IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
It's probably the new~ish Viltrox Z-mount teleconverter that set Nikon off, since it contains not only the "male" mount as on lenses, but also the "female" one. Remember that Sony also disallows E-mount teleconverters by anyone else. Why is that, I have no idea.
It'd be a shame if Viltrox is driven out of Z mount altogether - I don't own any of these lenses yet, but if I ever decide to migrate to Z mount and replace my EF mount primes, the Viltrox entries like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are a no-brainer at this point. Maybe I should get the 16mm f/1.8 ASAP. ...Show more →
Interesting theory about the teleconverter, it's materially the only product that separates Viltrox from the other Chinese lens companies right now.
Viltrox is dipping their toes into all sorts of markets this year, they are releasing direct competitors to Fuji's wide and tele converter lenses for the X100VI as an example.
There are few, if any, formerly Chinese-owned photographic firms that have been acquired by Japanese companies.
Red Digital Cinema is an American camera manufacturer specializing in digital cinematography headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.
Lead glass, commonly called crystal, is a variety of glass in which lead replaces the calcium content of a typical potash glass. Lead glass typically contains 18–40% (by mass) lead oxide (PbO); modern lead crystal or leaded crystal contains a minimum of 24% PbO. Lead glass is desirable for a variety of uses due to its clarity.
Modern Voigtländer lenses manufactured by Cosina in Japan use lead-free eco-glass. Modern Zeiss photographic lenses, especially their high-end manual focus and contemporary autofocus lines, do not use leaded glass, nor does ARRI. Modern Leica lenses generally do not use lead in their glass components.
The use of lead oxide in photographic lenses is a great advantage. It confers great clarity, color and high refractive indices. It's a superb, organic and time-proven material that increases dispersion, traditionally corrected by achromat doublets. Which class/origin of modern lenses can we associate with high refraction and great clarity?
For some reason I thought the move away from leaded gas was a regulatory issue. Along with the phaseout of leaded solder. Nevermind eating camera lenses not being a thing. Wonder if the current OEM lenses could be even better with judicious use of a little bit of leaded glass.
jpelt78 wrote:
For some reason I thought the move away from leaded gas was a regulatory issue. Along with the phaseout of leaded solder. Nevermind eating camera lenses not being a thing. Wonder if the current OEM lenses could be even better with judicious use of a little bit of leaded glass.
It's a safety and environmental issue, but lead was phased out long ago for the most part in lens glasses. There are so many better glasses and ways to design lenses today that it's unlikely to return to the mainstream.
Hopefully, this is either not true or Viltrox seriously infringed on Nikon IP, such as copying an optical design. If this is some silly thing over say AF protocols, that would be very disappointing to me. In my opinion, we need more Z lenses, not less, and Viltrox being available for Nikon Z is a big advantage of Nikon Z over Canon R.
EB-1 wrote:
Viltriox can develop their own mount if they don't want to pay Nikon.
EBH
Viltrox is already part of the L mount alliance. At this point, the biggest thing the L mount is really missing is a good stacked sensor camera. If it existed, the Sigma 300-600mm f4 alone would have me adding an L mount setup to my kit.
Personally I am getting tired of what appears to be "games" the big 3 are doing with lens/camera restrictions. Canon R has no support for 3rd party FF AF lenses. Sony does not allow 3rd party lenses to use TC's or go over 15fps. Nikon does not appear to be allowing Sigma FF lenses, and if this lawsuit is true, who knows how this will affect third party lenses on Nikon Z.
Back around 2010, I understood more why camera manufacturers were trying to protect their mounts. But the world has changed in 15+ years. Companies like Sigma, Tamron, and Viltrox are producing many lenses without first party competition. In my opinion, if one of the big 3 does not fully embrace third party lenses, it's only a matter of time until a 4th fully viable FF lens mount comes out.
If, for some reason, L mount does not play nicely with Chinese lens companies, I can see a few of the Chinese lens companies getting together to make their own mount. Chinese engineering is getting better by the year, and with the cost benefit they could end up taking over quite a bit of the world market.
More fuel to the "we need DJI to give us a viable alternative" fire....
I could see DJI releasing something in the A7C/ZVE1 category, or maybe the Nikon ZR is a better comparison. A camera like this, with L-mount and DJI tech, will be a heavy hitter.
Kidding aside, while yes, this could be not so great for Viltrox, I honestly think if Nikon bans them from the mount, it will be far worse for Nikon. One of the big draws to Nikon over Canon is the fact that they have third party glass. If that goes away (except for a few Tamron lenses), it burns a lot of goodwill Nikon has earned over the past few years. Also, with Nikon in third place among full-frame mirrorless brands, I don't think they can afford to hemorrhage users to Sony, and that may very well happen if they start cutting out third party brands.
I know I'd be tempted (though the financial hit would likely keep me with Nikon for a while).
Jman13 wrote:
Kidding aside, while yes, this could be not so great for Viltrox, I honestly think if Nikon bans them from the mount, it will be far worse for Nikon. One of the big draws to Nikon over Canon is the fact that they have third party glass. If that goes away (except for a few Tamron lenses), it burns a lot of goodwill Nikon has earned over the past few years. Also, with Nikon in third place among full-frame mirrorless brands, I don't think they can afford to hemorrhage users to Sony, and that may very well happen if they start cutting out third party brands.
I know I'd be tempted (though the financial hit would likely keep me with Nikon for a while). ...Show more →
Exactly. My prediction (based on absolutely nothing) is that this will get settled with Viltrox paying licensing fees to Nikon. Maybe also some restrictions like they have to stop selling direct competitor lenses (like the 135 and 35 f/1.2).
