I don't understand this industry.

[JerryLove]

I just can't quite figure out what some of the managers and engineers are thinking. For example:

Why are lens adapters so poor? To my knowledge, there aren't any that allow full control from a camera of one type to a lens of another (not even EOS-M to EOS). Why not? For the full electric lenses this should be simple and straightforward. Especially in instances (like EOS-M) where the entire new format was created well after the format we knew it would have an adapter for.

Speaking of which: why would an adapter lower visual quality? For at least the vast bulk, and to my understanding, all an adapter does light-wise is move the lens out to have the same flange length in the body it's being adapted to as in the one it was designed for. Why would that impact quality at all?

Still on adapters: WTH isn't there a FF -> CF wide-angle converter? Seriously: an adapter that takes the big circle from a FF lens and reduces it to the small circle needed by a CF camera. The f-stop loss to the glass would be offset by the fact that we were concentrating light, and (with the adapter) CFs would behave just like less-sensitive FFs.

What are the big-two thinking in the mirror-less market?!? My understanding is that they are lens companies who make bodies to sell lenses. Based on the DSLR market, the don't use patent to keep competitors out of the lens market (Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, Samyang, Tonkya, etc); so why the proprietary mirror-less formats (EOS-M and whatever Nikon-1 uses)? If they want to sell lenses, going into 4/3 would give them a large user base to sell to. In short: If I was going to buy the canon mirrorless in a propitiatory connector, I'd be even more likely in a generic connector. The only logic I can come up with is either A) they think their lens will draw you to their connector, and what they really want to sell is bodies (which just seems untrue), or B) They think their body will draw you in, and want to lock you to lenses (which seems disproved by them allowing competitors to make lenses (and adapters) for their bodies.

And would it kill either of the big two to put IS in the body?

Finally: Since other companies are allowed to use their connectors (Tamron making EF lenses for example); why hasn't anyone made a competing body? If Sony (or for that matter, Nikon) put out a body that took Canon lenses... that would be interesting. Though the same could be done with a proper adapter (see first point).

 

[jaomul]

They produce to make as much money as possible while remaining competitive. Likely customers are being drip fed tech to keep them buying. All these companies have big research depts driving this way of selling. It's for the masses mostly, those who want more fps, more mp. Big Numbers sell better.

 

[robbins.photo]

Technical issues aside the thing to realize is that most of the profits made from selling cameras doesn't come from selling the camera. It comes from selling lenses and accessories for the camera.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

there's so many thinks you don't understand in your post I don't even know where to begin to comment...

 

[astroNikon]

speculation on my part, but lens patents probably do keep the third party makers from making an exact duplicate of a lens. If you look at the internal engineering of a lens, it's astronomical in a way, and costly. The big makers don't want someone to take their intellectual property and produce the exact lens without having to go through the development cost cycle and sell that exact duplicate at 1/2 or 1/4 their price.

there are articles about the good and bad of in camera stabilization. Plus it would require engineering development costs, and make sure they don't duplicate a Sony patent for it.

Technology takes time to develop, and one has to level the financial resources based on their profitability to add new features ... but, who knows except the camera companies.


FWIW, think of the car market. how would the big 3 prevent 3rd party companies from putting stuff on their cars ??

 

[rexbobcat]

Some adapters require an extra glass component.

That's why you don't see too many Canon FL/FD lenses converted for digital cameras.

 

[vimwiz]

Some adapters require an extra glass component.
That's why you don't see too many Canon FL/FD lenses converted for digital cameras.

Unless you want macro-only. You need optics for FD->EOS if you want infinity focus.

 

[Gavjenks]

I just can't quite figure out what some of the managers and engineers are thinking. For example:

Why are lens adapters so poor? To my knowledge, there aren't any that allow full control from a camera of one type to a lens of another (not even EOS-M to EOS). Why not? For the full electric lenses this should be simple and straightforward. Especially in instances (like EOS-M) where the entire new format was created well after the format we knew it would have an adapter for.

Don't know what the excuse is for EOS-M not communicating (I thought it did?), but companies often hide their electronic specifications and/or throw curve balls and change random stuff now and then, pretty much intentionally to screw up third party adapter and lens makers, because they want you to buy OEM, not third party. It's REALLY hard to reverse engineer it and also guarantee that it will keep working for future models and lenses, because the same mount isn't actually necessarily the same mount exactly.

Speaking of which: why would an adapter lower visual quality? For at least the vast bulk, and to my understanding, all an adapter does light-wise is move the lens out to have the same flange length in the body it's being adapted to as in the one it was designed for. Why would that impact quality at all?

Adapters for longer flange to focal to shorter like EOS lens to EOS-M body DON'T lower visual quality, is your answer... never had this problem at all with adapters or extension tubes, really.
However, maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough, it's certainly possible. For instance, if you have shiny stuff in the tube you added, it could increase light bouncing around and flares. But even cheap tubes I've bought tend to be pretty good matte black with baffles and I haven't had issues.

