"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf
wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Really, the *main* stupid thing Sigma did was the development of the
'Sigma' mount. They should simply have picked one of Nikon / Canon /
Pentax.

Not so easy. These manufacturers are under no obligation to share the
technical details of their lens mounts with Sigma.

Sigma already makes lens for those mounts.

Yes, but they reverse-engineer the camera to lens protocol. They often have
problems when a new Canon body comes out because the new body uses features
that were not present in the older Canon bodies that Sigma used during the
reverse engineering process. Genuine Canon lenses, even older ones, will,
except in extremely rare instances, be compatible with newer Canon bodies.
Sigma will, if possible (and for a fee), re-chip their lenses to be
compatible with Canon bodies--this isn't always possible.

Canon may have been willing to license Sigma to make lenses that fit the
Canon mount, but licensing them to do it doesn't mean that they tell them
how to do it. Unlikely that Canon will license their lens mount for a
non-pro camera. They probably licensed Kodak because Canon expect to sell
lenses, which are more profitable than bodies. And since the DCS14/c is
ostensibly a pro camera, Canon isn't worried about lost lens sales to Sigma,
since Sigma doesn't make pro lenses.