Why No EF Mount Third-Party Bodies

[Orangutan]

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.

Yup, Nikon did that -- it's called the Df. It was a flop, even though it had excellent guts for the time.

 

[Scottboarding]

Yup, Nikon did that -- it's called the Df. It was a flop, even though it had excellent guts for the time.

True, but it was still very expensive. I'd like to see a sub $1000 body, but I think that would be an even bigger flop.

 

[dak723]

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.

I would buy one, too! And I think a lot of folks who don't visit internet forums would, too. It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point, set max IO at 1600 or so, print no lager than 8 x 10 so don't need more than 12 MP (or even less), use single shot, and don't shoot video. But it would be a marketing nightmare - especially among younger users who are used to "more technology is better" thinking.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

I would buy one, too! And I think a lot of folks who don't visit internet forums would, too. It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point, set max IO at 1600 or so, print no lager than 8 x 10 so don't need more than 12 MP (or even less), use single shot, and don't shoot video. But it would be a marketing nightmare - especially among younger users who are used to "more technology is better" thinking.

Just go buy a good condition 5D for a few hundred bucks. Duh! :

 

[3kramd5]

It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point..."

It would surprise me to learn that the average user selects a point rather than allowing the camera to choose.

 

[AlanF]

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.

I would buy one, too! And I think a lot of folks who don't visit internet forums would, too. It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point, set max IO at 1600 or so, print no lager than 8 x 10 so don't need more than 12 MP (or even less), use single shot, and don't shoot video. But it would be a marketing nightmare - especially among younger users who are used to "more technology is better" thinking.

For bird photography, I do what most birders do: use centre AF; keep ISO to 1600 or less; and print an 8x10 in my annual album. So, I am pretty much an average photographer by your definition. But, the reason I and others do this is we need the fastest focussing for a bird in flight, pinpointing a small bird against a background, and cropping just the centre of the image so 12 mp only are useless.

 

[RunAndGun]

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

The Panasonic VariCam LT with its factory EF mount(it is removable/swappable, btw) has connections in the mount and control on the body for control of the aperture on Canon EF still lenses. The upcoming Panasonic EVA1 has a factory EF mount and control on the body for aperture control like the LT. Panasonic is also saying(at least alluding to) that there will be some type of, at least basic, AF capabilities.

Most third party EF lens adapters for video cameras give you aperture control, now. In the early days, that wasn't the case and a lot of people had to shoot with the lens wide open or some had a work-around and they could set the aperture on a still cam and pop it off and put it on the adapter, then. I thought the lenses defaulted to wide-open with no power, but I wasn't shooting with them in this manner back then.

I have two EF adapters for my Sony F55: an Optitek Pro-loc and a Metabones. The Optitek, on the body of the adapter, has buttons that allow you to toggle the aperture UP & DOWN. It's not very smooth, but still lenses are stepped aperture anyway and not continuous and smooth like lenses dedicated for motion. The Metabones, while much larger, actually has a good interface for the aperture control of EF lenses, it has its own "Aperture Ring" that is electronically tied to the lens aperture and you just turn it like you would a real aperture ring, more or less.

The Metabones adapter is somewhat smoother and definitely more natural feeling, but you're limited by the weakest link in the chain, which is the stepped electronic apertures of still lenses that were never designed to be used in this way, where sometimes live aperture pulls are necessary.

 

[retroreflection]

I think there are far more real barriers to entry in digital bodies than in lenses.

Sensor fab is a multi billion dollar barrier. Sony might sell you theirs.
ADC and all of the other processors could be fabricated by another party, but designing them is no trivial task. When you try to compete with the big boys by buying from the big boys, your negotiations might just go nowhere.
Make it too compatible with the original bodies, and you cross into IP issues.

Why did the video cameras succeed in using the EF mount? Because Canon was not trying to satisfy the Holywood market, and Hollywood has the budgets to support the price of that innovation.

There are technical cameras that use the mounts of others, machine vision applications are a common market. Too small for Canon or Nikon to care.

I'm sure there are people who want to build an EF mount camera, I just doubt an ordinary photography rig will be built.

 

[rrcphoto]

Because Canon was not trying to satisfy the Holywood market, and Hollywood has the budgets to support the price of that innovation.

There are technical cameras that use the mounts of others, machine vision applications are a common market. Too small for Canon or Nikon to care.

the C700,etc wave at you and wonder what you are talking about.

 

[Ozarker]

Simple. It would not be profitable.

 

[dak723]

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.

I would buy one, too! And I think a lot of folks who don't visit internet forums would, too. It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point, set max IO at 1600 or so, print no lager than 8 x 10 so don't need more than 12 MP (or even less), use single shot, and don't shoot video. But it would be a marketing nightmare - especially among younger users who are used to "more technology is better" thinking.

For bird photography, I do what most birders do: use centre AF; keep ISO to 1600 or less; and print an 8x10 in my annual album. So, I am pretty much an average photographer by your definition. But, the reason I and others do this is we need the fastest focussing for a bird in flight, pinpointing a small bird against a background, and cropping just the centre of the image so 12 mp only are useless.

You do a very specific type of photography, which has specific needs - so, no, you are exactly the opposite of an average photographer. So if you need more MPs that would be expected and no one would argue with your choice

 

[dak723]

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.

