 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Odd statement from Canon
That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top camera would have been too expensive. I don't get this? Olympus E-300 is $700 and it has it. Canon's top DSLR is $8000.00... "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top > camera would have been too expensive. > I don't get this? Olympus E-300 is $700 and it has it. > Canon's top DSLR is $8000.00... Canon's SDI system used lasers to destroy dust before they got too close to the sensor. ;) > That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top > camera would have been too expensive. > I don't get this? Olympus E-300 is $700 and it has it. > Canon's top DSLR is $8000.00... There may be patents in play that would prevent other dSLR manufacturers from using the Olympus method without paying hefty licensing fees. Would you please stop with these ridiculous posts?  Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Would you please stop with these ridiculous posts? Why not just ignore them if it bothers you so much? SignatureStacey >> That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top >> camera would have been too expensive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Would you please stop with these ridiculous posts? Who would you have to feed otherwise? >> That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top >> camera would have been too expensive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Would you please stop with these ridiculous posts? The only ridiculous thing is your stupid reply. 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. >>> That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top >>> camera would have been too expensive. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >effective and efficient dust removal system in a $700 camera, why >can't Canon provide something similar in an $8000 camera? First, can you show the Olympus dust removal is really "extremely effective and efficient" or is this just Olympus marketing babble. Any independent tests comparing it to say the Copperhill system? Secondly, maybe because cleaning your sensor or having it done isn't a big deal to the people who will by the 1DsMkII. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >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.) > 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. SignatureStacey >>> That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top >>> camera would have been too expensive. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > manufacturers other than Canon can actually do some things better than > the god you worship.<< 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? You've only got to read the various online forums to realise how prevalent bad pixels are, yet only Olympus allow you to sort them out quickly and conveniently. If only Olympus hadn't chosen to go with the 4/3 rds system, their market share would surely be far larger than it is. >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? ;-) >>> That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top >>> camera would have been too expensive. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > manufacturers other than Canon can actually do some things better than > the god you worship. 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... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >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. ;-) >>The list of possibilities is long, licensing fees, redesigning bodies to >>fit [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ;-) 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. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >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 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? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird Tony Polson 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > Tony Polson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > apparently very greedy when it came to licensing USM technology to > other manufacturers. That follows rather like a tail follows a dog... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >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. >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >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. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 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. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >True, and I wonder if you can patent the placement of wires, which, after >all, is what the interface boils down to. Such matters are normally outside the scope of patents and fall into "Design Rights", at least in Europe. I don't know whether the US or Japan IP laws are the same, but here in the UK (and EU) there is a "can fit/must fit" letout* that allows makers of add-on parts to follow the exact shape and design of an interface to which their part must fit. This is presumably to encourage competition. That is of course not at all the same as the independent maker being able to copy the design of the accessory part itself, they would need to avoid patent infringements and copying the actual parts themselves if protected by design right etc. *S213(3) Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 David SignatureDavid Littlewood > >>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 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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, they must have left something out, since one version of Sigma's > HSM [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 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. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >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. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > 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. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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" >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > 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. > 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. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> The license fees must be *colossal* if Canon cannot afford to provide >> such a necessary feature on a camera costing $8000. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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" > 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. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Is there only ONE possible anti-dust system that has to be licensed >> from Olympus? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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" > >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 f.cking lazy to go search public records (all patents are a matter of public record) to answer your own f.cking question. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >public records (all patents are a matter of public record) to answer >your own f.cking question. So we're f---ing back to f---ing Brian f---ing Baird. F---ing great. ;-) > >And a cheap way to dodge the fact you're too f.cking lazy to go search > >public records (all patents are a matter of public record) to answer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>> The license fees must be *colossal* if Canon cannot afford to provide >>> such a necessary feature on a camera costing $8000. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Is there only ONE possible anti-dust system that has to be licensed >from Olympus? It is a principle of patent law (in all jurisdictions I am aware of) that something which is obvious cannot be protected by a patent. Shaking something to get dust off it would, I have thought, been pretty obvious. I've being doing it with dusters and carpets most of my life, and so have countless generations. However, I have to say I have not seen the details of how the thing is implemented. There may be an inventive step in there somewhere, but I'm quite sure anyone who designed from scratch a dust-removing vibration system would have a good chance of fending off a case. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > Rich has a good point; if Olympus can afford to provide an extremely > effective and efficient dust removal system in a $700 camera, why [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Rich has a good point; if Olympus can afford to provide an extremely >> effective and efficient dust removal system in a $700 camera, why [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. SignatureNigel_H > There may be patents in play that would prevent other dSLR manufacturers > from using the Olympus method without paying hefty licensing fees. > > Would you please stop with these ridiculous posts? Is this group for pre-approved members only? When compared (unfairly) with the kind of drivel and bad-temper often posted in open forums, he does rather well don't you think? And I find them thought provoking on occasions, or just of no particular interest at others. If you new anything about group dynamics, you'd know that most contain their 'sentinel' types, and have a role to play. So how about a bit of laissez-faire, please? jm2p SignatureNigel_H > That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top > camera would have been too expensive. > I don't get this? Olympus E-300 is $700 and it has it. > Canon's top DSLR is $8000.00... Then maybe you shouldn't buy it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.