Archive 2022 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.14 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
dolina wrote:
Are your deliberately being unpleasantly pedantic?
Everything you mentioned at best is nice trivia.
To be in the same vein of being that fussy there are earlier mirrorless mounts like the micro 43 that was announced in 2008.
We can even argue that the Leica M mount is also mirrorless over half a century before everyone else.
i doubt that you ever heard of the vl-mount, and there is no arguing with the actual history of canon releasing eos-m back in 2012, which you apparently didn't know either.
what other companies do or did is not relevant to your post about canon and sony, so lets not engage in deflection just because you are on the losing end of the discussion :-)
Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.14 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
The M-system was at best a hobby project, and never strategic.
do you really think that canon spent millions on eos-m, with the intent that it was only ever going to be a "hobby project" at best? that would have been stupid from a business standpoint, although you could argue that making the pinout functionality and diameter different from ef-mount was a mistake.
garyvot wrote:
The R-system is for "all the marbles" and represents Canon's future as an imaging company.
true, but some people think it's a future that they are jeopardizing by not opening the mount up to 3rd-party lenses.
i think that canon at least learned something from their past mistakes, and from sony as well, because afaik they are using the same rf-mount for both ff and crop... they should have done that with eos-m and ef-mount.
p.14 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Your trivia is disruptive to the flow of the conversation
osv2 wrote:
i doubt that you ever heard of the vl-mount, and there is no arguing with the actual history of canon releasing eos-m back in 2012, which you apparently didn't know either.
what other companies do or did is not relevant to your post about canon and sony, so lets not engage in deflection just because you are on the losing end of the discussion :-)
p.14 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
The first of what will hopefully be many more videos about Canon’s questionable decisions
Sep 07, 2022 at 10:41 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.14 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
This thread is still going unfortunately. Now we're back to the "DSLR'S are dead" garbage.
But yes, if lots of sites post articles about the supposed superiority of mirrorless, Sony marketing pushes it hard, people on forums say how superior it is, many YouTube videos saying the same, lenses discontinued, no new bodies, well, yes, I suppose you can manage to kill off extremely effective cameras.
It's pretty sad. Of course, if you have a rational conversation on your photography and whether you need mirrorless or not you are much less likely to come to this conclusion. But that doesn't happen so much. It's more the repeating of DSLR'S are dead and "mirrorless is the future " mantras that tend to ignore reality
p.14 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
This thread is still going unfortunately. Now we're back to the "DSLR'S are dead" garbage.
It’s fine, you can ignore the thread
AmbientMike wrote:
But that doesn't happen so much. It's more the repeating of DSLR'S are dead and "mirrorless is the future " mantras that tend to ignore reality
You are correct here and that does ignore reality as the reality in fact is Mirrorless is the present and future, DSLR’s are the past.
p.14 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
Barely anything, they make cents per video in ad revenue, it’s the sponsorships they make money from.
Everyone needs to cover their overhead. I'm glad they're providing entertainment.
Although the last time I watched them was about 7 years ago.
Sep 08, 2022 at 01:38 AM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.14 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
you're upset because your brand fixation is looking weak.
dolina wrote:
Your trivia is disruptive to the flow of the conversation
Sep 08, 2022 at 08:26 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.14 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
Not really a fan of his but some good points made
OK, so Tony Northrup didn't know what he was doing, and to get f/4 glass as a $$$ limited beginner. 70-200 & 17-40. Had he heard of buying used? Even 28-70/2.8 & magic drainpipe might have been affordable. But it doesn't sound like he needed 2.8.
I have a Tamron on my DSLR as we speak,
hope Rf gets 3rd party and I'm kinda stuck arguing against it because the arguments are generally so bad. Tony basically tries to say he couldn't have started his career without 3rd party glass. Which probably isn't true to begin with and definitely isn't true at this point. There are lots of 3rd party options for EF (which incidentally few seemed to care about until recently) that can be adapted. They're maybe heavier and require a not particularly large adapter but so what? If you don't have it you get the older heavier less-cool one. Not unreasonable. If you don'thave it to get Rf 85/1.2 you adapt AF Rokinon 1.2. Probably not a big deal
p.14 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I know for me, back in 1999, all I could afford was a Sigma wide angle, a really beat used 80-200mm 2.8 push-pull and used N90s. As I progressed I bought a used F5 from a Nat Geo photographer and a Tokina 300mm 2.8, then a used Kodak NC2000e (which cost as much as a car). I would not have been able to get going as a college kid without Tokina and Sigma. I shot a lot of great pictures on that Tokina 300mm 2.8 before I got a beat up 300mm 2.8 AF-I from a newspaper (which had no lens hood so I used a rubber drain pipe fitting).
My point is there a ton of people who are aspiring photographers that cannon afford a $2800 100-500 but want to shoot birds. You know what they can afford? A Tamron 150-500 and an R7. Or what about someone who wants to be a portrait photographer and buys a couple of Sigma primes and an R6. But oh wait! You can't buy those in RF mount.
