[zoolander]

Over the years I've read and seen reviews discussing new lenses and flashes. Some third party lenses will sometimes not auto focus properly on occasion, and similarly some flashes will over expose occasionally.

The theme to these glitches are, that 90% of the time the lens works fine, or the flash works well 90% of the time - 1 in 10 there is a fault.

Now seeing how the camera body can read which brand of lens or flash is on the body, I'm suspicious that all the brands will run software or "algorithms" to cause the 1 in 10 faults.

I remember seeing a review by a pro on YouTube where he was reviewing the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and 9 times out of ten it focused perfectly, but the tenth it was off. So as a professional he did not recommend it and preferred the Nikon or Canon lens because it works perfectly every time. To me, the camera body is creating the auto focus data, and the lens is the slave and it has no sensor to see with.

The million dollar question:

Do the camera manufacturers build into their camera bodies algorithms to cause glitches, as to sabotage the third party manufacturers and make you buy the original equipment ?

[Na Horuk]

I do not believe that is happening. I hope that is not happening. It is a scary thought, and certainly not impossible these days. I trust Pentax, though. I doubt they have the time for such nasty little algorithms. Maybe the bigger brands

Edit: But if this could be proven to be true, it would be a huge argument to go back to mechanical film cameras.

[lister6520]

It is technically very easy for the makers to intentionally cause third party products to underperform and I don't think it is very unlikely to happen. However there are two things against this hypothesis.

1. Third party manufacturers have to rely on reverse engineering because the camera maker does not provide the required technical information. Whenever you reverse engineer something there are bound to be problems, whether it is a camera or an antiaircraft missile. It is actually surprising how well some things work relying on reverse engineering. The biggest problems with cameras and accessories usually occur with a new model camera (or even new firmware) with a lens(or flash) designed before that. The camera manufacture may make changes that are still compatible with its own lenses but would not necessarily remain fully compatible with the third party lenses because the third party manufacturer does not know the full specification and has to guess many things and then just test by trial and error.

2. If ,say, Nikon did such a thing I guess the word would spread that third party lenses don't work too well with Nikon so in practice your choice will be limited to only what Nikon makes. It would probably mean that for some time they sell more lenses because the third party ones sell less but in the long term it would just harm them as more and more people decide not to buy Nikon because of incompatibility with 3rd party lenses.

[jatrax]

Do the camera manufacturers build into their camera bodies algorithms to cause glitches, as to sabotage the third party manufacturers and make you buy the original equipment ?

Tinfoil hat?

[Giklab]

Tinfoil hat?

Why? Smartphone makers include code which detects benchmark software and revs up the CPU and GPU to max whenever a test is being run. This results in noticeably higher scores. I wouldn't at all be surprised if camera makers troll lens manufacturers every now and then.

[jatrax]

I wouldn't at all be surprised if camera makers troll lens manufacturers every now and then.

I would. Stunned and shocked actually.

[sterretje]

Do the camera manufacturers build into their camera bodies algorithms to cause glitches, as to sabotage the third party manufacturers and make you buy the original equipment ?

I have glitches with Pentax lenses on Pentax bodies as well Not to mention that my AF540 on a K5 is also not the most brilliant combination at occasion. I guess that Pentax is testing the theory with their own products first

Third party manufacturers have to rely on reverse engineering because the camera maker does not provide the required technical information.

I doubt they 'have to'; I have the feeling that they do it so they don't have to take a license. I might be wrong though.

[zoolander]

1. Third party manufacturers have to rely on reverse engineering because the camera maker does not provide the required technical information. Whenever you reverse engineer something there are bound to be problems, whether it is a camera or an antiaircraft missile. It is actually surprising how well some things work relying on reverse engineering. The biggest problems with cameras and accessories usually occur with a new model camera (or even new firmware) with a lens(or flash) designed before that. The camera manufacture may make changes that are still compatible with its own lenses but would not necessarily remain fully compatible with the third party lenses because the third party manufacturer does not know the full specification and has to guess many things and then just test by trial and error.

Yes, so my hypothesis is looking plausible. I have a Sigma flash which works fully on older Pentax models, but on my K-5 it does not remote fire.

