From: John Navas on
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:08:38 -0800, in <87k4p8twxl.fld(a)apaflo.com>,
floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On 6 Jul 2010 14:46:45 GMT, in <89gtukF852U25(a)mid.individual.net>, ray
>><ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:36:12 -0700, nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> yes i do, and it's even less likely that a company is going to release
>>>> something open source, particularly a camera company where keeping
>>>> secrets from one's competitors is key. there is absolutely no way that
>>>> these companies would ever open source the 'secret sauce.' in some
>>>> cases, they *can't*.
>>>
>>>B.S. What's the value in keeping 'proprietary secrets' that everyone in
>>>the industry already knows? It's not necessary for a company to spend R&D
>>>time on Linux - all they need to do is release the specs and someone will
>>>write it for them - that simple.
>>
>>Cost may be the reason -- formal release of specs inevitably involves
>>cost issues, especially in terms of support.
>
>You meant to say "involves reducing costs"???

Documenting, releasing, and supporting specs *increases* costs.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: SMS on
On 06/07/10 8:41 AM, George Kerby wrote:

> On 7/6/10 10:20 AM, in article o4i636hl30ut0h7kj9veiv67g8cvcnjukm(a)4ax.com,
> "John Navas"<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>> Likewise, FD lenses in my case. When initially deciding carefully on a
>> lens system, I swallowed the Canon hype on the FD lens mount only to
>> have Canon abandon it after I had invested many thousands of dollars in
>> lenses. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
>> Should have gone Nikon. Won't buy another Canon product of any kind.
>
> You're a pig-head. It figures.

The problem in rec.photo.digital is that our favorite troll(s) have a
cursory knowledge (at best) of digital photography (and photography in
general) but they have an almost desperate need to try to convince
others that their personal choice of equipment is the best for everyone.

When those of us that have more experience and knowledge try to
patiently explain the facts they get even more upset, claiming that we
simply don't know how to use their equipment properly.

> We wouldn't have expected anything else.

Ironically, Many older Nikon lenses can't be used on later Nikon bodies,
or they have to be sent in to be modified.

Navas has been complaining about Canon's switch from FD to EOS for
years, if not decades, even back before everyone started kill-filing
him. It's true, Canon made a clean break with the EOS system, but there
were two different FD to EOS adapters sold, and of course FD systems did
not instantly stop functioning when Canon moved to EOS.

There are still good FD to EOS adapters being sold, Bob Atkins has a
good review of one ($125) on his site,
"http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_fd_eos_adapters.html".



From: John Navas on
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:33:10 -0700, in
<4c335abd$0$22112$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

>The problem in rec.photo.digital is that our favorite troll(s) have a
>cursory knowledge (at best) of digital photography (and photography in
>general) but they have an almost desperate need to try to convince
>others that their personal choice of equipment is the best for everyone.

You've described yourself perfectly.

>When those of us that have more experience and knowledge try to
>patiently explain the facts they get even more upset, claiming that we
>simply don't know how to use their equipment properly.

Except you have no experience or knowledge of photography,
so not terribly surprising that you don't show any work.

>Ironically, Many older Nikon lenses can't be used on later Nikon bodies,
>or they have to be sent in to be modified.

Yet again you display your painful lack of knowledge.

>Navas has been complaining about Canon's switch from FD to EOS for
>years, if not decades, even back before everyone started kill-filing
>him. It's true, Canon made a clean break with the EOS system, but there
>were two different FD to EOS adapters sold, and of course FD systems did
>not instantly stop functioning when Canon moved to EOS.

And if you really know anything about it, you would know the adapter
simply doesn't work for the majority of FD lenses. But you just "know"
what you've seen on the Internet, so your glaring errors aren't terribly
surprising.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: nospam on
In article <4c335abd$0$22112$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

> Ironically, Many older Nikon lenses can't be used on later Nikon bodies,
> or they have to be sent in to be modified.

actually very few can't. there are a *lot* more old nikon lenses that
can be used on modern nikon bodies than old canon lenses on modern
canon bodies. the exceptions are typically the obscure lenses few
people have seen, let alone own.

> Navas has been complaining about Canon's switch from FD to EOS for
> years, if not decades, even back before everyone started kill-filing
> him. It's true, Canon made a clean break with the EOS system, but there
> were two different FD to EOS adapters sold, and of course FD systems did
> not instantly stop functioning when Canon moved to EOS.

and neither one worked well. one has an optic and functions as a weak
teleconverter and only works with a few lenses and the other does not
have an optic and precludes infinity focus.
From: ray on
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:32:56 -0700, John Navas wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:08:38 -0800, in <87k4p8twxl.fld(a)apaflo.com>,
> floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>On 6 Jul 2010 14:46:45 GMT, in <89gtukF852U25(a)mid.individual.net>, ray
>>><ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:36:12 -0700, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> yes i do, and it's even less likely that a company is going to
>>>>> release something open source, particularly a camera company where
>>>>> keeping secrets from one's competitors is key. there is absolutely
>>>>> no way that these companies would ever open source the 'secret
>>>>> sauce.' in some cases, they *can't*.
>>>>
>>>>B.S. What's the value in keeping 'proprietary secrets' that everyone
>>>>in the industry already knows? It's not necessary for a company to
>>>>spend R&D time on Linux - all they need to do is release the specs and
>>>>someone will write it for them - that simple.
>>>
>>>Cost may be the reason -- formal release of specs inevitably involves
>>>cost issues, especially in terms of support.
>>
>>You meant to say "involves reducing costs"???
>
> Documenting, releasing, and supporting specs *increases* costs.

Perhaps you could explain that to me. specs HAVE to be documented.
Releasing involves publishing on a web page - for which the return is
less that you have to develop.