If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
There have been second market lenses for decades - Tamron, Sigma, Cosina,
Vitivar and others. This has pushed the price of good quality glass down, in particular complex zoom lenses. But what about the backs? Sony and others still charge $$$$ for full frame backs. We know the shell, mounts etc. only cost $$$ from cameras with APS size sensors in them or from equivalent film cameras. OK so making a full frame sensor is more difficult and yields will be lower, but this still doesn't justify the HUGE price differential. So what is to stop another maker producing a back with Canon or Minolta compatible mounts for a fraction of the price? Maybe the Russian or someone will wake up to this? -- R. Mark Clayton remove nospa for email PS another issue is that purchasers of APS-C backs and "D" type lenses will be locked into the frame and camera size. The can't get a physically smaller camera, because the lenses won't fit and they can't upgrade the back to full frame because the lens won't fill it! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
"R. Mark Clayton" writes:
There have been second market lenses for decades - Tamron, Sigma, Cosina, Vitivar and others. This has pushed the price of good quality glass down, in particular complex zoom lenses. But what about the backs? Well, there's the Micro Four Thirds system, where multiple companies make bodies (and more make lenses). And Voigtlander makes bodies with Leica mounts (not digital). -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
In article , Darrell
Larose wrote: When AF SLRs appeared the K-AF, Nikon F AF, Canon EF, Minolta A-Mount are all proprietary, any third party user MUST pay a licence fee or royalty to use the mount and related electronics. So this has limited appeal to third-party makers. Seagull did attempt a prototype Minolta MD mount (manual focus) 6.35 megapixel dSLR, but never came to market. third party lens companies reverse engineer the lens mount and the protocols. they don't license it. the camera companies look the other way because they know that third party lenses helps sell more cameras. that's why you sometimes have problems with older third party lenses on newer cameras. this mostly affects sigma since they do a very sloppy job of reverse engineering the protocol, but tokina and tamron have had the occasional problem too. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
On 2012-02-09 15:57 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
There have been second market lenses for decades - Tamron, Sigma, Cosina, Vitivar and others. This has pushed the price of good quality glass down, in particular complex zoom lenses. But what about the backs? Sony and others still charge $$$$ for full frame backs. We know the shell, mounts etc. only cost $$$ from cameras with APS size sensors in them or from equivalent film cameras. OK so making a full frame sensor is more difficult and yields will be lower, but this still doesn't justify the HUGE price differential. So what is to stop another maker producing a back with Canon or Minolta compatible mounts for a fraction of the price? There was some hope that someone would make backs for film cameras. This alas never materialized. Though there was a "digital film" venture that never got off the ground (and was smaller than APS-C too). When Minolta was wandering in the woods and not coming out with a digital SLR, I even hoped that Sigma would come out with a version of its DSLR at the time (SD-9/10) that would take Minolta lenses. Larger sensors mean lower yields per wafer. A defect on a APC-C wafer means you lose 1 of 500 sensors. A defect on a FF wafer means you lose 1 of 100 sensors (numbers are for comparison). [by defect I mean one important enough to discard that particular sensor]. So not only do you get far fewer sensors per wafer, but a defect imposes a higher unit cost when distributed to the survivors. Larger sensors also mean faster processors and more memory in the camera. This really shouldn't add much to the BOM but generally every $ of unit factory cost comes out to $4 of end user price. Note that there are several 3rd party backs for film era cameras Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax, etc. Hasselblad also had OEM backs for "V" series film Hasselblads (like the 500 C/M). Much more to offer than I would bother writing about here. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
On 2012-02-10 01:16 , nospam wrote:
In , Darrell wrote: When AF SLRs appeared the K-AF, Nikon F AF, Canon EF, Minolta A-Mount are all proprietary, any third party user MUST pay a licence fee or royalty to use the mount and related electronics. So this has limited appeal to third-party makers. Seagull did attempt a prototype Minolta MD mount (manual focus) 6.35 megapixel dSLR, but never came to market. third party lens companies reverse engineer the lens mount and the protocols. they don't license it. the camera companies look the other way because they know that third party lenses helps sell more cameras. I believe Tamron pay the license or have "in kind" arrangements with some or all of the brands they make lenses for. that's why you sometimes have problems with older third party lenses on newer cameras. this mostly affects sigma since they do a very sloppy job of reverse engineering the protocol, but tokina and tamron have had the occasional problem too. Sigma are the worst in that regard. To their credit they do firmware updates ("chipping" that can't be done by the user) for free, once, on their lenses. I'm not sure if their recent lenses allow user firmware updates. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
On 2012-02-09 20:35 , Darrell Larose wrote:
The Hasselblad film magazine's patent has likely expired as well but that is moot. It definitely is not moot as there are both Hassy backs and 3rd party backs for the V series. Not cheap, mind you. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
In article , Alan Browne
