[repaap]

Well Sony is already swinging the cripple hammer at 100% of third party lenses, which now all are only 80% compatible.

They simply let their faster camera models check if the connected lens is a Sony or a 3rd party and if it is the latter, they massively cripple the maximum FPS the camera can shoot.

So this type of intentional crippling 3rd party lenses via firmware checks is established practise in mirrorless world. Not with Fuji or Olympus or Panasonic or Nikon yet.

I think that this will happen even more. Just because money is money. Not sure if Fuji is going to cripple things because of their lens lineup. Canon has all covered and propably this new RF thing was part of plan to make more money. This is propably why Nikon also went with large Z mount, like Canon with RF.


it is not like 3rd party is making Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax more money, they have propably seen the figures. (placed Pentax there because people did see this as a big deal since all were going for MILC and abandoning Pentax because of mirror) As it is at many treads at here Pentax forums, many suggests for vintage or even for Pentax lenses Sony A7 (you choose your budget) because on it is so easy. One way propably would be that companies will do more joining in and co'op. Like Tamron with Sony and Pentax...everybody wins.

[biz-engineer]

So this type of intentional crippling 3rd party lenses via firmware checks is established practise in mirrorless world. Not with Fuji or Olympus or Panasonic or Nikon yet.

ILC companies use more or less tricks that lead customers to spend more money then they should. Fuji use tricks as well on cameras and lenses, just not the same tricks as Sony.

[Serkevan]

Well Sony is already swinging the cripple hammer at 100% of third party lenses, which now all are only 80% compatible.

They simply let their faster camera models check if the connected lens is a Sony or a 3rd party and if it is the latter, they massively cripple the maximum FPS the camera can shoot.

So this type of intentional crippling 3rd party lenses via firmware checks is established practise in mirrorless world. Not with Fuji or Olympus or Panasonic or Nikon yet.

They cripple it at like 10 fps, which is well above what the average user needs. If you have a job critical enough to need (not "want", *need*, which is a distinction we often fail to make) 20-30 fps, you are making enough money off of that job that you can easily pony up the difference for that Sony lens.

I have a couple friends (unrelated to each other) who shoot Sony *exclusively* with Tamron lenses, and almost all the Sony users I've seen lately have been rocking Tamron lenses as well. It doesn't seem to be an issue (for them. It's most likely an issue for Sony if they don't sell lenses, but oh well... It's Sony )

[beholder3]

They cripple it at like 10 fps, which is well above what the average user needs.

Well, that is the good ole "it is good enough" narrative. Certainly even 1 FPS is fine for 90% of users.

If I shell out multiple thousand EUR for a brand new camera that is explicitly advertised with a certain FPS rate (be it 20 or 30) plus its alleged compatibility with 3rd party lenses then any crippling of advertised features is at least misleading.
And this is not about some minor aspects but the high frame rates are key core competencies for these types of cameras.

The point of the discussion here though is the fact THAT Sony intentionally cripples 3rd party products along the exact same reasoning that Canon does.

[Jonathan Mac]

Hmm, a strong smell of gunpowder and sore feet accompanying Canon’s move: they haven’t exactly produced a full RF or RF-S lens lineup yet. It could be said that Nikon and Sony take a different approach: Sony are well supported with third party lenses as well as their own and Nikon have not actively obstructed third parties - in fact Tamron are the designers of at least one Z zoom.

Nice one Canon, sends a very reassuring message to your customers.

Yep. The idea that Canon have no intention of allowing third parties to sell lenses in the RF mount may well do them more harm than good. Lots of people like Sigma or Tamron lenses and are waiting for them to appear in RF but if this isn't going to happen then people may choose to go Sony, Nikon or L-mount.

[Serkevan]

Well, that is the good ole "it is good enough" narrative. Certainly even 1 FPS is fine for 90% of users.

If I shell out multiple thousand EUR for a brand new camera that is explicitly advertised with a certain FPS rate (be it 20 or 30) plus its alleged compatibility with 3rd party lenses then any crippling of advertised features is at least misleading.
And this is not about some minor aspects but the high frame rates are key core competencies for these types of cameras.

The point of the discussion here though is the fact THAT Sony intentionally cripples 3rd party products along the exact same reasoning that Canon does.

Technically the 20-30fps are clearly advertised as working *only* on a specific set of lenses (not even on all Sony lenses). Any other lens is explicitly not covered by the spec and works at the lower frame rate.

