wildlightphoto Posted September 17, 2008 Share #41 Posted September 17, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) That has actually debunked a rumor long spreading on the web that "one" has to get Canon or Nikon's approval for adapting/fitting their mount, this is not the case at all, if Leica wants to do this, they could have started long time ago, there's no need to talk to Canon/Nikon at all. Correct - the mount and electronics can be reverse-engineered, however this does not prevent the camera maker from making slight firmware changes that would render the reverse-engineered lenses little more than expensive paper weights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 Hi wildlightphoto, Take a look here If we all like Leica R glass so much.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted September 17, 2008 Share #42 Posted September 17, 2008 Correct - the mount and electronics can be reverse-engineered, however this does not prevent the camera maker from making slight firmware changes that would render the reverse-engineered lenses little more than expensive paper weights. They can do this easily, but there's no point really ... there are many reasons why someone would choose with a third party lens, if you make its use impossible, in the end you're hurting your own customer. And in most cases, these third parties are only doing stuff the big guys "forget" to include in their own lineup. If stuff happens, most likely it's not intentional. There's also something called respect to the competitors, Canon could easily build a 12MP full frame DSLR at $1000 mark with a Rebel class body and wipe out a large chunk of Nikon's market share, they chose not to. For the same reason, I don't believe Canon or Nikon would bother to build a digital rangefinder with the M bayonet. They could build some stuff, but with their own mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 17, 2008 Share #43 Posted September 17, 2008 They can do this easily, but there's no point really ... there are many reasons why someone would choose with a third party lens, if you make its use impossible, in the end you're hurting your own customer. If this were true there would be no reason for Canon to refuse to license the technology to third-party lens makers. ... Canon could easily build a 12MP full frame DSLR at $1000 mark with a Rebel class body and wipe out a large chunk of Nikon's market share, they chose not to.What's your source of this information? The same place we read about 150 mpg carburators? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 17, 2008 Share #44 Posted September 17, 2008 If this were true there would be no reason for Canon to refuse to license the technology to third-party lens makers. There's probably nobody ever asked Canon so how do you know they would refuse? of course, it'll all be about price in the end. LOL What's your source of this information? The same place we read about 150 mpg carburators? This should be the next "revolution" they'll bring to the DSLR market, remember they call the 5D Mark II an "evolution"? because it's not earth shattering at all. 150mpg carburator? they've build a real car running exclusively on water. LOL Look at this: YouTube - Water fuel car unveiled in Japan - Genepax company Have fun, Doug. I'm gonna hit the sack now ... have to be in the office at 6 in the morning. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted September 17, 2008 Share #45 Posted September 17, 2008 That has actually debunked a rumor long spreading on the web that "one" has to get Canon or Nikon's approval for adapting/fitting their mount, this is not the case at all, if Leica wants to do this, they could have started long time ago... Bottomline, Leica wants to keep full functionality of their lenses exclusive to their cameras. That's just like Apple's thinking regarding OS X. Interesting. As Apple shows, in the hands of the right CEO, this does not have to be a bad idea. So I hope the same success will happen to Leica. I only started buying into it with my Digilux 2, but I like the company's philosophy. Still, I'm infatuated with the promise of an open concept like the 4/3 system and its latest offspring. Imagine being able to pick any camera body whose size, technology and ergonomics you like best, and pair it with any lens whose signature you prefer. To take it one step further, you can then buy modular sensors/digital backs on a card that you can simply snap in and replace as you would different types of film: choose the one whose colour rendition you like the most. Well, one can dream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted September 17, 2008 Share #46 Posted September 17, 2008 That has actually debunked a rumor long spreading on the web that "one" has to get Canon or Nikon's approval for adapting/fitting their mount To digress a little: Yes, but just because they develop products for the Canon mount doesn't necessarily mean they get to use shots of Canon products in their ads or marketing materials. There are numerous ads featuring blanked-out Powerbooks, too, and some are unintentionally funny because the ads are for software that doesn't run on Macs. I don't know how it is in the camera industry, but in the IT industry where I work when companies blank out product logos of other companies, it usually means either: a) they don't have permission to use that logo/product, they don't want to give that brand free advertising, or c) featuring that brand would detract from their own product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.