Why No EF Mount Third-Party Bodies

[unfocused]

Seeing reports of the new Panasonic video camera that uses the EF Mount, brings to mind something I've wondered about for some time.

Lots of third-party manufacturers make EF mount lenses. Yet, I've often wondered why there aren't some third-party camera manufacturers making EF mount bodies. For example, if Sigma made their bodies with Canon EF Mounts, it seems like they could compete a lot more effectively.

It's too late for Sony now, but I wonder if it would have been a smarter move for them to reverse-engineer the Canon mount and spend less time and energy making inferior lenses.

I would not be at all surprised if in a few years we see a Yongnuo body with Canon mount.

Imagine the benefits to consumers, if you could order a camera body from a third-party manufacturer in an EF mount, just like video cameras. Again using Yongnuo as an example, I could see them producing a 5DIII knockoff and selling it for under $1,000.

 

[BeenThere]

Good question. Maybe there are some patent issues that are hard to get around on the body side. Also, with a floating electrical interface, it would probably be hard to guarantee compatibility with all the third party lenses.

 

[timmy_650]

Does BlackMagic video camera do that?

 

[rs]

Does BlackMagic video camera do that?

Blackmagic, Red, and now Panasonic all offer video cameras with EF mount. No third party EF mount stills bodies as yet.

 

[ahsanford]

It is a good question. I'm skeptical there's a 'you shall not pass' hard stop IP-related reason as one would assume the EF mount is well past its original patent protection at this point. But I'd imagine virtually every subsystem of the camera -- metering, controls, processing, viewfinder, mirror/shutter, etc. -- has its own IP tied to it that may very well be far younger than the EF mount itself. So cloning a Canon would be a perilous due diligence effort that requires immense background work.

But could you clone a bare-bones EF rig? Sure. Canon could raise hell in response and start tinkering with new lens AF routines to make owning a clone somewhat perilous firmware-of-the-week proposition (not unlike a Hackintosh that chokes on MacOS updates, one might think), but yeah, it should be possible.

Who would do it best? Sigma or Sony. They have the AF know-how and have built their own bodies. But I don't think Sony would try as they've clearly blazed their own trail with the A- and E-Mounts, and that would be a massive gamble for Sigma. They are also big and accountable enough targets to be sued into next Tuesday -- both would have a lot to lose in that scenario.

Who is nuts enough to try this?

• Yongnuo, surely. Those fools don't give two effs about angering the big boys, and it would be dirt cheap. But from the third party electronics tear-downs I've seen from my professional side of things (in a different industry to be fair), I wouldn't trust a Yongnuo EF rig to last a month of rigorous use.
  
  
• Kickstarter, GoFundMe types might give it a go, but a film rig seems a much more straightforward route for a startup than DSLR, but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[unfocused]

Yes, I suspect the complexity of modern electronic bodies would require the manufacturer to be quite sophisticated. Generally, lenses remain on the market much longer than bodies, so the return on investment can be stretched out a bit more, I imagine.

It is interesting that Canon makes no attempt to prevent video manufacturers from using the EF mount. If the convergence of video and stills continues (although I tend to think we are now seeing more divergence than convergence) then we could see EF mount video cameras that are suitable as stills cameras as well.

I think it could put Canon in a difficult position. Do you risk alienating customers who are generally loyal to the brand but want to have a poly-amorous fling with a Foveon sensor? Do you assume that most buyers of a third-party body will eventually come back to Canon and will, in the meantime, keep buying Canon lenses?

I could see several possible scenarios:

• A high-end manufacturer builds an outrageously expensive body;
• A manufacturer like Sigma offers a substantially different feature;
• A low-end company like Yongnuo tries to capture the second body market;
• A company decides to offer a specialized body that is too narrowly focused for the mass market (full-frame mirrorless anyone?)

Mostly, I just got tired of reading about dual card slots on camera bodies and thought it might be interesting to discuss something else for a change.

 

[Don Haines]

Mostly, I just got tired of reading about dual card slots on camera bodies and thought it might be interesting to discuss something else for a change.

But a third party manufacturer will not be successful without dual slots....