I believe that third party manufacturers have a right to manufacture their products only they have to pay licensing for making the mounts/connections, plus the manufacturer need to provide firmware for the lens to communicate with the body. Much like the Microsoft Internet explorer anti-trust case:

https://www.boundless.com/economics/oligopoly/conflicts-and-antitrust/case-study-microsoft/

[zoolander]

I have glitches with Pentax lenses on Pentax bodies as well Not to mention that my AF540 on a K5 is also not the most brilliant combination at occasion. I guess that Pentax is testing the theory with their own products first

So I'm thinking that as Pentax and the other camera manufacturers make changes to their firmware - whether to sabotage the third party manufacturers or not - they wind up causing problems for their own products. To which they are liable to correct with firmware updates, but could in fact correct the problems for 3rd party makers.

[zoolander]

Tinfoil hat?

Nice !

But the guy at Sigma who decided to put USB ports on its lenses to facilitate firmware updates may need a tin foil hat too !

I think we're gonna see more USB connectivity on our camera products particularly the third party manufacturers, and perhaps to a lesser extent the body makers.

[G and T]

Its already happening, Nikon's latest firmware updates have disabled 3rd party battery compatibility for several models.
Glenn

[Na Horuk]

Soon our Pentax cameras will lock up if we use a third party lens hood

[Miguel]

I believe that third party manufacturers have a right to manufacture their products only they have to pay licensing for making the mounts/connections, plus the manufacturer need to provide firmware for the lens to communicate with the body. Much like the Microsoft Internet explorer anti-trust case: https://www.boundless.com/economics/...udy-microsoft/

I think your analogy falls apart with the camera market. Microsoft dominated the desktop market and was ultra-aggressive about continuing practices to reinforce that position. There is far greater choice in the DSLR market, so obvious I don't have to list the brands. The camera makers don't have to license their mounts and interfaces. They may--it may be prudent when they may later need a third party to manufacture one of their own branded lenses--but not to all third parties. From what I've read, Sigma totally reverse engineers their lens interfaces. This has created long-term compatibility issues for Canon and Nikon users for some lenses,but certainly not all. My Sigma and Tokina EOS-mount lenses work just fine.

M

[Na Horuk]

Hm, I just remembered that Pentax releases a firmware update when a new lens hits the shelves. Often it says something like "optimized AF" for that specific lens. Thats already a nice advantage. The Pentax lenses get nice lens-specific AF algorithms, while other brands get the (intentionally left) poor "regular" AF.

[zoolander]

I think your analogy falls apart with the camera market. Microsoft dominated the desktop market and was ultra-aggressive about continuing practices to reinforce that position. There is far greater choice in the DSLR market, so obvious I don't have to list the brands. The camera makers don't have to license their mounts and interfaces. They may--it may be prudent when they may later need a third party to manufacture one of their own branded lenses--but not to all third parties. From what I've read, Sigma totally reverse engineers their lens interfaces. This has created long-term compatibility issues for Canon and Nikon users for some lenses,but certainly not all. My Sigma and Tokina EOS-mount lenses work just fine.

Microsoft bundled Internet explorer with windows to shut out the third party browser companies.

Or, Microsoft cannot prohibit another software company from creating software to suit Windows, in fact Windows encourages it and facilitates it with freeware. Much like Apple applications, you can make an app and sell or give it away for free for Iphone. If you sell it Apple takes a 30% cut.

But what I meant refers to third party manufacture of any manufactured good. For instance non OEM car parts. The car manufacturers tried to stop third party manufacturers by invalidating a cars warranty if the owner used third party parts - the courts over turned this.

If the manufacturers had their way, there'd be no third party anything and we'd get gouged by them. Courts and governments want diversity in the economy.

Regarding lens mounts and pins: Pentax would have patented it, which means you cannot make it without paying for a licence from Pentax. Much like in the communist era, Fiat sold licences to the commies to allow them to make Fiat 500's 124's etc.

I've seen similar debates on Pentax forums about Chinese knockoffs such as the cheap unlicensed battery grips for sale on ebay.