Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[Antono Refa]

To play Canon's advocate:

* Making the specs open would cost Canon money in salaries to engineers and technical writers to create documentation third party manufacturers, and support people to help them figure out why the lens doesn't work properly, etc.

* Canon would probably lose sales to competitors.

* Some updates would be equivalent to announcing new features. Now Canon has two options - publish it when the FW upgrades & new lenses, and take fire for not giving 3rd party manufacturers time to adjust, or publishing it ahead of time so 3rd party manufacturers would have time to test and release new FW, and give competition an edge. Sounds like lose-lose to me.

Canon's game is capitalism. It probably weighed the benefits of keeping the mount closed, covering expenses by licensing the mount (for any lens, or only the lenses it thinks wouldn't compete too hard with Canon's), and making it open, and decided the 2nd option best serves its bottom line.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To play Canon's advocate:

* Making the specs open would cost Canon money in salaries to engineers and technical writers to create documentation third party manufacturers, and support people to help them figure out why the lens doesn't work properly, etc.

* Canon would probably lose sales to competitors.

* Some updates would be equivalent to announcing new features. Now Canon has two options - publish it when the FW upgrades & new lenses, and take fire for not giving 3rd party manufacturers time to adjust, or publishing it ahead of time so 3rd party manufacturers would have time to test and release new FW, and give competition an edge. Sounds like lose-lose to me.

Canon's game is capitalism. It probably weighed the benefits of keeping the mount closed, covering expenses by licensing the mount (for any lens, or only the lenses it thinks wouldn't compete too hard with Canon's), and making it open, and decided the 2nd option best serves its bottom line.

So, you’re suggesting that Canon runs their business like a business, instead of catering to the whims of various individuals who want this, that or the other. You might be on to something, there…

 

[blackcoffee17]

Which third party lenses do you want?

Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70, Viltrox 13mm 1.4, Tamron 11-20 2.8.

 

[AlanF]

The Apple II series was open. Everyone could make cards for those, and people opened their Apple IIs and installed whatever HW they bought.
Then the policy changed with the Mac. If a customer opened it to add RAM, the warranty was voided. Which is why I bought PCs with Windows. Sure, if I broke my computer adding RAM or replacing a failed HDD I would have to pay a technician to fix it, but that's the way I like it.

I actually check "facts" when I am suspicious. Here is the response to my query on Apple Community whether the Mac Warranty would be voided if the customer opened a Mac to add ram:
If you're asking about a 27-inch iMac, no, unless the computer gets damaged.
If you're asking about a MacBook Pro with upgradable RAM, no, unless the computer gets damaged.
If you're asking about a MacBook Pro with a Retina display, it's not possible to upgrade the RAM after purchase.

 

[AJ]

To play Canon's advocate:

* Making the specs open would cost Canon money in salaries to engineers and technical writers to create documentation third party manufacturers, and support people to help them figure out why the lens doesn't work properly, etc.

* Canon would probably lose sales to competitors.

* Some updates would be equivalent to announcing new features. Now Canon has two options - publish it when the FW upgrades & new lenses, and take fire for not giving 3rd party manufacturers time to adjust, or publishing it ahead of time so 3rd party manufacturers would have time to test and release new FW, and give competition an edge. Sounds like lose-lose to me.

Canon's game is capitalism. It probably weighed the benefits of keeping the mount closed, covering expenses by licensing the mount (for any lens, or only the lenses it thinks wouldn't compete too hard with Canon's), and making it open, and decided the 2nd option best serves its bottom line.

Implicit in your post is that Canon would just open the gates and let third-party lens manufacturers in.
In the past, third-parties retro-engineered so there was no support by Canon.
These days, from the rumors I gather, it seems that Canon is considering licensing. They would charge the third-party manufacturer a fee for every lens made. This could be a lucrative revenue stream.

