Canon RF Mount - A Mistake?

[Zack Birlew]

Hey, everybody, so now that Canon has started cutting off third party lens makers from RF mount development, I've been wondering, if this situation doesn't change, how might this affect the choice for Canon RF mount on video cameras going forward?

So far, RED is the only one outside of Canon with an RF mount, but if Canon patented so much to keep anybody else from making RF lenses, what would the consensus be? Use the current RF mount as-is and adapt anything outside Canon RF lenses? Drop the RF mount and return to a proprietary mount for DSMC3? Perhaps switch to Nikon Z, L mount, or even G mount for coverage?

What are your thoughts? Again, the situation could change and third party RF lenses could be back in the game but if the mount did get locked off, how would this affect your lens and camera choices?

 

[Phil Holland]

I replied to the Northrup video and can provide some layered information here as this has been a developing story even prior to the mirrorless mounts.

When it comes to any of the proprietary mounts they are subject to technology licensing. There's also additional contractual deals that specify some nuance.

Interestingly Canon doesn't seem to have too much of an issue with companies making mechanical lenses for RF Mount or various RF Mount Adapters and Accessories, even with pass through electronics. There are a decent amount of purely mechanical RF lenses out there now.

However, Canon and Sony do have a lot to say regarding electronic communication with their lenses (going on a limb here, but everybody else does too who has their own sauce). This isn't just limited to Iris and Focus, but also Zoom and Proprietary Features. I think the most famous AF Sony licensing I can think of is the Zeiss Batis Primes, which is why they are able to have Aperture and Autofocus.

The L-Mount Alliance was actually made to combat some of the "isms" that come with Sony and Canon regarding topics like this. However, notably all of the camera vendors in the L Mount Alliance also purchase and license Sony sensors and other technologies. There are likely layers to non-compete we will never be privy of regarding all of this unfortunately, but I do know that E-Mount has influenced two directions of mirrorless mount designs to not compete with sales.

That said, we are a bit lost in the sauce with all of this. These massive electronic companies are all licensing technologies from each other now. This isn't even a new development, not even close. But generally the way things are done.

Canon as well as Sony are open to licensing their technologies. Most companies are if there's financial and positional gain to be had by it. We as the consumers "want everything all at once no strings attached", but businesses are required to conduct themselves accordingly.

RED I'm certain is paying the license the tech. No matter what mount they would ever go with, unless they invent it, they would be paying a licensing fee. To the points as to why they would go with RF? RF is very adaptable and very forward thinking. Particularly in the diameter and design of the mount. I do actually think there might be a revise E-Mount design at some point, but doesn't really impact native lenses.

/i Data via Cooke seems to be the most open standard in terms of data transmission, and I credit that effort. When the industry was smaller and the push for PL and other cinema mount glass communicating with all cameras, it was a very difficult uphill battle.

It's always interesting when any sort of company-isms hit the public eye. Always fascinating to see and hear the reactions, whether they are informed or not. But we are talking about things that cost millions to develop and it's not exactly shocking companies want to recoup and profit on that investment of time and resources.

I own cameras from all of these companies. I'm not exactly "mad" about any of this as this has been the way for a while. What I am happy about, particularly with the mirrorless mounts is I can adapt damn near anything to any camera. But these larger companies with all their efforts into advancing their AF and modern mirrorless lens features are very much trying to keep you in their ecosystem.

 

[Luka Sanader]

After 6 months with Komodo dealing with Anamorphic alignment of dinky, un-lockable monunt and after one future film shoot on Komodo i can say that i hate RF with passion and i wish that they had made different choice.
IMO the only way out of this mess was the if Arri, Panavision, RED, Cooke and some other Cine folks, have had proper sit down and agree on LPL as new Cine Mirorless standard adding proper lens comunication pins needed for AF and rest of machine talk. If a Metabones can make EF to E or EF to RF adapteurs, i just dont understand why the smart LPL- AF protocol was such an issue. Agree on pin position. made extra pins so anyone can put what they want and call it a day. Same as LDS is in the PL mount. use if you have if not they dont bother no one... How many AF lenses manufecturers do we have Canon, Nikon and Fulju? and how hard was to make LPL-C LPL-Z or LPL-L protocoles for universal pin layout. We would have a standard now but instead we have photo, missorles camra, bayonet mounts in 25 000$ Cinema camera.
there was no need for introducing photo mounts to cine cameras when there was already ready Cinema solution that we know for more then 50 yers (BNCR, PL, PV, MAXPL...LPL)

i understand that not using RF, E, Z or L mounts would cut bunch of quick fix solutions with inexpensive AF lenses out of the first wave, but IMO that price would be worth of paying. Cinema market section is small but its still a good chunk and if we had only one LPL-AF standard manufacturers would off started making existing lens variations. Or even 3ed party conversions form RF to LPL-AF would be better option then this mess with photo mounts... Hopefully XL will have no issue with LPL!

just my 2c

 

[Phil Holland]

Anamorphic alignment of dinky

PL or LPL with /i in terms of lens data. Everything works with it. That is a one way street however and just the data.

