If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:46:45 GMT, Brian Baird wrote:
In article qWNLe.761$sw6.121@fed1read05, says... IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to the technology. MY guess is Canon won't include it until the market forces them to. No sensible company would throw money at R&D or patent licensing unless they saw a sales need to do so. How long will idiot users put up with paying $30 for three plastic sticks with lint-free cotton glued to the ends? Suckers. -Rich With Canon and Nikon being at the top of the DSLR game and Olympus being at the bottom, I don't see why either Nikon or Canon would feel a real need to incorporate dust removal in any of their DSLRs at this point in time. In the future I'm sure this will change. But right now there doesn't seem to be any real market forces behind pushing aggressively for dust removal. As vocal as Polson and Stacey are, it doesn't really change the fact that almost no DSLR users are throwing away their Nikons, Canons and Pentnaxes (sorry, couldn't resist) for Olympus gear. "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:42:04 GMT, Brian Baird wrote:
In article , says... The license fees must be *colossal* if Canon cannot afford to provide such a necessary feature on a camera costing $8000. However, I can understand Olympus not licensing it to anyone. Then truly you can understand how retarded the question was in the first place. Minolta has an anti-shake system. Canon has another kind. Zeiss had the first in their binoculars. Is there only ONE possible anti-dust system that has to be licensed from Olympus? -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Baird wrote:
With Canon and Nikon being at the top of the DSLR game and Olympus being at the bottom, I don't see why either Nikon or Canon would feel a real need to incorporate dust removal in any of their DSLRs at this point in time. If it is some sort of patent issue, Olympus probably wanted a cross-license for sensor technology with Canon, rather than licensing fees, and Canon would not give up their family jewels. I am critical of the deficiencies of _every_ DSLR, but IMVAIO the sensor cleaning issue is not a real deficiency. There is probably some risk compensation going on here as well--a Canon or Nikon owner is likely more cautious about the conditions under which they switch lenses, than an Olympus owner. There is often a single great extra feature on products that are otherwise average (or even mediocre in the case of Sigma). Sigma has the good historgram, Olympus has the sensor cleaning, and Konica-Minolta has the integral image stabilization. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
... "Skip M" wrote: IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to the technology. That wouldn't be so surprising. On the other hand, they were apparently very greedy when it came to licensing USM technology to other manufacturers. That follows rather like a tail follows a dog... ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"l e o" wrote in message
k.net... Tony Polson wrote: "Skip M" wrote: IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to the technology. That wouldn't be so surprising. On the other hand, they were apparently very greedy when it came to licensing USM technology to other manufacturers. I don't think USM would do any good to if the focusing motor is in the camera body instead of the lens. That's something of a non sequiteur, don't you think? It's not impossible to use a lens with a motor on a camera that also has a motor, as Nikon has shown. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"RichA" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:46:45 GMT, Brian Baird wrote: In article qWNLe.761$sw6.121@fed1read05, says... IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to the technology. MY guess is Canon won't include it until the market forces them to. No sensible company would throw money at R&D or patent licensing unless they saw a sales need to do so. How long will idiot users put up with paying $30 for three plastic sticks with lint-free cotton glued to the ends? Suckers. -Rich In this case, as long as Canon doesn't produce a camera with its own dust removal system. I have several thousand dollars invested in equipment, and, like my comment about a fisheye, the dust vibrator certainly doesn't make me think of dumping it... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
John A. Stovall wrote:
First, can you show the Olympus dust removal is really "extremely effective and efficient" or is this just Olympus marketing babble. Ask any olympus user. I've had my E300 about 9 months, change lenses regularlly with no thought to where or how and have yet to get one spot of dust. Secondly, maybe because cleaning your sensor or having it done isn't a big deal to the people who will by the 1DsMkII. Sure, I bet no one minds having to clean the dust from their sensors, especially after shooting and finding dust spots on images. -- Stacey |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:17:16 GMT, Brian Baird wrote:
In article , says... Is there only ONE possible anti-dust system that has to be licensed from Olympus? Depends on the patent and how broad it is. Why don't you do a search on the US Patent & Trademark website and see what you come up with? It would be a better use of your time than your uneducated ramblings on this newsgroup. Stop crying, Canon fanatic. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message .. . "Skip M" wrote: IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to the technology. That wouldn't be so surprising. On the other hand, they were apparently very greedy when it came to licensing USM technology to other manufacturers. That follows rather like a tail follows a dog... ;-) True. ;-) I was surprised to learn that Canon had licensed USM to Sigma, when Sigma haven't ever paid any royalties to Canon for the EF mount's electronic interface, choosing to reverse engineer it instead. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon | Siddhartha Jain | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | January 16th 05 04:35 PM |
Canon 10D | Art Salmons | Digital Photography | 15 | October 20th 04 11:29 PM |
Canon 10D lens choice and comments | Art Salmons | Digital Photography | 3 | October 17th 04 11:02 PM |
FA Canon EOS bodies, "L" Lenses, access... | J&C | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 20th 03 03:28 AM |
TRADE canon for canon | gene | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | November 1st 03 05:26 AM |