 

[Don Haines]

I could see several possible scenarios:

• A high-end manufacturer builds an outrageously expensive body;
• A manufacturer like Sigma offers a substantially different feature;
• A low-end company like Yongnuo tries to capture the second body market;
• A company decides to offer a specialized body that is too narrowly focused for the mass market (full-frame mirrorless anyone?)

Or possibly a FF Astrophotography body..... something without a Bayer or a UV filter, smaller pixel count, and very low noise.... perhaps even peltier cooling built in....

 

[ahsanford]

I could see several possible scenarios:

• A high-end manufacturer builds an outrageously expensive body;
• A manufacturer like Sigma offers a substantially different feature;
• A low-end company like Yongnuo tries to capture the second body market;
• A company decides to offer a specialized body that is too narrowly focused for the mass market (full-frame mirrorless anyone?)

There's money in the 4th point above if done well. Dedicated FF astro rig, anyone? Super video monster with built-in additional cooling and a low res sensor? An ultra-small FF rig with next to no physical controls (think 'FF GoPro') for drone or high-risk action work? Possible, but possibly absurdly expensive given the limited demand and (likely) reliance on stock Canon componentry for a lot of the build.

- A

 

[Keith_Reeder]

But a third party manufacturer will not be successful without dual slots...

And a Sony sensor...

 

[rrcphoto]

Yes, I suspect the complexity of modern electronic bodies would require the manufacturer to be quite sophisticated. Generally, lenses remain on the market much longer than bodies, so the return on investment can be stretched out a bit more, I imagine.

It is interesting that Canon makes no attempt to prevent video manufacturers from using the EF mount. If the convergence of video and stills continues (although I tend to think we are now seeing more divergence than convergence) then we could see EF mount video cameras that are suitable as stills cameras as well

do they support full electronic interconnect? My understanding of the EF mounts in the video cameras, is that they are really for the CINI-EOS lenses, where aperture, focus, etc is all manual

 

[unfocused]

Yes, I suspect the complexity of modern electronic bodies would require the manufacturer to be quite sophisticated. Generally, lenses remain on the market much longer than bodies, so the return on investment can be stretched out a bit more, I imagine.

It is interesting that Canon makes no attempt to prevent video manufacturers from using the EF mount. If the convergence of video and stills continues (although I tend to think we are now seeing more divergence than convergence) then we could see EF mount video cameras that are suitable as stills cameras as well

do they support full electronic interconnect? My understanding of the EF mounts in the video cameras, is that they are really for the CINI-EOS lenses, where aperture, focus, etc is all manual

That's a good question. I'm not a a video person so I have no idea, but I did notice that the promotional pictures of the new Panasonic EVA1 show the lens switch on AF.

 

[ScottyP]

That's crazy though. What lens exactly would you put on a 3rd party body with a Canon mount? No one would buy a few real $2,300.00 Canon lenses and then put them in a Yongnuo body. So you'd have a Yongnuo body with Yongnuo lenses, only with a Canon mount. Why make it a Canon mount at all then?

 

[Don Haines]

That's crazy though. What lens exactly would you put on a 3rd party body with a Canon mount? No one would buy a few real $2,300.00 Canon lenses and then put them in a Yongnuo body. So you'd have a Yongnuo body with Yongnuo lenses, only with a Canon mount. Why make it a Canon mount at all then?

You are right if it is a low quality copy like a Yongnou, but what about a quality body specialized for a niche? Earlier I mentioned the possibility of an astrophotography body which (for it's very specialized niche) would be far superior to anything that Canon makes.

 

[unfocused]

That's crazy though. What lens exactly would you put on a 3rd party body with a Canon mount? No one would buy a few real $2,300.00 Canon lenses and then put them in a Yongnuo body. So you'd have a Yongnuo body with Yongnuo lenses, only with a Canon mount. Why make it a Canon mount at all then?

Second body. For many, many years I had an F1 and a second body that was an AT-1, the cheapest body Canon made at the time. A stripped down second body would come in handy for a lot of photographers who might need a second body, but don't need all the bells and whistles on that second body.

