[repaap]

I’d believe tgat this is already enough to prohibite making 3rd party AF lenses for RF mount. Which is already a big move. Plenty of EF alternatives, prepare to have problems/restrictions withsome things, like AF, FPS, aperture controll. Bricking a camera? Lol!

[Wheatfield]

Maybe, but Canon should direct their attacks at those manufacturers and their retailers, not at their own end users.

Why? Ultimately it's the customer who is supporting what may be illicit activities on the part of the third party companies. Canon should have sympathy for a person who buys their camera and then someone else's lens?
That customer is just barely an end user.

[Serkevan]

Why? Ultimately it's the customer who is supporting what may be illicit activities on the part of the third party companies. Canon should have sympathy for a person who buys their camera and then someone else's lens?
That customer is just barely an end user.

The customer isn't in any way obligated to investigate whether a product sold through reputable channel is party to illicit activities.
Besides, Canon won't dare brick the cameras, considering that the time they soft-bricked the scanner on their printers (they required a non-empty ink cartridge to scan) they had to pay out a fine of something like $50 per user... On $200 machines.

The problem solves itself with Canon offering enough value to price on their lenses.

[repaap]

Why? Ultimately it's the customer who is supporting what may be illicit activities on the part of the third party companies. Canon should have sympathy for a person who buys their camera and then someone else's lens?
That customer is just barely an end user.

you are right, one should use just their own lenses. That said, this actually almost happened with my Pentax and old Sigma lenses. I did try to use bigma with K-1. With out updated FW in Bigma. K-1 completelly froze up. No response. luckily it went back to normal after removing the lens and taking battery out. Kind of scary moment at there.

It was a loaner from my friend, so I did not send it in for FW update(also got scratch to my K-1 from there)..


Not sure if I did miss something from your post.

[Lord Lucan]

Ultimately it's the customer who is supporting what may be illicit activities on the part of the third party companies.

So how is Joe Public meant to know what is "illicit" and what is not? Must he familiarise himself with the commercial arrangements of the industrial world before he buys anything? And how far should the reach of the camera makers extend (and of other makers such as of cars, and ink-jet printers - as have been mentioned)? Must we tolerate manufacturers enforcing rip-off monopolies such as already happened with printer ink, and as vehicle makers are currently doing their level best to do? John Deere (a leading player in this whole issue) thinks you should be made a criminal if you, or even an independent workshop, replace a swivel joint on your own tractor with say a Moog branded one, rather than paying one of their approved dealers ten times as much to do it with one from a "John Deere" labelled packet - even though the one in the "John Deere" packet was likely made for them by Moog anyway.

Are you telling me that the K-Mount Sigma zoom lens I bought in 1990 was illicit? No, you will tell me that Pentax had open-sourced the K-Mount, but you and I only know that because we are Pentax cognoscenti - but Joe Public won't be. I did not know that in 1990 either, so I was a naughty cheapskate to buy it?

Pentax make flash units. Is it illicit, or should it be, to use one of another make? Should Pentax be allowed to disable your camera if you do? Must I use a Pentax filter (they used to make them) on a Pentax camera just to be sure I am not breaking civil law or going against some commercial agreement? How about the camera strap? Joe public will first need to research whether Pentax actually make filters (they used to) or straps (they do - or rather they source them). With radio micro-chips it is possible to disable a device even without a direct electrical connection from the accessory, so even a strap could do it.

The problem is rooted in the fact that there is far less profit in selling cameras than there is in selling lenses, and their business model somewhat relies on GAS. But manufacturers should compete on quality, not monopoly.

[Rondec]

So how is Joe Public meant to know what is "illicit" and what is not? Must he familiarise himself with the commercial arrangements of the industrial world before he buys anything? And how far should the reach of the camera makers extend (and of other makers such as of cars, and ink-jet printers - as have been mentioned)? Must we tolerate manufacturers enforcing rip-off monopolies such as already happened with printer ink, and as vehicle makers are currently doing their level best to do? John Deere (a leading player in this whole issue) thinks you should be made a criminal if you, or even an independent workshop, replace a swivel joint on your own tractor with say a Moog branded one, rather than paying one of their approved dealers ten times as much to do it with one from a "John Deere" labelled packet - even though the one in the "John Deere" packet was likely made for them by Moog anyway.

