--- Ken Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come on fellows, this has gotten as far off topic as
> Acura and gasoline
> octane requirement a few days ago!! (and I kept my
> mouth shut then even
> though I have a high revving Acura Integra GSR with
> 10:1 compression ratio
> B18C1 engine that calls fo
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marius
> Sundbakken
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:53 PM
> To: eos@a1.nl
> Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: EOS The word from Sigma!
>
>
>
> > > >Compatibility is
> >The core UNIX O/S remains a pretty small package even after 34+ years of
>> development and lacks the API weaknesses that Windows has. Because of
>> this UNIX also lacks the virtually unlimited number security issues that
>> Windows has and as such enjoys very high in-core execution efficiency
> >Compatibility issues hobble innovation.
>
> Yes, indeed. I'm a software engineer and backwards compatibility
> is a major pain as the software gets older and there are more versions to
> support. It hobbles innovation for sure, and will eventually cripple it.
Well we certainly have proof of tha
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marius
> Sundbakken
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:37 AM
> To: eos@a1.nl
> Subject: [inbox] Re: EOS The word from Sigma!
>
>
<< SNIPPED>>
> >
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marius
> Sundbakken
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:24 AM
> To: eos@a1.nl
> Subject: RE: [inbox] RE: EOS The word from Sigma!
>
>
>
> > > Your arguments are not wel
>Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:32:58 -0600
>From: "Tom Pfeiffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: EOS The word from Sigma!
>
>Not to say I don't really like my Sigma 180mm macro.
>
>Tom P.
Why? You're the firs
> If Sigma reverse-engineers, they get left behind sooner than Canon's
> own products, because they cannot know what points of a specification
> in the Canon products are significant. But even Canon products will
> eventually get left behind due to innovation.
There is innovation and deviousness.
Besides photography, I'm an architect. One of the most common CAD programs
on PC's is AutoCad, which has been out for over 20 years. One of it's main
problems during that time has been the desire to maintain some
compatibility with earlier versions. This has crippled the program in
various way
> Your arguments are not well thought out.
>
> Lotus 123 stated on the box, "system requirements" DOS 3.1, it did not
> state "Intel compatible."
[...]
> OK Bill, and what does MS-DOS run on, an Intel.
[...]
Actually MS-DOS runs great (just too fast with some applications), on my AMD
Athlon 64 pro
Seriously, it's wearing a bit thin that it's happening "by accident".
Sigma are doing the best they can FOR THE CUSTOMER. Canon sells
cameras on the back of Sigma's lenses so it's crass of them not to
cooperate.
There's next to no profit on the camera bodies. The profit is all in
the lenses.
Ka
> If Sigma reverse-engineers, they get left behind sooner than Canon's
own products, because they cannot know what points of a
specification
in the Canon products are significant. But even Canon products will
eventually get left behind due to innovation.
Henning
There is innovation and deviousn
> If Sigma reverse-engineers, they get left behind sooner than Canon's
> own products, because they cannot know what points of a
specification
> in the Canon products are significant. But even Canon products will
> eventually get left behind due to innovation.
Henning
There is innovation and devi
>
Compatibility issues hobble innovation.
Sigma, however, isn't an innovator, they're an imitator.
Not to say I don't really like my Sigma 180mm macro.
Tom P.
I never said Sigma was an innovator. Whether they are or not is not
at issue; my remarks were referenced to the fact that as Canon
innov
>
> Compatibility issues hobble innovation.
>
Sigma, however, isn't an innovator, they're an imitator.
Not to say I don't really like my Sigma 180mm macro.
Tom P.
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*
> When I got my first IS lens, the 100-400, there was a list of bodies
in the manual that would not work with IS, according to Canon. I
didn't have any of those bodies so I didn't pay any further attention
to it. This was right when the 100-400 came out, so about 1998.
The compatibility table i
> When I got my first IS lens, the 100-400, there was a list of bodies
> in the manual that would not work with IS, according to Canon. I
> didn't have any of those bodies so I didn't pay any further attention
> to it. This was right when the 100-400 came out, so about 1998.
