prospects wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
prospects wrote:
MyM6II wrote:
prospects wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
nnowak wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
BirdShooter7 wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
nnowak wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
nnowak wrote:
unhappymeal wrote:
TheDigitalDonbavand wrote:
I like to stick with Canon. Really wish there were a few more native lenses like a 16 1.4.
The Sigma lenses are native,
They are not "native". Just like all other Canon mount Sigma lenses, the mount and communication protocol have been reverse engineered.
Maybe not. There seams to be some cooperation between Canon and Sigma. Look at the compatibility of Sigma lenses with the new R5 and R6. Zero problems.
Just because things have not been broken does not mean the two are cooperating.
Just because they didn't cooperate in the past does not mean they still aren't cooperating yet. The statement "they cooperate" is an assumption, just like the statement "they don't cooperate", as it's simply unknown. There are signs pointing into the direction of cooperation lately between Sigma and Canon. As far as I know Sigma is the only third party lens manufacturer getting in camera lens corrections on Canon bodies. The 28&40&105mm f/1.4 lenses focus accurate even on Canon DSLRs, while there are problems on Nikon bodies with Nikon versions. With some (not all) Tamron lenses there are problems with the R6 and R5 bodies, while there are none with Sigma lenses - beside you can't use a manual focus override function.
Firmware tends to get broken with a new DIGIC, not a new body, and DIGIC X was already out with the 1DX III. Sigma already released firmware to fix issues with the 1DX III and 90D. Sigma also just released some new firmware for the three EF-M mount lenses for "focus ring adjustment functionality". The m4/3 and E mount versions did not need the update.
Well, even RF bodies need updates for new Canon brand RF lenses, so the need of updates isn't a proof for a lack of cooperation. The focus ring functionality doesn't seam very important to me (where there any complaints?), the 1DX III is a very new body.
I agree with you an update for the 90D is fairly late. But anyone loving accurate AF and lens compatibility probably shouldn't buy a 90D anyway.....
The idea that Canon needs to cooperate with Sigma to produce
The lens development department might have been quite busy developing RF lenses.....
lenses for the M system seems far-fetched to me. It’s not like Canon couldn’t easily produce
You would have to design it first. Sigma, unlike Canon, can spread development costs over several mounts.
those lenses themselves. Also, Canon obviously has a strategy for how they want the M system
constantly changing, if there's any
to fit in with their other systems
those strategies has changed too
, it seems unlikely that they would help Sigma undermine that strategy.
If you don's sell M because the 16&56mm f/1.4 aren't available you've lost those sales for sure. It's possible that potential customer moves to RF, but it's also possible that customer moves to Sony aps-c or Fuji, or something else. Canon isn't in the position anymore to steer the customer, as the days of almost monopoly are gone.
As Canon is a bit busy developing RF lenses the easiest way to at least sell M at customers is to make the lens options at least as appealing as the competition. The easiest way to achieve this is to cooperate with Sigma. The competition simply becomes too attractive if Sigma stays incompatible with Canon.
Sigma has spent decades reverse engineering the EF mount. As computer hardware gets more capable, reverse engineering gets more capable. The EF-M mount is just a subset of the EF protocols. Basically, if your crack the code for one, you have mostly figured out the other too. Sigma's current firmware capabilities are the result of cumulative years of hard work, not some recent backroom cooperation.
That's contradictory to the idea of a compatibility breaking with every new camera model anyway.
As for the release of the EF-M mount primes, it is a simple as the EF-M mount finally reaching a critical mass of installed user base. Canon did not turn to Sigma and say "hey, can you release these lenses for our mount too?".
I don't think Canon asked, but i do think this is one of the areas making it more interesting for Canon to open up the EF protocols for Sigma. Canon simply needs Sigma for their whole range of f/1.4 full frame primes as they can't develop all these options all at once for their new RF line up. Keeping the new RF protocols for them selves Canon has a new USP (see also the new crippling on the R5&R6 bodies to make it impossible to use IBIS or ILIS only), so it doesn't matter all that much anymore to share the EF protocols with Sigma.
Sigma simply looked at the numbers and saw that there were finally enough M system users in the world to make the product launches financially viable. The collapse of m4/3 sales likely also pushed Sigma to look for new markets for their existing designs.
The idea of a some form of cooperation might sound nice, but the current situation is easily explained with the natural progression of business as usual.
For that part it's explained, but it's still not contradictory to my explanation. It also doesn't explain anything about the accurate AF performance of the 28&40&105mm f/1.4 lenses even on Canon DSLRs. It also doesn't explain anything why Canon bodies give in camera lens correction for Sigma lenses. It doesn't explain why all the Sigma Art lenses work without any problems on the new R6 and new R5, where other third party manufactures do have compatibility problems, and don't have in camera lens corrections.
Please find the following notes on the usage of SIGMA interchangeable lenses for EOS, when attached to Canon EOS 5D Mark IV that is released on September 8th.
- MO (Manual Override) function is unavailable with this camera (Full-time Manual function can be offered).
- When using a SIGMA interchangeable lens for EOS, setting the corrections to [Disable] is recommended, as “Lens Correction” functions of the camera, such as Peripheral illumination correction, Chromatic aberration correction, Diffraction correction and Distortion correction are not supported.*
* If those functions are activated, the performance of lenses may not be accurate.
* This is not only for EOS 5D Mark IV, but also for other camera bodies with the same function.
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/dear-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-users/
The EOS 5D Mark IV was released on September 8th (2016). Much have happened since then.
Despite much that has happened, Sigma still has to churn out firmware updates with each body release to maintain compatibility because Canon mount specifications isn’t open source.
Even Canon has to bring out firmware updates to Canon bodies when new RF lenses come out. This has nothing to do with whether a mount is open source or not.
One gets a firmware to improve its functions
Nono, Canon updates for Canon lenses aren't about improvements, it's about compatibility, don't try to get away here with some semantic nonsense. If improvements are needed there's no full compatibility. If there's full compatibility it's impossible to improve it.
We can also do that trick the other way around, call the sigma updates improvements and Canon updates compatibility restoring. See? The "difference" is just nonsense.
another one needs the firmware because it became incompatible. There’s a difference.
Zero differences.
-- hide signature --
EF glass = bang for my buck
