Sigma's New Glass & Features

Ubuntu_user · 10-05-2012, 04:24 PM

Help—I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, I'm going to shoot [pictures].

rawr · 10-05-2012, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Buschmaster

If someone "hacks" the lens, it would, worst case scenario, not focus correctly, right?

The best answer is: who really knows? An attacker could simply fry the lens for fun and turn it into an optical 'brick'.

But the lens has a chip, the chip has a CPU, the chip has an ability to store data in order to function, the lens has an ability to interface to the 'dock', the dock can interface with a PC, and then the world.

Since the existing chips in Sigma lenses already interface with the camera to tell the camera about focal length and aperture, perhaps the new lenses might also be able to query other data on the camera (GPS info, name of photog) or send instructions to the body. Maybe it could run scripts on the body or read or corrupt or maniplulate data stored in the body.

The mining bitcoins issue is a good iilustrative example. A program can be executed off-line, then dump data upstream (or talk to a command-and-control server to receive new instructions) once a network connection is detected. If over time there are millions of Sigma lenses out there, each with even modest or intermittent spare CPU cycles available, connected to millions of cameras and PC's, that's still a significant resource one could put to use in any number of ways.

When DSLR's get their own IP addresses, connections to Wifi and the web (it's already happening - eg the latest NEX's) not only the bodies themselves, but their whole accessory eco-system will need to be designed with security in mind.

Medium FormatPro · 10-07-2012, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by rawr

When DSLR's get their own IP addresses, connections to Wifi and the web (it's already happening - eg the latest NEX's) not only the bodies themselves, but their whole accessory eco-system will need to be designed with security in mind

Could easily be dealt with with a version of system restore or last known good configuration. Out of all of the computer viruses or issues over the last twenty years - only two have actually been damaging to any computers. All of the many others are more of an inconvenience.

rawr · 10-07-2012, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Medium FormatPro

Out of all of the computer viruses or issues over the last twenty years - only two have actually been damaging to any computers.

Viruses are one thing, being a malware host is another

Winder · 10-07-2012, 08:49 AM

Several lens companies have been doing this for years. The concern over malware infecting my lens is kind of funny. How many programmable wireless mice are there on the market? They could all get hacked... Keyboards??? Welcome to the digital age.

rawr · 10-07-2012, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Winder

They could all get hacked

Perhaps they already are ..., and if it is a wireless keyboard or mouse, it's just too easy.

pingflood · 10-08-2012, 12:02 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rawr

Perhaps they already are ..., and if it is a wireless keyboard or mouse, it's just too easy.

Maybe you can wrap them in some tinfoil from your hat and they'll be safe.

Jonathan Mac · 10-08-2012, 01:29 AM

Sigma have some good ideas and it's about time the user got some better control over AF. These new technologies will only work for lenses with built-in motors, of course, which I'm not a fan of as they drive up cost and introduce a very fragile system that will almost inevitably be the first part of the lens to break through normal use.

rawr · 10-08-2012, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

tinfoil

Ha! I don't need no tinfoil. I have a big titanium plate in my head. And all my clothing has wire mesh woven into it. I'm practically a walking Faraday cage.

pingflood · 10-08-2012, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

Sigma have some good ideas and it's about time the user got some better control over AF. These new technologies will only work for lenses with built-in motors, of course, which I'm not a fan of as they drive up cost and introduce a very fragile system that will almost inevitably be the first part of the lens to break through normal use.

Hah, what? Canon has used built in motors since 1987 and it is very rare that one fails.

rawr · 10-08-2012, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

and it is very rare that one fails.

Oh really and truly (Canon 100-400 IS L - AF motor, Canon 35mm f/1.4 - USM motor... ) ?

pingflood · 10-08-2012, 12:10 PM

Your point being...? A google search (where, incidentally, the vast majority of results in your search do NOT relate to USM failures) tells nothing of how common a failure is. Remember that Canon has produced tens of millions of EF lenses, is a half dozen hits on failed AF motor going to somehow say that failures aren't rare?