The compatibility tabl
At 7:32 PM -0800 2/3/05, Skip wrote:
Where did you hear that IS lenses are not compatible with older
bodies? Do you mean FD mount bodies? Or do you mean the old EF-M
manual focus, EF mount body, of which Canon probably sold 10, the
only EF mount body that IS won't work on, because it is depend
> 14mm 2.8, and 100mm 2.8 macro)
> ---
> The macro should be a 105mm F2.8, correct? I have this lens too and it
> is a wonderful macro.
> *
Peter,
You are correct on both accounts. It is a wonderful lens.
JD
*
***
Jay D. Washington wrote:
BTW, I have 3 Sigma lenses I purchase several years ago for my 1v. One
didn't work with my 10D when I went digital, but when I sold my 10D
(because even after sending it to Canon, it still had focus issues) and
I bought a 20D, all 3 worked fine. At least no issues yet. (
If I remember correctly, the IS would shut down with autofocus if a
TeleConverter was used, causing the lens to be less than f5.6.
I believe that the last model affected was the EOS 5.
That could be the case since power to the auto-focus motor would shut
down on older models if the modified telec
Malcolm wrote:
I recall seeing an article in the EOS Magazine some years ago where it
mentioned that the IS lenses behaved differently on some older bodies, and
when I checked my 28-135 IS on my old EOS film body (EOS10 ?), I did get
the
effect. Can't remember the details, but it was pretty minor
> OK Bill, and what does MS-DOS run on, an Intel. Yes, your FD lenses do
> not work, but Nikon's do, at the cost of them being unable to provide a
> faster optic like a 50mm F1 or 85mm F1.2 because of the restrictive size
> of the collar.
> The lenses are compatible, just not always 100%. I own 2
- Original Message -
From: "Skip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: EOS The word from Sigma!
> Where did you hear that IS lenses are not compatible with older bodies?
Do
> you mean FD mount bodies? Or do you mean the old
and IS lenses are not compatible with all older bodies.
Huh? The only body that I know the IS lens will not work on are the
old EF-M bodies that are manual focus only.
It's Nikon that has incompatible bodies with their VR system.
Karen
Karen Nakamura
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCam
- Original Message -
From: "Henning Wulff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: EOS The word from Sigma!
At 4:39 PM + 2/3/05, Hugo Lopes wrote:
Just the other day a guy was asking in a forum for a good reason to buy a
>
> -
> OK Bill, and what does MS-DOS run on, an Intel.
Okay, I just tried and I got several of my old DOS programs to install to my
hard drive and run from the command prompt (available through
"Start/Program/Accessories
Michael E. Fryd wrote (edited):
The reported problems can easily explained as Canon's unwillingness to
support third party lenses without receiving a licensing fee.
--
This is the same reason why Fuji has Nikon mount S1, 2,
snip
The reported problems can easily explained as Canon's unwillingness
to support third party lenses without receiving a licensing fee.
duh. it would be somewhat stupid of them to try to help their
competition, wouldn't it? They aren't there to make a photographers
buying easier in terms o
I disagree. If ALL 3rd party lenses had the problem, we could blame
this on Canon. Canon was changing things and it was impossible for
3rd party lens manufacturers to keep up.
However, some 3rd party lenses continue to work just fine, so it
seems that Sigma just didn't do a good job of making
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis,
> Peter (Peter)
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:50 AM
> To: eos@a1.nl
> Subject: [inbox] RE: EOS The word from Sigma!
>
>
> Bill Gillooly wrote:
>
> Yo
At 4:39 PM + 2/3/05, Hugo Lopes wrote:
Just the other day a guy was asking in a forum for a good reason to buy a
Canon 180 Macro instead of the Sigma model. Non compatibility issues were
the only solid argument I came up with. Still, the Canon lens costs 2,5x the
price of the Sigma. So the ques
From: Bill Gillooly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A class-action lawsuit by Sigma lens customers would change their tune!
