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: Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:48 pm    Post subject: CANON FD: The most stupid mount ever Reply with quote
Sorry to hurt some Canon fans - it's a bit sarcastic statement but nevertheless "very real". The other word would be complicated.

These bayonet mount's have so many parts they are serviceman heaven. Consider few springs, two rows of bearing balls and many different screws. What a joy! But i cannot imagine workers putting this stuff together. Were they some enslaved kids? Canon was really great in other areas to survive such experiment.

I will present my case with photos only if disputed Wink.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: CANON FD: The most stupid mount ever Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Sorry to hurt some Canon fans - it's a bit sarcastic statement but nevertheless "very real". The other word would be complicated.

These bayonet mount's have so many parts they are serviceman heaven. Consider few springs, two rows of bearing balls and many different screws. What a joy! But i cannot imagine workers putting this stuff together. Were they some enslaved kids? Canon was really great in other areas to survive such experiment.

I will present my case with photos only if disputed Wink.


+1
Very silly over complicated mount.
Classic Canon engineering Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dumb as a stone!


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Could be they were made tough to last?


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Over-complicated, possibly, but not the most complicated.

The worst, not a chance.

Argus C3, C4 (Geiss) and C44 are all much worse as far as convenience goes.

All the Deckel-mounts (Kodak Retina Reflex, Retina S, Voigtlander Bessamatic, etc.) are WAY more complicated.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you look at the Canon mount from a historical perspective, it makes a certain amount of sense. The FL lenses had a single pin at the rear, and were uncomplicated. But when Canon went for full aperture reading, it required an additional lever plus index pins. This did complicate things somewhat, which was largely because Canon kept the original breechlock mechanism.

Recall, please, at the time Canon introduced the FD mount (about 1971 wasn't it?) the foolishness that Nikon users had to go through. They had to set their lenses to 5.6, align the index pin with the lens's coupling prong, and rock the aperture ring back and forth -- just to index a lens to a camera. Or did one have to rock the ring with the later Photomic FTn finder only to index? I don't recall exactly anymore. All I know is, when I switched over from Canon to Nikon, I found that the old Nikons were very fiddly compared to the relative ease of the Canon system.

But! The Nikon lenses could be mounted and removed with one hand, which many people saw as a real advantage. So Canon came out with the New FD mount in the late 70s, which simulates a true bayonet in the way it mounts. But in order to accomplish this, yes, the New FD mount is quite complex. But once you've dismantled a few, it's not so bad. And I've dismantled (and "remantled") quite a few.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The mount ..... i can easily forgive them !

The short register distance...NEVER !
Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rusty wrote:
The mount ..... i can easily forgive them !

The short register distance...NEVER !
Twisted Evil


Heh. Ironically, it's the short register distance of the EOS system that makes it so flexible for using lenses from other camera systems.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
and that's what I bought my 40D for, to use other make lenses. I don't own a single Canon lens Very Happy Very Happy


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Could be they were made tough to last?


Unfortunately, this is not the case. I disassembled a 100mm FD, and it has way too many moving parts inside, some of which are only held in place by friction (!). Where a Nikkor has three parts to control aperture (one moving and two fixed), the Canon had about seven, of which three or four were moving. Also, the body of said 100mm FD seems to be made of plastic...


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Could be they were made tough to last?


Also, the body of said 100mm FD seems to be made of plastic...


Like almost all AF lenses these days? Considering that your New FD 100mm is at least 25 years old, I'd have to say that, for a plastic-bodied lens, it would seem to be holding up well. At least, that's been the case with the many New FD lenses I've owned -- and still own.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kind of new to this field. But to me, the mount is ugly but not the worst.....

Just want to say, in ideal world, optics is much more important than which mount it is, if the company consider more on how to do the best job and convenient for the customer, the final design of mount from all the companies should not vary a lot. I know it is business and selling the lens is a big source of income for the company, and nobody want to share the money with others, but I really hate this. 4/3 system is doing the right thing, but not working hard on this. Just wish someday one can pay more attention to the optics but not which stupid mount to choose, as a user I don't care how beautify or ugly the mount is, I just want a mount which is really a mount to take pictures.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Canon has made amends. FD has been dead for almost 25 years and EF/EOS is probably the BEST mount now. Its wide and shallow mount allows for the fastest AF primes and widest variety of MF adaptations of any current mount.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Over-complicated, possibly, but not the most complicated.

