Was there a camera with a dual lens mount?

<p>I have a vague recollection of reading not too long ago of a camera (medium format I think) that had a kind of

dual lens mount. I think there was a larger outer mount and a smaller recessed inner mount, which allowed lenses

with different mounts to be used on the camera without needing any special adapters. It may have been a Bronica

or Mamiya camera.</p>

 

<p>Is my memory confusing things or did such a camera exist?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for your insight.</p>

<p>Well, the older Bronica system (I don't know what could be a good catch-all name for all this) which comprises of the C, D, S, S2, S2A, EC, EC-TL and EC-TL II (and maybe some more models)....</p>

<p>doesn't exactly have this, but instead it has a removable focusing helicoid. The most typical lenses between 40-200mm all use the same focusing helicoid that's in the body and thus don't have their own helicoids. However for more special lenses, you can remove the helicoid from the body and attach the lens with whatever solution it has for focusing on it's own; or attach one of the different types of bellows that are available.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>FWIW, but not MF, I think Exacta 35mm cameras were like this. Smaller inner bayonet and a wider outer mount. I never used one so I'm not certain of this. </p>

<p>For 35mm sure, there were for example the Contax II/III and their Kiev counterparts, and the Canon 7... and surely some others.</p>

<p>Yep, right on, the Canon 7 also crossed my mind-- wider outer mount (was it breechlock?) to support the big 50/0.95 lens, and of course an M39 mount within. Another camera I've never used.</p>

<p>Don't know about medium format, but the Nikon rangefinders had inner and outer bayonets. The old Mirandas had a bayonet and a screw mount.</p>

<p>Yes, Nikon RF's of course, should have mentioned them... they are, after all, nearly the same as the Contax lens mount.</p>

 

<p>Is it possible you are thinking of the of the Mamiya RB ProSD? I think it has a wider throat to accommodate some specialized lenses but also all other lenses designed for the RB. This isn't precisely a dual mount though in the way you are describing.</p>

<p>The older 6x6 Bronica SLRs would be the dual-mount series that I would think of as well.</p>

<p>The Pentax 6x7 also had inner and outer bayonets; the outer one was for the really heavy telephotos like the 600/4.</p>

<p>"<em>The older 6x6 Bronica SLRs would be the dual-mount series that I would think of as well.</em>"</p>

<p>Actual mount was the same for these, whether Nikkor, Komura, Zenzanon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actual mount was the same for these, whether Nikkor, Komura, Zenzanon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I meant was what Toni described above: the removable focusing helicoid mount. Two separate ways to mount different lenses. </p>

<p>If we include adapters, this widens things up considerably. Leica made an adapter to allow the use of LTM lenses on M cameras, which included cam-focusing retention. Pentax made an M42 adapter for the K-mount cameras when they came out, replacing the M42 cameras. Canon did the same, sort of -- they offered adapters for both M42 and Nikkor lenses to fit their FL breechlock cameras, and possibly more, I don't know. And then later, when the FL mount was superseded by the FD mount, Canon built-in FL mount compatibility into their FD cameras. Yes, the two mounts are physically the same size, but they are definitely two separate mounts. Same as with the Minolta MC and MD mounts and the myriad of mounts offered by Nikon.</p>

<p>As for the two "mounts" with the early Bronica medium format cameras, please recall that the helical stays on the body, while the lenses themselves are interchanged. I suspect the reason why Bronica adopted this system was all about cost control. The mount requires a lot of exacting machining to high tolerances. But with this system, one needs only one mount for one camera. Each lens does not require its own focusing helical, thus there's a tremendous cost savings right there. So, I just don't see the Bronica as being a "two mount" system. Even with a bellows, it will attach to the camera and then the helical will attach to the end of the bellows, right? (I've never owned bellows for one of these cameras, although I did own an EC-TL outfit for years) Seems plausible that the bellows, because they offer their own sort of focusing, strictly do not require a focusing helical. But that isn't a separate mount because the lenses still fit into the same sort of opening as the helical's.</p>

<p>The Pentax 6x7 system (I think Ray suggested it first) is probably what you were thinking of. Most lenses mount via the internal interface of the bayonet ring, while some of the long telephotos use the outer interface.</p>

<p>I agree with Jeff and Ray - the only one that I can think of is the Pentax 6x7. Some of the old Bronicas had interchangeable focusing helicals for different focal lengths and on some of the Nikon branded telephotos there were interchangeable focusing helicals with either the Bronica or Nikon mount. I used to have the 400mm lens for my now sold, EC-TL.</p>

<p>FYI-- Pentax made all of their latest telephoto lenses for the 6x7 (400 and 800 EDIF) with an inner bay mount because there was so much trouble with metering using the outer bay. The change also allowed the new lenses to have an auto diaphragm. The older outer bay Takumars were manual diaphragm.</p>

The Rolleiflex SL66 had twin mounts. The inner mount was the "regular" one, the outer mount allowed many of the

system's lenses to be reverse mounted for macro photography. You had to use manual stop-down when reverse

mounting the lenses, and you had to use the focal-plane shutter on those lenses that had leaf shutters.