I would buy one, too! And I think a lot of folks who don't visit internet forums would, too. It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point, set max IO at 1600 or so, print no lager than 8 x 10 so don't need more than 12 MP (or even less), use single shot, and don't shoot video. But it would be a marketing nightmare - especially among younger users who are used to "more technology is better" thinking.

Just go buy a good condition 5D for a few hundred bucks. Duh! :

I might just do that, but perhaps you haven't heard that electronics tend to have a fairly short life span so buying a 12 year old camera would be risky. Plus - maybe you missed it - but the QE of sensors has improved quite a bit over that same time period, so a new 12 MP camera would be considerably improved in IQ over the 5D.

Duh....... 8)

 

[BillB]

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.

I would buy one, too! And I think a lot of folks who don't visit internet forums would, too. It's my opinion, of course, but the average photographer is pretty much the exact opposite of the typical Canon Rumors member: They use the center AF point, set max IO at 1600 or so, print no lager than 8 x 10 so don't need more than 12 MP (or even less), use single shot, and don't shoot video. But it would be a marketing nightmare - especially among younger users who are used to "more technology is better" thinking.

Just go buy a good condition 5D for a few hundred bucks. Duh! :

I might just do that, but perhaps you haven't heard that electronics tend to have a fairly short life span so buying a 12 year old camera would be risky. Plus - maybe you missed it - but the QE of sensors has improved quite a bit over that same time period, so a new 12 MP camera would be considerably improved in IQ over the 5D.

Duh....... 8)

 

[preppyak]

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.

Here's the short/business answer, I'd imagine. Lets say a photographer buys a $2k camera body and 3 lenses, each at $1k. Canon makes 20% profit on each. So $5k spent, $1k profit for Canon.

Now, Blackmagic does the same thing (BMCC), they sell the camera for $2k and make 20%. They've made $400. Canon selling the 3 lenses makes $600. Canon still comes out ahead and that 3rd-party company has to sell 2.5 times as many cameras to turn the same profit. Since R&D comes with fixed costs (not relative ones), its a lot harder to innovate using someone else's money making tech unless the profit margins are massive.

The longer answer is you do see the EF mount all over, but, its usually targeted in markets where they think pros and hobbyists have lots of EF glass already and want a new body (see the Panasonic AU-EVA1). In the cheaper models, they'll put a MFT mount on for its versatility.

Another piece; I think if you are future looking, the E-mount is far more interesting than EF. I can adapt any EF lens to E-mount, but cant go the other way. Its why the guys from Magic Lantern, when they are building their cine camera, are now using the E-mount

 

[preppyak]

True, but it was still very expensive. I'd like to see a sub $1000 body, but I think that would be an even bigger flop.

But it was very expensive because the R&D to make that camera and test it still costs money. And its lacking features made it less tempting. So Nikon had to price it high knowing they'd sell fewer cameras and need to still recoup costs.

Cameras are feature-packed to get the most buyers possible. A stripped down camera might be nice; but you'll pay 10x more for it because maybe 1/10th of the usual buyers want it.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Here's the short/business answer, I'd imagine. Lets say a photographer buys a $2k camera body and 3 lenses, each at $1k. Canon makes 20% profit on each. So $5k spent, $1k profit for Canon.

Now, Blackmagic does the same thing (BMCC), they sell the camera for $2k and make 20%. They've made $400. Canon selling the 3 lenses makes $600. Canon still comes out ahead and that 3rd-party company has to sell 2.5 times as many cameras to turn the same profit. Since R&D comes with fixed costs (not relative ones), its a lot harder to innovate using someone else's money making tech unless the profit margins are massive.

The longer answer is you do see the EF mount all over, but, its usually targeted in markets where they think pros and hobbyists have lots of EF glass already and want a new body (see the Panasonic AU-EVA1). In the cheaper models, they'll put a MFT mount on for its versatility.

Another piece; I think if you are future looking, the E-mount is far more interesting than EF. I can adapt any EF lens to E-mount, but cant go the other way. Its why the guys from Magic Lantern, when they are building their cine camera, are now using the E-mount

Off topic, but I very much doubt Canon or any other maker is getting a 20% return on investment. I do, though, understand that your example is for illustrative purposes.

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

Here's the short/business answer, I'd imagine. Lets say a photographer buys a $2k camera body and 3 lenses, each at $1k. Canon makes 20% profit on each. So $5k spent, $1k profit for Canon.

Now, Blackmagic does the same thing (BMCC), they sell the camera for $2k and make 20%. They've made $400. Canon selling the 3 lenses makes $600. Canon still comes out ahead and that 3rd-party company has to sell 2.5 times as many cameras to turn the same profit. Since R&D comes with fixed costs (not relative ones), its a lot harder to innovate using someone else's money making tech unless the profit margins are massive.

The longer answer is you do see the EF mount all over, but, its usually targeted in markets where they think pros and hobbyists have lots of EF glass already and want a new body (see the Panasonic AU-EVA1). In the cheaper models, they'll put a MFT mount on for its versatility.

Another piece; I think if you are future looking, the E-mount is far more interesting than EF. I can adapt any EF lens to E-mount, but cant go the other way. Its why the guys from Magic Lantern, when they are building their cine camera, are now using the E-mount

Off topic, but I very much doubt Canon or any other maker is getting a 20% return on investment. I do, though, understand that your example is for illustrative purposes.

canon gets around 14%