p.3 #1 · 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.
One of the consequences of a late entry into the mirrorless market—exacerbated by a lack of 3rd party support.
p.3 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
This decision by Canon will definitely have an impact as to whether I go with the X-T5 over the R7. I won't be bound to using only their lenses going forward. They had better crunched the numbers on this one correctly because it could have a big impact on future camera sales.
p.3 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I just bought a Viltrox EF to EF-M adapter for $37 off Amazon that will be here tomorrow. Speed booster is still for sale for $156 too! Looks like M mount users are gonna get the last laugh 😃
Seriously though, this is the main reason I sold my RP and R6. Canon is intentionally shutting Sigma, Tamron and other 3rd party makers out. Meanwhile, there are great new 3rd party lenses for the Sony E mount nearly every month now. Not a smart move at all by Canon.
p.3 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Yep. I'm not against any company defending their IP, but this is a poor business decision. Make companies pay a license fee to use the mount, and embrace it. Also, make the fee not stupid. (Like, perhaps 3% of the lens price or something). That way Canon makes a decent amount of cash, the price to the consumer is only slightly higher than it would otherwise be, and we also get fully compatible CHOICE.
p.3 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jman13 wrote:
Yep. I'm not against any company defending their IP, but this is a poor business decision. Make companies pay a license fee to use the mount, and embrace it. Also, make the fee not stupid. (Like, perhaps 3% of the lens price or something). That way Canon makes a decent amount of cash, the price to the consumer is only slightly higher than it would otherwise be, and we also get fully compatible CHOICE.
Might be just a coincidence but Tamron announced this today.
Yeah, Canon is now the only mirrorless maker that doesn't allow third-party AF lenses. This is going to bite them in the rear if they don't change course.
p.3 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
So nobody at Canon has a business plan or did any market reasearch?
If they wanted to license the mount to Sigma, Tamron, etc. they would. Maybe they still will.
p.3 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, Canon is now the only mirrorless maker that doesn't allow third-party AF lenses. This is going to bite them in the rear if they don't change course.
The M mount has lenses and accessories from 3rd party 😃 I’m looking to grab the Sigma 30 1.4 Maybe people shouldn’t have been in such a hurry to leave thE M mount. M50 Mark II and M6 Mark II are still great and very capable cameras. Pretty sure this is why used prices on them are actually going up.
p.3 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Dexter75 wrote:
The M mount has lenses and accessories from 3rd party 😃 I’m looking to grab the Sigma 30 1.4 Maybe people shouldn’t have been in such a hurry to leave thE M mount. M50 Mark II and M6 Mark II are still great and very capable cameras. Pretty sure this is why used prices on them are actually going up.
EF-M is electrically the same as EF - there are differences in operation given that it's mirrorless, but otherwise the same protocols work.
RF has an expanded set of protocols that works with EF, but also has additional features related to using IS and IBIS simultaneously as well as faster communication for focus and so on.
I'd personally have been much more interested had Canon chosen to produce an IBIS-equipped EOS M5 successor (or similar layout), but instead we get the R7. Had that happened, I'd likely have picked up Sigma's 16/1.4 and 56/1.4 lenses for EF-M.
p.3 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
johnctharp wrote:
EF-M is electrically the same as EF - there are differences in operation given that it's mirrorless, but otherwise the same protocols work.
RF has an expanded set of protocols that works with EF, but also has additional features related to using IS and IBIS simultaneously as well as faster communication for focus and so on.
I'd personally have been much more interested had Canon chosen to produce an IBIS-equipped EOS M5 successor (or similar layout), but instead we get the R7. Had that happened, I'd likely have picked up Sigma's 16/1.4 and 56/1.4 lenses for EF-M.
I get that but he said "Canon is now the only mirrorless maker that doesn't allow third-party AF lenses." which is not true. The EF-M system is mirrorless and there are several 3rd party lenses.
p.3 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
My take is that people are reading more into this than is maybe warranted.
Canon allowed third party lens options for decades for the FD, EF, EF-M mounts. They understand full well the pros and cons of having third party lens support for their camera systems.
I find it somewhat odd that their general posture should change so radically all of a sudden. I think they are smarter than this rush to judgement assumes.
I speculated earlier in the thread that this could all just be a preface to Canon finally licensing their lens mount and protocols. I still believe that this is that most likely explanation for these "crease and desist" orders.
Time will tell. But I guess the more people that abandon the R-system over this (real or perceived) issue, the quicker it is likely to be resolved favorably for the rest of us.
p.3 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
My take is that people are reading more into this than is maybe warranted.
Canon allowed third party lens options for decades for the FD, EF, EF-M mounts. They understand full well the pros and cons of having third party lens support for their camera systems.
I find it somewhat odd that their general posture should change so radically all of a sudden. I think they are smarter than this rush to judgement assumes.
I speculated earlier in the thread that this could all just be a preface to Canon finally licensing their lens mount and protocols. I still believe that this is that most likely explanation for these "crease and desist" orders.
Time will tell. But I guess the more people that abandon the R-system over this (real or perceived) issue, the quicker it is likely to be resolved favorably for the rest of us.
p.3 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Tom_W wrote:
Or, they are holding back until they fill out the lens lineup first. Time will tell.
You mean once they have milked their insanely priced lenses for all they can? Will be too late by then. I sold my RP and R6 months ago due to lack of 3rd party support and once news gets out about this Viltrox thing, many others will be doing the same. Sony is crushing it right now. Their bodies are cheaper, their lenses are cheaper and they have strong 3rd party support with great new lenses coming out monthly it seems.
