On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:05:04 -0400, you wrote:
>Are you sure? It is possible that the IS patent was granted well before the first
>commercial IS lenses were introduced, and didn't Canon's IS binoculars
>come to market some time before the first IS lenses?
>
>fcc
Maybe somebody can read this si
Roger Wong wrote:
> At 02:56 PM 9/4/2001 , F. Craig Callahan wrote:
> >Roger Wong wrote:
> >You're saying that Canon's patent expired? Wow. Has USM really been around for 20
>years? That's how long it takes for a patent to expire.
> >
> >That would be in the U.S. What about in Japan?
>
> They
At 02:56 PM 9/4/2001 , F. Craig Callahan wrote:
>Roger Wong wrote:
>You're saying that Canon's patent expired? Wow. Has USM really been around for 20
>years? That's how long it takes for a patent to expire.
>
>That would be in the U.S. What about in Japan?
They also last for 20 years. So, USM is
--- Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a little confused by the IS copyright thing, because haven't
> other companies been using IS on video cameras for quite some time?
IS on most video cameras is done electronicaly. AFAIK the sensor is a
big bigger then the actual output. Simplified
Roger Wong wrote:
> At 03:57 AM 9/4/2001 , someone wrote:
> >Because Canon only recently "lost" its copyright on the USM and IS
>
> You're saying that Canon's patent expired? Wow. Has USM really been around for 20
>years? That's how long it takes for a patent to expire.
That would be in the U
The "Hi-Speed" of the Maxxum 80-200mm f/2.8 G isn't any special
technology. It's just a re-geared version of their original lens. The
Maxxum 7 cranks it into focus fast. I would imagine a USM or SW motor
would be slightly faster. The best thing about those is they're quiet. I
never notice
Ken Durling wrote:
> Oh well, he was just one guy,
> and I don't suppose one can take a rep as official party line, but it
> seems like you should be able to!
>
Oh yes you can. I work for a major computer company and when the city I live in
was looking to get some
departments computerized,
Robert Meier wrote:
> When you already go to a camera shop don't just get prospects, etc but
> actually ask to 'test' different bodies and lenses. First get some info
> from Minolta's, Canon's, and Nikon's website and check out some prices
> for instance at www.bhphoto.com or www.cameraworld.com.
On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 12:01:47 -0500, you wrote:
>>Because Canon only recently "lost" its copyright on the USM and IS
>
>You're saying that Canon's patent expired? Wow.
I'm a little confused by the IS copyright thing, because haven't
other companies been using IS on video cameras for quite some
At 03:57 AM 9/4/2001 , someone wrote:
>Because Canon only recently "lost" its copyright on the USM and IS
You're saying that Canon's patent expired? Wow. Has USM really been around for 20
years? That's how long it takes for a patent to expire.
Copyright law gives creative artists (called "Auth
This thread got me curious about just what the Minolta lens line does
look like, so I went and had a look. Actually not bad at all.And
I notice a pretty equal balance between consumer zooms and high speed
APO lenses.
But I have a question. One lens, the
>Zoom Tele 80-200mm f/2.8 APO G Max
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:57:24 +0200, you wrote:
> Just look at the first two IS lenses Canon presented: the 28-135 and the 75-300...
>Both consumer lenses...
>
>*
I know. It's weird, and the same thing applies to USM. I was at a
Nikon demo at a local camera shop recently- and I am honestly
cu
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Snorre A. Selmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because Canon only recently "lost" its copyright on the USM and
> IS technologies.
I don't think I'd agree with this in terms of USM since Sigma have
had many HSM lenses in their lineup for at least two years. For some
re
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Kumakichi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a long time Minolta manual focus user but have considered
> trying one of the newer autofocus bodies. A friend of mine has
> an A2E and says Cannon is just great.
The EOS5/A2 is an old camera. I think if you compared it side
> Nikon is years behind Canon on both of these (and they don't have ECF
> [eye controlled focus] at all). They are just putting them on the
> expensive pro lenses while they get started.
Because Canon only recently "lost" its copyright on the USM and IS technologies. Nikon
has to develop, test
> I love the Maxxum 7 as my primary camera. The Maxxum 7 is that good. I'm
> probably going to make Canon my secondary camera for the IS. I can't find
> a body I like, but likely an EOS 3.
