p.11 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
dolina wrote:
Congratulations on the Sony E-mount. You do not need to complain further.
Why not go steps further and buy all the systems?
A couple of days ago I watched this video on why switching systems or going multi system just does not make any sense.
Give it a watch, you may spot some things you may not have considered before.
Coincidentally, I currently have cameras and lenses in 4 systems: Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic.
My two favorites are Canon (R6) and Sony (A7c). I'm happy with my R6 and EF lens collection; yes, my lenses are longer in physical length thanks to the EF to RF adapter, but I like the idea that I can use all lenses (native or 3rd party) perfectly well on my R6.
As for Sony, I have 3 native Sony lenses and one 3rd party lens (Tamron 24mm f2.8). I have been doing plenty of research during the past month for a small, decent, affordable zoom travel lens to pair with my A7c (full frame within the 24-70 to 24-105 focal lengths). While there are 3rd party options by Sigma, Tamron and Samyang, each has its own limitations. Sony's options are expensive. Sigma and Tamron are not that much cheaper.
So, while there are 3rd party lens options for Sony FE, the options aren't that "mind blowing", or in other words, the grass is not greener on the other side. Trust me, I have been "grazing on the grass" of Canon (FF and APS-C), Nikon (FF and APS-C), Sony (FF) and Panasonic (micro four thirds) for some time now.
p.s. I am waiting for Tamron's new 20-40mm f2.8 to hit the shelves. If it's under $800, I'll get one for my A7c. It would be the perfect travel lens. However, if it goes for over $900, I won't bother getting one. The current prices for the lens type I'm looking for are:
p.11 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
How are the third party options you're looking at "not that much cheaper" when you're looking at f/2.8 zooms on the third party side? You then try to compare them to f/4 zooms on the Sony side. The Sony 24-70/2.8 II is $2300, and the old version is $2000.
I can look at the RF 85/2 and say it's only $699 compared to the Sigma 85/1.4 DN, which is $1199. But it's also a full stop slower, and the closer equivalent RF lens is $2700.
Look, the entire point here is that having options is good.
snegron7 wrote:
Coincidentally, I currently have cameras and lenses in 4 systems: Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic.
My two favorites are Canon (R6) and Sony (A7c). I'm happy with my R6 and EF lens collection; yes, my lenses are longer in physical length thanks to the EF to RF adapter, but I like the idea that I can use all lenses (native or 3rd party) perfectly well on my R6.
As for Sony, I have 3 native Sony lenses and one 3rd party lens (Tamron 24mm f2.8). I have been doing plenty of research during the past month for a small, decent, affordable zoom travel lens to pair with my A7c (full frame within the 24-70 to 24-105 focal lengths). While there are 3rd party options by Sigma, Tamron and Samyang, each has its own limitations. Sony's options are expensive. Sigma and Tamron are not that much cheaper.
So, while there are 3rd party lens options for Sony FE, the options aren't that "mind blowing", or in other words, the grass is not greener on the other side. Trust me, I have been "grazing on the grass" of Canon (FF and APS-C), Nikon (FF and APS-C), Sony (FF) and Panasonic (micro four thirds) for some time now.
p.s. I am waiting for Tamron's new 20-40mm f2.8 to hit the shelves. If it's under $800, I'll get one for my A7c. It would be the perfect travel lens. However, if it goes for over $900, I won't bother getting one. The current prices for the lens type I'm looking for are:
p.11 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jman13 wrote:
How are the third party options you're looking at "not that much cheaper" when you're looking at f/2.8 zooms on the third party side? You then try to compare them to f/4 zooms on the Sony side. The Sony 24-70/2.8 II is $2300, and the old version is $2000.
I can look at the RF 85/2 and say it's only $699 compared to the Sigma 85/1.4 DN, which is $1199. But it's also a full stop slower, and the closer equivalent RF lens is $2700.
Look, the entire point here is that having options is good.
I'm sure there are folks out there who prefer to use a Sony 24-70mm f2.8 for travel, but I'm not one of them. My comparison is based on similar sized lenses, especially in terms of weight. The A7c is the smallest FF camera on the market today. Why would I weigh it down with a super heavy lens like the Sony 24-70mm f2.8?
