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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In ,
Brian Baird scwibbled: 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? Oh DO belt up! What a pathetic fuss over nothing. I bet you suffer from angina. God knows what sort of attitude you adopt to trivial stuff in life, like genocide or skyscrapers being used as target practise with human bullets. -- Nigel_H |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Baird wrote:
In article , says... 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. Canon fanatic. That's pretty funny. And a cheap way to dodge the fact you're too ****ing lazy to go search public records (all patents are a matter of public record) to answer your own ****ing question. So we're f---ing back to f---ing Brian f---ing Baird. F---ing great. ;-) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... And a cheap way to dodge the fact you're too ****ing lazy to go search public records (all patents are a matter of public record) to answer your own ****ing question. So we're f---ing back to f---ing Brian f---ing Baird. F---ing great. Oh Polson, you dropped the F-bomb in rec.photo.equipment.35mm and now I laugh whenever you mention this. You did it insulting someone's daughter, no less. You've got class, Polson. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
... "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. Well, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's HSM lacks full time manual, and both versions sound like coffee grinders compared to Canon's versions. USM was probably too specialized for Sigma to say they hit on it by independent research. The mount may not have been strictly patentable, since it is a concept, broadly speaking... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote:
Well, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's HSM lacks full time manual, and both versions sound like coffee grinders compared to Canon's versions. That's Sigma for you. I recall dismantling my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for Nikon AF which was noisy, only to find large quantities of brass swarf and powder where the AF mechanism used to be. It ground itself into oblivion. USM was probably too specialized for Sigma to say they hit on it by independent research. Agreed. The mount may not have been strictly patentable, since it is a concept, broadly speaking... The mount is not the real issue, it is the electronic interface. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
... "Skip M" wrote: Well, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's HSM lacks full time manual, and both versions sound like coffee grinders compared to Canon's versions. That's Sigma for you. I recall dismantling my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for Nikon AF which was noisy, only to find large quantities of brass swarf and powder where the AF mechanism used to be. It ground itself into oblivion. USM was probably too specialized for Sigma to say they hit on it by independent research. Agreed. The mount may not have been strictly patentable, since it is a concept, broadly speaking... The mount is not the real issue, it is the electronic interface. True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after all, is what the interface boils down to. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Tony Polson wrote: That's Sigma for you. I recall dismantling my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for Nikon AF which was noisy, only to find large quantities of brass swarf and powder where the AF mechanism used to be. It ground itself into oblivion. How much did it cost? It is out of production now; the f/1.8 is $269 at B&H. -- John P Sheehy |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:n2tNe.1681$sw6.1461@fed1read05... "Tony Polson" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote: Well, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's HSM lacks full time manual, and both versions sound like coffee grinders compared to Canon's versions. That's Sigma for you. I recall dismantling my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for Nikon AF which was noisy, only to find large quantities of brass swarf and powder where the AF mechanism used to be. It ground itself into oblivion. USM was probably too specialized for Sigma to say they hit on it by independent research. Agreed. The mount may not have been strictly patentable, since it is a concept, broadly speaking... The mount is not the real issue, it is the electronic interface. True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after all, is what the interface boils down to. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com You made the mistake in posting "... True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after all, is what the interface boils down to. ..." In the modern digital world ... that is so far from a true statement as to be almost comical. The lens-body interface in a modern Canon camera is probably a complex digital serial bit stream, and has very little to do with "the placement of wires." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"RSD99" wrote in message
news:4RcOe.3889$Vg7.1568@trnddc06... "Skip M" wrote in message news:n2tNe.1681$sw6.1461@fed1read05... "Tony Polson" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote: Well, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's HSM lacks full time manual, and both versions sound like coffee grinders compared to Canon's versions. That's Sigma for you. I recall dismantling my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for Nikon AF which was noisy, only to find large quantities of brass swarf and powder where the AF mechanism used to be. It ground itself into oblivion. USM was probably too specialized for Sigma to say they hit on it by independent research. Agreed. The mount may not have been strictly patentable, since it is a concept, broadly speaking... The mount is not the real issue, it is the electronic interface. True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after all, is what the interface boils down to. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com You made the mistake in posting "... True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after all, is what the interface boils down to. ..." In the modern digital world ... that is so far from a true statement as to be almost comical. The lens-body interface in a modern Canon camera is probably a complex digital serial bit stream, and has very little to do with "the placement of wires." Well, I'm glad I could provide some comic relief. Now, if you can quit feeling quite so superior for a moment, consider that, as far as a patent office is concerned, that is probably exactly what it boils down to... And, of course, I was oversimplifying for the sake of discussion. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
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 |