If the adapter has GLASS then the reason is obvious.

Still on adapters: WTH isn't there a FF -> CF wide-angle converter? Seriously: an adapter that takes the big circle from a FF lens and reduces it to the small circle needed by a CF camera. The f-stop loss to the glass would be offset by the fact that we were concentrating light, and (with the adapter) CFs would behave just like less-sensitive FFs.

Easy answer: there is this. Look up micro four thirds "speedbooster" it takes larger format circles and compresses them to gain speed and alter crop format.

And would it kill either of the big two to put IS in the body?

There are very good reasons to put it in the lens or in the body. A quick google search can explain several of those reasons.

Finally: Since other companies are allowed to use their connectors (Tamron making EF lenses for example); why hasn't anyone made a competing body? If Sony (or for that matter, Nikon) put out a body that took Canon lenses... that would be interesting. Though the same could be done with a proper adapter (see first point).

What do you mean by "allowed?" Nobody is allowing them. They just don't have a valid patent on a mount designed like 30 years ago, and trying to patent "metal thingie with three prongs" probably would be impossible anyway. So the mount people can just steal. A body would likely run into additional legal issues, a lot of them.

 

[tirediron]

Because.

 

[JerryLove]

They produce to make as much money as possible while remaining competitive. Likely customers are being drip fed tech to keep them buying. All these companies have big research depts driving this way of selling. It's for the masses mostly, those who want more fps, more mp. Big Numbers sell better.

Which explains things like why the Canon 6D has so few AF points; but the few of my questions tech related (like on adapters) cover products primarily made through third parties.

Technical issues aside the thing to realize is that most of the profits made from selling cameras doesn't come from selling the camera. It comes from selling lenses and accessories for the camera.

Exactly... so why don't Canon and Nikon make lenses for other formats? For that matter, each others?

There are far more Canon bodies out there than Nikon ones; Nikon could sell more lenses if made for those bodies. Similarly, what micro 4/3 body owner doesn't want a red-ring canon lens? It's not like entering the 4/3 market (as an example) would expose them to lens competition where there was none before.

I suppose I can understand this specifically from the angle of Canon DSLRs (as the market leader), but what about EF-M? Why isn't that compatible with EF and EF-S (there is an adapter, but it lacks full functionality)? And if you aren't going to be compatible: why not take your best game (lenses) into the largest existing market (4/3 for mirrorless). It doesn't stop you from also selling bodies if you think you have the best.

And ignoring Canon, why not Sony (well, I suppose they like proprietary everything), or Fuji, or Samsung? If you aren't the market leader then using your own format for bodies only *hurts* your ability to sell lenses.

Imagine you make what you think is the best Photo editor software. Do you make it for Windows/Mac/Linux, or do you make up your own OS and run only on that? How are lenses different?

speculation on my part, but lens patents probably do keep the third party makers from making an exact duplicate of a lens. If you look at the internal engineering of a lens, it's astronomical in a way, and costly. The big makers don't want someone to take their intellectual property and produce the exact lens without having to go through the development cost cycle and sell that exact duplicate at 1/2 or 1/4 their price.

I'm not discussing copying a lens. I'm actually talking about mounts and interchangeability.

there are articles about the good and bad of in camera stabilization. Plus it would require engineering development costs, and make sure they don't duplicate a Sony patent for it.

Nikon buys sensors from Sony already. Why not this?

Both companies have invented (or licensed) IS for their lenses, why not their bodies?

FWIW, think of the car market. how would the big 3 prevent 3rd party companies from putting stuff on their cars ??

To a good extent they don't. They do tend to patent their innovations (though Mercedes then gives away any related to safety... like crumple zones, air bags, antilock brakes, three-point restraints, traction control, etc).

Some adapters require an extra glass component.

To my understanding : this is generally when you want to use glass from a shorter flange-length... and is often just not done. I'm more interested in the others.

 

[robbins.photo]

Because.

Guess that sums it up. Hackisack? Lol

 

[JerryLove]

Don't know what the excuse is for EOS-M not communicating (I thought it did?), but companies often hide their electronic specifications and/or throw curve balls and change random stuff now and then, pretty much intentionally to screw up third party adapter and lens makers, because they want you to buy OEM, not third party. It's REALLY hard to reverse engineer it and also guarantee that it will keep working for future models and lenses, because the same mount isn't actually necessarily the same mount exactly.

Except that Sigma, Tamron, Tonkya, Zeiss, etc seem to have no problem making connectors that understand all the signals from Nikon and Canon. How is an adapter more difficult than a lens?

Adapters for longer flange to focal to shorter like EOS lens to EOS-M body DON'T lower visual quality, is your answer... never had this problem at all with adapters or extension tubes, really.
However, maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough, it's certainly possible. For instance, if you have shiny stuff in the tube you added, it could increase light bouncing around and flares. But even cheap tubes I've bought tend to be pretty good matte black with baffles and I haven't had issues.

