Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-18-2014, 02:01 PM   #31
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Nope, it's just a proprietary mount shared between several manufacturers. Unless you can point me to the full specification, protocols included?
Don't need to.

Four Thirds | Contact | faq

What is the Four Thirds System standard? It is an open standard for the design of lenses for use in digital SLR cameras with 4/3-type image sensors, including definitions of the suitable mount size, image circle and the interface between the lens and body.

07-18-2014, 02:29 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
So all we have are those two words on their site (and I don't trust Olympus to be completely honest, by the way). I can't personally build a M4/3 camera based only on this.

By the way, Sony is disclosing the basic specifications for their E-mount:
Inquiries and Applications for Disclosure of "E-mount" Basic Specifications
No fees involved; but, it's not open to individuals.

OTOH, with the "open standard" it's unclear who might do what and how.
07-18-2014, 03:52 PM   #33
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
So all we have are those two words on their site (and I don't trust Olympus to be completely honest, by the way). I can't personally build a M4/3 camera based only on this.

By the way, Sony is disclosing the basic specifications for their E-mount:
Inquiries and Applications for Disclosure of "E-mount" Basic Specifications
No fees involved; but, it's not open to individuals.

OTOH, with the "open standard" it's unclear who might do what and how.
I get it. Shutter shock was probably injected into the standard by some troll, then?
07-19-2014, 01:22 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]" (source: Wikipedia).
???

Could you help us find more information about this "open standard" mount specifications? So we'll know how much of it it's open and how much it's marketing. The claim was that I should be able to personally make a M4/3 camera. Thank you.

07-19-2014, 02:46 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]" (source: Wikipedia).
???

Could you help us find more information about this "open standard" mount specifications? So we'll know how much of it it's open and how much it's marketing. The claim was that I should be able to personally make a M4/3 camera. Thank you.
That's fine Kunzite. You did notice the jest, the playful nature of my comment, did you not?
Secondly of course, the troll to me is still primarily the little mischievous hobgoblin creature of myth and folklore. That one: Troll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ;)
Thirdly, I have no clue who that "we" might be that demands an answer to claims I never made.

Please tell me a) who is "we" and b) where did I make any such claims.
07-19-2014, 03:31 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
I was just confused, about how an Internet Troll would "inject" shutter shock to cameras. It doesn't seems possible, he's spending all his time on the Internet posting flame-bait stuff and disrupting discussions. But the other kind of troll can't do it either, he's busy sitting under a bridge and collect taxes (some say they're quite useful, as they keep maintaining those bridges - infrastructure is very important for any civilized world).

The claim that I could personally build a M4/3 camera was made by ElJamoquio; it's him and me I hoped you could assist finding this information. I thought that, if you intervened into this discussion, you read few posts behind and had some interest in it.

Now, I'm still confused - what does it have to do with trolls of any kind, and what are you actually trying to say?
07-19-2014, 05:10 AM   #37
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,645
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Nope, it's just a proprietary mount shared between several manufacturers. Unless you can point me to the full specification, protocols included?
No idea if there are limitations to enter. In general it can only be a succes when company's make commitments to it. So it is nice if a small company would make a single lens or so to add to the system, but that alone will not carry the cameraline.

Like the 50mm/f0,95 lens from Noktor:
http://philipbloom.net/2010/03/10/review-of-noktor-f0-95-hyperprime-50mm-lens-for-micro-four-thirds/
07-19-2014, 05:29 AM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
Let me help you out. You said that

QuoteQuote:
OTOH, with the "open standard" it's unclear who might do what and how.
which I take to mean you assume an open standard like open source software w/o safeguards against mischievous hobgoblins (trolls). I don't think the mft consortium works that way though. Companies are obviously welcome to join, but I'm not so sure about individuals like you. But if you actually care to know, ask 'em: four-thirds@ot.olympus.co.jp

Hope I could clear that up for you.

07-19-2014, 07:37 AM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
That's not what I meant - I was referring to the lack of information. Their marketing says it's an "open standard", yet they won't say what you should do to get the specs, what are the restrictions, prices, nothing. If it's so open, I would expect a web page with this information, so you won't have to ask (and be rejected). Forgive me if I don't believe their marketing machine, asking instead for proof.

You cannot extend any open standard on your own, and still claim that you're conforming. For example, the Internet protocols are standardized, and conformance is expected. Some programming languages like C++ are standardized, and not under the control of a single or few companies (unlike Java or the .Net family). You can actually join the development process, submit proposals for enhancements (sure, there are some requirements but if you have something to say you'll be able to).
And anyone, I mean anyone can use Internet protocols or C++ (e.g. to implement its own compiler).

However, four thirds and its micro version appears to be fully controlled by a small group of companies, who are also licensing it to several third parties.
07-19-2014, 08:02 AM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's not what I meant - I was referring to the lack of information. Their marketing says it's an "open standard", yet they won't say what you should do to get the specs, what are the restrictions, prices, nothing. If it's so open, I would expect a web page with this information, so you won't have to ask (and be rejected). Forgive me if I don't believe their marketing machine, asking instead for proof.

You cannot extend any open standard on your own, and still claim that you're conforming. For example, the Internet protocols are standardized, and conformance is expected. Some programming languages like C++ are standardized, and not under the control of a single or few companies (unlike Java or the .Net family). You can actually join the development process, submit proposals for enhancements (sure, there are some requirements but if you have something to say you'll be able to).
And anyone, I mean anyone can use Internet protocols or C++ (e.g. to implement its own compiler).