Originally I had the idea of just using 3 small primes with it for travel. However, looking at the overall big picture, one small/medium sized zoom lens takes up less camera bag space than 3 small primes. The second consideration is how heavy that camera/lens will feel after walking around a city for several hours. It's a balancing act.
As for the "having options is good" argument, I stick to my original statement that the EF to RF adapter gives you all the "wonderful" 3rd party options.
p.11 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Personally, I'm content with my current all Canon modest system, R5, RF100-500L, RF24-105L, & adapted EF 15-35F4L; but if I was just getting into "prosumer" photography, I'd be pondering the question, should I choose a company that gives me more options, ---or one that does not?
The latter is defined as "captive clientele", where the manufacturer has no competition, and therefore no limits to what they can charge. ---- Pay a noncompetitive, astronomical price, ---or do without.
p.11 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
If Canon licenses the mount like Sony and Nikon, they get paid a cut of 3rd party lens sales. They won’t be going bankrupt either way.
dolina wrote:
Then you found the solution. End of story.
Sony's E-mount was introduced more than a dozen years ago.
Canon's RF mount's nearing 4 years?
It takes a shorter time to buy a new system than to wait and complain online.
Digital still camera market has been shrinking YoY for over the past decade.
From all all time high of 121,463,234 in 2021 to 7,850,000 2022 forecast.
All time low was 5,088,207 back in 1999 which doubled to 10,342,084 in 2000.
Last thing I want to happen is for Canon to go bankrupt because 3rd party lenses outsell RF L lenses on the 1st 6 years of the mount's introduction....Show more →
p.11 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I personally am delighted by the improvements Canon has made to RF lenses and see these lenses as a draw for the system overall.
But of course, choice is always good for consumers. I would like to see Canon license its RF lens protocols to third parties out of principle, even if I personally am not pining to use any of those lenses. (Canon ultimately has to weigh the revenue losses due to third-party lens sales versus potential attrition of customers.)
I also think that there may be more (or less) to this story than is obvious. Everyone is assuming that this signals some new and hostile stance by Canon towards *all* third parties. In fact, there might be something specific that Viltrox and Samyang have done to infringe. I noticed that Metabones has not pulled any of its RF mount speed boosters or adapters, for example. Canon may even be planning to license its IP in the future and is taking this step to establish IP ownership.
But of course, absent some public statement from Canon, there is no way to know. Canon tends to be more opaque than transparent, so I think the debate is going to rage on.
p.11 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
But you’re arguing against your own point. Yes, the EF/RF adapter gets you access to third party options, but they are all older designs, and also much, much larger options. You said yourself, how you don’t want heavier and larger lenses, so your option is to compromise on max aperture with the first party options, or go third party and get faster aperture and smaller size at the same price. That seems like a huge win to me.
I own 6 RF lenses, and they are great. I also own several manual focus third party lenses, a few adapted third party lenses to fill in gaps in the lineup and one third party AF lens that I bought used since Canon put the kibosh on them (Samyang 85/1.4, which is wonderful). And while my lineup is fairly complete, I’d love to exchange a few of the bigger adapted lenses to more compact options without breaking the bank.
snegron7 wrote:
I'm sure there are folks out there who prefer to use a Sony 24-70mm f2.8 for travel, but I'm not one of them. My comparison is based on similar sized lenses, especially in terms of weight. The A7c is the smallest FF camera on the market today. Why would I weigh it down with a super heavy lens like the Sony 24-70mm f2.8?
Originally I had the idea of just using 3 small primes with it for travel. However, looking at the overall big picture, one small/medium sized zoom lens takes up less camera bag space than 3 small primes. The second consideration is how heavy that camera/lens will feel after walking around a city for several hours. It's a balancing act.
As for the "having options is good" argument, I stick to my original statement that the EF to RF adapter gives you all the "wonderful" 3rd party options. ...Show more →
Sep 05, 2022 at 09:54 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.11 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I definitely want 3rd party lenses. However if I had the budget I'd probably rather get 24-105 Rf L, which is supposed to be excellent, or 24-70/2.8 RF IS, to see if the IS helps vs primes. Granted 21mn or less could be really nice with these
You can't really cover 24-70 using 3 primes .
