Can someone please explain to me, in the simplest terms possible, why Zeiss continues not to make an EOS mount. There is plenty of money to be made for both Canon and Zeiss in such a cooperative venture.
It were rumours in Russian inet that it is expiring may be this year may be next. The first EOS camera (650) has been producing from 1987 - approximately 20 years ago. May be it's enough to patent expiring.
That's all that Zeiss has said on the matter, so it is the full story. Everything else is speculation. Here's what they've said: "Patent considerations keep us from doing so [making "ZE" lenses] for the time being." I believe that Canon shares nothing with other lens manufacturers regarding lens mount electronics and their software protocols.
Tamron & Sigma are evidently happy to pay Canon a licensing fee, so why not Zeiss & Leica?
Please share information about Canon releasing technology to Tamron and Sigma if you have any. I've always thought it's reverse engineering.
Edited by StevenPA on Jul 23, 2008 at 03:11 PM GMT
Even if so, reverse-engineering is still patent infringement. They can't do it without Canon's permission, unless they're willing to spend a fortune on constant legal fees.
Edited by Cableaddict on Jul 23, 2008 at 01:11 AM GMT
Cableaddict wrote:
Even if so, reverse-engineering is still patent infringement. They can't do it without Canon's permission, unless they're willing to spend a fortune on constant legal fees.
Edited by Cableaddict on Jul 23, 2008 at 01:11 AM GMT
Canon has publicly stated that they don't license their mount technology to anyone. If they did, there would never be compatibility problems so prevalent with third party manufacturers, especially Sigma (older lenses not working on newer bodies, but Canon lenses still working fine). I suspect Canon figures that even if you buy third party lenses, you still have to buy a Canon body to use them on (with the exception of the DCS 14c made by Sigma)
StevenPA wrote:
I don't know the laws at all, so I'll take your word for it. But do you have information to that end? Out of curiosity, I'd love to read about it.
Yes. I have sold many inventions over the years, and even brought two to market. This is standard patent law. You can't just claim you came up with the exact same same invention or proprietary device. What else do you think a patent is for?
Of course, someone can infringe upon an invention or design, and manufacture in some backwater country will weak laws, but they won't be able to import & sell the item in a country where you hold a patent. -Unless they want to spend massive bucks on legal fees, or unless the party infringed upon cannot afford to fight back. The latter very often happens, but I'd image Canon has the bucks to fight Tamron if that were the case.
dirb9 wrote:
I suspect Canon figures that even if you buy third party lenses, you still have to buy a Canon body to use them on (with the exception of the DCS 14c made by Sigma)
Why is the DCS 14c is the only third party body with an EF mount? If Canon licensed Sigma then why has no one else joined the party? I guess the license fee is just too steep.
So, are we going to see a load of third party EF mount bodies as soon as the patent expires? There are certainly a lot of EF lenses out there.
Canon does not license their technology to anyone - this has come up before several times on these and other forums.
Canon may have a patent on the technology behind the EF mount, but 3rd party manufacturer's can provide a lens that is compatible with the EF mount. You are not copying the EF mount on the camera nor are you duplicating the electronics that is used by the EF mount to communicate with the Camera itself. 3rd party OEM's don't try to copy Canon's USM lens technology nor do they try to duplicate how the lens communicates with the SLR.
The Kodak DCS 6xx (I think), DCS 7xx, and SLRc are all Canon EF mount. These were made with cooperation with Canon.
I thought Sigma was the only one that who reverse-engineered the EF electronic communication, and that Tamron and Tokina are paying Canon for use of this system. But I could be wrong.
As far as autofocus DSLR lenses are concerned, I'd imagine that Zeiss has some agreements with Sony that limits them to what they can do for other mounts, but who knows.
AhamB wrote:
I thought Sigma was the only one that who reverse-engineered the EF electronic communication, and that Tamron and Tokina are paying Canon for use of this system. But I could be wrong.
That was the rumor when Sigma seemed to be having compatibilty issues and the others didn't but Canon has clearly stated that it has not licenced the technology to anyone...and why would they.
pascal03 wrote:
Canon may have a patent on the technology behind the EF mount, but 3rd party manufacturer's can provide a lens that is compatible with the EF mount. You are not copying the EF mount on the camera nor are you duplicating the electronics that is used by the EF mount to communicate with the Camera itself.
That could be a valid point. Still, they are copying the mount-part of the lens. I would think Canon holds a separate patent for that, but maybe their lawyers blew it and didn't register that as a separate item. Or heck, maybe Canon just doesn't feel like wasting money on a legal battle, as long as the third-party lenses are considered inferior.
-And maybe THAT'S the answer: Zeiss and Leica know that Canon WOULD go after THEM, sice theirs is an equal or superior product. Sig and Tam know they are safe as long as their lenses aren't TOO good. (well.... maybe.) After all, if Sigma can reverse-engineer a mount, don't you think Zeiss and Leica can as well?
Yes, but the Leica and Zeiss cost so much more than the Canon L equilalent that it still isn't competition. Probably worse for Canon losing customers that actually are willing to pay Leica or Zeiss prices going to another system all together. For reference, Summicron-R 50/2 costs the same (new) as EF 50/1.2L... even if the Summicron was put in EF mount how many people would buy it over the L or even a $70 50/1.8?
>>And maybe THAT'S the answer: Zeiss and Leica know that Canon WOULD go after THEM, sice theirs is an equal or superior product.
But do you have information to that end? Out of curiosity, I'd love to read about it.