The second link goes to a rental place that had 3 AF failures on the 35L with an average time before failure of 110 weeks. These are RENTAL lenses that get shipped around the country and generally handled with far less care than your average lens. Still, average of over two years before any problems. And Roger C. points out:
"Finally, the usual ‘don’t read this and lose your mind‘ call goes out: These are heavily used, frequently shipped lenses. A given lens would have a far lower repair rate owned by someone who uses it on weekends, takes good care of it, and doesn’t ship it around the country."

So, yeah. Go look at any of the big Canon forums and see how many posts you can find about AF motor failures.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-08-2012, 12:37 PM

Well I would like the new Sigma 120-300mm/f2.8 EX DG OS HSM with usb-connection in K-mount. I will sell my 70-200mm for that.

Winder · 10-08-2012, 03:23 PM

I shot Canon for years. 24-70L, 85L, 135L and I never had a problem or remember significant problems being reported by the user base. Pentax and SDM is the first time I have seen any large scale failure. Sigma has had some AF problems in the past, but HSM has been very reliable. Right now I would put Sigma's QC ahead of Pentax on any lens except the 3 FA Limited lenses, but those a simple lenses and should have all the flaws worked out of the design by now.

Verglace · 10-08-2012, 04:10 PM

I agree with the above, built in motors are reliable. I would say about as much as screw driven AF (yes they can fail too).

I purchased a 2nd hand Nikon 28-70 AF-S which was originally purchased back in 1999, it has a built in motor similar to the SDM and has not yet failed more than 10 years later. Just because Pentax has problems with their built in motor does not mean that everyone else has. Pentax has just been unlucky to produce an unreliable design. Lots of people in these forums have become paranoid with built in motors because of Pentax's issues and assume that everyone else has those problems as well. It is understandable but false.

10-05-2012, 04:26 PM	#17
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Buschmaster If someone "hacks" the lens, it would, worst case scenario, not focus correctly, right? The best answer is: who really knows? An attacker could simply fry the lens for fun and turn it into an optical 'brick'. But the lens has a chip, the chip has a CPU, the chip has an ability to store data in order to function, the lens has an ability to interface to the 'dock', the dock can interface with a PC, and then the world. Since the existing chips in Sigma lenses already interface with the camera to tell the camera about focal length and aperture, perhaps the new lenses might also be able to query other data on the camera (GPS info, name of photog) or send instructions to the body. Maybe it could run scripts on the body or read or corrupt or maniplulate data stored in the body. The mining bitcoins issue is a good iilustrative example. A program can be executed off-line, then dump data upstream (or talk to a command-and-control server to receive new instructions) once a network connection is detected. If over time there are millions of Sigma lenses out there, each with even modest or intermittent spare CPU cycles available, connected to millions of cameras and PC's, that's still a significant resource one could put to use in any number of ways. When DSLR's get their own IP addresses, connections to Wifi and the web (it's already happening - eg the latest NEX's) not only the bodies themselves, but their whole accessory eco-system will need to be designed with security in mind. Last edited by rawr; 10-05-2012 at 04:32 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract Portrait & glass	tessfully	Post Your Photos!	12	02-29-2012 04:14 PM
Thoughts on features & firmware	GibbyTheMole	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	09-15-2011 05:01 PM
For Sale - Sold: Super Takumar 28mm f3.5 (first version, big glass) with case & caps	cheekygeek	Sold Items	4	08-04-2010 09:21 AM
Highlighting Features - K-7 & K20D On Pentax (JP) Website	Thorolf	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	01-05-2010 10:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Film LX & MX & Glass	DaddyLuna	Sold Items	5	06-03-2009 02:09 PM

10-05-2012, 04:24 PM	#16
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	Help—I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, I'm going to shoot [pictures].

10-07-2012, 04:32 AM	#18
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Originally posted by rawr When DSLR's get their own IP addresses, connections to Wifi and the web (it's already happening - eg the latest NEX's) not only the bodies themselves, but their whole accessory eco-system will need to be designed with security in mind Could easily be dealt with with a version of system restore or last known good configuration. Out of all of the computer viruses or issues over the last twenty years - only two have actually been damaging to any computers. All of the many others are more of an inconvenience.

