canon wouldn't grant Nikon a license to use their lens mount. Sigma and others pay Nikon and canon to use their mounts. Nikon gets a little something and Sigma makes money on cheap lenses versus losing $$ with their own crappy mount.
Would it be Profitable for Nikon to make EOS-mount Nikkors?
(46 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Well why can't Canon make some money of off Nikon? After all, didn't the first Canon use a NIKKOR lens?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah that's right canon cameras use to use Nikon lenses but if canon did grant them a license then their reputation and lens sales would suffer!
Posted 3 years ago # -
What reputation? Oh, yeah, the back focusing issues ;^)
What if Canon got 50% of profits? I mean, Nikon would still be earning, plus they're killing Canon, so would they really care what percentage of the profits Canon got as long as it not unreasonable?
Posted 3 years ago # -
You answered your own question. Nikon would be killing canon and that's why canon wouldn't allow it!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Errr...whatever.
Hold on a minute here! Do the adaptor people have to pay Canon and Nikon to make them?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hmm good question. I don't think so since the adapters don't allow any kind of lens body communication, metering, focus, etc. Perhaps they don't actually make the lens mount but use parts from old lenses and build the adapters from that? Don't know.
By the way I would only recommend you use this adapter even though it cost so much. It's well made.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197094-REG/Novoflex_EOS_NIK_Lens_Mount_Adapter_.html
Posted 3 years ago # -
LOL, then Nikon can do that. Better than the adaptors, but not good enough to have to pay Canon or have people jump ship. Pure profit for Nikon :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
How is the IP of the mount protected? Clearly Nikon's F mount would have an expired patent, but Canon changes theirs more frequently.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes but we are talking about putting an EF/S mount on a Nikon lens and canon would never allow that. God just saying that sounds soooo wrong!
Posted 3 years ago # -
But how can Canon prevent it? They aren't preventing the adaptors, which are almost just as bad.
Posted 3 years ago # -
They WONT license their mount to Nikon!
Posted 3 years ago # -
So you're telling me they're licensing it to the adaptor companies?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Can I just chime in here and mention that this scheme would make Nikkors third-party lenses? I'm just saying...
Posted 3 years ago # -
It would make NIKKORs third party lenses to...Canon. But not to Nikon.
Posted 3 years ago # -
For some reason I thought that would bother you more than it does, alpha. I stand corrected. ;-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Oh, because of what I said about 3rd party lenses before?
NIKKOR lenses are and will continue to be made by Nikon, who also makes my cameras :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
soap said:
How is the IP of the mount protected? Clearly Nikon's F mount would have an expired patent, but Canon changes theirs more frequently.I believe it's protected by patents. Should some other company decode and copy any firmware, it would be a violation of the laws in most countries. It's entirely possible but highly illegal.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hmm, I believe reverse-engineering is generally legal...I believe it's protected by patents. Should some other company decode and copy any firmware, it would be a violation of the laws in most countries. It's entirely possible but highly illegal.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You can reverse-engineer anything. That is legal. However selling the product you just reverse-engineered as your own still doesn't protect you from infringing upon someone else's patent. Something about it has to be "uniquely" your own in order for you to claim a patent on the "cloned" product.
Hey Warprints help us out here? What's the legal mumbo jumbo? I'm sure patent law isn't your thing but what say you legal eagle?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ohhh Warrr-prints, where are you? :^D
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
