Kipon EF to MFT mount alectronic adapter will not be produced.
I have been told that because of possible patent issues the Kipon EF to MFT adapter with full electronic control will not be produced.
Non electronic Kipon adapters are already available on eBay (Click here).
Mister_Roboto
3 months ago |That kind of sucks. Although, I imagine the AF performance would have been terrible.
kesztió
3 months ago |How the hell one is allowed to patent such trivial bullshits like extending 11 pieces of wires?
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
I HATE PATENTS.
TheEye
3 months ago |Nobody can prevent you from building your own adapter for personal use. However, using it, you assume liability for any damage caused by the adapter.
Mr Hipsta
3 months ago |It’s usually possible to pay a little fee, and no patents will be violated.
gl
3 months ago |Pretty sure they’re completely different standards, you don’t just extend wires but have to convert electrics and the electronic protocol, which probably requires a micro-processor and some heavy reverse engineering. Still sucks though.
I guess the camera manufacturers are heavily relying on their lens sales, they probably have a vested interest not to cooperate with adapter makers. That would explain why the m43 standard isn’t open.
JimD
3 months ago |Writing code to make a same actions occur is not a legal problem. Using strings of the original code is.
bushman
3 months ago |@JimD
This is not about copyright, which is what code is covered by. This is about a patent which is about an invention or idea that is “novel and non-obvious”.
gl
3 months ago |I’m afraid that’a correct, software patent can for example cover an algorithm, so that even if you code your own unique version that uses it, you’re still infringing the patent and can be sued.
gl
3 months ago |Actually I see what JimD means in this case. Just reverse-engineering the communication signals and emulating them is probably fine, as reverse engineering for interoperability is often allowed – of course the patent in question may not be about the signals but a specific way to build such a smart adapter. It may also be a dubious patent, but the company doesn’t want to risk having to go to court over it. Hard to know …
JimD
3 months ago |From a “what’s already happening” perspective no one has complained about manual mount adapters. The issue of world standard electronic contacts is also common and not patentable. The issue has to be software. Or there is a part in a patent about addressing motors in a lens, but as this is all signal over wire, it must be software again. Common microelectronics timing and thresholds would not be patentable. Software is a copywrite issue not a patent issue.
I think there is more required for conversion than just connectors and a small conversion interface that can be put into a small space. There are electronics that will require more than just a swap this wire for that. Kipon may not have the ability to make some parts work in a proper or sizeable package, or may be a massive battery drain on the camera.
Patents are just an excuse.
spam
3 months ago |It could also be just a rumor.
JimD
3 months ago |Then it’s in the right place.
digifan
3 months ago |I guess you are right, existing EF lenses have microcomputer to steer diection. Software and a computing unit is needed to make “foreign” lenses comunicate with the camera. Reverse engineering is one of the solutions and putting the tech in adapter is the other. The computing unit and software must be in the adapter because the firmware cannot be changed in camera in Olympus case.
In all Jim, I think you hit the nail on its head.
bushman
3 months ago |+1 from me
The US system being the worst, and being forced on others through various trade agreements.
jim
3 months ago |Me too… just wait untill China just ignors them and makes the stuff we want without artificial constraints…. when that becomes the normal, then the west will have to change the tune
Alex
3 months ago |This really draws attention to an annoyingly bad aspect to the camera industry – the lack of fully-functioning electronic adapters between lens mounts. So it seems the barrier is patent issues. But I thought patents were designed to ensure there is an incentive to innovate and move technology forward? All this does is stop competition and reduce choice!
I hope someone produces one anyway and sticks a finger up to the camera companies.
spam
3 months ago |Metabones still seem confident that they can make one. Why should it be more difficult for Kipon?
zozio32
3 months ago |maybe Metabones has the patent!
Camaman
3 months ago |No but they will charge you more to obtain it for you…
SteB
3 months ago |I wonder if this had anything to do with the notorious non-arrival of the Birger mount? The Redrock Livelens m4/3 to EF adapter isn’t a true electronic adapter. It is essentially a dumb adapter, with a means to control the aperture on Canon EF lenses. I’ve been puzzled as to why there had been no electronic mounts for m4/3. I would have moved to m4/3 a long time ago if there had been. You get the impression that behind the scenes Panasonic and Olympus must have been enforcing this quite heavily. I just bought a Panasonic LX7 to tide me over until the picture becomes a bit clearer. However, I won’t be moving to m4/3 if there is no way of adapting Canon lenses to it. I think this is a huge marketing mistake.
inis16
3 months ago |Patent system is just a nightmare and must be revised heavily.
sneye
3 months ago |The issue of cross-platform compatibility is much more relevant to the NEX system than to m4/3. These days most photographic applications can be easily covered by native m4/3 lenses with faster focus than anything adapted to a NEX camera.
The only omission is fast, long telephotos which are hardly a satisfactory match to those smallish bodies. If one invests in a state of the art 400 or 500mm fast prime it makes much more sense for them to also buy a robust camera to mount it on.
Bob B.
3 months ago |Some things I just do not understand. My EF lenses work incredibly well on my FF Canon camera….why would I want to put them on a smaller camera where they would be physically ungainly perform poorly with an adapter of this type?
Reinhard
3 months ago |I have a 5DII with some lenses and also MFT Eqipment. It would be nice to use the 2.8/200L or the 4/300L as Supertele on my GH3, so an adapter like this would make sense!
JimD
3 months ago |I have a lot of non native lenses I use on 4/3 and m43 but they are all manual, small manual like m mount and original pen, on the larger size OM and adaptalls. I have no intention of using any other brand of auto focus lens. But there again if I had a bundle of them I might be interested in a converter. But I think I would sell them and buy native lenses for whatever body I am using. At present I use Oly, the only possibility of a system change would be to fuji and all my manual lenses would still see service.