I saw a post on this board yesterday discussing a quality loss converting a canon lens to a Sony mirrorless; so I assumed that was true and representative. I could be wrong.

Easy answer: there is this. Look up micro four thirds "speedbooster" it takes larger format circles and compresses them to gain speed and alter crop format.

Sweet. Gotta get me one of those! Thanks for giving me the name to hunt with.

What do you mean by "allowed?" Nobody is allowing them. They just don't have a valid patent on a mount designed like 30 years ago, and trying to patent "metal thingie with three prongs" probably would be impossible anyway. So the mount people can just steal. A body would likely run into additional legal issues, a lot of them.

I don't see why.

If Pentax put a Nikon mount on its body ("allowed" since we see those mounts on Sigma lenses), and then made it use Nikon's communication protocols (again: the lens does), then matched flange lengths (surely that isn't patented), then it would be a Nikon clone body.

To put it another way: A short flange-length proprietary body (say: Sony) with a fully functional EF adapter attached would do the same thing. It would, functionally, be a third-party Canon body.

 

[JerryLove]

Easy answer: there is this. Look up micro four thirds "speedbooster" it takes larger format circles and compresses them to gain speed and alter crop format.

Sweet. Gotta get me one of those! Thanks for giving me the name to hunt with.

OK. There are surprisingly few of these and, more surprising, none to adapt EF to EFS (that I can find).

 

[brunerww]

Infinity focus isn't a problem when adapting classic Canon FD lenses to mirrorless - no additional optics required.

I absolutely love my Canon FD lens. I can put it on any mirrorless body with a ~$20 adapter (e.g., NEX, MFT, Samsung NX, Fuji X, EF-M or Nikon 1).

 

[robbins.photo]

They produce to make as much money as possible while remaining competitive. Likely customers are being drip fed tech to keep them buying. All these companies have big research depts driving this way of selling. It's for the masses mostly, those who want more fps, more mp. Big Numbers sell better.

Which explains things like why the Canon 6D has so few AF points; but the few of my questions tech related (like on adapters) cover products primarily made through third parties.

There are far more Canon bodies out there than Nikon ones; Nikon could sell more lenses if made for those bodies. Similarly, what micro 4/3 body owner doesn't want a red-ring canon lens? It's not like entering the 4/3 market (as an example) would expose them to lens competition where there was none before.

I suppose I can understand this specifically from the angle of Canon DSLRs (as the market leader), but what about EF-M? Why isn't that compatible with EF and EF-S (there is an adapter, but it lacks full functionality)? And if you aren't going to be compatible: why not take your best game (lenses) into the largest existing market (4/3 for mirrorless). It doesn't stop you from also selling bodies if you think you have the best.

And ignoring Canon, why not Sony (well, I suppose they like proprietary everything), or Fuji, or Samsung? If you aren't the market leader then using your own format for bodies only *hurts* your ability to sell lenses.

Imagine you make what you think is the best Photo editor software. Do you make it for Windows/Mac/Linux, or do you make up your own OS and run only on that? How are lenses different?

Well part of it is the cost of reverse engineering - it's a lot more expensive for Nikon to make lenses that will work on Canon than it is for them to make lenses on Nikon. But an even bigger part of that would be the marketing nightmare it would create. Imagine if Toyota started manufacturing add ons for Chevy. It would be like Toyota admitting that Chevy is a superior product, and that you might as well buy a Chevy - when you do you can still get all the cool Toyota add ons.

Also making software run on multiple platforms is not for the most part an easy task, it generally tends to make it a lot more complex and a lot harder to maintain.

As to why Canon or anyone else makes multiple lens formats, well if my 70-200 mm F/2.8 lens that I use pretty regularly would work on both the camera body I currently have and the newer mirroless system, I wouldn't need to buy new lenses for it. Since Canon, Nikon et al do their market research they realize that a lot of people who are buying the newer mirrorless systems already own a DSLR.

Also there is the size/weight issue. The newer smaller mirrorless systems big advantage is that they are so much smaller and lighter. Hang a heavy piece of glass off of that and suddenly small and light goes out the window. Pretty much negates the one real advantage they have over DSLR.

Plus there are some other engineering issues to boot, including the distance the lens is designed to be from the focal plane - which is a deal breaker for lenses. They have to be at that specific distance, and there isn't a big margin for error there - so as a result in some cases you can't really make some lenses work on other mounts without additional glass to resolve this issue, and of course a host of other issues such as how the lens communicates with the camera, etc. Throw in how the various companies differ on autofocus systems and controls - well, frankly it just wouldn't be very cost effective to try and make your proprietary lenses work with someone elses camera body.

If it were, they would have started doing it already.