Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses

Reply
Thread Tools

Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
"Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Maybe for the exact same reason that Sigma haven't received a C&D
>> letter from Canon for reverse engineering the interface for use in
>> Sigma's lens range for Canon EF mount?

>
>Well, that's just how Sigma rolls. It's in line with their creative
>math.
>
>> Camera manufacturers would obviously prefer to sell their own branded
>> lenses to owners of their DSLRs. However, the availability of
>> inexpensive third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. helps
>> sell cameras to people who have limited funds - if only the more
>> expensive camera brand lenses were available, people would have less
>> money to spend on cameras.

>
>The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
>is forgotten.



Noble sentiment, but when it comes to making money, it cuts no ice.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2011
In article <4ddcc4c5$0$22471$(E-Mail Removed)> , dj_nme
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Using Pentax (PK) lenses on a Sigma SA mount camera won't work.

> >
> > it does work, just need to remove the aperture coupling pin because it
> > will hit the colour matching filter, also known as the dust protector.

>
> That would seem a shame, to ruin a perfectly good Pentax lens to fit it
> onto a Sigma dSLR.


very true.

> >> Maybe a better idea would be to exchange the camera's SA mount with a EF
> >> mount.

> >
> > also an option but that's more money and voids any warranty, which with
> > sigma products is desperately needed, especially with the cameras.

>
> I don't know which is nastier: your subtle(?) jab at Sigma reliabilitly
> or mine about ruining a PK lens.


it wasn't meant as a jab. it was meant as a dose of reality. there are
a *lot* of posts on dpreview about how unreliable sigma products are,
and to be fixed they sometimes have to be sent to japan for a few
months, sometimes coming back not any better. the bizarre thing is
people put up with it and go back for more.

when lensrentals.com started tracking how reliable the lenses they rent
were, sigma held the first *five* spots with the #1 contender having a
90% failure rate:
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10>

> >> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
> >> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
> >> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).

> >
> > it does.

>
> I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
> about that?


probably because sigma doesn't sell enough cameras or sigma mount
lenses for canon to care.

on the other hand, nikon just sued sigma this morning over image
stabilization:

<http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/nikon-idINL3E7GP11H20110525>

May 25 (Reuters) - Nikon Corp said on Wednesday it has filed a patent
infringement suit against Japan's Sigma Corp in Tokyo district court
over the manufacture and sale of interchangeable lenses with
vibration reduction for single lens reflex cameras.

> Surely the best "swap bits to make it work" in this case would be
> exchanging the bayonet on a Canon EF lens with a Sigma SA mount.
> At least then you'd have full automation.
> Much better than irreversibly damaging a lens to fit a camera.


you have to irreversibly 'damage' either the lens or the camera, and
since a canon lens is going to hold value a *lot* better than a sigma
camera, it might as well be the camera.

another option i've seen is take a pair of 1.4x teleconverters and swap
the plates on those, leaving the lenses and cameras alone. that way,
you can use a unmodified canon lens on a sigma camera using the hybrid
teleconverter and vice versa. the only downside is you have to use a
1.4x teleconverter, which may not be desirable in all situations.

> My gut instinct is that it would be wiser move to buy a Pentax dSLR to
> use PK lenses with.
> Heck, you could buy (at least) 10 Pentax bodies for the price of a Sigma
> SD1), at full retail price.


very wise.

if the sd1 is anything like their previous cameras, it's going to be a
mass of problems, and with a $9700 price tag, it's going to have some
*very* ****ed off buyers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
>>> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
>>> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).


>> it does.


> I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
> about that?


Why should they? It's an interface. They're not breaking
copyright (it's a re-implementation based on observation, not a
copy of the code), they presumably don't break patents (can you
even patent such a thing?), and it's not look&feel either.

And they already offer lenses with Canon's EF signal stuff
built in.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
On 26/05/2011 2:10 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4ddcc4c5$0$22471$(E-Mail Removed) m.au>, dj_nme
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> Using Pentax (PK) lenses on a Sigma SA mount camera won't work.
>>>
>>> it does work, just need to remove the aperture coupling pin because it
>>> will hit the colour matching filter, also known as the dust protector.