I have no experience in the camera business or the IT business (e.g. licensing APIs) but I did spend a good chunk of my career in the oil and gas business. Oil and gas is very much a strategic game. For example, if your competitor makes a gas discovery and you own the nearby pipeline, you could try to squeeze the competitors for access to your pipeline, bumping up the transport and processing fees. But, if your pipeline has marginal economics and your competitor knows this, they could try to squeeze you. This is just one simplified example, and in the real world it gets much more intricate. Control is a big aspect to the game.

So why isn't Canon letting in Sigma and Tamron, keeping them on a tight leash and squeezing them for licensing fees? We've just come out of an era where there was more demand than supply, and at face value it seems that Canon did forego a potentially lucrative revenue stream. There is something I'm not getting. There must be a method to the madness.

 

[EricN]

So, you’re suggesting that Canon runs their business like a business, instead of catering to the whims of various individuals who want this, that or the other. You might be on to something, there…

Hmm, it does sound slightly more reasonable than if they did whatever every single one of us wants with the possibility (or near certainty) that the employees can't feed their families.

 

[ReflexVE]

I think comparing OS to camera is little different. Camera user or entity can fairly easily swap to another manufacturer vs it's harder for businesses (big market share for MS) to change OS. In fact, there is no real alternative OS for big corporation, as a lot of the tools they use are not offered in other OS. And I believe enterprise is big for MS.


There is no explanation to do from consumer perspective. I can pick on just about any company and what I don't like about it and ask why that's not good for consumers. People talk about why it's good for Canon, because it's a business. It helps them to protect their IP and focus on their product and help them eliminate unnecessary overhead costs. Ultimately this can benefit consumers.

I think you can still take great photos with R7 and what Canon offers. All modern cameras and lenses are very capable.

No comparison is going to be perfect. Nobody said any is. And quite frankly since most of the investment is in lenses, switching camera bodies is extremely painful. I won't say it's more or less painful than changing operating systems as that depends entirely on other factors such as what software you use and how many lenses you have.

None of the reasons you mentioned have translated into benefits for the consumer. The RF mount remains very expensive compared to it's predecessors and competitors. Their offerings are less complete than other systems. And ultimately having fewer lens choices harms what people can do. Of course you can take nice photos with the R7, any modern camera can take wonderful photos. However you can do a lot more with almost every other crop system on the market (Nikon is similarly limited). Which makes RF-S a bad investment for anyone who isn't buying it as a gateway to FF (a dubious concept but that's a separate debate).

 

[EricN]

You always know the discussion is ******* once the car analogies show up...

No comparison is going to be perfect.

Is it interesting when one person's attitude changes to suit to themselves? No, it's typical in internet arguments.

 

[Antono Refa]

I actually check "facts" when I am suspicious. Here is the response to my query on Apple Community whether the Mac Warranty would be voided if the customer opened a Mac to add ram:
If you're asking about a 27-inch iMac, no, unless the computer gets damaged.
If you're asking about a MacBook Pro with upgradable RAM, no, unless the computer gets damaged.
If you're asking about a MacBook Pro with a Retina display, it's not possible to upgrade the RAM after purchase.

I apologize for not being clearer. I refer to Apple's policy regarding the early Macs, back in the late eighties early nighties.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, since I’m waiting in a line with nothing better to do, may as well waste a little time.

The RF mount remains very expensive compared to its predecessors and competitors.

From which of Canon’s competitors can I buy a trio of FF zoom lenses covering 15-400mm and costing less than $1500?

I’ve asked this of many others who complain about high RF lens costs, no one seems able to answer… I’m sure that can’t be because Canon RF is the most affordable kit like that, right? Especially combined with the R8?

I’m not sure you could cover the equivalent range buying a Fuji camera and lenses today and come in under Canon’s $3K cost…and that’s for full frame.

That kit (R8, RF 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400) is a very versatile setup covering a broad range and delivering very good IQ and performance. Yes, the zooms are ‘slow’ but keep in mind that f/4 on APS-C is equivalent to f/6.3 on FF (in terms of DoF for equivalent framing and image noise).

