p.2 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
rscheffler wrote:
Sony didn't really have a choice if they wanted to get traction with their FF FE system as quickly as possible. But yes they've done well and it does present more options for photographers. It may keep some loyal to Sony due to the greater variety of lenses available at lower price points.
I worked in photo retail in the 90s and remember selling third party AF lenses in Canon EF mount. The EF mount was released in 1987, IIRC. Maybe back then Canon was more permissive or did licensing?
I remember one customer bought a Tokina 80-200/2.8 that didn't work properly on his Canon camera. What we would now consider firmware incompatibility. So it's possible it was reverse engineered rather than licensed because you would expect it to work correctly, if licensed. ...Show more →
Pretty sure lens makers like Tokina, Sigma and others reverse engineered the operating ROM in the 1990s. I owned 6 Sigma lenses and a Tokina that worked fine on my EOS A2E. I bought a new Elan 7E and all of the lenses gave an error and refused to work. Only one, a Sigma 50 2.5 Macro EX, had a ROM update available but I had to mail the lens to Sigma to get the update. All the other lenses were paperweights. After that I became a loyal Canon lens fan...
p.2 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Reverse engineering should still as far as I know be legal, especially with clean room techniques. I'd expect watching the interface traffic with a logic analyzer for example.
But perhaps some of these guys were duplicating the Canon adapter's ROM wholesale...that would not be kosher.
Perhaps someone with better understanding of intellectual property can chime in here...but is it possible these third party adapters were literally cloning the code in the microcontrollers inside these adapters? For example, there must be some small microcontroller for the control ring adapter...did they just copy the code for it? That I know would be a copyright violation. Whereas reverse engineering it with your own code, but emulating the electrical signals and interface traffic would be presumably okay.
The other possibility is there's some function inside these adapters which is heavily patented. So even if it's been emulated fairly, there's something unique and novel about them which these third parties have run afoul of.
p.2 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
tsangc wrote:
Reverse engineering should still as far as I know be legal, especially with clean room techniques. I'd expect watching the interface traffic with a logic analyzer for example.
But perhaps some of these guys were duplicating the Canon adapter's ROM wholesale...that would not be kosher.
Perhaps someone with better understanding of intellectual property can chime in here...but is it possible these third party adapters were literally cloning the code in the microcontrollers inside these adapters? For example, there must be some small microcontroller for the control ring adapter...did they just copy the code for it? That I know would be a copyright violation. Whereas reverse engineering it with your own code, but emulating the electrical signals and interface traffic would be presumably okay.
The other possibility is there's some function inside these adapters which is heavily patented. So even if it's been emulated fairly, there's something unique and novel about them which these third parties have run afoul of....Show more →
p.2 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jesse Evans wrote:
It looks like there is a dpreview thread about Viltrox pulling all of their RF mount lenses and adapters from their website, and apparently Yongnuo did the same?
p.2 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
One possibility is that Canon is trying to shut down any "rogue" RF mount products in preparation for officially licensing the mount and lens protocols. This could be viewed as a necessary step to establish legal ownership of patents and other IP.
Of course, this is what I would like to think is happening... Time will tell, but I think that Canon's EF mount benefited from having the wide industry support afforded to the market leader. It's hard for me to see Canon maintaining market leadership with zero third party support.
p.2 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
rscheffler wrote:
Sony didn't really have a choice if they wanted to get traction with their FF FE system as quickly as possible. But yes they've done well and it does present more options for photographers. It may keep some loyal to Sony due to the greater variety of lenses available at lower price points.
I worked in photo retail in the 90s and remember selling third party AF lenses in Canon EF mount. The EF mount was released in 1987, IIRC. Maybe back then Canon was more permissive or did licensing?
I remember one customer bought a Tokina 80-200/2.8 that didn't work properly on his Canon camera. What we would now consider firmware incompatibility. So it's possible it was reverse engineered rather than licensed because you would expect it to work correctly, if licensed. ...Show more →
Sony are different though. In the gaming world console developers see third parties as allies and not enemies so it seems Sony just applied that same approach to their cameras.
p.2 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
Sony are different though. In the gaming world console developers see third parties as allies and not enemies so it seems Sony just applied that same approach to their cameras.
Not really. Further, Sony opened up E-mount because they had near zero ILC market presence, and unlike Canon and Nikon, their DSLR / DSLT lenses were extremely aged and could not be easily adapted.
The open E-mount was a bid for market acceptance and was largely successful, and that despite Sony's own quirks i.e. cameras designed by consumer electronics engineers and not photographers.
p.2 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
johnctharp wrote:
Not really. Further, Sony opened up E-mount because they had near zero ILC market presence, and unlike Canon and Nikon, their DSLR / DSLT lenses were extremely aged and could not be easily adapted.
