Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[neuroanatomist]

You may wish to look up the marketshare of the M line, the M50 alone was nearly 15% of the market for a while. That's enormous by any standard, and larger than many other camera manufacturers in their entirety.

You may wish to look up the R50, which is very similar to the M50.

Canon R50 vs Canon M50 Detailed Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Canon EOS R50 vs Canon EOS M50 to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.

cameradecision.com

Canon's data probably show that their sales pattern for consumer-level bodies aligns with the industry as a whole (which it should, since Canon's sales comprise nearly 50% of the industry annually). Those data indicate that most buyers purchase the body and the 1-2 lenses bundled with it, and that's all. Repeat buyers either move up the system, or wait a few years then buy another, updated version of their body. M50...R50. That's not abandonment, that's transition. Will every M-series owner buy an R-series body? We don't know. But M-series body releases slowed way down in the past few years, and Canon still became the global leader in MILCs.

 

[antonio_s]

Here\'s the thing, though. I own my camera. I can use it with whatever lenses I want (the third-party AF RF lenses that are not on the market work with it, by the way, and there are a few AF lenses being sold new by Yonguo, apparently). I can modify it, break it, throw it in a woodchipper (if I really wanted to — I don\'t). It belongs to me, not to Canon.

Similarly, third-party manufacturers have the right to sell any legal product whether or not Canon would like them to. I have the right to choose to buy them (even if that\'s not what Canon would recommend).

The rationales that Craig has brought up are all irrelevant:

1. To be clear, Canon isn\'t obliged to provide customer support to users of third-party lenses (even if they get messages from people who buy them) — no more than they\'re obliged to provide support to people who have problems with their Nikon or Sony equipment.

2. If something a lens does doesn\'t work on a future body, that\'s that, of course. Compatibility breakage happened with third-party EF lenses too (look up \"Sigma rechip\" for a good example). Canon can make it clear that they aren\'t responsible for weirdness with third-party lenses. This isn\'t grounds for any sort of IP lawsuit.

(By the way, IBIS didn\'t work with Samyang\'s RF lenses until they put out a firmware update for them! Interestingly, IBIS also doesn\'t work on Sigma lenses with FTM override turned on, so there\'s something funky with how it activates! Nevertheless, uncoordinated IBIS — what\'d be used for most of these lenses, esp. as most don\'t have OIS — shouldn\'t require future adjustments once working.)

3. No third-party EF lens ever supported DLO (including the Sigma lenses that support other in-body corrections on Canon cameras). I don\'t think this is really relevant.

Here\'s the distinction: the things that Craig brings up are perhaps reasons why *Canon* might not want third parties making lenses. They have nothing to do with whether or not Canon is in the right making any legal threats. Those are two very different subjects.

As for the RF mount \"not being a closed mount\": I think that people have a very weird fixation on the terms \"open mount\" and \"closed mount,\" which are used to imply various things about various mounts. Let\'s compare:

- Sony: Gives out full specifications and protocol details — but hobbles lenses in a number of ways (e.g., the 15fps limitation)
- Nikon: Gives out specifications on the condition that Tamron and Sigma only make certain specific lenses (which, not coincidentally, don\'t compete with Nikon\'s)
- Canon: Has given the RF protocols to Voigtländer to make a chipped full-manual lens

I\'d suggest looking at the substance, rather than just saying something is \"open\" or \"not open.\"

 

[neuroanatomist]

They have nothing to do with whether or not Canon is in the right making any legal threats. Those are two very different subjects.

Being in the right has nothing to do with the ability to make legal threats.

As for the RF mount \"not being a closed mount\": … Let\'s compare:
- Canon: Has given the RF protocols to Voigtländer to make a chipped full-manual lens

Canon also allows Red to make cameras with the RF mount.

 

[ReflexVE]

It's like almost nobody here actually read the article and is choosing to respond to it.....

 

[antonio_s]

Being in the right has nothing to do with the ability to make legal threats.

Sure it does. Making legal threats with no basis in reality is a good way to lose in court. In European countries, the loser pays. Even in the US, Courts now often award costs in the case of an unjustified parent lawsuit (after Octane v. Icon). A company that sells products in the UK and some other countries can even countersue for damages for a mere unjustified threat without litigation.
Can someone make an unjustified legal demand? Yes. But that demand won't be enforced.

Canon also allows Red to make cameras with the RF mount.

True.

 

[dtaylor]

I was under the impression that the RF AF lenses that drew the attention of Canon's legal department were not using EF protocol, but were using RF protocol with stolen Canon lens firmware. Does anyone know for sure?

 

[EricN]

I was under the impression that the RF AF lenses that drew the attention of Canon's legal department were not using EF protocol, but were using RF protocol with stolen Canon lens firmware. Does anyone know for sure?

I thought it was like that, but can't remember for sure either.

 

[AlanF]

I thought it was like that, but can't remember for sure either.

I don’t recall any details being given. We guessed that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure it does. Making legal threats with no basis in reality is a good way to lose in court. In European countries, the loser pays. Even in the US, Courts now often award costs in the case of an unjustified parent lawsuit (after Octane v. Icon). A company that sells products in the UK and some other countries can even countersue for damages for a mere unjustified threat without litigation.

That assumes the process reaches litigation. In the situation we’re discussing, Canon seems to have informed at least one company (Viltrox) they were infringing, and Viltrox ceased and desisted. Samyang stopped selling AF RF-mount lenses around the same time, that’s probably not a coincidence.

It’s your contention that Canon’s action was not ‘in the right’ but regardless, it appears to have had the effect they wanted.