A lot of the arguments don't make sense. For instance cost. If you get 3 primes you are probably going to be spending $1k-2k+.
p.11 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
You can't really cover 24-70 using 3 primes.
70mm is honestly kind of a tweener focal length not present in classical lens systems. I find it a bit too short for flattering head and shoulders portraits, so I would much prefer at least a 24-85 mm range (though such a lens might not be practical). Even then, you don't get much opportunity for visual compression: 100 or 105mm would be much better.
For decades, favored prime lens pairings for photojournalism and reportage were 24-35-85 (or 90), or if you were a 50mm fan, 28-50-100 (or 105). Obviously this is not set in stone and people can mix and match preferred focal lengths--I always used 20-35-100 for example.
While there are always cases where you must shoot from a fixed location and a zoom provides framing flexibility, I think it is not so important to have all of the in-between focal lengths, in most situations. It's the fluidity of changing focal lengths quickly that justifies the zoom (for me).
Because I find 70mm too short, I almost always am carrying a second lens, usually mounted on a second body to avoid lens changes.
p.11 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
You can't really cover 24-70 using 3 primes.
garyvot wrote:
70mm is honestly kind of a tweener focal length not present in classic lens systems. I find it a bit too short for flattering head and shoulders portraits, so I would much prefer at least a 24-85 mm range (though such a lens might not be practical). Even then, you don't get much opportunity for visual compression: 100 or 105mm would be much better.
For decades, the classical prime lens pairings for photojournalism and reportage were 24-35-85 (or 90), or if you were a 50mm fan, 28-50-100 (or 105). Obviously this is not set in stone and people can mix and match preferred focal lengths--I always used 20-35-100 for example.
While there are always cases where you must shoot from a fixed location and a zoom provides framing flexibility, I think it is not so important to have all of the in-between focal lengths in most situations. ...Show more →
I'd much rather have a zoom if the IQ is adequate. I don't have interest in humans as subjects. The classic focal lengths and paper sizes are therefore of no interest. Canon has a mutlitude of 24-70 lenses that can be used on RF and that unique 28-70/2. The RF 24-105/4 is rather inexpensive for what you get and better than any of the EF 2x-1xx lenses. I'm sure that Sigma could make more 24-105s or whatever.
p.11 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
70mm is honestly kind of a tweener focal length not present in classical lens systems. I find it a bit too short for flattering head and shoulders portraits, so I would much prefer at least a 24-85 mm range (though such a lens might not be practical). Even then, you don't get much opportunity for visual compression: 100 or 105mm would be much better.
For decades, favored prime lens pairings for photojournalism and reportage were 24-35-85 (or 90), or if you were a 50mm fan, 28-50-100 (or 105). Obviously this is not set in stone and people can mix and match preferred focal lengths--I always used 20-35-100 for example.
While there are always cases where you must shoot from a fixed location and a zoom provides framing flexibility, I think it is not so important to have all of the in-between focal lengths, in most situations. It's the fluidity of changing focal lengths quickly that justifies the zoom (for me).
Because I find 70mm too short, I almost always am carrying a second lens, usually mounted on a second body to avoid lens changes....Show more →
My current travel setup is:
- Sony A7c
- Tamron 24mm f2.8
- Sony 40mm f2.5
- Sony 85mm f1.8
While each of my primes are light enough while on my camera, the inconvenience of switching lenses detracts from a fluid image capturing experience. Changing a lens on my Sony A7c is not as easy/intuitive as it is on any of my other cameras from Canon, Nikon or Panasonic. The location of the lens release button coupled with the counter-clockwise rotation to release the lens makes it very uncomfortable to change lenses.
A 24-70mm or 24-105/120 would be the ideal focal for me for travel.
p.11 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
snegron7 wrote:
My current travel setup is:
- Sony A7c
- Tamron 24mm f2.8
- Sony 40mm f2.5
- Sony 85mm f1.8
While each of my primes are light enough while on my camera, the inconvenience of switching lenses detracts from a fluid image capturing experience. Changing a lens on my Sony A7c is not as easy/intuitive as it is on any of my other cameras from Canon, Nikon or Panasonic. The location of the lens release button coupled with the counter-clockwise rotation to release the lens makes it very uncomfortable to change lenses.
