Odd statement from Canon

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.

I find it extremely effective. I work my E-1 hard (my E-300 less so)
and often in dusty environments, because I shoot a lot of images of
construction projects and changing lenses on site is unavoidable.

The E-1 didn't need any sensor cleaning at its first CLA, after over
60,000 shutter releases. The dust removal system has worked
perfectly, with only the sticky strip needing replacement.

(The sticky strip catches the dust that falls off the sensor. Dust
removal occurs every time you power up the camera.)

"Polly Pentax" wrote:

It's not just the 'dust shaker', what about the Olympus 'in-camera' ' Pixel
Mapping? Surely, that's something that should be standard on every dslr,
irrespective of make or model?


Do you mean to say it isn't?

;-)

"Skip M" wrote:

The list of possibilities is long, licensing fees, redesigning bodies to fit
extra mechanisms. But the article in the Spanish mag had the Canon exec
stating that dust removal systems were a possibility, but not a probability.
He didn't sat that Canon wouldn't do it...


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.

;-)

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
"Skip M" wrote:

The list of possibilities is long, licensing fees, redesigning bodies to
fit
extra mechanisms. But the article in the Spanish mag had the Canon exec
stating that dust removal systems were a possibility, but not a
probability.
He didn't sat that Canon wouldn't do it...


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.

;-)

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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In article ,
says...
Rich has a good point; if Olympus can afford to provide an extremely
effective and efficient dust removal system in a $700 camera, why
can't Canon provide something similar in an $8000 camera?

Perhaps your bad tempered reply reflects your inability to accept that
manufacturers other than Canon can actually do some things better than
the god you worship.

Didn't I answer his question with the obvious answer?

You seemed to ignore it. But you ignore large chunks of reality just to
go on living, don't you, Polson?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

"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.

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.

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.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In article ,
says...
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.

Everyone is greedy when it comes to licensing flagship technologies to
other manufacturers. Polaroid, anyone?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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.