December 19, 2014, 08:50:20 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lw

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Addresses the Gray Market
« on: December 17, 2014, 10:32:49 AM »


Grey market items from Asia are a bit different though because they aren't usually UL approved. If a non-approved charger burns down your house, it may nullify your insurance so that's not something I would mess with personally. If however you DO get a genuine Canon charger and battery (which can be difficult to tell) and it is UL approved, it is difficult for Canon to say they won't service the item. Notice in the press release that it says "MAY not be eligible", not WILL not be eligible. Warranty service by Canon USA would be billed back to the factory, so it doesn't cost them anything to fix it AND the fact is that if they are genuine Canon products, they come from the same factory with the same name on it. Canon USA is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Canon Inc. who in the end, has to support their products.

If you have a genuine Canon product and you make enough noise, they should honor the warranty regardless of where you bought it.

BUT Beware of non-approved knockoff batteries and chargers. Those will void your warranty and possibly endanger your life. For me, the risk of saving a couple of hundred bucks isn't worth it. If you are talking about lenses and non-electrical accessories, it is less risky. Personally, I'd rather have local support as well as supporting my local dealers. Go negotiate!

None of my Canon lenses has so far required a battery or charger.  :)
So what is the excuse for making them country specific, or not servicing them in different counties - it can only be to deliberately segment the market to optimize profitability.

2
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Addresses the Gray Market
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:11:00 AM »
So what do Canon recommend the EOS M user does, who has invested in the M system through a proper local Canon authorized dealer only to then find that new components of the system are not offered for sale in their geography?

3
Canon General / Re: Canon USA Addresses the Gray Market
« on: December 17, 2014, 08:58:08 AM »
I am sure the issue is there is a minimum advertise price(MAP) that the authorized dealers in each region must sell the cameras and lenses for if they want to stay as an authorized dealer with Canon. If they try to advertise for a lower price than MAP online without authorization they may be removed as an authorized dealer. .

Setting MAP is actually illegal in the UK and EU due to competition law.

Of course manufacturers might do it under the covers - but it would still be illegal.

As it is, I see no evidence that there is a MAP in play in the UK - market forces seem to be at work, and Amazon seem to be the one who routinely establish the lowest price, and are usually the first ones to drop the price from the 'recommended price' that Canon put in their press release at launch once the lens is actually available.

Just check http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon to see how widely prices can vary from retailer to retailer.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:11:22 AM »
Can you share the link?

You need to go to the Japanese Patent Database, and search on the patent number
http://www4.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/tjsogodben.ipdl?N0000=115

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 09:49:18 AM »
BTW, the patent does cover IS, though I am not exactly sure what it is implying!

[0039]
It may be made to correct image blur when a part of any lens group or lens group is moved so that it may have a vertical component to an optic axis, and a zoom lens vibrates in each working example. According to this, the whole optical system can be prevented from being able to perform vibration control, without newly adding the lens group for optical members, such as a variable vertex angle prism, or vibration control, and being enlarged.


May I ask you where this text comes from? I can't find it :(


The patent filing

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 09:47:53 AM »
Rather pointless pedantry, as 'stock language' like that is present in many Canon lens patents, including some that became EF and L lenses.

some being the operative word  :)

Where is the http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/patent-ef-m-22-46mm-f3-5-5-6/
or http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-ef-m-18-40-pancake/
or http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/patent-16-120mm-f3-5-5-6-is-stm/
or http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/patent-canon-ef-14-f2-8-with-flourite/

all of which are claimed as patents for EF-M lenses

Yet none of the lenses they have released since the EOS M's launch have any corresponding patent filing...
Where is the patent filing for the EF-M 11-22, or EF-M 55-200 ?

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:33:02 AM »
BTW, the patent does cover IS, though I am not exactly sure what it is implying!

[0039]
It may be made to correct image blur when a part of any lens group or lens group is moved so that it may have a vertical component to an optic axis, and a zoom lens vibrates in each working example. According to this, the whole optical system can be prevented from being able to perform vibration control, without newly adding the lens group for optical members, such as a variable vertex angle prism, or vibration control, and being enlarged.