I went from an EOS 300 to an EOS 3 this summer, and I'm VERY happy... The price is
acceptable, and I t
--- Kumakichi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> p.s. gonna try to stop by my local camera shop and pick up some info.
> I've
> spent a little time visiting web sites but the info wasn't that great
> unfortunately.
When you already go to a camera shop don't just get prospects, etc but
actually ask to
- Original Message -
From: Kumakichi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Would there be any reasons for my to buy a Cannon rather than go with a
Minolta?
> Kuma
Hi Kuma,
I changed from a full Minolta system to a Canon kit in the middle of last
year. I had used Minolta for over a dozen years and have no
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 8:54 PM
Subject: RE: EOS AF Cannon vs. Minolta
> Hmm...what does IS and EF stand for? Something to do with the lenses?
>
> I'm just an amateur enthusiast so while Canon has a greater selection of
> l
The best thing about Minolta is the Maxxum 7. This is one great
camera. I've never seen such a sophisticated camera be so simple to
operate. The lenses are excellent, but you don't get USM, IS, or some of
the selection.
The best thing about Nikon is the eye relief and lots of pro lenses.
C
Kumakichi wrote:
>
> I take it IS is a top of the line feature then that is gonna really cost
> some money?
>
> Also is USM a high end feature on only the more expensive Canon lenses?
You can get both on the 75-300 USM IS and 28-135 USM IS for about $500 each.
Not too bad at all for what they d
> I take it IS is a top of the line feature then that is gonna really cost
> some money?
There are a couple of consumer levels lenses with IS (EF28-135 and EF75-300)
that are a bit more expensive, but not "really cost some money".
>
> Also is USM a high end feature on only the more expensive Ca
> I'm just an amateur enthusiast so while Canon has a greater selection of
> lenses, I won't have a need for all that.
That's what you think now :-) You never know what you'll 'need' later on.
Used lenses are much more common for EOS because of the greater number
of people using them, which can
I take it IS is a top of the line feature then that is gonna really cost
some money?
Also is USM a high end feature on only the more expensive Canon lenses?
Kuma
p.s. gonna try to stop by my local camera shop and pick up some info. I've
spent a little time visiting web sites but the info wasn'
>
> This brings up the question, what does IS and USM stand for?
>
IS stands for Image Stabilizing which Canon has a lion's share in terms of
how many lenses in their line up with this technology, in comparison Nikon
has but only one high end zoom lens with this technology and it took almost
a ye
Hmm...what does IS and EF stand for? Something to do with the lenses?
I'm just an amateur enthusiast so while Canon has a greater selection of
lenses, I won't have a need for all that.
I've been looking at the A2E and the Elan 7E. The eye focus thing seems
intriguing but I wonder how practical
age -
From: "Kumakichi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: EOS AF Cannon vs. Minolta
> I am a long time Minolta manual focus user but have considered trying one
of
> the newer autofocus bodies. A friend of
Thanks Robert for the great reply,
This brings up the question, what does IS and USM stand for?
Kuma
> My first own camera (before I used my father's AE2) was a Minolta
> 700si. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances I bought it quite in a
> rush. To make the story short, I was not very happy
Kumakichi wrote:
> I am a long time Minolta manual focus user but have considered trying one of
> the newer autofocus bodies. A friend of mine has an A2E and says Cannon is
> just great.
>
> I was just hoping maybe some of you could offer some opinions about the
> Cannon autofocus systems vs. co
--- Kumakichi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just hoping maybe some of you could offer some opinions about
> the
> Cannon autofocus systems vs. comparible Minolta autofocus systems.
> Would
> there be any reasons for my to buy a Cannon rather than go with a
> Minolta?
My first own camera (b
K> I was just hoping maybe some of you could offer some opinions about the
K> Cannon autofocus systems vs. comparible Minolta autofocus systems. Would
K> there be any reasons for my to buy a Cannon rather than go with a Minolta?
With Canon you have a bigger variety of lenses for instance.
--
I am a long time Minolta manual focus user but have considered trying one of
the newer autofocus bodies. A friend of mine has an A2E and says Cannon is
just great.
I was just hoping maybe some of you could offer some opinions about the
Cannon autofocus systems vs. comparible Minolta autofocus sy
32 matches
Mail list logo