10-07-2012, 06:11 AM	#19
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Medium FormatPro Out of all of the computer viruses or issues over the last twenty years - only two have actually been damaging to any computers. Viruses are one thing, being a malware host is another

10-07-2012, 08:49 AM	#20
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Several lens companies have been doing this for years. The concern over malware infecting my lens is kind of funny. How many programmable wireless mice are there on the market? They could all get hacked... Keyboards??? Welcome to the digital age.

10-07-2012, 05:06 PM	#21
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Winder They could all get hacked Perhaps they already are ..., and if it is a wireless keyboard or mouse, it's just too easy.

10-08-2012, 12:02 AM - 1 Like	#22
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by rawr Perhaps they already are ..., and if it is a wireless keyboard or mouse, it's just too easy. Maybe you can wrap them in some tinfoil from your hat and they'll be safe.

10-08-2012, 01:29 AM	#23
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,904	Sigma have some good ideas and it's about time the user got some better control over AF. These new technologies will only work for lenses with built-in motors, of course, which I'm not a fan of as they drive up cost and introduce a very fragile system that will almost inevitably be the first part of the lens to break through normal use.

10-08-2012, 02:16 AM	#24
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by pingflood tinfoil Ha! I don't need no tinfoil. I have a big titanium plate in my head. And all my clothing has wire mesh woven into it. I'm practically a walking Faraday cage.

10-08-2012, 03:46 AM	#25
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac Sigma have some good ideas and it's about time the user got some better control over AF. These new technologies will only work for lenses with built-in motors, of course, which I'm not a fan of as they drive up cost and introduce a very fragile system that will almost inevitably be the first part of the lens to break through normal use. Hah, what? Canon has used built in motors since 1987 and it is very rare that one fails.

10-08-2012, 04:02 AM	#26
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by pingflood and it is very rare that one fails. Oh really and truly (Canon 100-400 IS L - AF motor, Canon 35mm f/1.4 - USM motor... ) ?

10-08-2012, 12:10 PM	#27
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Your point being...? A google search (where, incidentally, the vast majority of results in your search do NOT relate to USM failures) tells nothing of how common a failure is. Remember that Canon has produced tens of millions of EF lenses, is a half dozen hits on failed AF motor going to somehow say that failures aren't rare? The second link goes to a rental place that had 3 AF failures on the 35L with an average time before failure of 110 weeks. These are RENTAL lenses that get shipped around the country and generally handled with far less care than your average lens. Still, average of over two years before any problems. And Roger C. points out: "Finally, the usual ‘don’t read this and lose your mind‘ call goes out: These are heavily used, frequently shipped lenses. A given lens would have a far lower repair rate owned by someone who uses it on weekends, takes good care of it, and doesn’t ship it around the country." So, yeah. Go look at any of the big Canon forums and see how many posts you can find about AF motor failures.

10-08-2012, 12:37 PM	#28
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well I would like the new Sigma 120-300mm/f2.8 EX DG OS HSM with usb-connection in K-mount. I will sell my 70-200mm for that.

10-08-2012, 03:23 PM	#29
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	I shot Canon for years. 24-70L, 85L, 135L and I never had a problem or remember significant problems being reported by the user base. Pentax and SDM is the first time I have seen any large scale failure. Sigma has had some AF problems in the past, but HSM has been very reliable. Right now I would put Sigma's QC ahead of Pentax on any lens except the 3 FA Limited lenses, but those a simple lenses and should have all the flaws worked out of the design by now.

10-08-2012, 04:10 PM	#30
Verglace Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 468	I agree with the above, built in motors are reliable. I would say about as much as screw driven AF (yes they can fail too). I purchased a 2nd hand Nikon 28-70 AF-S which was originally purchased back in 1999, it has a built in motor similar to the SDM and has not yet failed more than 10 years later. Just because Pentax has problems with their built in motor does not mean that everyone else has. Pentax has just been unlucky to produce an unreliable design. Lots of people in these forums have become paranoid with built in motors because of Pentax's issues and assume that everyone else has those problems as well. It is understandable but false.