You're kidding, right? Suck it up, buy a new lens, and stop your whining.
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including
Bill Gillooly wrote:
Your arguments are not well thought out.
Lotus 123 stated on the box, "system requirements" DOS 3.1, it did not
state "Intel compatible."
Same for 8-track this argument is like "my FD lenses don't work on EOS"
the lenses stated "compatible with Canon FD."
Sigma said these
Your arguments are not well thought out.
Lotus 123 stated on the box, "system requirements" DOS 3.1, it did not
state "Intel compatible."
Same for 8-track this argument is like "my FD lenses don't work on EOS"
the lenses stated "compatible with Canon FD."
Sigma said these lenses were "EOS compa
Just the other day a guy was asking in a forum for a good reason to buy a
Canon 180 Macro instead of the Sigma model. Non compatibility issues were
the only solid argument I came up with. Still, the Canon lens costs 2,5x the
price of the Sigma. So the question "should we Canon prices for assured
co
Bill Gillooly wrote:
I disagree. If ALL 3rd party lenses had the problem, we could blame
this on Canon. Canon was changing things and it was impossible for 3rd
party lens manufacturers to keep up.
However, some 3rd party lenses continue to work just fine, so it seems
that Sigma just didn't do a
My personal opinion:
I have a Sigma 17-35 EX and I do not see on the lens or in the box
anything close to "Canon EOS certified" this means to me that they are
on their own in terms of design and meting specs. The difference in
price that you save, you pay it in the risk of buying 3rd party.
Do yo
- Original Message -
From: Cal Rice
Why do old Canon lenses work and not Sigma? Did Sigma not design to Canon's
specs? Did Sigma have to guess what the specs were and guessed wrong.
Cal Rice
--
Correct, Sigma does not want to pay Canon for the use of their mount so they
reverse enginee
I disagree. If ALL 3rd party lenses had the problem, we could blame
this on Canon. Canon was changing things and it was impossible for 3rd
party lens manufacturers to keep up.
However, some 3rd party lenses continue to work just fine, so it seems
that Sigma just didn't do a good job of making
Of course I know that Canon 'doesn't mind' when third party lenses
have to be rechipped (in fact I think they will
enjoy it from a commercial point of view)
But since all Canon lenses still work on a 20D it's a fault in the
back-enginering capabilities of the Sigma
techniciens. Marketing wise the
>No, it's Canon's fault that old third party lenses like this don't work
anymore.
Help me understand - why do old Canon lenses work and not Sigma?
Did Sigma not design to Canon's specs? Did Sigma have to guess what the
specs were and guessed wrong. Do you want cameras not to improve beca
Lawyers or not, I think Sigma should have that disclaimer on their
literature. They've known about the problem for a number of years and
their current brochure doesn't mention the potential problem. I think
that is doing a disservice to potential customers and prevents them from
making an inf
Citeren "Jason C. Doss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> >Crazy, it's their
> >fault that my 400 5,6 doesn't work anymore
>
> No, it's Canon's fault that old third party lenses like this don't work
> anymore.
>
Interesting thought.
Of course I know that Canon 'doesn't mind' when third party
Crazy, it's their
fault that my 400 5,6 doesn't work anymore
No, it's Canon's fault that old third party lenses like this don't work
anymore.
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*http://www.a1.n
Citeren Bill Gillooly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I have spoken to Sigma.
>
> All of my lenses are "too old" to be upgraded, they state that they are
> "out of parts." The 400mm f/5.6, apparently was never upgradeable.
>
> They do offer a trade-in program, here are the
Not to beat a dead horse, but I have spoken to Sigma.
All of my lenses are "too old" to be upgraded, they state that they are
"out of parts." The 400mm f/5.6, apparently was never upgradeable.
They do offer a trade-in program, here are the details...
Trade-in Get Cost B&H New
47 matches
Mail list logo
