Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

CANON FD: The most stupid mount ever
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  

CANON FD: The most stupid mount ever
Yes, for sure
60%
 60%  [ 41 ]
Not a chance
39%
 39%  [ 27 ]
Total Votes : 68



PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
...what led to the demise of the FD mount wasn't its complexity but the evolution of more sophisticated electronic data transmission systems in cameras and the attendant opportunity to leave behind the complexity (and high labour costs) of the earlier generation of lens mountings and linkages.


Here, here, you said it yourself Smile The FD mount has become overcomplicated with the time. An attempt to load these lenses with autofocus was a miserable failure. It was, indeed, obsolete at the time, and any resource left in the mount was exhausted with added linkages and the spring-loaded mounting system. The mount has become non-extensible. Whereas the Nikon F mount can still be used with modern AF, VR lenses with no problem. Likewise, Pentax K lenses are compatible throughout. Olympus changed its format completely with the introduction of the 4/3 mount; as to Minolta, I simply don't know why they went with the new mount (if anyone has this information, please share in this thread!)


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I simply don't know why they went with the new mount


Maybe it is partly marketing strategy... just like with power connections on mobile phones and ink cartridges with printer and computer hardware connectors etc... As a manufacturer you want people to buy/replace, not to stick for years with one buy.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think it is fare or accurate to say that a mount that was in use for 25 years and thousands of professionals just because they don't fit your DSLR in 2010. Confused

Historically worst mount ever should be Contax N that effectively sank the whole line of most beautiful cameras and lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
...what led to the demise of the FD mount wasn't its complexity but the evolution of more sophisticated electronic data transmission systems in cameras and the attendant opportunity to leave behind the complexity (and high labour costs) of the earlier generation of lens mountings and linkages.


Here, here, you said it yourself Smile The FD mount has become overcomplicated with the time. An attempt to load these lenses with autofocus was a miserable failure. It was, indeed, obsolete at the time, and any resource left in the mount was exhausted with added linkages and the spring-loaded mounting system. The mount has become non-extensible. Whereas the Nikon F mount can still be used with modern AF, VR lenses with no problem. Likewise, Pentax K lenses are compatible throughout. Olympus changed its format completely with the introduction of the 4/3 mount; as to Minolta, I simply don't know why they went with the new mount (if anyone has this information, please share in this thread!)


Now, now, aoleg, please take a moment to read again what I wrote. I think you are misinterpreting what I was saying … but perhaps I failed to make myself clear.

The FD mount became obsolescent in production because the needs of an electronic auto-focusing camera could be better met both technologically and economically by the introduction of a totally new mount. That applied to ALL makers, not just Canon. The FD system worked well with the mechanical cameras it was designed for, and also the electro-mechanical hybrids which Canon subsequently introduced such as the AE1, the A1, the T70 and the T90. When the EOS system was conceived, the decision to incorporate micro-motors within lens each to do the auto-focusing virtually dictated a complete redesign. Those changes included a wider throat to facilitate anticipated developments in lens design.

You ask why Minolta also changed lens mounts … Minolta, like Canon, began research into SLR auto-focusing systems very early. They also recognised that they had an opportunity to build a new, optimised lens/body interface based on electronic rather than mechanical transmission and rather than compromise the commercial prospects of the Dynax system that’s exactly what they did. This was a sensible use of “innovative technology” to provide a new species of camera, unfettered by earlier practices.

Nikon and Pentax, on the other hand, were very much “second movers” in their development of autofocus SLR systems. Given their late starts, they were forced to rely on “incremental technology” to get into the market without a commercially disastrous delay. That both were able to adapt their existing mounting systems was something of a triumph of ingenuity at the price of additional complexity and lost opportunity for greater production (i.e cost) efficiency. Their claim of continuity for the older lenses was something of a necessary marketing ploy which overlooked the actual limits of compatibility. Those of us who were selling cameras in the late 1980s and early 90s will testify that for the vast majority of buyers, the compatibility aspect was largely insignificant. We had rows of MF Nikon and Pentax, as well as Canon and Minolta, lenses to sell when their owners switched to AF models. People bought AF systems because they WANTED auto-focusing.

The current interest in using MF lenses on digital bodies is a recent phenomenon. Neither Nikon nor Pentax set out to deliver continuity of older lenses on their new bodies and it was essentially an accident that they would have cheerfully avoided if they could. The forward-compatibility of older lenses on recent bodies is, in any case, far less complete than you imply - particularly with the Nikon family, so far as I can judge from reading about it.

I’m not flag waving for any maker, just trying to focus attention on the often complex way in which camera systems evolve.
[/quote]


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
JerryMK wrote:
I use a lot of different type of FD (macro) lenses mounted on my Panasonic G1 microfourthird camera. I realy love them! Never mind the mount when the result are amazing Very Happy > http://flickriver.com/photos/elchivato/popular-interesting/

Wow!
Just... amazing.

spectacular indeed !!!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
tkbslc wrote:
I don't know if I would call it "stupid", but obviously it was easier to make a clean break and start the EF mount rather than continue on. That can't have been an easy decision.

I think it has been a easy decision that was dictated by the marketing department rather than by the engineering department. Imagine that: a move destined to force every Canon lens user of the time to replace his or her whole lens collection, because all the FD lenses became instantly obsolete, without even the ability to use an adapter to mount them on the new EOS cameras. What a sweet dream for marketoids!



I don't agree that it was a sneaky marketing decision. If it was, it was a very foolish one. If someone has one of your cameras and a couple lenses, they are very likely to keep buying your products. Once you "force" somebody to buy a whole new kit, they are just as likely to pick another brand - as the rest of your post stated. So I think marketing people are smarter than that and probably weighed the pros and cons of making the best AF system or keeping your legacy users happy. It wasn't a decision about making all their users buy all new gear again, because as I said, that can backfire.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JerryMK wrote:
I use a lot of different type of FD (macro) lenses mounted on my Panasonic G1 microfourthird camera. I realy love them! Never mind the mount when the result are amazing Very Happy > http://flickriver.com/photos/elchivato/popular-interesting/


Your work is very impressive, Jerry!

Care to share any details regarding your photos? I wouldn't mind if you chose to start a thread here showing some of your lens preferences and techniques. Your images are really first rate.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Your work is very impressive, Jerry!

Care to share any details regarding your photos? I wouldn't mind if you chose to start a thread here showing some of your lens preferences and techniques. Your images are really first rate.


Hi Michael, thank you very much. Allthough I like my own work, I realy do not think of myself being first rate... Not even close, I still have so much to learn. I will consider starting a tread but time is my enemy. I my flickr stream you already can find some pictures of my setups.

Regards,
Jerry


PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the canon auto bellow fd and the Tamron Adaptall-2 sp 90 2.5 macro. Trying to use the adptall to fd mount is a pain, aperture stucks very easily, so much that I ordered a adaptall-M42 adpater and a FD-M42 adpter so I can avoid using the fd mount all-together


PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
seta666 wrote:
I have the canon auto bellow fd and the Tamron Adaptall-2 sp 90 2.5 macro. Trying to use the adptall to fd mount is a pain, aperture stucks very easily, so much that I ordered a adaptall-M42 adpater and a FD-M42 adpter so I can avoid using the fd mount all-together


Huh. I used Tamrons with my Canon FD system for years, and never had any problems with them. Nowadays, I've gone back to using Canon FD cameras -- after almost 20 years of Nikon and EOS -- and I use my Tamrons with my Canon FD cameras, and my results are really no different.

The old breechlock mounting method has always been a bit more finicky than other mounting styles, but since it was all I used back in the day, I was used to it. But if M42-FD works well for you, then hey, go for it.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon be nasty and you will get huge business success Laughing

Nikon was fair didn't changed on mount much almost all lenses cameras are compatible or easy to modify them. Fair behavior not a receipt for successful business in today's world.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FD type lenses and camera bodies have worked well and easily for me since the late 1970's. Canon realized I could not afford certain FD lenses, so they set out to get me over the cost barrier by obsoleting the FD mount.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Canon be nasty and you will get huge business success Laughing


I wonder why it's only Canon that gets the grief, and not Minolta?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I wonder why it's only Canon that gets the grief, and not Minolta?

Simply because Minolta has already paid dearly for all its faults: it's not here anymore!

Cheers!

Abbazz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2