basic patent law that Canon cannot prevent anyone making a lens with the RF mount - it's perfectly legal.

There are third-party EF lenses.
There are third-party EF to RF adapters.
Combining those would make a third-party RF lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

So if it's all legal, then it's even more inexplicable that no one is doing R(E)F lenses with AF and electronics, other then having a precise deal with Canon for not doing it.

Sigma and Tamron seem to want partnership agreements.
That should not stop Chinese companies but they seem to just infringe on Canon's patents and sell in China.
Once they infringe, they can't reverse engineer later.
That may help to explain why Viltrox pulled out all of their Canon products even the ones that did not infringe.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's possible that Canon has encrypted their communication protocols and no one has been able to reverse engineer them legally.

I do not see how that is possible when EF lenses still work.
The new pins that were added for the RF could surely be encrypted.
That would put third parties at a disadvantage but they could still make lenses if they wanted to.

 

[AlanF]

I do not see how that is possible when EF lenses still work.
The new pins that were added for the RF could surely be encrypted.
That would put third parties at a disadvantage but they could still make lenses if they wanted to.

It is possible to have two communication systems operative - the system will work with either the a new RF protocol or the classic EF protocols. It would indeed seem to be no different from say Sigma selling you a lens that works with your EF-R adaptor than selling you the same optics with that adapter built in.