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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 23, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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?

    A much smaller scale example was seen here when Fuji released the S5
    at nearly $2400 versus Nikon's same-bodied D200 at about $600 less.
    It surely limited the Fuji sales, even if the Fuji could claim some
    interesting superior attributes.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rationalizing_the_irrational.shtml
     
    RichA, May 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer grade."


    finally? this isn't news.

    sigma has long been known for consumer grade lenses. only recently have
    they tried to price some of them higher than the equivalent nikon/canon
    version and that failed.

    > 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.


    there's no easy way out of this. sigma screwed up, big time.

    > 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?


    assuming someone actually pays $9700.

    not only are the die hard fanbois no longer interested but the usual
    sigma shills are stunned at the price.

    it's also what they did with the sd14 - initial street price was $1600,
    cut to $1200 months later, ultimately dropping to $350 when they were
    blown out on clearance and they still had trouble selling them.

    > A much smaller scale example was seen here when Fuji released the S5
    > at nearly $2400 versus Nikon's same-bodied D200 at about $600 less.
    > It surely limited the Fuji sales, even if the Fuji could claim some
    > interesting superior attributes.


    fuji bought d200 shells from nikon so they had no choice but to price
    it higher than a real d200. it's an entirely different scenario.

    sigma makes everything in the sd1, other than using an olympus
    autofocus module.

    there's simply no way the manufacturing cost is anywhere near $9700.
     
    nospam, May 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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.



    Perhaps some enterprising engineering company will offer to adapt
    other, superior brands of lens to the Sigma SA mount? The physical
    mount is said to be identical to the Pentax K bayonet mount but with a
    different lock. Consequently, you can successfully mount a Pentax K
    or KA lens, but there is nothing to prevent the lens rotating in the
    mount - except friction.

    So it might be possible to modify Pentax K/KA lenses with the addition
    of a lock fit the Sigma SA mount and lock the lens in place.

    Of course the electronic interface is completely different, so
    including AF and other features that are dependent on electronics
    would probably not be possible.
     
    Bruce, May 23, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > Perhaps some enterprising engineering company will offer to adapt
    > other, superior brands of lens to the Sigma SA mount?


    there are various adapters and there's someone who modifies the
    camera's mount itself to nikon, canon, sony, etc.

    > The physical
    > mount is said to be identical to the Pentax K bayonet mount but with a
    > different lock.


    it's basically a k mount flange.

    > Consequently, you can successfully mount a Pentax K
    > or KA lens, but there is nothing to prevent the lens rotating in the
    > mount - except friction.


    pentax k mount lenses fit if you cut off the aperture coupling pin, but
    if you do, it will no longer work on a pentax.

    > So it might be possible to modify Pentax K/KA lenses with the addition
    > of a lock fit the Sigma SA mount and lock the lens in place.


    just the coupling pin.

    > Of course the electronic interface is completely different, so
    > including AF and other features that are dependent on electronics
    > would probably not be possible.


    everything is manual focus & stop-down metering, except for canon
    lenses.

    sigma mount lenses use canon electronics, so it's possible to convert
    canon ef to sigma sa by changing the mount plate and they'll work,
    including autofocus. it's also possible to change the camera's mount to
    canon ef. the only thing that doesn't work is stabilization.
     
    nospam, May 23, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    On 5/23/2011 3:10 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?
    >
    > A much smaller scale example was seen here when Fuji released the S5
    > at nearly $2400 versus Nikon's same-bodied D200 at about $600 less.
    > It surely limited the Fuji sales, even if the Fuji could claim some
    > interesting superior attributes.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rationalizing_the_irrational.shtml
    >


    YAWN!

