Odd statement from Canon

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    That to have implemented an anti-dust system in their top
    camera would have been too expensive.
    I don't get this? Olympus E-300 is $700 and it has it.
    Canon's top DSLR is $8000.00...


    "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
    never gave us refunds for in the past"
     
    RichA, Aug 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Darrell Guest

    Canon's SDI system used lasers to destroy dust before they got too close to
    the sensor.

    ;)
     
    Darrell, Aug 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    There may be patents in play that would prevent other dSLR manufacturers
    from using the Olympus method without paying hefty licensing fees.

    Would you please stop with these ridiculous posts?
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 14, 2005
    #3
  4. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Why not just ignore them if it bothers you so much?
     
    Stacey, Aug 14, 2005
    #4
  5. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Who would you have to feed otherwise?
     
    Pete D, Aug 14, 2005
    #5
  6. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    The only ridiculous thing is your stupid reply.

    Rich has a good point; if Olympus can afford to provide an extremely
    effective and efficient dust removal system in a $700 camera, why
    can't Canon provide something similar in an $8000 camera?

    Perhaps your bad tempered reply reflects your inability to accept that
    manufacturers other than Canon can actually do some things better than
    the god you worship.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #6
  7. First, can you show the Olympus dust removal is really "extremely
    effective and efficient" or is this just Olympus marketing babble. Any
    independent tests comparing it to say the Copperhill system?

    Secondly, maybe because cleaning your sensor or having it done isn't a
    big deal to the people who will by the 1DsMkII.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 14, 2005
    #7
  8. RichA

    Siggy Guest

    In
    Is this group for pre-approved members only?
    When compared (unfairly) with the kind of drivel and bad-temper often posted
    in open forums, he does rather well don't you think? And I find them thought
    provoking on occasions, or just of no particular interest at others. If you
    new anything about group dynamics, you'd know that most contain their
    'sentinel' types, and have a role to play. So how about a bit of
    laissez-faire, please?

    jm2p
     
    Siggy, Aug 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Then maybe you shouldn't buy it.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 14, 2005
    #9
  10. RichA

    Polly Pentax Guest


    It's not just the 'dust shaker', what about the Olympus 'in-camera' ' Pixel
    Mapping? Surely, that's something that should be standard on every dslr,
    irrespective of make or model?

    You've only got to read the various online forums to realise how prevalent
    bad pixels are, yet only Olympus allow you to sort them out quickly and
    conveniently. If only Olympus hadn't chosen to go with the 4/3 rds system,
    their market share would surely be far larger than it is.
     
    Polly Pentax, Aug 14, 2005
    #10
  11. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    The list of possibilities is long, licensing fees, redesigning bodies to fit
    extra mechanisms. But the article in the Spanish mag had the Canon exec
    stating that dust removal systems were a possibility, but not a probability.
    He didn't sat that Canon wouldn't do it...
     
    Skip M, Aug 14, 2005
    #11
  12. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    I find it extremely effective. I work my E-1 hard (my E-300 less so)
    and often in dusty environments, because I shoot a lot of images of
    construction projects and changing lenses on site is unavoidable.

    The E-1 didn't need any sensor cleaning at its first CLA, after over
    60,000 shutter releases. The dust removal system has worked
    perfectly, with only the sticky strip needing replacement.

    (The sticky strip catches the dust that falls off the sensor. Dust
    removal occurs every time you power up the camera.)
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #12
  13. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    Do you mean to say it isn't?

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #13
  14. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    The license fees must be *colossal* if Canon cannot afford to provide
    such a necessary feature on a camera costing $8000.

    However, I can understand Olympus not licensing it to anyone.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #14
  15. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    IIRC, Canon used to have a rep as being rather tight fisted, so fees
    wouldn't have to be excessive to discourage them from buying the rights to
    the technology.
     
    Skip M, Aug 14, 2005
    #15
  16. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Didn't I answer his question with the obvious answer?

    You seemed to ignore it. But you ignore large chunks of reality just to
    go on living, don't you, Polson?
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 14, 2005
    #16
  17. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Then truly you can understand how retarded the question was in the first
    place.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 14, 2005
    #17
  18. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    That wouldn't be so surprising. On the other hand, they were
    apparently very greedy when it came to licensing USM technology to
    other manufacturers.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2005
    #18
  19. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    MY guess is Canon won't include it until the market forces them to. No
    sensible company would throw money at R&D or patent licensing unless
    they saw a sales need to do so.

    With Canon and Nikon being at the top of the DSLR game and Olympus being
    at the bottom, I don't see why either Nikon or Canon would feel a real
    need to incorporate dust removal in any of their DSLRs at this point in
    time.

    In the future I'm sure this will change. But right now there doesn't
    seem to be any real market forces behind pushing aggressively for dust
    removal. As vocal as Polson and Stacey are, it doesn't really change
    the fact that almost no DSLR users are throwing away their Nikons,
    Canons and Pentnaxes (sorry, couldn't resist) for Olympus gear.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 14, 2005
    #19
  20. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Everyone is greedy when it comes to licensing flagship technologies to
    other manufacturers. Polaroid, anyone?
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.