A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Second market backs?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 9th 12, 09:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
R. Mark Clayton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default 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  
Old February 10th 12, 01:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default 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  
Old February 10th 12, 07:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old February 18th 12, 05:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old February 18th 12, 05:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old February 18th 12, 05:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old February 18th 12, 06:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old February 19th 12, 02:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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  
Old February 19th 12, 03:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old February 22nd 12, 05:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:45 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 09:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.