Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

It could also be a less informed user base trying to get support with non-factory equipment.

User ID

What a BRILLIANT business mind !!!

Canisdirus

Not difficult to parse out...for some of us.

User ID

You clearly traffic amongst the elites ... waaaaaaaay beyond the crudely basic "buy low, sell high" bidnez model.

Canisdirus

I have no idea what you are trying to say...probably because you don't either.

User ID

You know exactly what I said.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

Other possibilities include a possible perception on Canon’s part that the 3rd party lenses were diminishing the overall quality perception of the system in consumer’s eyes. Possibility that something about the reverse engineering was going to collide with established future plans. Maybe Canon is considering a revamp of the lens camera communications that will require a major firmware update - that will orphan existing lenses. Or, perhaps still another lens mount, they’ve done that often enough.

Canon opened up its communications protocols so that it could grab a chunk of the pro cine business. Allowing 3rd party lenses on the still camera’s was a inevitable byproduct of that. Having the market share now perhaps they’re closing up things now. Just my thoughts - salt should be added to taste.

Going way back in the ‘50s Nikon was free with the engineering specs for the F mount. The result of that was a lot of scientific equipment had an F mount for a camera. In particular telescopes and extreme telephotos. It very much predominated then and is still a major player. It allowed for a faster expansion of available equipment for Nikon than otherwise would have been possible. It also allowed faster market penetration for Nikon’s scientific and commercial optics. Some of Nikon’s commercial optics wound up in the 3rd party lenses that were sold with an F mount. Sony’s philosophy then makes sense. Allowing free use of the mount and protocols expanded the selection of available lenses quicker than otherwise possible. I can argue that originally Nikon/Canon/Leitz were lens mfrs. that sold camera bodies to sell lenses. I also argue they still are. Kodak sold camera’s to sell more film, preferably at a steeper markup than standard 35mm film. Sony is in the same category as Kodak - they want to sell sensors. So to sell more sensors and to demonstrate directly their quality they sell camera bodies with their sensors built in. Lenses are simply a needed accessory as far as their concerned, one they need to insure that the quality of their product is perceived as what they want it to be seen as. Sony’s strategy makes sense.

User ID

I think its great. Simplifies everything.

Acoarst life will be a bit less entertaining without threads like, "Has anybody tried the Tamron 16-500 on a Canon R3 on an East African Safari tour" ?

User ID

Amen. But thaz clearly too big a lump of solid reality for gwilliams6, plus a hoard of likeminded Hawgs, to swallow. Vapid click bait video is their prefered "reality".

KenProspero

Is Nikon trying to increase market share at Canon's expense?

If I were buying a body today this would definately make me more likely to go Nikon vs Canon.

Pumble

Um, you mean like all the electronics in the car (radio, GPS, navigation, installed camera(s), light assemblies, cat converters and all the other "dealer only" parts the notion seems to ignore?

User ID

Okay. Its clear that you mean shutter assemblies, EVF screens, sensor stacks, IBIS components and stuff like that.

I would much rather buy that stuff from Tamron or Viltrox. Surely its some trade law violation that camera companies are the sole supplier for such chatzkes !!!

Why cant Sigma sell me a better EVF or faster shutter (some assembly required) or whatever my little heart desires ?