The newly published US Patent Application 20130141632 (Click here) discloses a Panasonic adapter with built-in mirror. The main goal is to have phase detection autofocus system. I don’t know if Panasonic is really going to realize and produce this.
For Europeans: Check out [shoplink 22691 ebay]Olympusmarket (Click here)[/shoplink]. They again listed a very large new stock of refurbished Olympus cameras and lenses. Including some nice lenses like the [shoplink 39504 ebay]75mm f/1.8 (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 39501 ebay]45mm f/1.8 (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 39502 ebay]60mm macro (Click here)[/shoplink] and the [shoplink 39503 ebay]9-18mm zoom (Click here)[/shoplink],
19 Responses
The big profit margins are in the sale of lenses as these hold their prices well year after year from date of release.
Why pursue a strategy of supporting 3rd party lenses at the expense of your own with this adapter? Unless you are desperate to sell some extra camera bodies with this?
I would say because mFT is not a closed, turnkey system. It’s open across brands, which is one of the great reasons for it’s appeal. It would be good to see both PAN and OLY making their own speed boost options as well. They aren’t afraid to stand up to their lens option opportunities to their customer base. I’d say that buys as much loyalty and investment reciprocity. More so than forcing your clientele to buy by brand and no other …
Having legacy(lens) support is only a temporary strategy when your new format(m43) is still in its infancy and not yet widely adopted. At this stage you may want legacy support to facilitate a smoother transition from legacy format systems to your new format(m43) system to entice/attract legacy system users to gain a wide(mainstream) adoption for your new format/system.
Open(non propriety) systems are meant to be forward looking to allow new entrants/players with new tech to participate in the format/system to enhance the system. The user is not locked into any brand that is resistant to innovate but can mix and match the best(as defined by the individual) and latest within the system even if it meant getting this from the new players. This is both its promise and appeal.
The appeal of m43 to most early adopters is first and foremost its compactness and ergonomics, then 2nd comes its open system flexibility to mix and match(to personalize your own among many brands). You may differ of course but the survival of the system/format depends more on its ability to innovate, to embrace the new and not to continue to tie itself to the old legacy systems.
Just my 2 cents.
Hello Pana & Oly pls don’t forget but the name is:
M I C R O four thirds !
SO keep everything small, especially the lenses!
They are producing small (for the likes of you), but if they also make provision for larger, many want to adapt. Why then should you be asking them (Oly & Pana) not to make the gear that others are so keen to have?
Despite advances in on-chip PDAF, a mirrored adapter may remain the most efficient method to achieve continuous AF. It will be good to have both methods in the system.
This is the same concept as the Sony A mount to NEX mount adapter that has internal mirror and PDAF sensor:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/819768-REG/Sony_LA_EA2_A_Mount_Lens_to_NEX.html
How can Panasonic get a patent on something that is clearly already on the market? What novel features does their invention have?
This just shows why the whole patenting system is essentially a bullshit.
This is not a patent, just a patent application. It claims a priority date of Feb. 15, 2007, so it is quite possible it has been filed prior to Sony solution. It is also quite apparent that technological solutions take some time to get on the market. Obviously the gyus at Panasonic were working on such an adapter quite long before the first micro4/3 reached the market (which was I believe sometimes in 2009).
I think the patent is more about how the camera communicates through an adapter to the lens, and how it decides if to use contrast AF or phase detection.
The drawing admin posted is just to indicate some of the types of adapter with which the invention could work.
As you probably know, a ‘claim of prior art’ (i.e. pointing out that something already exists) can result in a patent being refused, cancelled etc. – you can’t patent something which is already on the market.
you can see in the available circumstances a few existing types
what Panasonic are proposing isnt an existing type
What is it then? A mirrorless system with a mirror? 😉
Good point. A mirrorless system that has forgotten why it existed in the first place. A mirrorless system with an identity crisis. A mirrorless system you cannot trust to stay viable in the long haul…
It’s a mirrorless system that is providing more flexibility and more options. Adding an adapter to allow additional lenses to be used makes it a more viable option not less viable. The more native and non native gear I can use with any one system the better.
I think Olympus, Sony, Fuji and Panasonic are sensing blood and weakening at Canikon…..
More blood please 🙂
Only smash the egg Canon is an Dynosaur 😛
Aaaah, Jesus! WTF-for?
Two steps forward one step back! :-/
Hopefully, just some department proving themselves useful and filing patents on their half finished work, for polishing their reports.
Sony SLT!!! LOL!