I agree that it is somewhere between disappointing and scummy (depending on how much one believes the official reason of the excluded lenses having aperture mechanisms that don't manage 20+ fps), but I would say it isn't misleading. And besides, if one pays 4000€+ on a camera body because 20 fps is a core competency... Why are you cheaping out on the lens? It's a bit like complaining that the Eye-AF of the K-3iii doesn't work with A-series lenses, or (less tongue-in-cheekly) that it works pretty badly with the old F-series macros.

EDIT: I just remembered that Nikon was doing this a while ago with their own lenses as well - the D6 (and D5 IIRC) is capped at 10ish fps for lenses without electromagnetic diaphragm, they only let you shoot at 14 fps with electromagnetic apertures. This also applied to older models from Canikon, where the High burst rate was locked behind having the battery grip installed.

[Rondec]

Technically the 20-30fps are clearly advertised as working *only* on a specific set of lenses (not even on all Sony lenses). Any other lens is explicitly not covered by the spec and works at the lower frame rate.

I agree that it is somewhere between disappointing and scummy (depending on how much one believes the official reason of the excluded lenses having aperture mechanisms that don't manage 20+ fps), but I would say it isn't misleading. And besides, if one pays 4000€+ on a camera body because 20 fps is a core competency... Why are you cheaping out on the lens? It's a bit like complaining that the Eye-AF of the K-3iii doesn't work with A-series lenses, or (less tongue-in-cheekly) that it works pretty badly with the old F-series macros.

EDIT: I just remembered that Nikon was doing this a while ago with their own lenses as well - the D6 (and D5 IIRC) is capped at 10ish fps for lenses without electromagnetic diaphragm, they only let you shoot at 14 fps with electromagnetic apertures. This also applied to older models from Canikon, where the High burst rate was locked behind having the battery grip installed.

Obviously all of the brands will try to push their users towards new, more expensive lenses. Third party lenses, while often cheaper and beneficial to the end photographer, are not appreciated by the brands.

I guess I would prefer that the encouragement would be more positive, in that the newer lenses are sharper, have better image stabilization or some such feature, rather than simply that the brands artificially slow body performance with them. I think Canon and Nikon are pretty happy when a firmware update makes it so third party lenses don't work as well.

Pentax hasn't really done this to this point. They release lenses that are no longer compatible with old film cameras, but they haven't taken screw drive motor out of any of their cameras, even the cheapest, entry-level ones.

[Serkevan]

Obviously all of the brands will try to push their users towards new, more expensive lenses. Third party lenses, while often cheaper and beneficial to the end photographer, are not appreciated by the brands.

I guess I would prefer that the encouragement would be more positive, in that the newer lenses are sharper, have better image stabilization or some such feature, rather than simply that the brands artificially slow body performance with them. I think Canon and Nikon are pretty happy when a firmware update makes it so third party lenses don't work as well.

Pentax hasn't really done this to this point. They release lenses that are no longer compatible with old film cameras, but they haven't taken screw drive motor out of any of their cameras, even the cheapest, entry-level ones.

Yeah, the worst offense in Pentax cameras is the lack of aperture coupler (which is only now mitigated in the K-3iii, yay for that). I guess I just don't think Sony's limitations are particularly gruesome or anti-customer, at least not the ones related to third party lenses. The Canon move? Absolutely terrible, IMO, but it's fairly on brand for them.

[UncleVanya]

Yeah, the worst offense in Pentax cameras is the lack of aperture coupler (which is only now mitigated in the K-3iii, yay for that). I guess I just don't think Sony's limitations are particularly gruesome or anti-customer, at least not the ones related to third party lenses. The Canon move? Absolutely terrible, IMO, but it's fairly on brand for them.

To elaborate on the Sony limits, no Sony lens before the 70-300 G is certified at high speed either. Some people have found their are some third party lenses that perform faster than expected, it may simply be a matter of not promising performance when the aperture mechanism isn’t tested by Sony.

[ProfessorBuzz]

Often it's a question of liability (risk) and licensing (revenue).
If a third party wants to build a product that uses Canon proprietary intellectual property, Canon would have the option of licensing it to them for a fee.
They may also feel that the third party does not deliver a quality product and would tarnish the Canon brand or worse, actually harm the Canon product or the user, opening it up to liability for repair or lawsuits.