RoamingScott wrote:
Interesting theory about the teleconverter, it's materially the only product that separates Viltrox from the other Chinese lens companies right now.
Viltrox is dipping their toes into all sorts of markets this year, they are releasing direct competitors to Fuji's wide and tele converter lenses for the X100VI as an example.
Well, I was thinking what Viltrox did that the other Chinese manufacturers of AF lenses for Z mount did not? (e.g. Laowa, Meike, 7Artisans etc... lo, do we now have, apart from the usual suspects like Sigma and Tamron, a veritable half a dozen manufacturers of AF lenses all of a sudden?) After all, Nikon only aggroed at Viltrox for the moment, and the teleconverter seemed the most likely trigger. It'd be a shame if greedily trying to get their finger in every pie would lead Viltrox to their undoing (even if that undoing would only mean the end of producing lenses for Z mount... that'd be almost as bad to me, unless I go all in on adapting E-mount lenses to Z).
RoamingScott wrote:
Threatening to switch to Sony to keep access to Viltrox is crazy work
It's about more than Viltrox - it's about the attitude towards the customer. The main reason I left Canon for Nikon was the completely locked down system. In pricing out my first purchases if I were to switch (again, this is not a major concern at this point in time, but it could be down the road), none of my first lenses purchased would be re-buys of my Viltrox glass. Probably the Rokinon 14-24/2.8, Sony 20-70, Tamron 70-180 G2 and a used Sony 90 Macro. I'd keep my 35GM that I currently own and use on Nikon.
If Nikon becomes nearly as locked down as Canon it becomes much harder to continue to build a system with Nikon. Though considering my kit is feature complete at the moment, I would have no immediate incentive to switch. (Unless Nikon did the unthinkable and bricked existing Viltrox lenses with all future firmware, which, in that case, I'd probably switch out of principle...because that'd be actively screwing your customer). I really don't think they'd do that though.
I fully support Nikon, among every other brand, protecting their IP if Viltrox was knowingly skirting proper mount licensing.
We don’t have any concrete details on which to render moral judgements yet.
If Viltrox was acting maliciously (or any 3rd party) and refused to come to proper terms, Nikon would fully be in their right to C&D, sue, brick, or otherwise limit access to the mount.
I am concerned that if Nikon wins, Sony may very well end up Sueing Viltrox next. I was concerned when Viltrox announced the TC that Sony Legal might go after them. Sony has to know Sigma has some lenses like the 300-600mm f4 that are just begging for a TC and refuse to allow Sigma to make a TC.
Sony has an entirely different license/usage model for E.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I am concerned that if Nikon wins, Sony may very well end up Sueing Viltrox next. I was concerned when Viltrox announced the TC that Sony Legal might go after them. Sony has to know Sigma has some lenses like the 300-600mm f4 that are just begging for a TC and refuse to allow Sigma to make a TC.
RoamingScott wrote:
I fully support Nikon, among every other brand, protecting their IP if Viltrox was knowingly skirting proper mount licensing.
We don’t have any concrete details on which to render moral judgements yet.
If Viltrox was acting maliciously (or any 3rd party) and refused to come to proper terms, Nikon would fully be in their right to C&D, sue, brick, or otherwise limit access to the mount.
I agree we need to know more to really come to a conclusion. Viltrox could have done something, such as exactly copy a Nikon optical design, which I would have no sympathy for.
I am concerned, though, that this will be another silly use of patents to manipulate the market. For example, using a patent on the camera / TC side of the lens mount, or using a patent on a communication protocol. Almost all of these types of patents are not truly groundbreaking inventions, there offten just a case of who got there first, and since compatibility is required, either no other company can make a compatible product, or company 2 needs to copy company 1. Patents were originally intended to protect truly novel ideas. Now they are often used by compinas to bully each other. This happens all the time in tech.
Just a quick example, even though Nikon owns Red now, I still think Red's raw video patent should be invalidated. They basically patented the idea of raw video compression, not a novel approach to raw video compression, which has stopped any other company from being able to implement raw video compression, and held back high end video quality for years. Just imagine if the first company that created a compressed audio format patented compressed audio and had basically a legal monopoly on all digital audio content.
Major companies are using the legal system more and more to cement their positions in the market by making it too costly for new companies to compete, instead of actually continuing to innovate to stay on top.
But like I said in the begingin we need more info to understand just how petty Nikon might be or just how stupid Viltrox may have been.
RoamingScott wrote:
It’s also important to remember that in general, camera bodies are close to loss leaders, and almost all of the profit is in the lenses.
Viltrox having a 35 and 135 that are directly impacting Nikon’s profits is probably not insignificant.
It’s possible Nikon was letting some things slide until now, none of us are in a position to know the nuance.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying, say, 10% more for a body if it meant a fully open system. But on the other hand, if lens prices keep people away from buying a Z body in the first place, they will never buy a Nikon Z lens. So Nikon would lose all around.
I have to wonder how many people who buy a Viltrox 135mm at $900 would ever buy a Nikon 135mm at $2,600. In my opinion, there is probably very little overlap.
Let's take some looking to buy some f1.2 lenses.
Nikon 50mm f1.2: $2,250
Nikon 35mm f1.2: $3,000
vs
Sigma 50mm f1.2: $1,550
Sigma 35mm f1.2: $1,550
Now I am sure the Nikon lenses are better in some ways, but are they truly 2,250 better overall? Maybe if you're a working pro, but if you're mainly doing photography for fun, the savings of going with Sigma basically cover the cost of the camera to mount them to. Add a few more lenses to mix, and the cost savings become even more drastic.
If Nikon, Canon, and Sony end up catering their systems to only people looking to pay a premium for the best of the best. It's only a matter of time until we see a new system come out targeting the masses.
