On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'm talking software rather than hardware. In the "Microsoftean"
sense.
:)
It's well known that Microsoft has used its inside knowledge of its
operating system to make its own office applications like Word and
Excel
work better in Windows than the competition. Thus the demise (for all
practical purposes) of WordPerfect, Lotus 123, etc. I have little
doubt
that Canon is not above that same kind of tactics with their camera
gear, and using an all-electronic interface between the camera and
lens
makes that easier.
I find this to be a truer reflection on your presuppositions than on
Canon or Microsoft. Having worked with both companies extensively, I
tell you that more incompatibility happens through mistakes, poor
testing and miscommunication than through any intentional pogram of
third party obliteration. Yes, the Microweenies are guilty of having
an advantage in software development that third parties cannot
obtain, but Canon's already-produced lenses cannot change to adapt to
changing bodies, and the control electronics of the lenses are too
simple to be a comparable situation.
Sigma just sucks at reverse engineering and quality control. It's
that simple. Others do far better ... i don't know that Tamron,
Tokina, Vivitar, etc have Canon EOS mount licenses either, yet their
lenses by and large cause far fewer incompatibility complaints.
To quote Occam's Razor:
"Entia non sunt multiplianda praeter necessitatem." ... No more
things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.
Godfrey