A 24-70mm or 24-105/120 would be the ideal focal for me for travel. ...Show more →
Lucky for you Sigma do a new 24-70mm f/2.8 DN Art which is much more reasonably priced than Sony and Canon’s offering and optically/AF size much better than their old HSM lens. So you could say having third party options is very beneficial which is the point everyone is making lol
p.11 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
If Canon licenses the mount like Sony and Nikon, they get paid a cut of 3rd party lens sales. They won’t be going bankrupt either way.
There are business reasons why Sony & Nikon licensed their 2010's E & 2018's Z mounts.
They do not want or do not have the R&D and manufacturing resources to develop thin margin lenses.
They both at one point were #2 players to Canon's #1 position.
To my understanding Sony's licensing the E mount in 2011 was at a symbolic fee. This is to get them to 2nd largest camera brand by 2018 without spending much R&D money.
Is Canon in that business position? They aint. They're the largest camera brand.
If you're a leading player in your market what incentives do they have to share? Any 1st party manufacturer makes a better margin than licensing it out per unit sold.
This is why Apple stopped licensing macOS to 3rd parties nearly a quarter century ago.
Typically companies outsource when they cannot do it themselves or they do not want to do it themselves.
If my primary purpose for wanting 3rd party lenses to work on the RF mount was because of financial reasons then I'd stick to EF or F mount. There are thousands of perfectly functional used bodies, lenses and gear to buy at a discount because many are migrating to mirrorless. If the used goods breaks then you can easily find out one on eBay or FM's Buy-Sell for the same SKU for even less in the near future.
If you want 3rd party products because ABC lens on MNO mount is not available on XZY mount then buy the MNO body. Saves the photographer time and gets them shooting yesterday.
What I dislike about going multisystem is the down time away from shooting because you have to relearn how to use a camera's physical button placements and menu system.
So being system-neutral may sound progressive on paper but at the cost your time & money.
Not to mention smaller player's after sales service level does not exceed or much less match Canon's.
p.11 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Except they aren’t No. 1 anymore. Sony has been No. 1 in mirrorless sales for several years now. Sure Canon has higher overall sales still, but the world is changing fast. The users that are left are pros and enthusiasts. The rules that Canon has lived by since the 80s don’t apply anymore.
I guarantee you Nikon is not giving away the licensing for free. Tamron is paying for it. This is just my opinion, but Canon stands to lose far more than it will gain by being so unwilling to change, and more importantly, build a large ecosystem for its users (assuming it doesn’t license the mount eventually).
Sony is gaining more and more momentum. And now so is Nikon. They are both innovating, and welcoming partnerships to make the user experience better. And frankly, none of Canon’s technology in mirrorless has broken any ground or really been game changing. It’s all been very safe and boring. Canon revolutionized photography more than once in the past, but it just feels like their bean counters are running things these days.
And believe me, I’m a big Canon fan. I want to see them succeed. The product decisions and market strategy just make no sense to me. But I could be totally wrong, and Canon ends up on top once again.
dolina wrote:
There are business reasons why Sony & Nikon licensed their 2010's E & 2018's Z mounts.
They do not want or do not have the R&D and manufacturing resources to develop thin margin lenses.
They both at one point were #2 players to Canon's #1 position.
To my understanding Sony's licensing the E mount in 2011 was at a symbolic fee. This is to get them to 2nd largest camera brand by 2018 without spending much R&D money.
Is Canon in that business position? They aint. They're the largest camera brand.
If you're a leading player in your market what incentives do they have to share? Any 1st party manufacturer makes a better margin than licensing it out per unit sold.
This is why Apple stopped licensing macOS to 3rd parties nearly a quarter century ago.
Typically companies outsource when they cannot do it themselves or they do not want to do it themselves.
If my primary purpose for wanting 3rd party lenses to work on the RF mount was because of financial reasons then I'd stick to EF or F mount. There are thousands of perfectly functional used bodies, lenses and gear to buy at a discount because many are migrating to mirrorless. If the used goods breaks then you can easily find out one on eBay or FM's Buy-Sell for the same SKU for even less in the near future.
