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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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? ;-) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ;-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... The license fees must be *colossal* if Canon cannot afford to provide such a necessary feature on a camera costing $8000. However, I can understand Olympus not licensing it to anyone. Then truly you can understand how retarded the question was in the first place. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote:
IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to the technology. That wouldn't be so surprising. On the other hand, they were apparently very greedy when it came to licensing USM technology to other manufacturers. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article qWNLe.761$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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |