> For those who haven't followed the camera world for a while, at this point a lens for a mirrorless camera will have a USB-C port to receive firmware updates.

Besides the slightly interesting stuff Tamron is doing, why on earth would I want firmware updates for a lens? Also, this seems like it would be much more readily accomplished by the camera itself… if you’re doing weird stop motion racking and whatnot, why would you rely on the camera and lens being separate? Seems like kind of a pain to me.

▲

makeitdouble 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The lens is communicating with the camera body, and you might want to adjust for newer bodies supporting more things for instance.

I'm not aware of what exactly is changing, but I've already seen it happen with newer Sony bodies getting released, and an update going to Viltrox lenses to fully support thems.

On the camera and lens being separate...in an ideal world you could ask the camera to do absolutely everything. In practice that's a tough order for a single company.

The bright side is also that you can use a mildly older body while benefiting from a very flexible lens, or have different profiles for different lenses and not have the body care about which lens needs what.

I can't imagine Nikon be bothered to properly operate a software ecosystem TBH.

▲

clnhlzmn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because to control the autofocus motor and other features it makes sense to have a microcontroller in the lens. If you have a microcontroller in the lens you have software in the lens and if you have software in the lens you're going to need to update it.

You could argue that the camera should do firmware updates but the manufacturers for (semi) open mounts like the ones Tamron is making lenses for don't want to have to design a protocol to do updates for third party lenses through the body when the lens manufacturer can just slap a USB port on the lens and call it a day.

The port is also useful for customizing the lens functions. For third party lenses the camera can't be expected to manage those functions.

	▲	kamranjon an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There have been plenty of motorized lenses in the past that relied on the micro-contoller inside the camera body for control. What does having the controller live on the lens permit that the pattern we've used for years doesn't afford?
	▲	Kirby64 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If you have a microcontroller in the lens you have software in the lens and if you have software in the lens you're going to need to update it. No, no you shouldn’t. There’s no reason why a microcontroller should ever need its firmware updated. The only reason why you would need to update the firmware is to add features, which I guess is mildly interesting for the tamron, but like I said… you could handle all extra fancy focusing things in the camera body itself. Just give me a dumb lens that does exactly what the body tells it to do.

▲

BarkMore 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> why on earth would I want firmware updates for a lens?

One reason is to update the lens to work with new camera or new camera firmware.