Steve Spencer wrote: Knut. wrote: Deathchant wrote:
It will be very much time that Canon stops being a bitch and allow Voigtlander to port the existing 50 APO, 65 APO, 110 APO and 21 Nokton to RF mount.
The willingness to accommodate other makers of lenses is one of the biggest strengths of the Sony system. It really differentiates this company from many others whose restrictive mindset was ingrained in analog times.
(Unfortunately Canon isn‘t the only one, that needs to be called out on this issue).
It is one of the strengths with manual focus lenses, but for AF lenses Sony restricts the top frames per second and the use of teleconverters in a way that is a serious limitation. It seems to me that Sony too restricts competition. They just don't worry much about manual focus lenses, but focus their restriction of competition to AF lenses used with higher end bodies. That works if you like manual focus lenses, but not so much if you want to shoot sports or wildlife with third party lenses.
I never figured out, if it was to exclude competition or to protect their products from mechanical or electronic strain. I can easily understand that extremely high frame rates put additional strain not only on the lenses (which couldn‘t bother Sony) but also on the body. This effect is not linear and there may be some concern that an increase of the mechanical resistance of some moving parts in a lens may increase heating in the corresponding components in the camera (higher electric currents etc.).
In this sense I would not call it a nastiness of Sony to limit frame rates, especially since they have no control whatsoever on the specifications other manufacturers implement for their lenses. There is a reason why not every lens of Sony (or every lens-body combination) can handle extremely high frames rates, these reasons just get uncontrollable if third party manufacturers add their lenses with different specifics.
And it must be remembered, they do allow frame rates up to 15 frames per second, which is reasonably fast. It is just the extreme frame rates above that, where they want full control of the whole process. To me that is fair game, just imagine people returning their camera on waranty because of having used (misused) their bodies with third party lenses (or claiming that the Sony body had killed their third party lens).
I‘m definitely sure that there would be some youtubers who would hold up their A1 or A9 and fire away at 30 frames / second for ten minutes until their third party lens goes up in smoke and then shitstorm Sony (even if the third party manufacturer would state that their lens is not built for such a frame rate).
As a manufacturer (Sony) this would rightfully piss me off. Suddenly they would be bad mouthed due to a process completely out of their control. Unfortunately the internet is not good natured and considerate. Better have clear limits when such problems are perceivable.
Steve Spencer wrote: Knut. wrote: Deathchant wrote:
It will be very much time that Canon stops being a bitch and allow Voigtlander to port the existing 50 APO, 65 APO, 110 APO and 21 Nokton to RF mount.
The willingness to accommodate other makers of lenses is one of the biggest strengths of the Sony system. It really differentiates this company from many others whose restrictive mindset was ingrained in analog times.
(Unfortunately Canon isn‘t the only one, that needs to be called out on this issue).
It is one of the strengths with manual focus lenses, but for AF lenses Sony restricts the top frames per second and the use of teleconverters in a way that is a serious limitation. It seems to me that Sony too restricts competition. They just don't worry much about manual focus lenses, but focus their restriction of competition to AF lenses used with higher end bodies. That works if you like manual focus lenses, but not so much if you want to shoot sports or wildlife with third party lenses.
I never figured out, if it was to exclude competition or to protect their products from mechanical or electronic strain. I can easily understand that extremely high frame rates put additional strain not only on the lenses (which couldn‘t bother Sony) but also on the body. This effect is not linear and there may be some concern that an increase of the mechanical resistance of some moving parts in a lens may increase heating in the corresponding components in the camera (higher electric currents etc.).
In this sense I would not call it a nastiness of Sony to limit frame rates, especially since they have no control whatsoever on the specifications other manufacturers implement for their lenses. There is a reason why not every lens of Sony (or every lens-body combination) can handle extremely high frames rates, these reasons just get uncontrollable if third party manufacturers add their lenses with different specifics.
And it must be remembered, they do allow frame rates up to 15 frames per second, which is reasonably fast. It is just the extreme frame rates above that, where they want full control of the whole process. To me that is fair game, just imagine people returning their camera on waranty because auf having used (misused) their bodies with third party lenses (or claiming that the Sony body had killed their third party lens).
I‘m definitely sure that there would be some youtubers who would hold up their A1 or A9 and fire away at 30 frames / second for ten minutes until their third party lens goes up in smoke and then shitstorm Sony (even if the third party manufacturer would state that their lens is not built for such a frame rate).
As a manufacturer (Sony) this would rightfully piss me off. Suddenly they would be bad mouthed due to a process completely out of their control. Unfortunately the internet is not good natured and considerate. Better have clear limits when such problems are perceivable.
