Originally posted by Kunzite 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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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 ---------- Originally posted by Kunzite
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.