[nuclx]

Well, I didn't mean that Canon products are particularly bad in quality.

I own a perfectly functioning 40D from 2007 myself, which I replaced by a Sony A7III just recently, as I hate the fact, that Canon tries to force their customers to buy their own expensive RF lenses.

Of course cameras are impressive pieces of technology. Still I understand the sentiment of the above commenter. My last comment was an overstatement, still there is a substantial chance of a hardware failure.

[flumpcakes]

And Sony forces you to buy their own expensive E-Mount lenses?

To be honest, Canon EF mount lenses are probably the best buy if you are looking for compatibility: there's adapters for Sony E-Mount, Canon RF-mount, etc.

The reason RF, Z, and E mount exist is because you can make the camera body much slimmer in MILC.

It's much easier building adapters for lenses going from DSLR -> MILC. It might not be possible to go the other way around.

[maxnoe]

Sony has opened up the mount specification to third party lens manufacturers, Canon didn't.

As a result, there is a wide range of third party lenses evailable for Sony FE, none for Canon RF.

[speg]

Nitpick: there are third party lenses for the RF mount but they are all manual focus. As you stated Canon has not opened up the spec and so third parties have been unable or unwilling to violate the patents that would allow them to make use of the RF electronics required for auto-focus.

I real shame as I would love to use some of Sigma glass on there without use of the EF adapter.

[icecap12]

In fact, Canon is going after third party lens manufacturers that are blatantly violating its patent [0].

One of the problems Canon has faced recently is a flooding of the market with super cheap lenses (we're talking 50-200 dollars for total junk). The people that are buying them are justifiably upset when the photos are crap because they incorrectly think its a camera problem. Hey, a lens is a lens, right?

Anyhow, there's wide speculation that Canon will license to the quality quality third-party makers at some point [1][2].

[0] https://petapixel.com/2022/09/06/canon-confirms-its-going-af... [1] https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/sigma-to-make-a-ma... [2] https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/the-state-of-third...

[stevev]

Bad products is not a reason close specs. Unless you are heavily vested into Canon’s lense ecosystem, or have no issues with money, it makes no sense to go with them; if we’re considering full frames. Glass prices are overly marked up by the body creators and quality is subjective when there’s Sigma.

[Zak]

Do you have a link to the patents in question? Articles I've seen about this are not clear about what is patented and I'm suspicious about whether it would pass a novelty/obviousness test.

[Zak]

A third-party, Viltrox did release autofocus lenses for RF mount. Canon threatened legal action. A quick web search did not find exactly what is patented.

https://fstoppers.com/gear/canon-breaks-silence-viltrox-lens...

[stephencanon]

My 20D from 2004 is still fully-functional, as is my Elan IIe from 1995.

[sand500]

FWIW, glass holds it's value well in the used market.

[nobleach]

Just buying some old Canon FD mount stuff off of eBay lately. You aren't kidding! That vintage glass really has some beautiful character, it's worth shooting all manual to me.

[hef19898]

Agree! My favorite lens, not that it is used as an everyday walk around lens, is 300 f 4.5 manual focus Nikkor. Marvelous mechanical precision, incredible picture quality and works perfectly fine as a 900 mm equivalent with a 2x TC on a DX body.

Vintage glass is great, if you get it good condition.