# 3rd Party ... Bodies??



## dr croubie (Jul 27, 2012)

So here's an idea I've been mulling over for a while...
There are already 3rd party manufacturers (SigRoKina etc), who make 3rd Party lenses with AF, they take a few Canon lenses and bodies apart, look at the electrical signals going back and forth, and then build that capability into their own lenses. It's worked for the last 30 years or so quite nicely.

Now, think about the Sigma SD1 dslr (without laughing at the launch price). The mount is physically a Pentax PK-mount, but the electrical signals going between camera and lens are the same as EF lenses and bodies. They already knew how to make the lenses work with AF, seems they now know how to make bodies too.
There's also already another body that takes EF-lenses, the Hartblei H1-Cam, that at least operates the aperture on EF lenses (I'm not sure about IS, i'm pretty sure not AF), but then projects it to an MF back (like an IQ180 or whatever you mortgage your house to buy)

Now take into account that the new EOS-M probably will never take an FF sensor, and that probably means canon will never produce an M9-killer tiny-FF.



Now, imagine what I'm imagining.

A MILC/EVIL/mirrorless whatever, made by a 3rd-party (probably Sigma), with whatever sensor (maybe a D800-ish sensor, maybe a Foveon X3 15/46 Megapixel-ish sensor), with the Nikon-J1/EOS-M/650D AF-pixels inbuilt, with a flange distance of 10-20mm, with an adapter to take EF lenses with full AF and IS and whatever.

But the main point is, FF sensor: mirrorless body.

It's certainly possible, maybe Sigma's even working on one as we speak.

Would you buy one?
If it means you can use almost any glass ever made in live-view, plus if it means you can use your EF-mount FF glass on a smaller body with AF, what would you pay?
(presumably not the $10k of the SD1, for that I'd get a Leica M9 any day). $1k sound reasonable? maybe $2k?
Am I just clutching at straws for the last possibility of an affordable FF MILC with live-view (given the Leica M10 may or may not have live-view, but it will still never be affordable).

Come on Sigma, you're our only hope!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 27, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> So here's an idea I've been mulling over for a while...
> There are already 3rd party manufacturers (SigRoKina etc), who make 3rd Party lenses with AF, they take a few Canon lenses and bodies apart, look at the electrical signals going back and forth, and then build that capability into their own lenses. It's worked for the last 30 years or so quite nicely.
> If only that were true!
> Sigma EOS compatible lenses made before the Canon Rebel DSLR will not finction on a modern Canon DSLR. They fixed the design and reworked some of them for the Digital Rebel, then when the Canon 10D came out, some of them broke yet again. Their lenses made in the last 9-10 years still work ok. They have also had to redo some of their Sony compatible lenses that stopped working when Sony released a new model. The other manufacturers have had issues as well, but not with millions of lenses like Sigma.
> ...


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 27, 2012)

I'm depressed at the low-ISO performance offered by Canon's latest. Since there's no improvement, I'm stuck with a 1D4/5D2 combination for at least the foreseeable future. Canon doesn't care - I have too many EF bayonet lenses to really give a lot of thought to jumping ship.

Because of this, I'd be quite interested but also cautious. Assuming the camera offered what I want and had reasonable ergonomics, I'd give it a go.... but since I don't trust Canon's marketing department (let alone Sigma's) I would want to see the performance before I put my money down.

I think the problem is that there's a lot more to making a usable camera than just obtaining a decent sensor and building a box around it.... witness the SD1 or M9 to which you refer. Leica can get away with it, a third party supplier can't.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 27, 2012)

noisejammer said:


> I'm depressed at the low-ISO performance offered by Canon's latest. Since there's no improvement, I'm stuck with a 1D4/5D2 combination for at least the foreseeable future. Canon doesn't care - I have too many EF bayonet lenses to really give a lot of thought to jumping ship.
> 
> Because of this, I'd be quite interested but also cautious. Assuming the camera offered what I want and had reasonable ergonomics, I'd give it a go.... but since I don't trust Canon's marketing department (let alone Sigma's) I would want to see the performance before I put my money down.
> 
> I think the problem is that there's a lot more to making a usable camera than just obtaining a decent sensor and building a box around it.... witness the SD1 or M9 to which you refer. Leica can get away with it, a third party supplier can't.


