Upload & Sell: On
I decided to log in today after getting back from my business trip and look at all this. I guess I should have selected the "get email notification" button after posting.
I don't even know where to start in responding, so I'll just summarize the key points raised here. I don't really expect everyone to agree to all my points, but it is what it is.
First after scanning this thread and getting a sense of the discussions, I emailed Ed since this really boils down to an issue between the two of us.
Yes, I did buy one of Ed's FL conversion kits, but that was after I had already been working on my own design, which I started in 2010. I have all my engineering notes on the tedious work it took to get to this point. I had exchanged emails via flickr with Ed about my design back in Jan 2012 and said then that I had my own design.
Email dated Jan 12, 2012 to Ontarian (Ed Mika)
I ran across your Fredmiranda post about your FD 55 1.2 Aspherical conversion and I was wondering, wouldn't this basic design work on an FDn L series? I know the FD and FDn differences since i had started work on my own FDn non-L conversion, but I found your FL kit and stopped working on it.
Any plans or thoughts on doing a FDn 50 L conversion? This is too complex for anything I would take on, but you clearly have the mad skills to do it if its possible. (and a really nice milling machine)
What are your thoughts on using aluminum to prototype verses brass. I'm thinking of taking my design and building a prototype since it basically done."
I didn't copy his work since I had already had my own design. This was a result of my own research and countless hours of testing, measuring and prototyping. Since this is more of a hobby I don't spend a lot of continuous time working on it, so it has taken me longer than most people would expect. I know Ed knows how much work designing something like this takes and I'm not a mechanical engineer by trade so I end up having to learn as I'm going along. If I had spent more focused time I could have had this available April barring the budget limitations.
So why the delay on my part why did it take so long?
For me the delay was getting around a material break through problem with the cutout for the aperture ring tower that rises about .100" above the ring. I didn't think there was enough space without this area breaking through the opposing mount surface.
It wasn't until a friend suggested I give Autodesk Inventory a try to simulate the parts involved. I found that the cutout could be made and not breaking through.
Ed posted a link to a picture of his design. I went and looked at it today for the first time. It explains the rash of polite and not so polite comments I've been getting about how I stole Ed's design. One person threaten to "pursue means to make things right" because I refused to take down my kickstarter project. My explanations of how I got to this point didn't seem to matter, its whatever.
Well I have my own "proof" of my completed design. I'm sure if I go looking I can find other forum posts to support my position. I just didn't openly publish my work so people presumed I must have copied it.
The end results are very similar which is not surprising knowing what I know now about making these adapters. I started my EOS mount design based on the EF chrome mounting plate. My original design was very, very close to the Canon mount, that is until I took it to the local machine shop. The biggest problem that I had used basic geometric shapes for the design without any thought to the machining. The local machine explained how all the sharp corner can be done but it would take a lot of machine time $$. The machine based on the conversion I bought from Ed. Without all the facts being presented I can see how these conclusion were drawn.
As for my pending patent. Yes the application is filed and there is a step in the review process with the patent office that is called "Prior Art Search". If prior art exist the patent is rejected, any known possible prior art should also be noted on an patent application. I would be a fool to file a patent without listing all known prior art, not doing so hurts your application. The claims in my patent application are of my own work and research.
My patent filing was not limited to the kickstarter items. My other patent claims do not exist anywhere today. That I am sure of, otherwise those possible prior art references would also be on the application.
Also no where on the project page or in the video do I make any completely original claims. I do reference research sources in my patent application as required.
Thanks those of you that posted constructive feedback, I've started an FAQ on my project to clarify the main point brought up here.
I started this conversion work because none existed for the FDn lens at the time, period. I found a way to apply my aptitude in engineering to my favorite hobby and use the lenses I started this hobby with.
I think I hit the salient points is this thread. While I hate long posts I couldn't find a way around it in this case.