Why did Canon change mounts when going to EOS from FD?

[catcher]

I've tried to do some searching on this, but haven't had much luck.

If there's a lot on this on the internet or in these forums that I've

missed, any links would be appreciated.

 

Here's my question: Older FD lenses are completely unusable on EOS

cameras (with the exception of some adaptors). I'm wondering what it

was about the old FD mounts that was restrictive enough to make Canon

decided to change mounts when moving to EOS with the result that

older FD lenses are unusable on new EOS cameras. Was it something

physical or mechanical about the mount? Was there an engineering

reason? I can't imagine that it was pure marketing. Maybe I'm wrong,

but it would have seemed from a marketing perspective to be better to

make sure the newer bodies were compatible with older lenses, even if

the newer lenses might not be compatible with older bodies. On some

other cameras (like Nikon) older lense are still useable on newer

bodies, albeit with some loss of functionality. Why did Canon not go

this route?

 

Thanks.

[michael_peters1]

Canon was looking to the future - and knew that the future was electronic. By completely changing the mount and going to an electronic interface between body and lens, they were able to have the most compatable lens system the electronic age has seen.

 

Look at Nikon - they kept the same mount, but some lenses don't work properly with some bodies.

 

Also - going all electronic made it trivial for them to corner the consumer SLR market with cameras that do everything for the user - the PIC modes etc.

 

It was hated at the time because a lot of people had a lot of FD glass - but it was the right thing to do.

[ronald_smith2]

For one, the EF mount size is quite a bit bigger. Other reasons include the fact Canon wanted to do away with the traditional mechanical aperture ring, and optimize the new system for the fastest possible AF speed and could add such wonderful features as USM focusing and IS; I don't think these things would have been possible with the older, FD mount.

 

Ever have an FD lens leak oil over the blades? This happened to me, twice, so I don't miss the old-fashioned mechanical diaphragm. I, too, was a bit upset in 1987 when Canon announced their new EOS system, but got over that after the purchase of five EF lenses.......

[bobatkins]

They also made it bigger so that it would allow lenses like the 50/1.0L to be mounted without vignetting the image. Of course they dropped the 50/1.0L from the lens lineup some time ago...

 

They could probably have made a compatible electronic mount if they'd really wanted to, but I assume they didn't really want to.

 

I wouldn't bet that it would have helped sales to keep the older mount. Though they probably lost some customers who had older FD lenses, they also sold new lenses to all their new customers. The old customers either had to buy new lenses or switch to Nikon - and in that case they'd still have to buy all new lenses so they'd be no better off! You make more money selling lenses than you make selling cameras.

[gerry_szarek]

The other reason for changing the mount was to get the lens mount further from the film plane (helps in the optical design) along with increasing the diameter of the mount which helps make lenses easier to design.

 

FYI, the 50 F1.0 was just dropped at the beginning of the year, it was however a special order. On a side note, you can buy a Leica M6 or used M7 and a 50mm F1.0 for less than the canon lens alone.

 

Gerry

[PuppyDigs]

"On a side note, you can buy a Leica M6 or used M7 and a 50mm F1.0 for less than the canon lens alone."

 

I saw a used EF 50 1.0L USM on consignment last Summer for $1100 at Supersave Camera in Honolulu. At the time new ones were $2500. After struggling all night, I went back the next day to buy it and it was gone!

[eos 10 fan]

A bit of history <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/history/canon_story/1987_1991/1987_1991_story.html">here</a>.<br>

Read the 'The EF-Series Lens Designed for the "EOS"

' part. <p>--

[eric bond]

Another reason Canon changed the mount, and it would be hard to ignore, is newly-generated sales. Change the mount, increase the need for people to buy new glass and not keep using the same lenses. I'm sure that the EF mount will not be around for forever and will have compelling reasons to be upgraded, not the least of which will be new glass sales.

[michael_peters1]

"Another reason Canon changed the mount, and it would be hard to ignore, is newly-generated sales. Change the mount, increase the need for people to buy new glass and not keep using the same lenses."

