Hypothetical: Sigma/Sony Camera with Canon EOS mount lenses

[zigzag]

It's obviously not happened yet but if Sigma/Tamron/Tokina etc can (and do)

reverse engineer the EOS mount and Pentax/Sony can produce innovative cameras

with in body IS - why can't someone produce an original but compatible FF

camera with EOS mount that does not rely on any existing Canon body technology?

(Say, e.g. with that new Sony 24Mpx sensor.)

 

Is it because the real profit is to be made in selling the lenses, because the

complexity of the body (they know how to build bodies) would be too high,

because they would be sued or because it still makes no commercial sense?

Instead of developing a brand new camera system that has no lenses available,

why not tap into an existing lens system (and undercut the originator by

providing in body IS.) Or do copyright laws protect the originator from this

sort of thing (they should.) and licensing of the technology would never happen

(baby, bathwater.)

 

Where does healthy competition end and piracy begin?

[ken munn]

"Where does healthy competition end and piracy begin?"

 

In court, to no one's advantage except the attorneys.

[PuppyDigs]

It's been done and was a failure. Kodak marketed the last FF EOS mount. Oddly it was

actually manufactured by Sigma. Was only a couple years back.

[zigzag]

And why did it fail? Market recognition/branding?

[jimstrutz]

There have been a few past attempts to make cameras around a common lens mount (M42 screw, Pentax K, etc), but they have met with little acceptance from most of the big boys. They usually want to market their own camera, with their own mount, and their own lens systems. I suspect most of them know that there is more money to be made by going their own way instead of cooperating with the competition.

 

It's the same with what you are describing. Why make a camera that uses other people's lenses when you can make one that will encourage customers to by your dedicated lenses. There is more money to be made by locking customers into your system.

 

Obviously some of the (generally) marginal players see an advantage to doing otherwise. Oly, like Pentax did formerly, are encouraging others to develop systems around the 4/3 format, but they are getting few takers.

 

However, I am still surprised that Sigma decided to make camera bodies with their own mount when: 1) It is nearly the same as Canon's, 2)They clearly had the technology to do it, 3) They were already selling Canon mount lenses for it, 4) They could have sold ten times as many camera bodies, 5) And probably sold more lenses as well. Perhaps they didn't want to invite a legal battle from Canon.

[zigzag]

Puupy Face - the Kodak DSC Pro SLR/c - Canon Mount is described: his marks a significant step for Kodak, returning to its history of offering digital cameras based on both Nikon and Canon bodies. Note that the camera body itself isn't sourced from Canon however. Kodak's relationship with Canon apparently allows them to build EOS-compatible digital cameras. Considering the striking resemblance of the control layout to Sigma's SD9 and SD10 digital SLRs, it seems they're sourcing the EOS-compatible camera bodies from Sigma - no parts on the camera are manufactured by Canon. We're told that all the EOS lenses our Kodak contacts have tried with the camera have worked, including tilt-shift lenses."

 

Apparently it was "sluggish". Sigma on the other hand seem to be committed to the Foveon but I don't think they're selling that many.

 

I suppose it comes down to reliability and a guarantee of (professional) performance: same reason why people prefer Canon lenses on Canon cameras.

[mark u]

I believe that a Sigma SD9 has been converted to EF mount, and several Canon EF lenses have been successfully converted to Sigma mount. In both cases with full AF and aperture control.

 

Perhaps a more interesting question is whether camera manufacturers will feel free to source sensors more widely. After all, there is nothing to stop you from using Velvia or Techpan in a film body. Hitherto, (and perhaps even still) sensors have been seen as providing an advantage rather than alternatives, but as the technology matures maybe the choice starts to become between e.g. high resolution and high ISO.

[zml]

IMO the choice is between compatibility and diversity. Yeah, I would be cool to mix an match bodies and lenses but at what cost..? (Ah, the bad, old times of the M42x1 mount...the lenses fit physically on different cameras but were not feature-compatible across manufacturers...) Most Canon EF optics is fully compatible with most Canon EF cameras but that can't be said about - say - Sigma lenses: some of those are "almost 100% EF mount..." Can you imagine the mess if the compatibility issues went both ways (i.e. "almost" EF mount camera..?)

 

 

I don't know...seems that many people drink the same Kool-Aid at the same time :-))) See this thread on the Fred Miranda's forum

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/604541

[chrisjb]

When the Kodak came out it was about 27000aud if I remember right here in Oz and I believe tied to contracts with Nikon., I almost bought a sigma cept I`m sure it was RAW files only and cards weren`t all that big then.