A focal reducer yes, an electronics converter? Not for me.
Bob B.
3 months ago |YES!
VanWeddings
3 months ago |this really blows, although personally i’d be more interested in the speed booster anyway. more of a two in one, electronic adapter and reverse teleconverter.
Niko
3 months ago |Habría que revisar el mal uso que las grandes empresas hacen de las patentes. Las utilizan para bloquear el desarrollo de productos, que puedan disminuir sus beneficios, con cero interés actual o futuro en desarrollar ese producto.
Si se demuestra que no hay interés en desarrollar un producto, esa patente deberia quedar derogada o modificadas, a un porcentaje fijo de beneficios.
Las patentes se idearon para incentivar el desarrollo no para evitar que el desarrollo se produzca.
Would have to check the misuse that large companies make patents. They use them to block the development of products that may reduce its benefits, with zero current or future interest in developing that product.
If it is demonstrated that there is interest in developing a product, the patent should be revoked or modified, a fixed percentage of profits.
Patents were designed to encourage the development not to prevent development occurs.
Mike
3 months ago |Of course Canon will prevent the use of EF glass on competing bodies. If not it would kill the sales of EOS M cameras.
Either way I don’t see the big deal. If you want to use L glass on a mirrorless body just get an EOS M. It’s tiny and will work great. I personally don’t see the point of massive lenses on tiny bodies but whatever…
jim
3 months ago |imagine using canon lenses like normal on m43 – a 50mm F1.8 for under £100! – would open a lot of doors!
owczi
3 months ago |We can all moan as much as we want, but it is what it is, that’s the way things work in many industries – for a long time now patents have been used as a means of protecting (or making) profits, not protecting inventors. If you want full EF lens support, go for EOS-M. If you’re doing video, you’re probably happy with all-manual. I personally am happy with my FD lenses.
If you think about it, the phenomenon of being able to freely mix lens and body systems is very much a recent thing (I mean the current scale of it), and largerly spurred by the introduction of mirrorless systems. The abundance of adapters already available, with gems like the speed booster appearing, is a fantastic luxury already.
Reinhard
3 months ago |Half a year ago I was wondering about the electronic Leica adaptor to use Hasselblad lenses on the Leica S, because they stated they had to re-engineer the data protocoll. But Hasselblad did nothing…
Maybe Canon has more money for court trials???
sneye
3 months ago |Hasselblad welcomed that adapter and even stated that it proved the superiority of their lenses over Leica’s. But MF wars are different because the lens/body ownership ratio is much higher there.
The EOS-M’s raison d’être is all those Canon lenses out there. An adapter that can make them fully useable on a different, even superior mirrorless body may harm Canon’s efforts immensely.
Mr. Reeee
3 months ago |Except that using lenses you already own, regardless of which body or system you use shouldn’t matter.
I’ll still take a manual lens over AF any day!
If Canon sells more lenses, who cares
… a lens sale is still a lens sale. Some of the fast L lenses look appealing, even for an old Nikon guy like me.
sneye
3 months ago |Why would you buy a brand new Canon lens for a m4/3 body?
Mr. Reeee
3 months ago |I said they were interesting, NOT that I would actually buy any. I’ve never been a Canon fan.
I prefer my Voigtländer (M4/3, Leica M and Leica L mounts) and Nikon AI-S lenses.
owczi
3 months ago |I suppose this all depends on the vendor’s mentality. I too think it’s a bit petty to enforce body usage like this. If you intend to put EF lenses onto a mirrorless body, it is quite likely that they are not the cheapest types – so you’ve already invested in Canon kit. As to Hasselblad and Leica, I think they are playing on gentlemen’s terms – I don’t think mixing bodies and lenses would disrupt either’s dominance in certain areas
And finally we don’t know, and probably never will know if Kipon did this because they have been contacted by Canon, or because they didn’t want to risk it – most probably the latter.
JimD
3 months ago |Canon and the others cannot prevent any one building an adapter to use a non native lens. The pins cannot be patented they are common. The thing that can be patented is the mechanical and physical method of implementing the motor or whatever systems in the lens. Anyone can write software to drive the lens functions and interact with the body. What they cannot do is copy the original software, in whole or in part.
.
3 months ago |Not sure who this would actually harm?
If Canon objects to the EF/EF-S protocol/mount being used it doesn’t make sense as they would benefit from potential lens sales.
If Panasonic/Olympus objects to the m43 protocol/mount being used to add third party lenses to the system, it doesn’t make sense as they have already allowed a bunch of third party lens manufacturers, adapters etc. It would be a bridge for EF/EF-S users to enter the m43 system, just as many people started with an E-P1 and m-mount adapter.
There must be other undocumented political or cost factors involved here for Kipon.
sneye
3 months ago |Canon has very good reasons to object. Such an adapter would certainly harm the EOS-M sales. In addition, nobody would buy EF/EF-S lenses in order to mount them on a m4/3 body. It just doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Reeee
3 months ago |Harm EOS-M sales? WHAT sales are those?
bushman
3 months ago |I wish Kipon would tell us which patent it is that they risk violating.
spam
3 months ago |Red can already use Canon lenses, Birger have one (althoug not shipping?), Metabone say they are going to make an adapter. And this is a rumor saying Kipon might not make their adapter because of patent issus, seems pretty unlikely to me.
Daan Gray
3 months ago |UTTER DISGRACE FROM SELFISH PEOPLE!!!
JimD
3 months ago |Then why not set up and do it yourself.
bousozoku
3 months ago |It’s always been a problem for third party lens makers to make their lenses work with all Canon bodies, so it shouldn’t be a wonder that an adapter won’t happen. Canon seems to go out of their way to block third parties.
John
3 months ago |Why does the speedbooster not have patent issues?