Are you telling me that the K-Mount Sigma zoom lens I bought in 1990 was illicit? No, you will tell me that Pentax had open-sourced the K-Mount, but you and I only know that because we are Pentax cognoscenti - but Joe Public won't be. I did not know that in 1990 either, so I was a naughty cheapskate to buy it?

Pentax make flash units. Is it illicit, or should it be, to use one of another make? Should Pentax be allowed to disable your camera if you do? Must I use a Pentax filter (they used to make them) on a Pentax camera just to be sure I am not breaking civil law or going against some commercial agreement? How about the camera strap? Joe public will first need to research whether Pentax actually make filters (they used to) or straps (they do - or rather they source them). With radio micro-chips it is possible to disable a device even without a direct electrical connection from the accessory, so even a strap could do it.

The problem is rooted in the fact that there is far less profit in selling cameras than there is in selling lenses, and their business model somewhat relies on GAS. But manufacturers should compete on quality, not monopoly.

Well, Canon doesn't have a monopoly on the camera market -- far from it.

Intellectual Property is what is at stake here. Maybe the best example is Apple, They very firmly control what apps are available for iphones and get a fee from every app developer. This has made them billions of dollars. In the case of Canon, I think it is clear that anyone can design a manual focus lens for their new cameras. The question is whether those same companies can reverse engineer the auto focus and lens protocols in order to make a lens or adapter that auto focuses on that Canon camera -- without paying a fee. As some Canon users on this thread have mentioned, Canon has invested millions of dollars in the creation of their new mount and software, etc for it. They should have some ability to have a fee from those who wish to use it.

On the other hand, when most of the nicest lenses for the RF mount are pushing 2000 dollars, it is understandable that some the RF users would like some high quality, but cheaper options. This is understandable to me -- even the people who buy third party lenses believe in their hearts that brand name is better, they just can't afford the cost of brand name and so move to what they can afford.

[martin42mm]

Well, Canon doesn't have a monopoly on the camera market -- far from it.

Intellectual Property is what is at stake here. Maybe the best example is Apple, They very firmly control what apps are available for iphones and get a fee from every app developer. This has made them billions of dollars. In the case of Canon, I think it is clear that anyone can design a manual focus lens for their new cameras. The question is whether those same companies can reverse engineer the auto focus and lens protocols in order to make a lens or adapter that auto focuses on that Canon camera -- without paying a fee. As some Canon users on this thread have mentioned, Canon has invested millions of dollars in the creation of their new mount and software, etc for it. They should have some ability to have a fee from those who wish to use it.

On the other hand, when most of the nicest lenses for the RF mount are pushing 2000 dollars, it is understandable that some the RF users would like some high quality, but cheaper options. This is understandable to me -- even the people who buy third party lenses believe in their hearts that brand name is better, they just can't afford the cost of brand name and so move to what they can afford.

Absolutely, but don't Canon realise that if their lenses are THAT much better to justify their somewhat elevated prices, then those that buy the Canon cameras, and then fit the cheaper 3rd-part lenses will come around to buying their 'superior' lenses eventually as the 3rd-part ones prove either less than stellar, or the buyer's finances improve to enable the more expensive Canon lens to be purchased ? By limiting the supply of lenses for their 'monopoly' camera bodies they are in danger of losing that lead-in to the market that enables their lenses to be sold in the first place. You only have to look at the overwhelming sentiment expressed in the thread on DPReview following this announcement to see that they are alienating not only their own existing system owners, but those contemplating a move across to Canon. I've not done more than scan a decent number of the ( last time I looked) 800+ replies, and I reckon 90% are against Canon's decision even when they can fathom the logic (?) behind it. I'm sure Canon did their own market research forecast before they took this decision, but I don't recall this amount of backlash when they did a similar thing last year with another manufacturer, which may have skewed their thinking. Time alone will tell.

Meanwhile I'm sticking with Pentax, and would never even contemplate Canon for a number of reasons, this being just another nail.

