A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Odd statement from Canon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #35  
Old August 16th 05, 03:22 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 19th 05, 10:39 PM
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 19th 05, 11:28 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 20th 05, 03:38 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 22nd 05, 05:51 AM
RSD99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old August 23rd 05, 07:34 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:35 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 04:28 AM
TRADE canon for canon gene 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 November 1st 03 06:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.