>>
>> That would seem a shame, to ruin a perfectly good Pentax lens to fit it
>> onto a Sigma dSLR.

>
> very true.
>
>>>> Maybe a better idea would be to exchange the camera's SA mount with a EF
>>>> mount.
>>>
>>> also an option but that's more money and voids any warranty, which with
>>> sigma products is desperately needed, especially with the cameras.

>>
>> I don't know which is nastier: your subtle(?) jab at Sigma reliabilitly
>> or mine about ruining a PK lens.

>
> it wasn't meant as a jab. it was meant as a dose of reality. there are
> a *lot* of posts on dpreview about how unreliable sigma products are,
> and to be fixed they sometimes have to be sent to japan for a few
> months, sometimes coming back not any better. the bizarre thing is
> people put up with it and go back for more.
>
> when lensrentals.com started tracking how reliable the lenses they rent
> were, sigma held the first *five* spots with the #1 contender having a
> 90% failure rate:
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10>
>
>>>> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
>>>> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
>>>> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).
>>>
>>> it does.

>>
>> I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
>> about that?

>
> probably because sigma doesn't sell enough cameras or sigma mount
> lenses for canon to care.
>
> on the other hand, nikon just sued sigma this morning over image
> stabilization:
>
> <http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/nikon-idINL3E7GP11H20110525>
>
> May 25 (Reuters) - Nikon Corp said on Wednesday it has filed a patent
> infringement suit against Japan's Sigma Corp in Tokyo district court
> over the manufacture and sale of interchangeable lenses with
> vibration reduction for single lens reflex cameras.
>
>> Surely the best "swap bits to make it work" in this case would be
>> exchanging the bayonet on a Canon EF lens with a Sigma SA mount.
>> At least then you'd have full automation.
>> Much better than irreversibly damaging a lens to fit a camera.

>
> you have to irreversibly 'damage' either the lens or the camera, and
> since a canon lens is going to hold value a *lot* better than a sigma
> camera, it might as well be the camera.


Just swapping the mount on the lens should be reversible, if you kept
all the parts and didn't machine anything to fit.

> another option i've seen is take a pair of 1.4x teleconverters and swap
> the plates on those, leaving the lenses and cameras alone. that way,
> you can use a unmodified canon lens on a sigma camera using the hybrid
> teleconverter and vice versa. the only downside is you have to use a
> 1.4x teleconverter, which may not be desirable in all situations.


That would be my source of EF bayonets if _had_ to do it, but it seems a
bit pointless when a 24x36 sensor Canon dSLR cost less than half (at
full RRP) than a Sigma SD1 (at RRP).

>> My gut instinct is that it would be wiser move to buy a Pentax dSLR to
>> use PK lenses with.
>> Heck, you could buy (at least) 10 Pentax bodies for the price of a Sigma
>> SD1), at full retail price.

>
> very wise.
>
> if the sd1 is anything like their previous cameras, it's going to be a
> mass of problems, and with a $9700 price tag, it's going to have some
> *very* ****ed off buyers.


I completely agree.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
On 26/05/2011 7:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:07:07 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dj_nme<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>>>>> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
>>>>> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
>>>>> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).

>>
>>>> it does.

>>
>>> I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
>>> about that?

>>
>> Why should they? It's an interface. They're not breaking
>> copyright (it's a re-implementation based on observation, not a
>> copy of the code), they presumably don't break patents (can you
>> even patent such a thing?), and it's not look&feel either.

>
> If an ordinarynon-expert person can look atit and say "That's copied
> from Canon" then there is a prima facie case for saying its copied. In
> that event the onus is no longer on Canon to say that its copied but
> shifts to Sigma who has to show that it isn't.


That's why I think it's a bit strange that one of the core (and quite
distinctive) technologies in the Canon EF system could be copied with no
comeback from Canon.

> There may of course already be an agreement.