Their offerings are less complete than other systems. And ultimately having fewer lens choices harms what people can do.

There’s this little thing called the EF-EOS R mount adapter, and with that any R body can use the largest selection of lenses available for any mount. Tilt-shift, ultra macro, fisheye zoom, and an impressive array of more typical primes and zooms (from Canon and 3rd party manufacturers).

Personally, I have two TS lenses (17 and 24mm, and they work with extenders) that I use frequently, and I’m considering getting the TS-E 135. Do Sony or Fuji offer TS/PC lenses for APS-C or FF? Or is that an unavailable choice that harms what people can do? There are 3rd party options (for Canon, too) but none as wide as 17mm.

Of course you can take nice photos with the R7, any modern camera can take wonderful photos.

Finally, you’re making sense. Good job!

 

[Dreysi]

My best friend decided to get a camera recently. I told him E-mount because of the lens choice situation. I told him even though you can adapt EF ultimately the strong lens line up for Sony should be the final deciding factor.

 

[Antono Refa]

Implicit in your post is that Canon would just open the gates and let third-party lens manufacturers in.

Richard wrote about Canon might having reasons against having unlicensed third-party lenses with the RF mount, so I covered that base.

In the past, third-parties retro-engineered so there was no support by Canon.

And, from memory (might be wrong), there was a problem with
* Canon upgrading camera firmware, something about command codes' LSB no longer meaningless.
* Some lenses not properly working with the new firmware.
* Firmware upgrades for said lenses available after a significant time, and upgrade done in a lab.
* Canon not supporting camera firmware downgrades.
Which made people really unhappy. From memory, those were Sigma lenses, and a big part of why Sigma released the USB dock.

[The reason one needs a USB dock to upgrade Sigma EF lenses' firmware, rather than via the camera, like Canon lenses? I guess Canon didn't want to license the feature, and Sigma either couldn't reverse engineer it, or making a USB dock was cheaper and more reliable than reverse engineering the feature for all the mounts Sigma makes lenses for.]

These days, from the rumors I gather, it seems that Canon is considering licensing. They would charge the third-party manufacturer a fee for every lens made. This could be a lucrative revenue stream.

<snip>

So why isn't Canon letting in Sigma and Tamron, keeping them on a tight leash and squeezing them for licensing fees? We've just come out of an era where there was more demand than supply, and at face value it seems that Canon did forego a potentially lucrative revenue stream. There is something I'm not getting. There must be a method to the madness.

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe the licensing fee is too high for Sigma and Tamron.

 

[Antono Refa]

So, you’re suggesting that Canon runs their business like a business, instead of catering to the whims of various individuals who want this, that or the other. You might be on to something, there…

With Canon being a known charity, and all that? Not even on a quadruple dog dare. ;-p

 

[SNJ Ops]

Well, since I’m waiting in a line with nothing better to do, may as well waste a little time.


From which of Canon’s competitors can I buy a trio of FF zoom lenses covering 15-400mm and costing less than $1500?

Not available on either Nikon or Sony but at the same time what isn’t available on Canon, the ability build a kit an f2.8 trinity that costs less than $6K. On Nikon
17-28mm f2.8 - $1196
28-75mm f2.8 - $1196
70-180mm f2.8 - $1246
= $3638

On Sony
Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 - $1279
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - $899
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 - $1299
= $3477
Not all professionals and enthusiasts can afford the premium options of any OEM brand.

I’ve asked this of many others who complain about high RF lens costs, no one seems able to answer… I’m sure that can’t because Canon RF is the most affordable kit like that, right? Especially combined with the R8?

As I have mentioned in other threads Canon is FAR FAR more expensive in Europe and also in Australia from what I hear. US shooters may not care but that is some of where the complaints come from.

