Do rival manufacturers buy competitor's products and tear em apart for evaluation??

[Knighthunter]

Ian,
I think you can search it in US Patent Website address if it still available. I think last time I got it from Lynn Farmer's website. Canon did actually the one who invented ring type piezotronic motor for autofocus lens actuator (maybe after adapting Shinsei Kyogo invention). I think they hold the ring type piezotronic motor worldwide patent, Nikon AFS using ring type piezotronic motor like in Canon's USM lenses (refer to Canon and Nikon website).
Pardon me, I tried to search for it but I can't get the address again.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Knighthunter
Ian,
I think you can search it in US Patent Website address if it still available. I think last time I got it from Lynn Farmer's website. Canon did actually the one who invented ring type piezotronic motor for autofocus lens actuator (maybe after adapting Shinsei Kyogo invention). I think they hold the ring type piezotronic motor worldwide patent, Nikon AFS using ring type piezotronic motor like in Canon's USM lenses (refer to Canon and Nikon website).
Pardon me, I tried to search for it but I can't get the address again.

You won't get a disupute here, but what I said was the Canon didn't invent USM technology, which is a fact.

 

[Jed]

Maddog,

It's been pointed out already several times that Nikon first came out with VR. At any rate, Canon first implemented it in its SLR range of lenses, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?

Knighthunter,

Just a few small problems with your theory. For starters, there is no such thing as a worldwide patent. Secondly, patents don't necessarily last 10 years, it depends on where the patent has been filed, and the laws of the country concerned.

All this just serves to cast doubt on the rest of the article and its accuracy.

Your figures are also out. AF-S was introduced in 1996, together with the F5. As Ian has pointed out, AF-I serves as well as AF-S does. Those lenses were introduced in 1992.

This one I'm not sure about and as I'm on the mobile connecting, I can't go and dig, but I suspect the 1986 introduction date of USM as suggested by Knighthunter is also off.

 

[Knighthunter]

Jed,
That's what I can recall from my memory. But I am quite sure first USM lens appears few months after Canon introduce first EOS mount for their new SLR line back in 1987 (not 1986-sorry my memory fail me) refer to http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/history/index.html. Last time in US patent website I found Nikon image stabilization design patent besides the Canon IS. It's true that Nikon has it first, but Canon is the first one who incoporated into SLR lens. I dunno about AF-I until Ian mention about it, but if about AF-S I saw the rough drawing design and it's very similar design with Canon's Ring USM.
I am not historian, I just feel I knew something that I can share.
I stood corrected!

One more fact:
Why Nikon needs years to catch up with USM design? Company as Nikon caliber should able to crack the design for ultrasonic motor in months not years. What prevent them to do it?
My company using Nikon profile projector that can measure until 0.1um accuracy, Nikon also make SEM for wafer fab manufacturing. With these capability I don't think they found difficulty to catch up with C's USM design.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Knighthunter

One more fact:
Why Nikon needs years to catch up with USM design? Company as Nikon caliber should able to crack the design for ultrasonic motor in months not years. What prevent them to do it?
My company using Nikon profile projector that can measure until 0.1um accuracy, Nikon also make SEM for wafer fab manufacturing. With these capability I don't think they found difficulty to catch up with C's USM design.

I'm going to stick my neck out here (no chopping please) with a bit of speculation, based on a couple of observations and some conjecture.

Firstly, I suspect Nikon may have developed a Piezo electric effect motor about the same time as Canon. Now this is conjecture, however there's a one major indicator to this being a real possibility, namely the F4 body released in 1988.

The F4 for those who are reading this and don't know is AF-I/AFS compatible, that is it will power and drive AFI-AFS lenses. However the first AFI lens wasn't introduced until September 1992.

Also it's well known and documented that the old F3AF lenses from 1983 won't communicate with the F4, so the pin outs are incompatible.

Now for some pure conjecture.

My thoughts are that Nikon as previously mentioned may have had a PEM (piezo effect motor) design well advanced when Canon dropped it's little bombshell of USM and it's associated patents.
This would explain the delay between the introduction of the F4 and the first AF-I lens, namely Nikon having to come up with a lens drive technology that was going to be competitive with Canon's USM and yet not infringe any existing patents. Such a redevelopment would not only be expensive, but also very time consuming. It may also account for the fact that only Superteles were AF-I equipped.

Intelligent thoughs and comments welcomed.

 

[xmen1977]

Orginally quoted by kongg

I think they do!!!Do u all???

5 years ago i stripped a D1 into D and 1
now i've assembled them to give a 1D liao

:dent:

 

[mervlam]

Originally posted by xmen1977
Orginally quoted by kongg





5 yrs ago i stripped a D1 into D and 1
now i've assembled them to give a 1D liao

:dent:

/slaps forehead

that's silly!

 

[xmen1977]

 

[Jed]

I certainly agree on the F4 thing.