The open E-mount was a bid for market acceptance and was largely successful, and that despite Sony's own quirks i.e. cameras designed by consumer electronics engineers and not photographers.
Unless a photographer is also an electronics engineer or software engineer with a specialty camera related technology an engineer is who you want designing cameras. Given that Sony is competing with Canon for the number 1 spot and that lots photographers and video shooters use Sony they must be doing something right. Do they have areas in which they could improve? absolutely but that goes for all camera companies.
For all of the criticisms levelled at Sony they created the conditions for a mirrorless eco system which can not be said for Canon.
p.2 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
This behavior is why I moved away from Canon. As good as their products are, they do not have any quality mid range, lighter lenses in their current lineup, and the roadmap which made me continue investing in the system. Having a closed ecosystem might serve their business need well, but does not work for a lot of consumers. I’ve seen a few people echo my sentiment and have abandoned the system.
p.2 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Srin_aith wrote:
As good as their products are, they do not have any quality mid range, lighter lenses in their current lineup...
On the contrary, I find all of Canon's new RF non-L primes to be quite appealing.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more third party lenses, but Canon is doing a good job filling out the range (at least for full frame users), IMO.
p.2 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Maybe it is my technical background, but who qualifies these weird 3rd party products to be compatible with the OEM lenses and cameras? I wasted many thousands of dollars trying to get the Sony cameras to use Canon lenses with those funky 3rd party adapters (which were not cheap) and AF was sucky no matter what. I would use a Canon/Nikon/Sony, etc. adapter with their own branded products, but every day in the field is far too valuable to waste with 3rd party engineering experiments.
p.2 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
EB-1 wrote:
Maybe it is my technical background, but who qualifies these weird 3rd party products to be compatible with the OEM lenses and cameras? I wasted many thousands of dollars trying to get the Sony cameras to use Canon lenses with those funky 3rd party adapters (which were not cheap) and AF was sucky no matter what. I would use a Canon/Nikon/Sony, etc. adapter with their own branded products, but every day in the field is far too valuable to waste with 3rd party engineering experiments.
EBH
I had a good experience spending < $100 on Sigma MC-11 a long while ago ... how did you manage to spend "thousands of dollars" ?
p.2 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Srin_aith wrote:
This behavior is why I moved away from Canon. As good as their products are, they do not have any quality mid range, lighter lenses in their current lineup, and the roadmap which made me continue investing in the system. Having a closed ecosystem might serve their business need well, but does not work for a lot of consumers. I’ve seen a few people echo my sentiment and have abandoned the system.
Same for me, I couldn’t justify spending significantly more on RF or old EF lenses when I could get better new options with Sony.
Here in Australia for example, Canon charge way too much for a lot of their L lenses compared to what the competition charge for both first party and third party lenses.
Let's look at some comparisons:
35GM - $1899 AUD / $1399 USD
35L II - $2800 AUD / $1999 USD (much older, heavier lens in an old mount)
35mm DN Art - $1299 AUD / $749 USD
EF16-35Lf/4 - $1799 AUD $1299 USD
RF14-35L - $2499 AUD / $1649 USD
FE PZ 16-35 - $1580 AUD / $1198 USD (released this year but still cheaper than RF/EF options)
Sigma DN 16-28mm f/2.8 - $1189 AUD / $899USD
If you look purely at Sigma and other third parties, their DN lenses are smaller and sharper than the old DG versions and as Sony share their AF, they perform like native too.
If Canon offered their own options at reasonable prices then it would be fine to block third parties, but they don’t so that’s the issue.
p.2 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
If Canon offered their own options at reasonable prices then it would be fine to block third parties, but they don’t so that’s the issue.
p.2 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Srin_aith wrote:
This behavior is why I moved away from Canon. As good as their products are, they do not have any quality mid range, lighter lenses in their current lineup, and the roadmap which made me continue investing in the system. Having a closed ecosystem might serve their business need well, but does not work for a lot of consumers. I’ve seen a few people echo my sentiment and have abandoned the system.
What I find ironic about this whole situation is that I think a lot of ex Canon shooters who are now with Sony would probably go back to Canon bodies if they had the same lens options as on emount.
p.2 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I’ve been awaiting the Laowa anamorphic primes in RF mount. I’ll be disappointed if Laowa gets a C&D as well. Not a fan of anticompetitive behavior. Wish canon would improve R5 C standby battery life instead of chasing 3rd party lens makers around.
p.2 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
SNJOps wrote:
What I find ironic about this whole situation is that I think a lot of ex Canon shooters who are now with Sony would probably go back to Canon bodies if they had the same lens options as on emount.
I just swapped within the last few weeks from an R6 to the A7IV and it was purely about the lenses. I actually find the R6 is better in a few areas (mainly AF and high ISO performance) but the lens options are way too compelling. If I could have got the 85mm DN Art and 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art on Canon I would have been more than happy with it and no interest in swapping.