External Lens Motor integration into body controlled AF = best solution for all cinema glass. There is no pin protocol or hardware R&D going on to make pass through electronic AF PL or LPL lenses going to happen. Too big of a mountain for manufacturers to climb both on the camera and lens side.

I don't personally recommend using any stills mirrorless mount natively for anamorphic. Any PL Mount with proper body support should align correctly however if whoever makes it did everything right. I've had zero issues with a wide range of anamorphic lenses and alignment via this mentality.

RF, or any mirrorless mount, is about compact lenses, internal lens AF, and generally the lightest weight option. The additional nice thing is being able to adapt nearly any lens to the mount.

Longer term, when Canon releases more RF designed pure cinema glass that will be a moment. Late this year they'll be fleshing out the faster wide L primes and that is also something many humans are waiting on. We'd already have the 35mm f/1.2L RF (if that is indeed what it is going to be) without the pandemic pause.

That said, Canon's RF optics, even the less expensive primes have been actually of rather high value in terms of cost to performance ratio. Even the 50mm f/1.2L is in some rare competition with things like the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4. It's been interesting to see the general mirrorless ramblings in regards to pricing on glass, but we're talking pretty damn good optics. Not perfect for cinema in my mind purely, but on pure prowess, fairly amazing that these aren't $1400 more each.

 

[MorganMaassen]

out of curiosity, are there any known cinematographers using the Raptor that are committed to shooting on a full RF kit?
(excluding the YouTube vloggers like Parker Walbeck and Marques Brownley)

 

[PatrickWebb]

I am pretty excited to see the cine-lens potentials in the RF mount. From what I have seen here in Norway, especially with the Raptor and Komodo users, the quality of the images are super clean and all the right contrasts and colours and extremely well controlled, CA wise. I was surprised that they went for the RF mount initially, however, as Phil wrote, the RF mount is as good´er option as any, especially adapting lenses due to the design of the system. The operators who I spoke with here, including some industry friends who use the komodo every day, say that it works just fine for them and they use RF lenses as well as adapting lense from Lomo to EF to M42 and the results they get are great. The power of the little darkbox!

I can see the similarities of "picture perfect" images from the Canon RF L lenses to the Zeiss Otus, as they are so clean, it is scary. My mate, who works in the south of Norway, works with VFX and a lot of screen composition work and he loves the fact that these are so clean as it makes his work easier as he has a cleaner and sharper image to work with. That is where I see a big plus for the industry that work specifically with digital composition and other forms of work as such. The cleaner the better, as he said to me.

I get it. Work smarter, not harder.

I guess that is the same old argument here at the end of the day: "Choose wisely. There are so many fantastic options out there today. We are truly spoiled with choice and should not complain. The average bloke has access to such a wide range of tools it is insane! Think just 70 years ago; the industry is a different organism today. We have to power at our very fingertips. It has been proven over and over again and we still complain about the smallest of details. I understand to some degree, though."

Let us see what incredible cinema glass is to come from Canon in the RF mount --- I am sure it will be a sensation. :encouragement:

 

[Alex Stolpakov]

After 6 months with Komodo dealing with Anamorphic alignment of dinky, un-lockable monunt and after one future film shoot on Komodo i can say that i hate RF with passion and i wish that they had made different choice.
just my 2c

It's not my business to tell how to construct cameras, but in rentals that use 99% cinema glass with PL or LPL mounts it is a small disaster. As it have been before with photo cameras and cinema optics. And the disaster is a play in a mount with heavy lenses and a torque from follow focus, also no shimming.
It would be perfect if we had variants of non-removable RF and PL mounts to choose from for Komodo and Raptor.
Now Raptor XL have interchangeable mount, but it's different in body-size.
PS To wait for cinema glass with another mount is plain unhealthy. Cameras have much less time than the glass. And what to do if you want to use some old or big or just plain cinema optics that you are used to?