The worst, not a chance.

Argus C3, C4 (Geiss) and C44 are all much worse as far as convenience goes.

All the Deckel-mounts (Kodak Retina Reflex, Retina S, Voigtlander Bessamatic, etc.) are WAY more complicated.


+1 here to the Canon FD not be the MOST stupid and complicated. I've disassembled Contaflex, Contarex, Bessamatic and the my F-1's mount, the German's really do take the cake in 'over engineering' or 'overly complex' or 'nonsensical'...(take your pick...)


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Canon has made amends. FD has been dead for almost 25 years and EF/EOS is probably the BEST mount now. Its wide and shallow mount allows for the fastest AF primes and widest variety of MF adaptations of any current mount.


This is my view as well. I was a dedicated Canon user with thousands of $$$ invested in Canon gear when Canon announced their EOS mount. Like a great many other Canon users, I was pissed. But I stuck with Canon FD for several more years. I eventually switched to Nikon just so I could be using a system that was at least as good which I didn't have to worry about the mount being changed. But shortly after beginning to put together a Nikon system, I bought an EOS anyway. Been using EOS for 20 years now. But most importantly, I guess, I've come to realize just how revolutionary the EOS mount is when compared to all its competition.

And as for FD cameras and lenses, well, I never entirely lost my love for them, and have recently begun assembling a FD system that is soon to be as good (and in some ways better) than the one I used to own and love so much. Plus, I still have my Nikon gear. And Pentax. And Olympus. And soon to be Contax (I hope). So it's all good.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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!

That's why I never considered buying Canon EOS lenses, even when I had a Canon 1DS body. I couldn't help thinking Canon will do the same move again one day in the future, leaving those who have heavily invested in Canon lenses with only their eyes to cry, as the short registration distance and proprietary aperture control will prevent these lenses from being used on any other DSLRs!

At least Nikon and Pentax managed to retain some compatibility with their legacy lenses until now.

When I buy a lens, I always choose a model that is fully usable on various camera systems, because I want to be able to use it with any camera that I own or will acquire in the future. I know that I will always be able to use an M42 lens on many actual and future cameras. That is not the case with an EOS lens, with a modern Pentax DA lens, or with a Nikon G lens, because these lenses have no aperture ring and are therefore not usable on vintage cameras or on newer cameras from other makers.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Theoretically there is the sense (the old one) that mount itself doesn't grind against each other - just the lock.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Rusty wrote:
The mount ..... i can easily forgive them !

The short register distance...NEVER !
Twisted Evil


Heh. Ironically, it's the short register distance of the EOS system that makes it so flexible for using lenses from other camera systems.


Sure agreed....What i actually meant was the even shorter register of the fd lenses ,making them useless for adaption onto the eos system

This is probably off topic anyway because we are discussing the fd mount but.. imagine if canon carried the register over from the fd to the eos...and just widened the mount to make space for the " new" electronics and contacts that was needed on the eos lenses .....problem solved

I am all for the shortest register possible, on then new bodies for compatibility to all lenses.... it breaks my heart to have many fd's and almost full set of ar hex that will never ever again see a full frame sensor


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For those who aren't familiar with the FD breech-lock, I pass the following comments.

No, the FD wasn't the "most stupid" lens mount. Over half a century ago, the Canon designers accepted a trade-off between relative complexity and what they perceived as distinct operating advantages. What they produced had a very wide throat which gave their optical designers a great deal of freedom in producing both high speed and long focal length lenses, plus the means to anchor those lenses securely on the body. Those features mattered little with "normal" lenses but were important for "flagship" types that promoted the firm's speciality areas of expertise. As is often the case with a particular design philosophy, this carried some penalty points - certainly in the difficulty of dismounting lenses with only one hand.

