[monochrome]

Well, you got one thing right: I left.

M

Then I suppose it doesn't matter what they do from now on.

[falconeye]

There is an interview from yesterday with Sigma's CEO (CNET I believe).

Wrt to vendors supported by Sigma, he explains, it isn't the vendors. They look at buyers of specific camera models which are going to buy lenses. For MILCs, he mentioned (from my memory) Sony A7, Fuji X100T, Panasonic GH4 and a few others. He also says Sigma isn't there to support every vendor. It is a rather fun interview btw.

So, the logic behind this would be that Sigma thinks Pentax did not sell enough K-3 to rich action shooters. It is more their opinion than hard market data they base their decision upon. And in Japan, I think this to be true, with landscape being the prime objective of Pentaxians (and Japan now is the main market for Pentax).

Another fun tidbit: When asked if making money from their camera business, he just replied, "not at all" (or so)

[Miguel]

Then I suppose it doesn't matter what they do from now on.

Why wouldn't it? It's not like changing camera brands or platforms is an issue of religion or citizenship. All it takes is a compelling product and a working credit card number. Bet I'm not the only one here who would like to put my Voigtlander SL 125 f2.5 on a 24x36mm Pentax digital body.

M

[monochrome]

Why wouldn't it? It's not like changing camera brands or platforms is an issue of religion or citizenship. All it takes a compelling product and a working credit card number. Bet I'm not the only one here who would like to put my Voigtlander SL 125 f2.5 on a 24x36mm Pentax digital body.

M

Maybe you'll have the chance. We'll all just need to wait and see. I sense Ricoh made a clear break from the last 15 years of torpor summer of 2013. Maybe I don't get it.

Maybe I do.

[Venom3300]

LOL!
The 560mm was so out of left field, with goofy pricing and a mysterious audience, that it has the markings of executive vanity project all over that. Someone at Hoya wanted to make a point.



Those were props. Until a product is real and offered for sale, it doesn't count.

M

canon just introduced a new 400mm lens at 7k. Nobody in the Canon camp thumbed their nose at that. Pentax had a 600mm FA lens. They were simply filling a whole in the lineup where it was needed the most: at the telephoto end. They are going to further fill that in with the ~75-200 2.8 and 150-400 lenses.

Its true the 560mm is out of reach of most people. But there are some around, and some on this forum in fact. Its a halo product designed for serious wildlife users and show people that are capable of producing lenses with the big boys. But its also a very functional professional lens, and yields stunning results in combination with say a K-3.

[boriscleto]

I'm dying to learn more about the High Magnification Super Zoom...

As a consumer oriented lens it's going to have to be priced less than the Bigma to be competitive. Somewhere between the Bigma and the lil'Bigma...

[Venom3300]

I'm dying to learn more about the High Magnification Super Zoom...

As a consumer oriented lens it's going to have to be priced less than the Bigma to be competitive. Somewhere between the Bigma and the lil'Bigma...

me too. to me this is THE lens that pentax is missing to make the K3 a true competitor for wildlife to the 7D/7DII

[Class A]

There is an interview from yesterday with Sigma's CEO (CNET I believe).

I think you are referring to the "Sigma CEO leads premium push in camera market (Q&A)" interview on CNET.

Quite interesting that Kazuto Yamaki states that Sigma pays license fees to Canon and Nikon.

The prevalent opinion on many forums is that Sigma only reverse-engineers protocols, etc., it seems that the interview contradicts this one (of many) myth regarding Sigma.

[thibs]

I think you are referring to the "Sigma CEO leads premium push in camera market (Q&A)" interview on CNET.

Quite interesting that Kazuto Yamaki states that Sigma pays license fees to Canon and Nikon.

The prevalent opinion on many forums is that Sigma only reverse-engineers protocols, etc., it seems that the interview contradicts this one (of many) myth regarding Sigma.

Yep, this is indeed interesting.
It means, at least for Canon and Nikon, that Sigma changed their ways of doing.
As a business PoV it is very good (and I'm certainly glad about that). As a customers PoV, we don't care at all (directly).
Indirectly, it frees the way for Sigma to work with OEMs in some cases (rebadging), Pentax too if they also lincenses KAF3 mount.

They also state they reverse engineer which is... drawing more questions IMO.

[falconeye]

I think you are referring to the "Sigma CEO leads premium push in camera market (Q&A)" interview on CNET.

Quite interesting that Kazuto Yamaki states that Sigma pays license fees to Canon and Nikon.

They also state they reverse engineer which is... drawing more questions IMO.

Thanks for looking up the reference. Yep, that's the source I meant.

Regarding licensing vs. reverse engineering, I think he had it pretty clear: They pay licences for patents they are using and reverse engineer for the missing manual

I believe there was an incident in the past (Honeywell vs. Nikon?) which made Japanese camera companies refuse to share patents outside of Japan. So, Sigma may have an advantage wrt the likes of Zeiss, Metabones etc. Also, it is interesting that Sigma doesn't do any mount adpaters ...

[rawr]

Sigma was recently successfully sued by Nikon in Japan, because Sigma's optical stabilisation system infringed on Nikon's patented vibration reduction tech. Sigma had to pay Nikon USD $14.5 million for that.

So I expect any Sigma reverse engineering will proceed very cautiously in future.

[Zygonyx]

Yes...
Actually i would like to read that sentence.

[falconeye]

So I expect any Sigma reverse engineering will proceed very cautiously in future.

That had nothing to do with reverse engineering.

Actually, in the same trial the year before, the same judge ruled that Nikon's VR patents (from 2002) are "void and null" because made up from older patents from other inventors. Also, the "damage" was reduced considerably.

I guess Nikon will think twice before sueing Sigma again. All of that having nothing to do with the mount (which the reverse engineering comment applied to).

Actually, optical image stabilization is patented since 1976 (Canon, idea: tilt a prism). Later, Konica Minolta patented to shift the sensor and Nikon to shift a lens (anybody knows who patented to tilt a lens?). But it is all the same core idea, measure yaw and pitch (gyros) and shift the projected image to compensate (with differences being to tilt or shift, lens or sensor, piezo or voice coil, hall effect control loop or not, rotate or not etc.). So, they are all violating each others patents. There is no escape when doing SR, it all is a question of patent portfolio power. Seems, like Sigma could settle that issue now as well.

Interesting, nobody patented a "mass inertia" optical stabilization: a lens element coupled to an movable mass in such a way that any pitch or yaw would automagically move the mass-coupled lens element to counteract the movement. I.e., passive as opposed to active OS. When I first heard about OS without knowing more details, I was immediately thinking passive OS abd that the entire idea would be a lot older than 70's. Actually, now thinking about it, Canon's tilting prism, coupled with a little gear box, two little solid cylinders, spring and dampening, could be turned into a passive OS quite easily.

[rawr]

optical image stabilization is patented since 1976.Later, Konica Minolta patented to shift the sensor...

What is the situation with Pentax? Does this mean it is essentially licensing Konica Minolta for Pentax SR? That would be a surprise. I had assumed Pentax had a patent portfolio of it's own that covered all of its interests in sensor shift SR.

[thibs]

What about a Pentax/ricoh patent on that btw, Falk?