wrote: When AF SLRs appeared the K-AF, Nikon F AF, Canon EF, Minolta A-Mount are all proprietary, any third party user MUST pay a licence fee or royalty to use the mount and related electronics. So this has limited appeal to third-party makers. Seagull did attempt a prototype Minolta MD mount (manual focus) 6.35 megapixel dSLR, but never came to market. third party lens companies reverse engineer the lens mount and the protocols. they don't license it. the camera companies look the other way because they know that third party lenses helps sell more cameras. I believe Tamron pay the license or have "in kind" arrangements with some or all of the brands they make lenses for. canon has gone on record saying they have not licensed their mount to anyone. i assume the other makers are no different. as i said, nikon, canon, pentax, etc. look the other way since it would be stupid to crack down on it. that's why you sometimes have problems with older third party lenses on newer cameras. this mostly affects sigma since they do a very sloppy job of reverse engineering the protocol, but tokina and tamron have had the occasional problem too. Sigma are the worst in that regard. To their credit they do firmware updates ("chipping" that can't be done by the user) for free, once, on their lenses. I'm not sure if their recent lenses allow user firmware updates. tokina does too, but unlike sigma, it's rarely needed. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:58:32 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: : On 2012-02-10 01:16 , nospam wrote: : In , Darrell : wrote: : : When AF SLRs appeared the K-AF, Nikon F AF, Canon EF, Minolta A-Mount : are all proprietary, any third party user MUST pay a licence fee or : royalty to use the mount and related electronics. So this has limited : appeal to third-party makers. Seagull did attempt a prototype Minolta MD : mount (manual focus) 6.35 megapixel dSLR, but never came to market. : : third party lens companies reverse engineer the lens mount and the : protocols. they don't license it. the camera companies look the other : way because they know that third party lenses helps sell more cameras. : : I believe Tamron pay the license or have "in kind" arrangements with : some or all of the brands they make lenses for. : : that's why you sometimes have problems with older third party lenses on : newer cameras. this mostly affects sigma since they do a very sloppy : job of reverse engineering the protocol, but tokina and tamron have had : the occasional problem too. : : Sigma are the worst in that regard. To their credit they do firmware : updates ("chipping" that can't be done by the user) for free, once, on : their lenses. I'm not sure if their recent lenses allow user firmware : updates. How would they allow user updates if they wanted to? There's no place on a Sigma lens to connect a computer to do the upgrade. So you'd have to do it through the camera. Does anyone imagine that Canon or Nikon would program the chips in their cameras to update the firmware in a Sigma lens? Bob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
On 2012-02-18 20:02 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:58:32 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2012-02-10 01:16 , nospam wrote: : In , Darrell : wrote: : : When AF SLRs appeared the K-AF, Nikon F AF, Canon EF, Minolta A-Mount : are all proprietary, any third party user MUST pay a licence fee or : royalty to use the mount and related electronics. So this has limited : appeal to third-party makers. Seagull did attempt a prototype Minolta MD : mount (manual focus) 6.35 megapixel dSLR, but never came to market. : : third party lens companies reverse engineer the lens mount and the : protocols. they don't license it. the camera companies look the other : way because they know that third party lenses helps sell more cameras. : : I believe Tamron pay the license or have "in kind" arrangements with : some or all of the brands they make lenses for. : : that's why you sometimes have problems with older third party lenses on : newer cameras. this mostly affects sigma since they do a very sloppy : job of reverse engineering the protocol, but tokina and tamron have had : the occasional problem too. : : Sigma are the worst in that regard. To their credit they do firmware : updates ("chipping" that can't be done by the user) for free, once, on : their lenses. I'm not sure if their recent lenses allow user firmware : updates. How would they allow user updates if they wanted to? There's no place on a Sigma lens to connect a computer to do the upgrade. So you'd have to do it through the camera. Does anyone imagine that Canon or Nikon would program the chips in their cameras to update the firmware in a Sigma lens? Good point, but I could imagine a micro-USB connection as well. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Second market backs?
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:58:32 -0500, Alan Browne : Sigma are the worst in that regard. To their credit they do firmware : updates ("chipping" that can't be done by the user) for free, once, on : their lenses. I'm not sure if their recent lenses allow user firmware : updates. How would they allow user updates if they wanted to? There's no place on a Sigma lens to connect a computer to do the upgrade. You mean no typical standard connector. So you'd have to do it through the camera. Not needed. They could sell a mock bayonet where only the necessary electrical connections work and have that end in an USB connector for the computer. Same as some cameras can be programmed through the flash connectors --- no need to build a whole flash unit that upgrades the camera. :-) True, normal users wouldn't normally get either; it's too easy to break a lens or camera that way. Does anyone imagine that Canon or Nikon would program the chips in their cameras to update the firmware in a Sigma lens? Actually, chipping means the physical replacement of the controller chip by Sigma (as long as stocks last), though more recent lenses are flash-upgradeable, by what I hear tell. The first one sure isn't something Joe Advanced Photographer is going to be able to do anyway. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LF camera backs | john | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | October 21st 05 03:27 AM |
Book: 2005 Photographers Market (Photographer's Market) | AnalogKid | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | December 28th 04 06:45 PM |
Digital backs. | Leigh Bowden | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | August 16th 04 11:19 PM |
FS: Hasselblad A70 backs | William Tucker | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 16th 04 03:03 PM |
FA: Hasselblad Backs A12 and A16 Almost New | rb | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | January 19th 04 08:06 PM |