yes its shocking how bad the 5dmk3 is you cant take a decent picture with it the DR is so bad
iso 100 is soo bad let alone iso 50....

ps i am being very sarcastic here


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If only that were true!
> Sigma EOS compatible lenses made before the Canon Rebel DSLR will not finction on a modern Canon DSLR. They fixed the design and reworked some of them for the Digital Rebel, then when the Canon 10D came out, some of them broke yet again. Their lenses made in the last 9-10 years still work ok. They have also had to redo some of their Sony compatible lenses that stopped working when Sony released a new model. The other manufacturers have had issues as well, but not with millions of lenses like Sigma.
> Tons of Quantaray lenses made by Sigma will not work on modern Canon DSLRs even though they were supposed to be EOS compatible. I got caught with several Sigma lenses, only one could be upgraded, and they charged me $100 to make it work like it was supposed to.
> Its still possible, likely even, that a tweak to Canons AF system will once again render all of Sigma's lenses non workable.
> ...



Yeah, that was one thing I was thinking of, that older lenses sometimes don't work with the newer bodies, then you have to send the lens in to be re-worked (if it can be).

But this time, it's backwards. If some company makes a body now, they can make it work with any (or every) old lens they wanted that's available now. At some point in the future, if Canon come out with a new lens that doesn't work with my proposed 3rd-party mirrorless, then what's needed? A firmware update?
(maybe it's not as simple as that, and there's a better reason why Sigma chose to make their SA mount incompatible with EF lenses.)



noisejammer said:


> I think the problem is that there's a lot more to making a usable camera than just obtaining a decent sensor and building a box around it.... witness the SD1 or M9 to which you refer. Leica can get away with it, a third party supplier can't.



Unfortunately I think you're right, I was also thinking something like that. If Leica dropped this camera tomorrow (like an M10 with live-view, basically), it'd be well over $10k, and they'd sell a fair few to those who could afford it.
But if Sigma dropped the same camera tomorrow (like an EOS-M or NEX with an FF sensor), they'll just get laughed at if it's over $2k. Between $1k and $2k it's worth waiting for the reviews. Below $1k i might just preorder one anyway.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 27, 2012)

Every time Sigma makes a Lens with a Canon mount, they pay Canon a fee. (and Nikon, Pentax, etc) Canon owns the EOS mount. Both sides of it. So Sigma can't make cameras that take Canon lenses unless Canon agrees to it, and so far, they don't.

Not that I'm against the idea, I love it. The 4/3 concept, one mount all makers, is awesome, but failing...


----------



## gmrza (Jul 27, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> Every time Sigma makes a Lens with a Canon mount, they pay Canon a fee. (and Nikon, Pentax, etc) Canon owns the EOS mount. Both sides of it. So Sigma can't make cameras that take Canon lenses unless Canon agrees to it, and so far, they don't.
> 
> Not that I'm against the idea, I love it. The 4/3 concept, one mount all makers, is awesome, but failing...



Does Sigma have a licence to produce lenses with an EF mount now? I was of the impression that they used to reverse engineer. (Of course there may be a difference in licensing of the physical mount and the electrical connection.)


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 27, 2012)

Not that it matters much, but I also doubt that Sigma pays a fee to Canon. That would suggest that Canon provides access to the intimate details of their AF system. And if Sigma had these details, there wouldn't be any compatabilty problems. I've also had the impression that Sigma reverse engineered the AF system and there was no commercial arrangement between Sigma and Canon. Could be wrong. 

Anyway...good concept. It would be sensible for Sigma to make it EF compatible if they are already using EF signals. Obviously they'd release a few new lenses of their own, too.

Sigma seems to be very ambitious right now. Who knows, maybe this is possible. I agree that Sigma isn't the sort of brand capable of charging a premium on their products, but I (along with thousands / millions of others) have bought Sigma products in the past. If they had a great camera at a realistic price, I'm sure many would consider it.


----------