I’m not sure you could cover the equivalent range with Fuji camera and lenses and come in under Canon’s $3K cost…and that’s for full frame.

That kit (R8, RF 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400) is a very versatile setup covering a broad range and delivering very good IQ and performance. Yes, the zooms are ‘slow’ but keep in mind that f/4 on APS-C is equivalent to f/6.3 on FF (in terms of DoF for equivalent framing and image noise).

Again its true no you can't but as you say the zooms are slow, on Fuji a similar kit would cost around $1000 more but the wide and standard zooms start at f2.8

There’s this little thing called the EF-EOS R mount adapter, and with that any R body can use the largest selection of lenses available for any mount. Tilt-shift, ultra macro, fisheye zoom, and an impressive array of more typical primes and zooms (from Canon and 3rd party manufacturers).

Personally, I have two TS lenses (17 and 24mm, and they work with extenders) that I use frequently, and I’m considering getting the TS-E 135. Do Sony or Fuji offer TS/PC lenses for APS-C or FF? Or is that an unavailable choice that harms what people can do? There are 3rd party options (for Canon, too) but none as wide as 17mm.


Finally, you’re making sense. Good job!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not available on either Nikon or Sony but at the same time what isn’t available on Canon, the ability build a kit an f2.8 trinity that costs less than $6K. On Nikon
17-28mm f2.8 - $1196
28-75mm f2.8 - $1196
70-180mm f2.8 - $1246
= $3638

On Sony
Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 - $1279
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - $899
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 - $1299
= $3477

Really?

On Canon:
Tokina 16-28/2.8 for EF - $699
Sigma 24-70/2.8 for EF - $1299
Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 for EF - $1299
EF mount adapter - $129
= $3426

Feel free to whine (or whinge, in your case) about having to use an adapter, but the fact is that a 3rd party f/2.8 trinity is readily available for Canon R bodies, and it is actually cheaper than your suggestions for Nikon or Sony.

So with Canon, you get a relatively inexpensive slow/variable aperture trinity covering 15-400mm for $1500, the 3rd party f/2.8 trinity above covering 16-200mm for $3400, an OEM f/4 trinity covering 14-200mm for $3900, or an OEM f/2.8 trinity covering 15-200mm for $6700.

But there is less choice with Canon. Oki-dokie, whatever lies you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

 

[snappy604]

Really?

On Canon:
Tokina 16-28/2.8 for EF - $699
Sigma 24-70/2.8 for EF - $1299
Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 for EF - $1299
EF mount adapter - $129
= $3426

Feel free to whine (or whinge, in your case) about having to use an adapter, but the fact is that a 3rd party f/2.8 trinity is readily available for Canon R bodies, and it is actually cheaper than your suggestions for Nikon or Sony.

So with Canon, you get a relatively inexpensive slow/variable aperture trinity covering 15-400mm for $1500, the 3rd party f/2.8 trinity above covering 16-200mm for $3400, an OEM f/4 trinity covering 14-200mm for $3900, or an OEM f/2.8 trinity covering 15-200mm for $6700.

But there is less choice with Canon. Oki-dokie, whatever lies you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

to be fair we're talking about RF mount not EF, even with adapter. The lenses listed for Sony/Nikon didn't require an adapter I believe.

and hehe ironically you highlight the reason we want 3rd party lenses.. cost!

 

[Richard CN]

Really?

On Canon:
Tokina 16-28/2.8 for EF - $699
Sigma 24-70/2.8 for EF - $1299
Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 for EF - $1299
EF mount adapter - $129
= $3426

Feel free to whine (or whinge, in your case) about having to use an adapter, but the fact is that a 3rd party f/2.8 trinity is readily available for Canon R bodies, and it is actually cheaper than your suggestions for Nikon or Sony.

So with Canon, you get a relatively inexpensive slow/variable aperture trinity covering 15-400mm for $1500, the 3rd party f/2.8 trinity above covering 16-200mm for $3400, an OEM f/4 trinity covering 14-200mm for $3900, or an OEM f/2.8 trinity covering 15-200mm for $6700.

