jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #15 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23 | |
Bassat wrote:
Ok, I'll admit to being 'outside the loop' on this one. I don't own/use any RF bodies, so I had no idea Canon has restricted 3rd party builders from making RF-mount lenses. This information completely kills any interest I may have had in RF cameras, and by association RF lenses. Someone at Canon has completely inserted his entire head into his rectum on this one. This is a suicide move for Canon photography.
When I moved to Canon EF more than 20 years ago, I did so because of the ABSOLUTELY HUGE array of lenses available for that mount. I regularly use Rokinon, Samyang, Tokina, Tamron, Sigma - and likely a few other - lenses on my EF mount cameras (I own 7 of them, currently). I buy Canon cameras because I think they are the best available, all things considered, and that includes available lenses. Is Canon going to manufacture an f/2.8 12mm (essentially) rectilinear lens for full frame? I doubt it. For $300? No way. A 24-70mm f/2.8 IS for whatever Sigma charges? No way. A decent 150-600mm for $900? C'mon! Not gonna happen.
If Canon persists with this logic, in a few years 3rd party builders will have moved on. Shooters will have moved on. Canon will be left standing in a field with their proverbial wiener in their hand wondering where all the customers went, and wondering how to get them back. Small block V-8 General Motors engines are the king of high-performance racing BECAUSE THEY ARE AN INDUSTRY STANDARD. Had GM forbade 3rd party add-ons, they would have ceased to exist. Think proprietary is the way to go? Consider Packard-Bell computers, Compaq computers, Apple computers of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Pratt & Whitney, GE, and Rolls-Royce make 95% of jet engines BECAUSE THEY ARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS. Any third party in the world can use those engines to power their aircraft. Canon has officially shot itself in the foot on this one. My guess is they used a silly, proprietary round like the .357 Maximum or .45 GAP to do so. Never heard of them? That is my point....Show more →
I share your frustration at this 3rd party situation, but most of your portents of doom are likely wrong.
First, we don't know the nature of the 'ban' - my guess would be it is for 2 reasons. 1) So Canon can get a critical mass of their own lens line up on the market BEFORE any 3rd party makers swoop in. And we know there have been delays in everyone getting everything to market, so that is likely prolonging the wait. 2) So Canon can set up a revenue stream via a licensing program. This Cosina/Voightlander announcement is the first concrete evidence we have that this may be the case. Sigma has been hinting at such discussions going on. So we can have fingers crossed that they are working on something.
Second, mechanical parts like engines don't have a way to confirm that any part you've bolted on to them is a geniune GE/GM/RR part (yet). But as I'm sure you're aware the major MFGs are doing a lot with software to prevent basic maintenance and addons to be done. Example - there is no way to re-set the oil change lite on Volkswagen auto group vehicles, except at the dealer. OR - you can buy a $10k computer interface from them for your oil change shop. Either way, they get the money. Example 2 - once the OBD2 engine data system was standardized by law, all the mfgs put true diagnostic data behind another firewall - did just enough to comply with the regulation (error = bad sensor, but you need the $10k GM Computer to find out which one). All this is done to drive people back to OEM maintenance and parts. Its a drive happening everywhere.
Third, only time will tell if Canon actually, materially suffers from such a decision, even if it is permanent ban. Nikon, for example, suffered greatly having an open system because their technology fell behind. They are still behind. If they come up with a camera to equal Canon/Sony, will they suddenly become relevant again because 3rd party lenses are available? Have to wait and see I guess. Sony made the call to open their mount, reportedly because they couldn't develop the camera and lens line up fast enough together. So they decided to put all their effort in to the mirrorless revolution, and it seems to have paid off as they were first to market there. The lens line up was not as prolific then, so it was the bodies that brought people in to the system. I bet they wish they had the ongoing revenue from more lens sales at this point.
I am hopeful that Canon will license to Sigma and others at some point. But I am aware this might not be the case. I am very happy that the EF adapters exist, so I can use all the third party glass that was out there already.
-Brian
|