[Rondec]

Often it's a question of liability (risk) and licensing (revenue).
If a third party wants to build a product that uses Canon proprietary intellectual property, Canon would have the option of licensing it to them for a fee.
They may also feel that the third party does not deliver a quality product and would tarnish the Canon brand or worse, actually harm the Canon product or the user, opening it up to liability for repair or lawsuits.

Do you really think so? Sigma has never paid a licensing fee for any of the mounts they support. They simply reverse engineer the camera protocols and then make their lenses based on that reverse engineering. It isn't always a perfect scenario, but I have never heard of anyone suing Canon or Nikon over the fact that their Sigma lens didn't work perfectly. Everyone understands that third party lenses may not function quite as well, but they are typically a lot cheaper, hence the reason that they sell so well.

I think this is simply Canon telling third party makers that they want to clean up whatever money there is to be made on RF lens sales.

[surfar]

I think this is simply Canon telling third party makers that they want to clean up whatever money there is to be made on RF lens sales.

Yes,Canon spent the $$$$$$$$ to engineer the RF cameras and should be justly rewarded.

I dont think any people owning the R system should be complaining because Canon has the cheap range of RF glass.Primes like 16f2.8..24 f1.8..35 f1.8...50 f1.8...85 f2 , 600 f11 and 800 f11.The zoom range is good too 15-30,24-105,24-240,100-400.Also the adapters are excellent and loads of EF and EFs glass available new and used.

Its logical to think that Canon would like to see their gear as an exclusive area.

As far as Viltrox goes, some people like their glass and their adapters work(but no WR).At this stage the only lens Ive seen reports on that out does native is the 13mm for Fuji,its getting very enthusiastic write ups and reports.

[beholder3]

Sigma has never paid a licensing fee for any of the mounts they support. They simply reverse engineer the camera protocols

I assume many people ignore current tech. The old camera "protocols" were probably relatively plain and simple things which where just proprietary but openly visible. There you could "reverse engineer".

With current mirrorless toys and their brand-new lens mounts and protocols I do assume that these are digitally encrypted protocols (super easy today).

#1: this now makes "reverse engineering" at least a lot more difficult or technically impossible.

#2: In many countries breaking any sort of digital communication encryption would be considered hacking and illegal in many ways. Beginning with copyright laws and ending in more severe crimes. The same laws which prevent people from copying games.
So I am sure there is zero "patent" required today, you just need to encrypt your software communication and can sue anyone breaking in there.
It is about software legislation now.

[Rondec]

Yes,Canon spent the $$$$$$$$ to engineer the RF cameras and should be justly rewarded.

I dont think any people owning the R system should be complaining because Canon has the cheap range of RF glass.Primes like 16f2.8..24 f1.8..35 f1.8...50 f1.8...85 f2 , 600 f11 and 800 f11.The zoom range is good too 15-30,24-105,24-240,100-400.Also the adapters are excellent and loads of EF and EFs glass available new and used.

Its logical to think that Canon would like to see their gear as an exclusive area.

As far as Viltrox goes, some people like their glass and their adapters work(but no WR).At this stage the only lens Ive seen reports on that out does native is the 13mm for Fuji,its getting very enthusiastic write ups and reports.

I suppose so. I imagine the best you can do is get Sigma lenses in the EOS mount and put them on your RF camera with an adapter.

Pentax is routinely dinged in reviews for having poor third party lens support and I suppose that should be brought up going forward in Canon reviews as well. The big area where the complaints generally come are related to super telephoto lenses like the 150-600 lenses that Sigma and Tamron offer. These are quite nice lenses for the price and the fact that Canon excludes them may help Canon lens sales, but certainly could push away some wildlife photographers.

[martin42mm]

this decision by Canon may indeed help those looking to stay with Pentax rather than jumping brands. There is a current thread on here that is looking at what price people would be prepared to pay for the next KP model replacement, and of course much has focused ( sorry..) on the possibilities of other brand users switching to Pentax should one appear, as well as keeping Pentax current users in the fold. I reckon Canon have done themselves no favours here, and if it frees up third-party makers to turn to Pentax mount lens manufacture so much the better. Remember it was Pentax that was perfectly happy to open up the licensing of the PK mount when it first came out in the logical hope it would increase the number of PK-mount cameras out there. Canon clearly want a total monopoly of camera body AND lens manufacture.