If you want 3rd party products because ABC lens on MNO mount is not available on XZY mount then buy the MNO body. Saves the photographer time and gets them shooting yesterday.
What I dislike about going multisystem is the down time away from shooting because you have to relearn how to use a camera's physical button placements and menu system.
So being system-neutral may sound progressive on paper but at the cost your time & money.
Not to mention smaller player's after sales service level does not exceed or much less match Canon's.
p.11 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I googled this timeline so everyone's on the same page.
Sony
- 2010: E mount introduced
- 2011: E mount is licensed to 3rd parties
- 2016: Last dSLR (SLT) was announced
- 2019: Sony becomes #2 player displacing Nikon
- 2021: End of dSLR (SLT) manufacturing
As of today on BHPHoto from 2010-2022 there are
- 63 Sony-branded E mount lens-only SKUs with USA warranty
- 9 Sony-branded E mount full frame body-only SKUs with USA warranty
Canon
- 2018: RF mount introduced
- 2020: Last dSLR was announced
- 2026(?): End of dSLR manufacturing
As of today on BHPHoto from 2018-2022 there are
- 30 Canon-branded RF mount lens-only SKUs with USA warranty
- 5 Canon-branded RF mount full frame body-only SKUs with USA warranty
Nikon
- 2018: Z mount introduced
- 2019: Sony becomes #2 player displacing Nikon
- 2020: last dSLR was announced
- 2021: Z mount is licensed to 3rd parties
- 2026(?): End of dSLR manufacturing
As of today on BHPHoto from 2018-2022 there are
- 29 Nikon-branded Z mount lens-only SKUs with USA warranty
- 4 Nikon-branded Z mount full frame body-only SKUs with USA warranty
It has been reported that Canon Japan's CEO committed to 32 new lenses by year 2026.
63 current Sony-branded E lenses + unknown future lenses.
It is guaranteed Sony/everyone else will release new lens SKUs that are
- updates to ~10 year old E mount lenses
- equivalent counterpart lenses of their 1st party & 3rd party competitors
- unique focal lengths & apertures that Sony pioneered
From 2018-2022 Canon Japan has put out key focal lengths that photo news agencies & journalists need in their work.
The 1980s rules has always been about pros & enthusiasts. It was only during 2000-2012 where in consumer point & shots and consumer dSLRs dominated the market. For the last decade smartphone is the primary camera of consumers. It is the secondary camera for enthusiasts & professionals.
jwolfe wrote:
Except they aren’t No. 1 anymore. Sony has been No. 1 in mirrorless sales for several years now. Sure Canon has higher overall sales still, but the world is changing fast. The users that are left are pros and enthusiasts. The rules that Canon has lived by since the 80s don’t apply anymore.
I guarantee you Nikon is not giving away the licensing for free. Tamron is paying for it. This is just my opinion, but Canon stands to lose far more than it will gain by being so unwilling to change, and more importantly, build a large ecosystem for its users (assuming it doesn’t license the mount eventually).
Sony is gaining more and more momentum. And now so is Nikon. They are both innovating, and welcoming partnerships to make the user experience better. And frankly, none of Canon’s technology in mirrorless has broken any ground or really been game changing. It’s all been very safe and boring. Canon revolutionized photography more than once in the past, but it just feels like their bean counters are running things these days.
And believe me, I like Canon. Several of my best sports images in Sports Illustrated were shot on Canon 1D series bodies. I want to see them succeed. The product decisions and market strategy just make no sense to me. But I could be totally wrong, and Canon ends up on top once again.
p.11 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
All very valid points.
But like I said the market is changing rapidly. While there are only 63 e mount Sony lenses, there are hundreds of 3rd party options and adapters for every mount ever made pretty much. As much as I like to give Sony fanboys crap, they make incredible cameras.
The quip about the 80s was related to innovation. Canon has done zero innovating in RF mount. Everything is a copy of Sony or some version of EF mount they’ve already done. Sony has completely changed photography and camera technology.