Patents are a long drawn out thing. Again I've no idea what part of the world we are discussing at the moment, I'm versed only in European patents, but basically there are several steps involved that get a bit messy.

I have no idea why it took Nikon so long to get PEMs into their lenses, only Nikon can answer that.

My own theory is simply because there simply isn't a necessity. I stick to the argument that 99% of the snappers out there, even among professionals, have no real need of PEM driven lenses. Particularly with the shorter lenses where there isn't a great amount of glass to be shunted about, nor are the lenses likely to be used in applications that require PEM lenses.

If the technology was patented then we would have been waiting longer for it to appear in Nikon's lenses. If it was officially licensed by Nikon, then it should have taken less time if they had thought it such an important advance. They could probably have started throwing PEM driven lenses into the fray in the late 80s at the very latest.

Similar position the late entrance of Minolta into this PEM arena. Why not earlier, if [1] it were that important, and [2] it could be licensed?

At the end of the day, we're just discussing ancient history...

 

[Knighthunter]

Hi Jed,
I am agree with you partially. Before Canon EOS system Nikon was the King of SLR. Over the years after the introduction of the EF lenses with USM los of photojournalist and sport photographer using Canon rather than Nikon. I believe these people see the benefit having USM lenses at their arsenal. Nikon lost some of its market to Canon in this area. Now the question, why Nikon had enjoying the sweetness being No.1 willingly to share throne with the new comer? They took years to respond the new challenger. Maybe only Nikon can answer this.

IMHO USM technology (PEM) makes Canon EOS SLR a great success.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Knighthunter
Over the years after the introduction of the EF lenses with USM los of photojournalist and sport photographer using Canon rather than Nikon.

A lot switched over, yes. But the PJ arena was still about evens even after the impact of USM. It was really in sport that there was a mass migration from Nikon to Canon.

As I've already said, there has been a mass migration back to Nikon over the last few years in the sports front, with the D1 series making great inroads into the field. The 1D has helped redress the balance somewhat, but it is definitely still about a 50/50 split at the moment. Some days I spend surrounding by 1Ds and white lenses; the last two days I've spent flanked by cream coloured lens trunks with not a white lens on my side of the goal.

I believe these people see the benefit having USM lenses at their arsenal.

Preaching to the choir.

Now the question, why Nikon had enjoying the sweetness being No.1 willingly to share throne with the new comer? They took years to respond the new challenger. Maybe only Nikon can answer this.

This is exactly what my last post was saying. If they were stopped from responding via patents, then they wouldn't have been able to toss in AF-I lenses as soon as they did.

Same question applies to digital, why did Canon allow itself to get plastered by Nikon for two and a bit years?

These things happen. Every Nikon sports photographer is at the moment cursing their serious disadvantage; but for 2 years they have been the ones doing the laughing.

It swings in roundabouts.

IMHO USM technology (PEM) makes Canon EOS SLR a great success.

I should hope not. USM is hardly necessary to most professionals, let alone amateurs, as I've been bleating about like a mad sheep for ages. Possibly I am a mad sheep which is why no one seems to pay attention. Nice to have, certainly. Necessary for success? Hardly.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, can't resist.

*mehhhhhhhhhhhh*

 

[denizenx]

just wondering, is the USM u guys talking about inclusive of the full time MF? otherwise having a humongous motor in the F5 shd be quite ok for drive right?
this FTMF is available for minolta n nikon?

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Jed

I should hope not. USM is hardly necessary to most professionals, let alone amateurs, as I've been bleating about like a mad sheep for ages. Possibly I am a mad sheep which is why no one seems to pay attention. Nice to have, certainly. Necessary for success? Hardly.

Checks JED with a CJD kit .. no sign of mad sheep syndrome, or mad cow for that matter.

Too true, the way some folks carp on about USM /SWM you'd never think sports or other photography was possible without it, which as we both know is pure rubbish as generations of sports and PJ's will attest. As do the literally millions of shots published using nothing more than fast fingers, SKILL and practice.

 

[Knighthunter]

I am agree...*meehhhhhh...* Don't say I didn't notice you....
Everything is boiling down to one thing "Innovation" not all people need it but lots of people fancy about it. That's the selling point.

 

[jeff chen]

U guys are wrong! Let me tell u one secret, it is not enough just to rip open yr rivals cam and do reverse engineering. With this, u are stuck with yesterday's technology.

As a former super spy, u wanna rip open yr rivals next big project and work furiously to improve on what they are abt to release (ie. still on the drawing blocks).

This is real hard core industrial espionage. One step better against yr rivals' product in the future!

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by jeff chen
U guys are wrong! Let me tell u one secret, it is not enough just to rip open yr rivals cam and do reverse engineering.

Actually I don't think it's much of a secret. It's just that the original question isn't asking that.

Also, it's not as easy as it sounds either, that's why Coke is still Coke and there aren't ripoffs tasting exactly the same floating around.

 

[StreetShooter]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=coke+recipe