[alan_myers]

Each camera manufacturer holds the patent and all rights to their own mounting system and the methods of communication between camera and lens. It's proprietary, which means they own it and others cannot use it without their express agreement. (Which better be in writing, too... Verbal agreements are only worth the paper their written on!)

 

Other manufacturers are sometimes able to strike a deal to manufacture cameras and/or lenses by licensing that mount from that manufacturer.

 

No doubt that's what Kodak did with both Nikon and Canon back in the early days of digital when Kodak was almost the only source of CCD imaging sensors (and thus had some leverage of their own).

 

Failure to make such an arrangement to use someone else's design is the basis for major civil lawsuits, big judgments and hefty fines.

 

Take for example Kodak's eventual court-ordered payments to Polaroid, plus the cease and desist ruling that killed their own instant developing film business (which in turn left a lot of Kodak instant camera buyers high and dry with unusable paper weights).

 

Poor planning on their part? Not really, the laws sort of changed in a way unfavorable to Kodak. When they first set out to compete with Polaroid, patent laws were more lax and their attorneys made the call that they could probably get away with it. But, that ended up being a mistake that cost Kodak an estimated $1 billion and left them a shadow of their former corporate self.

 

Eventually patents expire, at which time other manufacturers can freely make products using it without arranging or paying for licensing. The Leica screw-mount and later the Leica M-bayonet mount are two examples of lens mounting systems where this occurred.

 

In the case of the M-bayonet, in the 1970s and 1980s, there were a few times when other manufacturers licensed the design from Leica to offer cameras and lenses, such as the Minolta CLE.

 

But when the patent finally expired in 2000, a number of other manufactures began producing compatible cameras and lenses. Konica was a key one, with their Hexar RF cameras and M-Hexanon lenses.

 

Konica actually laid the groundwork for this by offering several Hexar models with non-interchangeable lenses - thus not using the M-bayonet system - for some years prior. And, they were very experienced with this, having produced Leica screw-mount "L" lenses as early as the 1950 and all the way up through the 1990s. This was even more possible because the L-mount patent expired after 25 years, under the laws of those times, instead of the more typical 50 years we see today.

 

Incidentally, rumor has it that the current Sigma electronic/auto focus bayonet lens mount was actually a design patented by Konica Corporation in the 1980s. It's said to have been a planned replacement for their earlier mechanically linked lens mounting system, and was a design in response to the auto focus revolution that had been started by Minolta (eventually leading to Canon's EF-mount redesign, too). Interesting since Konica offered the first successful auto focus camera, but it was a fixed lens rangefinder instead of an interchangeable bayonet mount.

 

Supposedly their electronic/auto focus mount design ended up being licensed to Sigma after Konica decided to discontinue manufacture of SLRs entirely. No one has ever been able to prove this one way or the other.

 

The 4/3 mount being used by Olympus and a few others is currently the only "open" and unrestricted mounting system on the market, besides older ones like the M42 , Leica L and M, etc.

 

In the end the real question might be whether or not the technology still has any value and merit by the time any patent expires. Not many screw mount lenses or cameras are being made today! On the other hand, the M-bayonet has faired a bit better and still lives.

[jimstrutz]

I don't doubt you are correct Alan, but how is it that third party manufacturers get away with making Canon & Nikon mount lenses? Clearly they are stepping on Canon's & Nikon's patents for the lens mount, but without issue. Is this just tolerated or is there a loophole that allows it? And why would making the lens end of the mount be acceptable, but not the camera end?

 

Mark U mentioned the Sigma lens and camera mount conversions that have been done. It appears that Sigma's mount is very similar to Canon's and the AF & aperture protocols are the same, with just the pin out configuration changed. From what I've seen, it's a fairly easy swap for the lenses. Not sure about the camera end.

 

It would be nice if Sigma, or some other third party, came up with an interchangeable system of mount swapping. Something like an Adaptall III with electronic signal conversions added. Not likely to happen though -- too much money would be lost by Canon & Nikon when people change systems.

[alan_rockwood]

Alan Myers,

 

Is the EOS lens mount actually patented? If so, I wonder when the patent expires.

 

I believe that EOS mount cameras were introduced in 1987. Without going into all the fine points of patent law, basically speaking patents expire after 20 years. This would put the EOS mount as having already expired.

 

Alan Rockwood

[alan_rockwood]

I think I read somewhere that the electronic protocols for the sigma and eos lens mounts are the same, but the geometry of the sigma mount is similar to K-mount. I think there may also be a pin swap involved.

[alan_rockwood]

Here is a link to some interesting information:

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/pentax-sigma-compare.png

It is actually a comparison between sigma SA and pentax k-mount, but it is still relevant to the discussion here.

[alan_rockwood]

Additional interesting information.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bs8p&tag=