 

[dick ranez]

A vendor makes his own rules, dictates his own development and marketing strategies, and hopefully parallels his user base\'s requirements. I find it funny that those castigating Canon for a closed system are probably the same fanboys using Apple hardware and software - considering Apple also is a closed system.

 

[AlanF]

A vendor makes his own rules, dictates his own development and marketing strategies, and hopefully parallels his user base\'s requirements. I find it funny that those castigating Canon for a closed system are probably the same fanboys using Apple hardware and software - considering Apple also is a closed system.

Microsoft software, Adobe software etc etc etc all not allowed on Apple? Bose headphones etc not working either?

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's like almost nobody here actually read the article and is choosing to respond to it.....

Or perhaps we read the article and most people here simply don’t really care about this issue. Perhaps most camera buyers don’t really care about this issue. Perhaps the fact that Canon hasn’t lost market share, but rather became the #1 mirrorless brand in addition to remaining the dominant ILC brand, supports that claim.

Wait, how can market share be relevant to this issue? Like you said right at the start, Canon is making choices…but it’s not like they’d let a silly little irrelevancy like market share influence those choices, right? How terribly tangential of me…

 

[Besisika]

It's like almost nobody here actually read the article and is choosing to respond to it.....

Actually, I read it. I rarely read a full article. It seems to me that the author convinced himself that it is about democracy and not business. I quote "Canon being themselves and staying quiet, ignoring the masses,". Let's vote.
Many articles give us this illusion in believing that the "masses" is king. The reality is, masses spend money, complain, and complain some more. Canon, Nikon, Sony; the same: masses spend money, complain, and complain some more. New model comes out; masses spend money, complain, and complain some more.

 

[Marphoto]

I’m still trying to understand where the big disappointment is here. Yes, there are a lot lenses I would like to see Canon release though 3rd party solutions are not my thing. Besides, if someone wants a Sigma or some other EF mount, they can use an adapter. I’ve been vocal in the past by my perceived deficiencies especially in the telephoto range for high quality, mid-priced glass. It hasn’t and may never materialize but I wouldn’t look to 3rd parties for the answer. The way I see the landscape, Canon is the #1 in terms of volume and has some of the best performing bodies out there. Yes, Nikon is coming up with some interesting partnerships and lenses though their bodies AF are second rate. Meanwhile, Sony has some high performing bodies but the ergonomics are weak and their lens lineup is weak as well. As far as I see it, Canon is dominating and is well poised to build upon and continue as the market leader.

 

[esglord]

While I wouldn’t mind a couple good third party options, I really don’t see anything unusual about a company blocking competitors in this manner. Microsoft keeps making me find creative ways to never have to use Bing in windows. It’s irksome, but by no means an unreasonable affront. Part of the argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that having allowed competing EF lenses somehow obligates them to do so with RF. That logic seems faulty. Whether it’s good or bad for business, I couldn’t say.

 

[Jayk0607]

I have Samyang RF 85 1.4 and while it works ok, it doesn't work as it should because of this. But I'm not really mad at Canon. It's just business trying to protect their IP.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's like almost nobody here actually read the article and is choosing to respond to it.....

If you’ve been following along, it should be apparent that people did read the article, and for many their response is that they disagree with it.

When this story first ‘broke’ it was apparent it was a tempest in a teapot. Time has passed, and with respect, Richard putting an LED candle under that teapot with this op-ed hasn’t made the tempest inside worse.

 

[Richard CN]

Some have argued that readily available 3rd party lenses for the RF mount would increase R body sales. Again, not sure it would make much difference. Canon has already become the #1 MILC brand without 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount.

Canon had the largest installed base coming from the EF mount by far of any manufacturer. They would have had to screw up to epic proportions not to be the leader once they finally did the transition. Did they make it because of their ability to quick pivot to faset DPAF AF, eye focus and class lead IBIS - in other words in spite of obvious problems such as this?

 

[Richard CN]

I don’t get why people are really pissed at this, it’s their mount, their company. I guess they can do what they want? I purchase rf lenses so I have no issue with this.

Canon for all their greatness cannot create a lens that suits everyone.

Imagine a traditional "design triangle" of a lens; the three corners would have cost, optical performance and size/weight

The best lens is a series of compromises along all three of those aspects, and perhaps canon creates a lens that places it at the best compromise amoung all three, which si great for the mass market; but there are still people that favor one compromise other another. Some may favor slightly less optical performance over weight, some may be okay with a larger heavier lens if it has dazzling optical quality, and so on.

How many times do you hear when Canon releases a lens someone (there's always someone..) say this lens isn't for me?

Will Canon make a lens like the tamron 28-75mm F2.8 for the RF mount? probably not, but even with the quite excellent Sony FE 24-70 F2.8, a lot of Sony users absolutely loved that lens.

Will Canon make a lot of RF-S lenses, or would there be people who would love Sigma or VIltrox's lenses on the RF mount? There's a huge potential demand, and let's face it Canon still needs people to buy into the system and the gateway drug is still APS-C.

Thank you for the comment actually. This should have actually gone into an article because I'm sure you are not the only one that thinks this.

 

[Jethro]

I don’t recall any details being given. We guessed that.

You're quit right, all of that is speculation.

What always surprised me was that nobody seemed to come out with RF mount lenses with the old EF protocols included - which obviously work because Canon EF lenses can be adapted onto RF mounts. Is that maybe because the Canon EF/RF adaptors somehow introduce some sort of intermediary electronic adaptation which changes the EF output on the adapted lens into something the RF body can read properly? And without that intermediary step, third party makers can't simply include EF protocols in an RF mount lens free of the Canon adaptor?