 

[ahsanford]

That's crazy though. What lens exactly would you put on a 3rd party body with a Canon mount? No one would buy a few real $2,300.00 Canon lenses and then put them in a Yongnuo body. So you'd have a Yongnuo body with Yongnuo lenses, only with a Canon mount. Why make it a Canon mount at all then?

Because not everyone puts premium gas in their beat up old Honda Civic.

Think of the art student who wants a FF rig + lens for $1000. Think of the landscaper who doesn't give a hoot about metering, AF, etc. and just wants a bare knuckles simple rig on the cheap. That's who a knockoff FF rig would be for.

Sure, you could bolt $2k+ lenses on it, but I'm guessing you probably have a real (first party) camera for that.

- A

 

[timmy_650]

That's crazy though. What lens exactly would you put on a 3rd party body with a Canon mount? No one would buy a few real $2,300.00 Canon lenses and then put them in a Yongnuo body. So you'd have a Yongnuo body with Yongnuo lenses, only with a Canon mount. Why make it a Canon mount at all then?

Well If you only have so much in your budget, buying from a 3rd party body could get you an extra lens. If you save $400-500 on a body that is a 24-105 f4.
Also think about how many EF lenses there are... I would guess canon has made 125 different Ef lenses over the years. That is just Canon, then you add sigma, tarmon, Samyang ect. That probably gives you over 300 lenses although you probably wouldn't want a fair bit of those lenses but it still gives you a lot of different options.

 

[rs]

There are EF mount CCTV bodies out there, with aperture and focus control:

https://petapixel.com/2012/09/14/a-29-megapixel-sensor-and-a-canon-ef-mount-on-a-security-camera/

http://4a54f0271b66873b1ef4-ddc094ae70b29d259d46aa8a44a90623.r7.cf2.rackcdn.com/assets/Uploads/en_US/H4PRO67K4.pdf

 

[AvTvM]

Technically:
Since a venture like Yongnuo can design (copy), manufacture and sell EF lenses for USD/Euro 50 with working AF, metering and other lens-body communication items ... it cannot be technically really difficult or really expensive.

IP issues:
Yes, all sorts of. Yongnuo operates out of China. BUT ... Canon, being a large corporation and known to vigorously defend their patents and IP does not seem to be able to stop sales of those Yongnuo ("knockoff") lenses to Europe and the US. IF Canon had a really strong case, I am sure, these lenses would have been declared "counterfeit product" and dealt with accordingly = "bulldozer flattening them by the container load".

Market/Demand:
* DSLR
Any 3rd party EF-mount DSLR would inevitably compete with the lowest priced "original Canon" Digital Rebel. If it had an FF sensor, it would compete with EOS 6D. A startup camera would have to offer a lot more functionality to get enough buyers. Or it could only be sold at really,really low price. Not much to be gained there. Too late anyways to launch yet another DSLR.

* Mirrorless
Largest opportunity in market would be for a capable, universal FF-sensored MILC. Imagine Sony A7 II capabilities or even EOS roughly 5D IV capability at USD/Euro 999.

BUT ...
* if it comes as short FFD, compact body - there is no native glass for it. It would require an adapter, which does not appeal to many owners of EF glass.
* if is comes with native EF-mount, it would be as large as a DSLR ... which some here would like, but many others would not be that interested in. Questionable, how large market would be ... people buying it as "cheap backup cam" or as "low budget first camera".


Most likely to succeed in my view would be a "knockoff" EOS M5 and M6 ... with EF-M mount and features/functionality roughly the same as the Canons ... at half the price or less. 8)

That would likely be a runaway success ... someone here with access to manufacturing in China and willing to launch it with me on kickstarter? Or should I talk to Yongnuo first ... ;D

 

[Scottboarding]

I would be in full support for a FF EF-mount camera with very few features. Make it like an old film camera, but with a screen and a digital sensor. One AF point, small ISO range, low MP, no burst mode (or ever slow one), no video etc. Just a complete bare-bones body, and I would buy it immediately. Though, I do think I would be the only one in the world to buy it. Then again, the 1Ds original is basically that, but with a good AF system.