@John_ wrote:
It could work and those 3rd party grips do work but with limited functions, far less function then the Canon grips. I just saw another 3 party grip today for the T6, it costs a lot less money but you get less too and it had an external remote shutter cord that enables exposures from the grip. The Canon grip has transmit and receive data lines and contacts built in which tie into the cameras communication system enabling much more functions from the grip. There are a lot more components in the Canon grip Third party grip either can't duplicate the data lines and internal parts and programming needed to make them work or won't because it will drive the price up to a point where buying one will not be so attractive.
Besides the functions on the Canon grip, it performs just like an external power bank just like the ones for phones and other devices by pairing up 2 batteries and increasing its capacity 2X MAH while the battery voltage remains the same as a single battery in the camera. The camera would not like it if the battery voltage was double and would go Poof!
2 batteries with the same voltage and MAH capacity in parallel would equalize so if initially, let's say when inserted one was at 90% and the other was at 80% they would both settle at 85%.
I suppose Canon could have designed circuitry to switch from one battery to another at a predetermined level into their grips but in my opinion, that would just add unnecessary costs, And how would the battery level indicator react? Would it show a low battery symbol and then all of a sudden shoot back up to full? I have no doubt both batteries are used simultaneously.
No, there are so many false conclusions and assumptions in this post that I do not know where to begin. First and foremost, you cannot compare a grip made for a camera body that is designed to use one, to a grip for a camera body not designed to use one.
I have used battery grips on cameras designed to use one made by Canon and Vello. I have had two 7D2 bodies, one with a Canon grip, and one with a Vello grip. They were functionally identical in every way. The only obvious differences seemed to be the physical tolerances of the machining of the mechanical parts, and the shape and texture of the portrait grip itself.
The Canon grip had the identical “rubber” coating, I will call it for the sake of argument. The Vellow grip had a rubber coating that felt a little different from the 7D2 camera body. The shape and layout of the Canon grip more closely matched that of the grip on the body of a 7D2, while the Vellow felt like it had a different shape, and the buttons were not quite in the same positions. I would assume that you cannot make it physically identical without being sued in court.
Do not mistake extended battery life as proof positive that the batteries are simply connected in parallel, which could be an electrical hazard. Batteries can be connected in parallel with a clever arrangement of diodes and resistors in a fashion similar to a full wave rectifier, which is probably what is happening inside of third party grip for a T5, which had no Canon grip because it was not designed to accommodate one.
There is no denying that a camera can identity each battery separately, including which position it occupies inside of the grip. This would not be possible if the batteries were connected either in parallel or in series.
I agree with your conclusion that adding switching circuitry to a grip would not be cost effective. How would the battery level indicator react? Like I have already said, the camera can read each battery separately, which strongly suggests that each battery is connected to the camera body independently of the other battery. A grip works with one or two batteries.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Enjoying photography since 1972."