However, four thirds and its micro version appears to be fully controlled by a small group of companies, who are also licensing it to several third parties.
That's why I said you seem to think that the four thirds consortium is similar to open source software. It isn't. It seems it is controlled by it's membership.

None of that is germane to this thread anyway. It is Ron's proposol/question re a consortium of manufacturers agreeing on a common mount for ff - which I happen to think would be a good thing for consumers in light of my experience with micro four-thirds. And yes, that might even be the e mount, if it is indeed as open as you claim it is.

A common mount for ff milcs - wonderful. What is not to like?

The only remaining question to me would be, what about the dslr, what about the k-mount. Would Ricoh/Pentax commit to the old mount if they went ff or would they restrict the k mount to aps-c? You know my position. I think it would be a real shame if Pentax never released a digital k1000 or mx or lx. A pity and also a missed opportunity as I have detailed elsewhere.
07-19-2014, 09:18 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
That's why I said you seem to think that the four thirds consortium is similar to open source software. It isn't. It seems it is controlled by it's membership.
This assumption is incorrect. I never mentioned open source software, I'm only talking about open standards - and those are very different notions.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
A common mount for ff milcs - wonderful. What is not to like?
That it would be a new mount.
There's a thought, in a corner of my mind, telling me I don't know all the implications. One thing I'm afraid of is if everyone would start competing for the bottom line - cheaper, more, faster; without the compatibility barrier that might happen. Maybe proprietary mounts are what allows them to pursue things that can't be easily marketed, for example lenses which scores a bit lower on test charts but have unique renderings.
I guess it has to do with my job, I'm used to thinking in more detail than usual people. Give me an idea which seems wonderful and I'll ask, what's the trick? And, sadly, most of the times there is a trick.
07-19-2014, 11:24 AM   #42
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's not what I meant - I was referring to the lack of information. Their marketing says it's an "open standard", yet they won't say what you should do to get the specs, what are the restrictions, prices, nothing. If it's so open, I would expect a web page with this information, so you won't have to ask (and be rejected). Forgive me if I don't believe their marketing machine, asking instead for proof.
I forgive you! However the definition of 'open standard' does not require protocol be defined on their webpage. Why don't you call them and ask them for the protocol?
07-19-2014, 02:07 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
Not the protocol, but contact information, anything suggesting that one might actually be involved in this "open standard". Sony has it, and the E-mount is proprietary.

Your claim was that I could personally build a M4/3 camera. I feel no urge to prove or disprove your claim (nor to build a M4/3 camera) - it's you who should call them and tell us what's the answer.
07-19-2014, 02:15 PM   #44
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
This assumption is incorrect. I never mentioned open source software, I'm only talking about open standards - and those are very different notions.
You'll have to pick what definition of 'open standards' you're talking about then, because some are guided by consortium and some have fees associated with them - and they're still considered 'open', because you can buy-in or contribute in ways proprietary standards preclude.

In other words you can't say "it's not an open standard if..." and then add your personal restrictions. You can say "it's an open standard, but different than the W3C," etc.

QuoteQuote:
Maybe proprietary mounts are what allows them to pursue things that can't be easily marketed, for example lenses which scores a bit lower on test charts but have unique renderings.
I really think it's mostly just a lock-in mechanism - if there's less reason for someone to buy your lenses after they buy your body, they might not, and you lose sales, thus the mount is proprietary. Tamron/Sigma/Tokina have either bought into a closed consortium (ie licensed/partnered) or reverse-engineered their way around patents.

QuoteQuote:
I guess it has to do with my job, I'm used to thinking in more detail than usual people.
Usual people.

---------- Post added 07-19-14 at 03:20 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote

Your claim was that I could personally build a M4/3 camera. .
I'm certain you could, if you had the capital/time/talent/staff, and initiated the contacts. It's not quite the same as contributing open software, though, so don't expect the sign-up/evaluation methods to be as easy as saying hello in the bugzilla forums.

Last edited by jsherman999; 07-19-2014 at 02:30 PM.
07-19-2014, 02:56 PM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,681
I only expect a degree of openness, publicly expressed. Not just the marketing claiming it's "open" - that was likely done because it sounds good, and will offer something fanboys (no claims about people present!) would rally around. But who might get in, what it costs and what can be done.

Yes, usual people, those not used to explain how to do things to something that completely lacks common sense i.e. a computer. Attention to detail is a skill you'll have to develop in this job. Unfortunately the spoken languages are a bit vague for it to work fully and reliably 100% of time but still, it helps noticing things and not trusting assumptions.

You mean, if I could open up a company dedicated to building photographic products, and large enough to be accepted by Olympus and Panasonic? That's not what personally means.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, buyers, camera, cameras, claim, company, dslr, ff, frame, full-frame, future, k-mount, kit, leica, lenses, m4/3, m43, pentax, ricoh, software, specs, standards, support
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K2D - new FF from Pentax. Petrus_One Pentax Full Frame 65 04-27-2016 06:40 AM
Another new nikon FF? PBandJ Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 194 11-08-2013 05:25 PM
New FF 'LX-D' rumours... Cambo Pentax News and Rumors 110 10-31-2013 08:25 PM
New Rumor or FF is coming? yasik Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 12-20-2012 05:00 AM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top