[Rondec]

Absolutely, but don't Canon realise that if their lenses are THAT much better to justify their somewhat elevated prices, then those that buy the Canon cameras, and then fit the cheaper 3rd-part lenses will come around to buying their 'superior' lenses eventually as the 3rd-part ones prove either less than stellar, or the buyer's finances improve to enable the more expensive Canon lens to be purchased ? By limiting the supply of lenses for their 'monopoly' camera bodies they are in danger of losing that lead-in to the market that enables their lenses to be sold in the first place. You only have to look at the overwhelming sentiment expressed in the thread on DPReview following this announcement to see that they are alienating not only their own existing system owners, but those contemplating a move across to Canon. I've not done more than scan a decent number of the ( last time I looked) 800+ replies, and I reckon 90% are against Canon's decision even when they can fathom the logic (?) behind it. I'm sure Canon did their own market research forecast before they took this decision, but I don't recall this amount of backlash when they did a similar thing last year with another manufacturer, which may have skewed their thinking. Time alone will tell.

Meanwhile I'm sticking with Pentax, and would never even contemplate Canon for a number of reasons, this being just another nail.

This is always the challenge of third party lenses. The FA 31 limited is more expensive than the Sigma 35mm f1.4 (800 versus 1050 on B and H). The Sigma is bigger, sharper, and has less CA. It also lacks Pentax's coatings and is a little more flakey when it comes to auto focus.

If/when Pentax comes out with a high end DFA *35mm f1.4, the price will be close to 2000 dollars. That will give Pentaxians a choice -- FA 35mm f2, Sigma 35mm f1.4, DFA 31 limited, or DFA *35 f1.4. Probably the fewest people will choose the DFA *35 due to the cost, but having the choice is a good thing and I hate when there are artificial limits put on that choice.

[Wheatfield]

So how is Joe Public meant to know what is "illicit" and what is not? Must he familiarise himself with the commercial arrangements of the industrial world before he buys anything? And how far should the reach of the camera makers extend (and of other makers such as of cars, and ink-jet printers - as have been mentioned)? Must we tolerate manufacturers enforcing rip-off monopolies such as already happened with printer ink, and as vehicle makers are currently doing their level best to do? John Deere (a leading player in this whole issue) thinks you should be made a criminal if you, or even an independent workshop, replace a swivel joint on your own tractor with say a Moog branded one, rather than paying one of their approved dealers ten times as much to do it with one from a "John Deere" labelled packet - even though the one in the "John Deere" packet was likely made for them by Moog anyway.

Are you telling me that the K-Mount Sigma zoom lens I bought in 1990 was illicit? No, you will tell me that Pentax had open-sourced the K-Mount, but you and I only know that because we are Pentax cognoscenti - but Joe Public won't be. I did not know that in 1990 either, so I was a naughty cheapskate to buy it?

Pentax make flash units. Is it illicit, or should it be, to use one of another make? Should Pentax be allowed to disable your camera if you do? Must I use a Pentax filter (they used to make them) on a Pentax camera just to be sure I am not breaking civil law or going against some commercial agreement? How about the camera strap? Joe public will first need to research whether Pentax actually make filters (they used to) or straps (they do - or rather they source them). With radio micro-chips it is possible to disable a device even without a direct electrical connection from the accessory, so even a strap could do it.

The problem is rooted in the fact that there is far less profit in selling cameras than there is in selling lenses, and their business model somewhat relies on GAS. But manufacturers should compete on quality, not monopoly.

The fact the customer is ignorant does not separate the customer from the problem.
Why is it every time a company tries to protect its intellectual property from predators people jump on it like flies to shit?
Canon has a right to protect its intellectual property. They also have a right to build what they want and price it accordingly.
What they don't have is any responsibility towards a Chinese company that is stealing their technology for profit nor do they have any responsibility towards that company's customers.
What they do have is a responsibility towards the fiscal integrity of their company and it's shareholders. They would be derelict in their responsibility if they just rolled over on this.

[UncleVanya]

I dislike Canon for reasons disconnected to their gear. Decisions like this one don’t help me to change my views. Even so, I agree that they can certainly make this decision and it is their right to protect their IP.

Where things get fuzzy for me is that I feel like they should have been very clear to consumers early on that this was a risk and that they planned to keep the mount entirely closed.