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    On 24/05/2011 10:10 AM, Rich wrote:
    > Bruce<> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Perhaps some enterprising engineering company will offer to adapt
    >> other, superior brands of lens to the Sigma SA mount? The physical
    >> mount is said to be identical to the Pentax K bayonet mount but with a
    >> different lock. Consequently, you can successfully mount a Pentax K
    >> or KA lens, but there is nothing to prevent the lens rotating in the
    >> mount - except friction.
    >>
    >> So it might be possible to modify Pentax K/KA lenses with the addition
    >> of a lock fit the Sigma SA mount and lock the lens in place.
    >>
    >> Of course the electronic interface is completely different, so
    >> including AF and other features that are dependent on electronics
    >> would probably not be possible.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Interesting, I wasn't aware of this, thank you.


    Using Pentax (PK) lenses on a Sigma SA mount camera won't work.
    The main reason is the the SA mount register is the same as Canon EF (or
    EF-s) and so without a spacer (modified PK macro ring?) it would never
    be able to focus.
    Maybe a better idea would be to exchange the camera's SA mount with a EF
    mount.
    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).
     
    dj_nme, May 24, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <4ddb5f0b$0$15070$>, dj_nme
    <> 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.

    > The main reason is the the SA mount register is the same as Canon EF (or
    > EF-s) and so without a spacer (modified PK macro ring?) it would never
    > be able to focus.


    it will not focus as close as it would on pentax (normally not a huge
    issue) and also go past infinity (not a problem at all), but otherwise
    it works fine.

    > 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.

    > 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.
     
    nospam, May 24, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<4ddb5f0b$0$15070$>, dj_nme
    > <> 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. ;)

    >> The main reason is the the SA mount register is the same as Canon EF (or
    >> EF-s) and so without a spacer (modified PK macro ring?) it would never
    >> be able to focus.

    >
    > it will not focus as close as it would on pentax (normally not a huge
    > issue) and also go past infinity (not a problem at all), but otherwise
    > it works fine.
    >
    >> 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. :)

    >> 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?

    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.

    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.
     
    dj_nme, May 25, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    dj_nme <> wrote:
    >On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article<4ddb5f0b$0$15070$>, dj_nme
    >> <> 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?



    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?

    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.


    >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 need to ask yourself whether going to such lengths would be
    worthwhile. If the camera lives up to Sigma's claims for its
    performance, there is still the issue of its extremely high cost.


    >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.



    From a reseller's point of view, I would much rather sell ten Pentax
    DSLRs than one Sigma SD-1. As a reseller of Sigma lenses and
    accessories, we may come under pressure to stock the camera. If so,
    experience with the Sony A900 and A850 suggests that we may well be
    left with a very expensive paperweight. :-(
     
    Bruce, May 25, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> 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.
     
    Mr. Strat, May 25, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "Mr. Strat" <> wrote:
    >In article <>, Bruce
    ><> 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.
     
    Bruce, May 25, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <4ddcc4c5$0$22471$>, dj_nme
    <> 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* pissed off buyers.
     
    nospam, May 25, 2011
    #12
  13. Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    dj_nme <> wrote:
    > On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    >> <> 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 26, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    On 26/05/2011 2:10 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<4ddcc4c5$0$22471$>, dj_nme
    > <> 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* pissed off buyers.


    I completely agree.
     
    dj_nme, May 26, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    On 26/05/2011 7:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:07:07 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> dj_nme<> wrote:
    >>> On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    >>>> <> 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.
     
    dj_nme, May 26, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <4dde4869$0$19225$>,
    says...
    >
    > On 26/05/2011 7:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > > On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:07:07 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> dj_nme<> wrote:
    > >>> On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    > >>>> <> 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.
     
    J. Clarke, May 26, 2011
    #16
  17. Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    Eric Stevens <> 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 26, 2011
    #17
  18. Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    Eric Stevens <> 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 1, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses

    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.
     
    SMS, Jun 8, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <4def982d$0$2130$>, SMS
    <> 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. :)
     
    nospam, Jun 8, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Buffalo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    579
    Buffalo
    May 5, 2009
  2. VanguardLH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    728
    VanguardLH
    May 5, 2009
  3. Centre Parting
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    710
    Centre Parting
    May 5, 2009
  4. Tony
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    789
    VanguardLH
    May 5, 2009
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    163
    David Taylor
    Feb 14, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page