But there is less choice with Canon. Oki-dokie, whatever lies you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.

you just made my entire argument. thanks.

you picked all third party lenses that if they were available natively for the RF mount would provide capable options for this that cannot afford Canon RF OEM. Why not use an adapter - there's a lens balance issue there as well, those lenses were designed to be balanced on a EF camera body, you are moving the grip, and center of gravity 20mm out further than the designers intended. and if you don't think that's important, there's a bazillion patents on it.

Why are we forced to use an adapter - again, you proved my point. These lenses could be made natively with the EF protocol on the RF mount, without any possible IP infringement. So why aren't they?

I get you that you siding with Canon here, that's great. I've been using Canon for 40 years. I do as well. I spent 5+ years reporting on Canon stuff each and every day. You don't think I want to side with Canon here?

All this stuff should be available natively on the RF mount. It's not. Not everyone can afford Canon's balancing of factors ie: cost to equip their kit.

Yes Canon is a business. Guess what? So are Sony, Fuji, Nikon, et all.

And also; I'm concerned once we do get third party options coming - how are we to tell the officially licensed products versus ones that are not?

and finally you griped about why am I writing up about this now. I covered it - there's a new rumor that Canon will officially open the mount up sometime next year. Craig things it's hogwash, but that is why I'm STILL bringing this up.

 

[EricN]

to be fair we're talking about RF mount not EF, even with adapter. The lenses listed for Sony/Nikon didn't require an adapter I believe.

and hehe ironically you highlight the reason we want 3rd party lenses.. cost!

If you want to talk about irony, it's nobody's fault but your own if you turn your nose up at using an adapter, but bought into RF knowing full well not everything you wanted was available yet.

 

[Richard CN]

Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 - $1279
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - $899
Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 - $1299
= $3477

Not mentioned, but the size or weight of these lenses is considerably different than what we can get.

As I wrote about before. Travel weight is important to some.

The tamron 28-75mm weighs in at 550g whereas the Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L is 900g. Is the F2.8L a better lens, well of course it is, but it's also twice the weight too. You could get the 28-70 F2.8 Tamron and the 17-50 F4 tamron for the same weight as the F2.8L from Canon.

I would buy the Tamron's in a freaking heartbeat if they were out for the RF mount.

 

[EricN]

you just made my entire argument. thanks.

you picked all third party lenses that if they were available natively for the RF mount would provide capable options for this that cannot afford Canon RF OEM. Why not use an adapter - there's a lens balance issue there as well, those lenses were designed to be balanced on a EF camera body, you are moving the grip, and center of gravity 20mm out further than the designers intended. and if you don't think that's important, there's a bazillion patents on it.

Why are we forced to use an adapter - again, you proved my point. These lenses could be made natively with the EF protocol on the RF mount, without any possible IP infringement. So why aren't they?

I get you that you siding with Canon here, that's great. I've been using Canon for 40 years. I do as well. I spent 5+ years reporting on Canon stuff each and every day. You don't think I want to side with Canon here?

All this stuff should be available natively on the RF mount. It's not. Not everyone can afford Canon's balancing of factors ie: cost to equip their kit.

Yes Canon is a business. Guess what? So are Sony, Fuji, Nikon, et all.

And also; I'm concerned once we do get third party options coming - how are we to tell the officially licensed products versus ones that are not?

and finally you griped about why am I writing up about this now. I covered it - there's a new rumor that Canon will officially open the mount up sometime next year. Craig things it's hogwash, but that is why I'm STILL bringing this up.

I get that the adapter changes the balance, but I haven't experienced any problem because of it. Could you give some details about the patents?

I'm sure Canon will have a way to display they have granted licenses for certain products, and even if it's only a little Canon logo with the word "licensed," considering their control over the past half decade, it's difficult for me to imagine any serious problems.