That might be a distinct possibility and would explain the lack of
apparent action from Canon.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
In article <4dde4869$0$19225$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On 26/05/2011 7:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:07:07 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> dj_nme<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
> >>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
> >>>>> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
> >>>>> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).
> >>
> >>>> it does.
> >>
> >>> I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
> >>> about that?
> >>
> >> Why should they? It's an interface. They're not breaking
> >> copyright (it's a re-implementation based on observation, not a
> >> copy of the code), they presumably don't break patents (can you
> >> even patent such a thing?), and it's not look&feel either.

> >
> > If an ordinarynon-expert person can look atit and say "That's copied
> > from Canon" then there is a prima facie case for saying its copied. In
> > that event the onus is no longer on Canon to say that its copied but
> > shifts to Sigma who has to show that it isn't.

>
> That's why I think it's a bit strange that one of the core (and quite
> distinctive) technologies in the Canon EF system could be copied with no
> comeback from Canon.
>
> > There may of course already be an agreement.

>
> That might be a distinct possibility and would explain the lack of
> apparent action from Canon.


Or maybe it's just a Japanese thing that we gaijin would have to
struggle to understand.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:07:07 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>Why should they? It's an interface. They're not breaking
>>copyright (it's a re-implementation based on observation, not a
>>copy of the code), they presumably don't break patents (can you
>>even patent such a thing?), and it's not look&feel either.


> If an ordinarynon-expert person can look atit and say "That's copied
> from Canon"


I understand the mount is different.
I understand Canon has not published the specifications, so
the ordinary non-expert cannot look at it and compare it.

> then there is a prima facie case for saying its copied.


Not all 'copying' is forbidden. Clean room reimplementation.

> In
> that event the onus is no longer on Canon to say that its copied but
> shifts to Sigma who has to show that it isn't.


Sigma doesn't have the specs, much less the code, so they
cannot copy it. They must reverse engineer the format.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 16:20:55 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>Sigma doesn't have the specs, much less the code, so they
>>cannot copy it. They must reverse engineer the format.


> That's how they copy. It's still copying.


Which is perfectly legal (unless it's patented).

I also don't see how that would be immoral.

If it weren't for copying, people would independently find out or
even outright copy how to splinter stones for blades and whittling
all-wooden spears and using caves to protect themselves from the
weather and learning to tend fire (not to make fire, that's too
advanced) and others like you would declaim them as robbing the
inventors of their just dues.

Instead we have e.g. you, using the fruits of NNTP and all
that *that* builds upon. Of course, all that knowledge was
copied ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2011
On 5/23/2011 12:10 PM, RichA wrote:
> Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer
> grade." Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
> price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
> however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
> of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
> the Sigma bayonet.
>
> But can you imagine what will happen if they were to charge $9700
> right off the bat, then drop the price to $2000-$2500? Bloody murder
> from less sensible early adopters?


Do you really think that there is, or is going to be, a _single_ early
adopter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2011
In article <4def982d$0$2130$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer
> > grade." Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
> > price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
> > however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
> > of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
> > the Sigma bayonet.
> >
> > But can you imagine what will happen if they were to charge $9700
> > right off the bat, then drop the price to $2000-$2500? Bloody murder
> > from less sensible early adopters?

>
> Do you really think that there is, or is going to be, a _single_ early
> adopter.


i've seen a couple of posts on dpreview from people who said they are
already on a waiting list for it. hopefully for their sake, wherever
they bought it from accepts returns.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: AMD QUAD CORE Phenom bundle (Maplins bundle) won't let me install WinXP! Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov Computer Support 0 05-06-2009 05:27 PM
Re: AMD QUAD CORE Phenom bundle (Maplins bundle) won't let me installWinXP! Tony Computer Support 1 05-05-2009 08:47 PM
Re: AMD QUAD CORE Phenom bundle (Maplins bundle) won't let me install WinXP! Centre Parting Computer Support 0 05-05-2009 05:58 PM
Re: AMD QUAD CORE Phenom bundle (Maplins bundle) won't let me install WinXP! VanguardLH Computer Support 0 05-05-2009 04:52 PM
Re: AMD QUAD CORE Phenom bundle (Maplins bundle) won't let me install WinXP! Buffalo Computer Support 0 05-05-2009 04:16 PM



Advertisments