Re: Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
As a shareholder I'd prefer max profitable & growth of the company's strengths and improve weaknesses.
Canon's body & lens IPs are their strengths so why disable them by licensing them out?
jwolfe wrote:
I look at this way. If you are a shareholder, do you want the company to be safe and conservative or be bold and innovative. Other than the 600 and 800mm f11’s, Canon hasn’t really created anything new in mirrorless. All of their decisions are safe and conservative. Maybe you’re cool with that, but in a declining market I just don’t see it being a successful strategy long term.
But hey - I’m not a camera executive. I’m in marketing. So what do I know!
Great post again.
ramage wrote:
I like to think we all agree more than we disagree, the devil is in the details and my wall of text vs your wall of text does not make for a great discussion.
I am confident the majority of those that disagree on the details here and other sites would be more than happy to share a blind or swap stories of their great shots or the missed shots anytime.
Having spent more time than is good for me looking at both sides of the discussion I am going to attempt to simplify the two positions I see as the most meaningful. I am really over simplifying but I hope the intent is clear.
Position 1 - Canon should allow for good but affordable 3rd party glass so the price of admission is more attainable and holes in the line up are filled quicker.
Position 2 - Canon must protect and control all sales of the RF mount to ensure they are profitable. Canon already has an excellent selection of affordable glass in adapted EF glass and people should not be quick to dismiss this.
I lean more towards Position 2 for a couple reasons.
1.) - I have been lucky to be able to afford all the RF glass I want with the exception of replacing my EF 400 F2.8 Mk III with the RF version. Someone told my wife the RF and EF are the same just with the adaptor added... Just because it is true does not give he who shale not be named the right to tell her.
2.) - As someone that works for a company that is constantly having to defend our IP and Patents I cannot support these 4th party makers that do not care about stealing tech.
I am in favor of seeing Canon license RF to Sigma but am a little more leery of Tamron (person bias based on out dated data but hard to ignore). I would not want this to be at the expense of Canons profits because yes I am a dirty double dipper being a shareholder.
jwolfe wrote:
Good post.
I have been saying for years that Leica shows us the future of cameras. You are right that cameras are going to become something you own because you want to. Nikon and Canon have huge brand recognition. Although Canon is known much more for sports photography. Sony does not. And for people like me, price is really irrelevant. But there’s a ton of people out there where price does matter.
But I think there are certain market segments that will always need cameras. An iPhone can’t shoot football and certainly can’t take the place of a birding setup. Maybe 15 years from now, but certainly not anytime soon.
On Canon’s pricing - the thing Canon is missing is affordable options. Sure a Nikon 24-70 2.8 S is $2400, but they also offer the 28-75 2.8 at $1,000. Sony is similar in its lineup. And then there is a whole tier below that of 3rd party options. That’s the problem with Canon’s strategy - the cost of entry into the system is too high at the moment compared to its peers.
Now as things develop that may change. Canon will release more lenses and someday may allow 3rd party lenses.
Canon has great bodies but is behind on lenses. Nikon has great lenses but is behind on bodies. And Sony has a lot of everything (too much) but lacks a good low end option like the R7 (for sports and birds). Frankly the A1 is amazing but it’s out of reach for most people.
ramage wrote: Photosbydlee wrote:
Actually Dolina is just focusing on total sales of cameras and mainly DSLR’s when this discussion is about third parties on Mirrorless which is what Jwolfe is discussing and the correct one.
Dolina also keeps trying to claim Sony is ahead purely due to how old their mount is. That plays a small advantage but in those 12 years they weren’t always seen as one of the top brands and they could have easily kept their mount closed, releasing a few 1st party lenses only each year and got nowhere so age doesn’t tell the whole picture.