What is meant by "the whole optical system can be prevented from being able to perform vibration control" for example?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:26:27 AM »
The source for the info states that is EF-M. 

No. The source is the patent filling. The patent says nothing about EF-M.

Rumour sites added the EF-M

(sorry for being pedantic.  :)  But until it is a product rumour, not just a patent filing, I am not holding my breath)

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:23:57 AM »

The image height and backfocus distance listed in the patent make it pretty clear it's an EF-M lens.

But to be clear, the Patent says

The present invention is suitably used as an imaging optical system of imaging devices, such as a video camera, a digital still camera, a surveillance camera, a camera for films, and a camera for broadcast, concerning the imaging device which has a zoom lens and it.

It doesn't even say it is for an interchangeable lens camera, yet alone an EF-M mount...

It could be.  But equally, it could not.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:27:17 AM »
People are adding 2 and 2 together and making 5.

This is a patent for the optical design of a lens.  Not a spec for a product.
Hence it isn't that significant that it doesn't appear to have IS.  It is just a patent.

Nor anywhere in the patent does it even mention an EF-M mount or the EOS M system - its just a patent, not a product...

Only the rumour sites are putting 2 and 2 together and deciding it might be an EF-M lens.

It may be true of course - but folks need to remember, its just a patent.  :)

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Co-worker dumps $5k on Nikon
« on: December 09, 2014, 01:24:40 PM »
Have you reported her to the authorities yet for her heinous crime?

12
EOS-M / Re: Found a new gadget for the M
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:25:11 PM »
Here's my review of a 3rd party one
http://eos-m.net/reviews/review-power-to-the-m-mains-power-adaptors-for-eos-m/

Can't say I have found any issues with overheating

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: December 03, 2014, 08:23:25 AM »
For what it's worth, Amazon.it:
1. Nikon D3300 + 18-55 VR
2. Canon 1200D + 18-55 IS
3. Canon 700D (T5i) + 18-55 IS STM
4. Nikon D3200 + 18-105 VR
5. Canon 100D (SL1) + 18-55 IS STM
6. Nikon D3300 + 18-105 VR
7. Nikon D800  :o
8. Canon 70D
9. Canon 600D (T3i) + 18-55 IS
10. Canon 1200D + 18-55 DC

Similar in UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/electronics/14335821/ref=sr_bs_1
12 of the top 20 are Canon

14
Abstract / Re: Silhouettes
« on: November 29, 2014, 05:56:00 AM »
I think this qualifies.

Some LED lights inside a fruit bowl


silhouette-2 by lozwilkes, on Flickr

15
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: November 19, 2014, 08:16:09 PM »

Seems reasonable to me to assume that PDAF that is sensor based and found in more recent Canon DSLRs would also be found in any newer EOS-M - with perhaps even better algorithms behind it to deliver better AF than prior

the 7D Mark II has far more tweaking available to it for PDAF settings, so it's obvious that canon is still actively augmenting it.  it's not the same as the 70D.

From the 7D Mark II literature:

New DAF features include user-selectable adjustments for Movie Servo AF Speed and Movie Servo AF Tracking Sensitivity. Additionally, overall focusing speed, face detection performance, and performance in low light and with low-contrast subjects have been improved over previous Canon models

I would imagine DiGiC 6's increased performance has alot to do with it.

also I believe when ML was doing the EOS-M breakdown, they found out that the liveview framerate was cranked up more than the normal DSLR one (i recall one statement as such from them on that) - and canon even admitted that with the original EOS-M firmware version 2.0 they redid algorithms.

there's nothing stopping canon from cranking up the fps on liveview (which makes contrast detect work quicker) and also continually improving PDAF algorithms.

They didn't do it for their flagship APS-C camera though, so again, why will they do it for a much cheaper M?
Seriously, the new M is going to be a mirrorless beater because it will have some movie AF tweets?
Hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but not expecting anything...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7