Irrespective of its engineering complexity, the system worked - and still works - well. Diaphragm failures were no greater than other types, and the lenses never developed "wobble" on the camera. The later breech-lock lenses have a self-starting facility which actually locks the lens firmly enough to be secure and to operate even when the ring isn't turned fully home.

I don't want to upset anyone here, but we simply can't moan at Canon because they failed to give us a mount and register that could be used on other makers' bodies. Or that they began anew with the EOS fitting whose characteristics again represented what the maker then saw as an optimal philosophy.

Okay, that's my bit of ranting over! My vote for "Most Stupid Mount" actually goes to the Petri collar locking design . . .


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
As is often the case with a particular design philosophy, this carried some penalty points - certainly in the difficulty of dismounting lenses with only one hand.

Irrespective of its engineering complexity, the system worked - and still works - well.


scsambrook, this is exactly what I call overengineering. Canon used a lot of unnecessarily complex moving parts to sustain the original idea. Then they used even more complex parts to overcame some of the disadvantages inherent to the original idea. And then it became so complex they preferred to scrap the whole thing and design a new on from the blank. Note how they completely avoided any moving parts in the mount - no doubt engineers learned the mistakes of FL/FD mounts.

The idea behind FD was good, or seemed good at the time. However, the implementation was, IMO, quite horrific.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rusty wrote:
The mount ..... i can easily forgive them !

The short register distance...NEVER !
Twisted Evil


+1

The mount actually is pretty good. You just need to put the lens to the cam and mount closes automatically. Nice idea.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rusty wrote:

I am all for the shortest register possible, on then new bodies for compatibility to all lenses.... it breaks my heart to have many fd's and almost full set of ar hex that will never ever again see a full frame sensor


Welp, "never" is a very long time. So I avoid using the term.

This is off-topic as well, but all might not be lost. I feel quite certain that all the major players in the digital photo world are working on cameras with electronic viewfinders meant to replace the mirror box -- like that new Samsung. This means a very short registration distance is possible. I've been arguing that, if Canon plans to produce something like this -- and I bet they are -- then it would behoove them to offer an adapter with all necessary electronic contacts such that any EOS lens can mount to the new camera. This way they have breathing room for developing glass for their new system. But what it will also mean is that, with a short registration distance, an FD-to-EOS adapter will at last be possible. And the proper balance in the Universe will be restored at last.

And no, I do not consider this would be some sort of plot dreamed up by the company's marketing execs, any more than I believe that the EOS mount was. I'll bet that the opposite was the case, in fact. The marketing people probably were apoplectic over the idea of alienating their installed base by the introduction of a new mount. But Canon was in a tight place back then. People tend to forget a couple of things: 1) Minolta was cleaning everybody's clocks with their AF technology, and 2) Canon's attempt at AF with the T80 and its pair of lenses was an absolutely dismal failure -- and that was FD mount technology. So, to give credit where it's due, Canon did try AF with it's FD mount.

The fullness of time has justified Canon's decision. Over 20 years later, and it's still the most advanced small-format mount available. And not just because of the all-electronic interface, either. The mount is physically larger than others, which allows for greater flexibility with optical designs -- something that other manufacturers are incapable of doing with their narrower mounts.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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/


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
As is often the case with a particular design philosophy, this carried some penalty points - certainly in the difficulty of dismounting lenses with only one hand.

Irrespective of its engineering complexity, the system worked - and still works - well.


scsambrook," . . . . And then it became so complex they preferred to scrap the whole thing and design a new on from the blank. Note how they completely avoided any moving parts in the mount - no doubt engineers learned the mistakes of FL/FD mounts.

The idea behind FD was good, or seemed good at the time. However, the implementation was, IMO, quite horrific.


With all due respect to aoleg, 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. The introduction of autofocusing systems was a major technological break-point in SLR design which prompted not only Canon but also Minolta and Olympus to re-design their mounting systems. And both those were far less complex than the Canon one.

That Nikon and Pentax chose to stay with the physical parameters of their established sytems was perhaps as much to do with their entry into the autofocus market being reactive as with any perceived virtues in what they already had.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:06 am    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/

Wow!
Just... amazing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2