Odd statement from Canon

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"

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"

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

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.

"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

"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

"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

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

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"

"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.