They changed the game with the release of the A7III in 2018 and showed Mirrorless was the present and future. Jwolfe is also correct that even if they do sell a bunch of DSLR’s, Mirrorless is what’s important and if Canon keep their lineup being either average and slow budget lenses with overpriced but excellent L lenses, people will move to another brand when swapping to Mirrorless all because they have much more options of all prices ranges on Sony and soon to be Nikon too.
ramage wrote: jwolfe wrote:
Some people don’t like facts. Especially when they are brand fanboys. Sure I shoot Nikon right now, but I appreciate what Sony has brought to camera technology, and what Canon has done in the past.
I don’t know what you’re criticizing me for - all I’ve pointed out is how short-sighted Canon’s decision is.. I certainly have not advocated for my Canon friends to switch brands.
ramage wrote:
This is a blood bath
@jwolfe@@@@@@@@ you might want to stop while you have some credibility left.
jwolfe wrote:
Some people don’t like facts.
Yet you are being beating to death with facts. Very little of what @dolina@@@@ has presented could be or should be considered brand "fanboys" emotional rhetoric.
jwolfe wrote:
all I’ve pointed out is how short-sighted Canon’s decision is..
Correction - You have posted how YOU feel Canon is being short-sighted as if it was an objective fact. For this I will criticize your position because other than feels there is nothing to back up it, yet.
Time may prove you are right but not today.
I stand by my statement that you might want to stop. If your goal is to be the advocate for all those Canon users that have been unjustly harmed by the actions of Canon your not representing them well.
Cheers
Those that are attacking Canon not for their justifiable defense of IP and or Patents but because they do not like the way Canon is doing business seem to be putting a lot of stock in future adoption or transitions from DSLR's to Mirrorless. The data that @dolina@@@@ has shown that includes both DSLR's and MILC is that the market has and is continuing to contract. Safe to say this means there are fewer and fewer adopters and users transitioning into MILC systems.
Canon sees the same numbers and must know that sharing any profits in an ever decreasing market segment will lead to investor dissatisfaction.
Reach and Image Quality (which is decreasing generation after generation of smart phones) are the last areas of true advantage our Cameras have in the still imaging space.
The age of the smart phone and the increased quality it offers users who just want to take some photos means that the entry level DLSR and MILC are just about dead. Users that are used to getting easy and yet awesome images with their smart phones will be left disappointed in a cheap MILC and kit lenses if they deliver the same results we see today.
I predict the future of MILC is going to look a lot like the past of ILC where owning this gear will be purely a luxury item like Mechanical watches. In a market place like that users will demand only certified 1st party items.
Canon appears to be betting the market is moving towards a model of fewer owners willing to pay more for quality. This might all end as another Kodak which is always possible when a company loses touch with the winds of change. We will have to wait and see.
One last thing.
I see this statement or statements like it all the time in regards to Canon's RF line up and just shake my head.
"overpriced but excellent L lenses"
The continued propagation of a verifiable falsehood about the price of Canon's glass is getting old. Yes it is expensive but so is other first party glass.
Yep, I agree Aussies are getting screwed. No question.
In Australia you are at the mercy of the increased cost of Canon glass and bodies because they only offer 5 year warranties.
Having looked into the cost of adding 3 more years of warranty to the Sony FE 24-70 GM II to match the warranty offered on the Canon I feel your pain.
The most I was able to make the Sony was just under $3000 AUD by adding 3 more years of aftermarket warranty. The same Canon RF 24-70 is $3600 AUD after a $200 rebate. I am curious if the price gap was always this high or was this a result of the changes in 2019?
The price gap is crazy and while you do not need or require my permission to be pissed at Canon, you have it 100%!!!!
Putting that aside lets talk about pricing in the US.
Comparing prices in USD of 1st party glass at BH Photo shows things as:
They are all pretty close with Sony offering the bast bang for you 1st party buck but it might surprise people to know that Canon is the second best value. Nikon and their overpriced but excellent Z lenses
I think a better statement would be "overpriced but excellent L lenses, when compared to the amazing value of excellent 3rd party native mount glass"
Cheers
Sep 11, 2022 at 10:59 PM
Previous versions of dolina's message #16042241 « Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses) »