You get my point. Sure I have the money to buy what I want, but most shooters I know do not.
p.14 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Honestly, the longer the focal length, the less impact adapting will have. And really, adapting an excellent EF ultra wide like the 16-35 f/4L (or insert third party equivalent here) is NOT a bad thing. But at 85 mm, the advantage of the closer lens-to-sensor distance at least partly disappears. The Canon 85/1.4L is an excellent lens on the 5D IV, and on the R5.
I think that people are really mostly pining for the wide/ultra wide prime lenses that Canon has not yet produced, but that Sigma has.
Sep 08, 2022 at 11:04 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.14 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
I know for me, back in 1999, all I could afford was a Sigma wide angle, a really beat used 80-200mm 2.8 push-pull and used N90s. As I progressed I bought a used F5 from a Nat Geo photographer and a Tokina 300mm 2.8, then a used Kodak NC2000e (which cost as much as a car). I would not have been able to get going as a college kid without Tokina and Sigma. I shot a lot of great pictures on that Tokina 300mm 2.8 before I got a beat up 300mm 2.8 AF-I from a newspaper (which had no lens hood so I used a rubber drain pipe fitting).
My point is there a ton of people who are aspiring photographers that cannon afford a $2800 100-500 but want to shoot birds. You know what they can afford? A Tamron 150-500 and an R7. Or what about someone who wants to be a portrait photographer and buys a couple of Sigma primes and an R6. But oh wait! You can't buy those in RF mount.
You get my point. Sure I have the money to buy what I want, but most shooters I know do not....Show more →
Canon has a 1.4 lb 100-400. No one else has that. It's only 600 bucks. People have been using 100-400 on birds since 1998. But keep pushing a 100-500 that costs more than 2x and weighs almost 3x the 100-400. I'm probably not going mirrorless but that lens is one thing that makes me consider it. 0.41x mag is very close, almost 1:2. Excellent macro too.
Wouldn't 7D2 + 150-600 C make more sense if you are looking for budget options?
EF makes more sense on a budget. That combo could probably be had for less than the 100-500 3rd party alone.
People spend over $10k on bird lenses on here. It's pretty common. So why on earth are you constantly going off on the $2800 100-500? It makes little or no sense. And your budget option that is so affordable costs $2800 for both!!! That doesn't sound very affordable. For that matter 300/2.8 Canon aren't that bad as far as cost. Presumably still 3rd party EF that can be adapted if needed. And a portrait photographer on a budget, well, the aforementioned 85 1.2 rokinon under 800 bucks. 85 1.8 a lot less.
p.14 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
As many have explained to you before, not everyone owns EF lenses any more. I know I for one wouldn’t buy a more expensive, heavier and optically weaker EF mount lens when they are much newer, lighter, optically better third party lenses available for every mount but Canon.
Adapting may be an option for some but for many it isn’t a feasible replacement for Canon to stop being greedy and allow third party options.
AmbientMike wrote:
OK, so Tony Northrup didn't know what he was doing, and to get f/4 glass as a $$$ limited beginner. 70-200 & 17-40. Had he heard of buying used? Even 28-70/2.8 & magic drainpipe might have been affordable. But it doesn't sound like he needed 2.8.
I have a Tamron on my DSLR as we speak,
hope Rf gets 3rd party and I'm kinda stuck arguing against it because the arguments are generally so bad. Tony basically tries to say he couldn't have started his career without 3rd party glass. Which probably isn't true to begin with and definitely isn't true at this point. There are lots of 3rd party options for EF (which incidentally few seemed to care about until recently) that can be adapted. They're maybe heavier and require a not particularly large adapter but so what? If you don't have it you get the older heavier less-cool one. Not unreasonable. If you don'thave it to get Rf 85/1.2 you adapt AF Rokinon 1.2. Probably not a big deal...Show more →
Sep 09, 2022 at 07:33 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.14 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of knowledge and condescension.
p.14 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of knowledge and condescension.
Did you really just say this?
You've been in multiple threads like this, with essentially zero mirrorless experience, and certainly not Sony and RF experience, talking like a master of it all, while those of us with years of experience in BOTH systems have our opinions dismissed by you.
A little self awareness is in order.
Sep 09, 2022 at 10:19 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.14 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jman13 wrote:
Did you really just say this?
You've been in multiple threads like this, with essentially zero mirrorless experience, and certainly not Sony and RF experience, talking like a master of it all, while those of us with years of experience in BOTH systems have our opinions dismissed by you.
A little self awareness is in order.
Well, let's see. In addition to being told I don't know anything in this thread, more than once, (wasn't true either time) and being told I've never posted photos on FM, now I'm being told I've never shot mirrorless. What next? Let's see how stupid it can get from here. I'd be curious how many condescending mirrorless proponents have actually shot mirrorless more than I have.
But if you want to shoot a $1300, f/6.7, 4.1 lb 100-500 probably having no IS, all the while complaining about Canon's lack of options, weight and budget concerns even though the $600 1.4 lb 100-400 is available, while telling me I know nothing go ahead, I guess. Makes no sense.