The consumer has years of experience with multiple brands that suggests the normal track record for use of third party glass are pretty good. The expectation of consumers is that if my dealers are selling it and the reviewers are getting good results it’s safe. So by delaying so long Canon has punished a subset of users and might well alienate them. No company should alienate any existing consumers if feasible.

Perhaps their were legal issues. Perhaps they were in negotiations with Viltrox and asked too much and negotiations broke down. We can’t know for certain what happened.

Personally Canon remains on my do not buy list so I’m safely isolated from this decision.

[reh321]

The fact the customer is ignorant does not separate the customer from the problem.
Why is it every time a company tries to protect its intellectual property from predators people jump on it like flies to shit?
Canon has a right to protect its intellectual property. They also have a right to build what they want and price it accordingly.
What they don't have is any responsibility towards a Chinese company that is stealing their technology for profit nor do they have any responsibility towards that company's customers.
What they do have is a responsibility towards the fiscal integrity of their company and it's shareholders. They would be derelict in their responsibility if they just rolled over on this.

Canon attracts customers - lots of customers.

I inherited a FD-mount kit from my Mother. After someone asked, I did try the Canon 50mm kit lens on my “Q” - and much to my surprise it worked better than my eight-element Takumar 50mm F/1.4. I have also used her old Vivitar 70-210mm {the reason I originally got the FD- mount to Q- mount adapter}. It is plenty sharp on my “Q”, but has terrible purple-fringing when pointed anywhere in the direction of the sun; that even happened when I was sitting in the shade on our deck, and vaguely pointed it in the direction of the sun Do we know why Canon wants to ‘chase off’ Vilttox? For all I know, Canon may be receiving blame for problems resulting from using Viltrox lenses.

Pentax would love to have Canon’s problems.

[martin42mm]

Canon attracts customers - lots of customers.

I inherited a FD-mount kit from my Mother. After someone asked, I did try the Canon 50mm kit lens on my “Q” - and much to my surprise it worked better than my eight-element Takumar 50mm F/1.4. I have also used her old Vivitar 70-210mm {the reason I originally got the FD- mount to Q- mount adapter}. It is plenty sharp on my “Q”, but has terrible purple-fringing when pointed anywhere in the direction of the sun; that even happened when I was sitting in the shade on our deck, it pointed it in the direction of the sun Do we know why Canon wants to ‘chase off’ Vilttox? For all I know, Canon may receiving blame for problems resulting from using iltrox lenses.

Pentax would love to have Canon’s problems.

However Pentax did make the original K-mount open-licence, although whether that applies to the later electonic versions is open to debate. The point is, Pentax didn't lose market share from the open-licence decision, and any issues they have now have been caused by poor decisions taken at various stages in that company's development, including, it could be argued, delaying a bayonet mount introduction for too many years and relying on the Spotmatic's past glories.

[reh321]

However Pentax did make the original K-mount open-licence, although whether that applies to the later electonic versions is open to debate. The point is, Pentax didn't lose market share from the open-licence decision, and any issues they have now have been caused by poor decisions taken at various stages in that company's development, including, it could be argued, delaying a bayonet mount introduction for too many years and relying on the Spotmatic's past glories.

I’m not sure how this comment relates to my comment. Mine was that Canon makes good gear, and I’m not sure why they would chase off Viltrox. Maybe it was to protect their market; maybe it was to protect their customers. We cannot depend on the words of the guys who were chased off. Are other companies still making EOS-R compliant gear?? We would have to see how Canon relates to them before drawing too many conclusions.

[martin42mm]

I’m not sure how this comment relates to my comment. Mine was that Canon makes good gear, and I’m not sure why they would chase off Viltrox. Maybe it was to protect their market; maybe it was to protect their customers. We cannot depend on the words of the guys who were chased off. Are other companies still making EOS-R compliant gear?? We would have to see how Canon relates to them before drawing too many conclusions.

It was just an observation regarding your mention of Pentax loving to have Canon's problems. Nothing more, nothing sinister, nothing controversial-just relating to Pentax and their original decision to open licence the K mount compared with Canon's policy and how it does not necessarily relate to a company's success or otherwise..

[Serkevan]

What they do have is a responsibility towards the fiscal integrity of their company and it's shareholders.

So the FD move was exactly what they had to do and they don't deserve to be called out on it