Again, we will have to revisit this in five years to see whether Sony’s open and aggressive approach or Canon’s safe approach win in the end.
dolina wrote:
Sony
- 2010: E mount introduced
- 2016: last dSLR (SLT) was released
- 2021: end of dSLR (SLT) manufacturing
- 2022: From 2010-2022 there are 63 Sony-branded E mount lens-only SKUs on BHPhoto with USA warranty
Canon
- 2018: RF mount introduced
- 2020: last dSLR was released
- 2026(?): end of dSLR manufacturing
- 2022: From 2018-2022 there are 30 Canon-branded RF mount lens-only SKUs on BHPhoto with USA warranty
Nikon
- 2018: RF mount introduced
- 2020: last dSLR was released
- 2026(?): end of dSLR manufacturing
- 2022: From 2018-2022 there are 29 Nikon-branded Z mount lens-only SKUs on BHPhoto with USA warranty
The 1980s rules has always been about pros & enthusiasts. It was only during 2000-2012 where in consumer point & shots and consumer dSLRs dominated the market. For the last decade smartphone is the primary camera of consumers.
It has been reported that Canon Japan's CEO committed to 32 new lenses by year 2026
p.11 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
70mm is honestly kind of a tweener focal length not present in classical lens systems. I find it a bit too short for flattering head and shoulders portraits, so I would much prefer at least a 24-85 mm range (though such a lens might not be practical). Even then, you don't get much opportunity for visual compression: 100 or 105mm would be much better.
For decades, favored prime lens pairings for photojournalism and reportage were 24-35-85 (or 90), or if you were a 50mm fan, 28-50-100 (or 105). Obviously this is not set in stone and people can mix and match preferred focal lengths--I always used 20-35-100 for example.
While there are always cases where you must shoot from a fixed location and a zoom provides framing flexibility, I think it is not so important to have all of the in-between focal lengths, in most situations. It's the fluidity of changing focal lengths quickly that justifies the zoom (for me).
Because I find 70mm too short, I almost always am carrying a second lens, usually mounted on a second body to avoid lens changes....Show more →
If I did a lot of people photography I'd probably get a 70-200/2.8. Seems like an excellent people lens. Especially on head and shoulders portraits. 24-70 isn't a real head shot lens though it can probably be used.
If I wanted to be able to get a specific FL: zoom. I remember using 28-70 one time, it was surprising how much ground it covered. 70 long enough to get people photos.
People used 28 50 105. But it is too big of a gap in between the 50 and 105 imo. Either you have to crop or something and then you lose at least some of the iq you tried to get using primes
p.11 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I updated my post as I remembered some key salient points after your response.
Depending on how consumers respond to the RF mount it could go either
- Canon continuing their business model & release equivalents or duplicates to other lenses
- License the RF mount ~4(?) years from now.
But given CIPA's worldwide shipping numbers dropping to between year 1999-2000 makes you wonder if their will be further consolidation, mergers or even shutdowns.
I do agree Canon's tech is way behind
2015: Sony releases the a7R II with their 1st full frame backside illuminated CMOS sensor. It also happens to have no AA filter & has IBIS.
2021: Canon releases the R3 with their 1st full frame backside illuminated CMOS sensor. It also happens to have AA filter & IBIS.
jwolfe wrote:
All very valid points.
But like I said the market is changing rapidly. While there are only 63 e mount Sony lenses, there are hundreds of 3rd party options and adapters for every mount ever made pretty much. As much as I like to give Sony fanboys crap, they make incredible cameras.
The quip about the 80s was related to innovation. Canon has done zero innovating in RF mount. Everything is a copy of Sony or some version of EF mount they’ve already done. Sony has completely changed photography and camera technology.
Again, we will have to revisit this in five years to see whether Sony’s open and aggressive approach or Canon’s safe approach win in the end. ...Show more →
Sep 05, 2022 at 10:09 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.11 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
The quip about the 80s was related to innovation. Canon has done zero innovating in RF mount. Everything is a copy of Sony or some version of EF mount they’ve already done. Sony has completely changed photography and camera technology.
F/2 mid range zoom, fast 24-70 having IS, I doubt Sony IBIS can compete. However much you don't like them, 100-500 & 100-400 RF are innovative lenses.
But instead I'm supposed to get upset mostly about <51mm 3rd party lenses. Might be cool but I'm not sure how useful. Maybe.
Might be cool but I'm not sure how useful. Maybe.