 

But the way did it - they guarantee any EF lens will be fully functional on any EOS body - Nikon has the same mount, but you may have to end up buying lenses anyway or having some features that only work on some bodies. This is why, I think (I don't know), that Nikon lenses are a lot easier to find on used market than EF lenses. You buy a new EOS body and there is no problem using the lenses you already have, no need to trade them in.

[duane_kucheran]

Canon's FD/FL/R breech lock mount dates back to 1959. Except for one or two east german manufacturers every other lens mount has been screw or bayonet. Canon claimed that the breech lock didn't wear as much because the lens went straight on and was then clamped with an external ring. The register surfaces didn't slide on each other and thus didn't wear. It's a terrifically strong mount as well and the lenses fairly simple & robust. The problem was that people had problems changing lenses & sometimes forgot to tighten the lens as there was no positive stop and lock.

 

In '79 or so Canon revised the FD into the bayonet new FD mount which was easier to change but to make the aperture mechanism work they needed an insanely complicated set of interlocking rings. Also, due to the new pieces added a lot of the structure was removed making the lens mounts much weaker & more fragile. Many 28-85 lenses have broken just ahead of the actual mount where 3 skinny plastic legs form the structure.

 

Canon was able to sneak a few contacts into the mount for the AC autofocus lenses but I don't think there was much room for anything other than a few small wires. I really doubt there'd be room for an AF drive shaft like Nikon/Pentax/Minolta. To make room for all that stuff would require backing up to the previous revision of the mount which would be seen as a marketing blunder. It would have been technically good as they could have used more robust & self cleaning pin & socket connectors and the AF driveshaft wouldn't have to be retracted when the lens was removed.

 

As an aside, Rollei went to a completely electronic lens interface when they went to the SLX/6000 series cameras. These were completely incompatible with the previous SL66 lenses, except for the filter mount.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When in Japan; I heard another reason for the EOS mount. It was made bigger; so there is less stress on a plastic lens mount; plastic lens bayonet. The target was low cost; low weight rebels; for starter slrs. A larger diameter mount allows alot more robust plastic mount and plastic lens bayonet. Of course it allows more room for contacts; and the other good stuff mentioned already. I heard this while visting Kyocera. They had a autofocus camera that moved the film plane. They are huge in ceramics.<BR><BR>

[umd]

For only one thing, Japanese monopoly make more money. In a market with "real" cut throat competition (eg. cars) such a bold move would definitely kill a competitor, unfortunately camera market is not one of them and artificial obsolescence has been a dominant sales practice for a while.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Duane says it best with the most facts.

<BR>In my own opinion the FD mount had got so stupidly complicated alone that they really had zero choice but to abandon it<BR>One marketing statement that is often echoed is the 'fact' that the FD mount is impervious to wear.This is stupid of course!How much does a lensmount wear??And what happens when it does?-the lensmount springs take up the slack and the lens sits microscopically closer to the camera.So little that one just wouldn't ever notice.

 

 

<P>"The other reason for changing the mount was to get the lens mount further from the film plane (helps in the optical design) "

<BR>This is false.CLOSER is what helps with wide lenses.Tele lenses don't care

 

<P>"along with increasing the diameter of the mount which helps make lenses easier to design. "

<BR>Yes,some types of lenses are easier to design.Not impossible though

 

<P>For those saying canon did it simply for marketing reasons -to sell more lenses-...just think about how canon's exec's must have felt at the time knowing that they might lose masses of customers to other brands.......

[frank_skomial]

RE: "Look at Nikon - they kept the same mount, but some lenses don't work properly with some bodies."

 

All Nikon lenses work on new Nikon camera bodies, but within the original lens limitations. You cannot expect a new camera feature to work on an old lens that never had that feature. Yet some older lenses can be retro-fit by installing the CPU chip in them.

 

Look at Canon - Canon FD lenses do not work on new Canon bodies at all. I had to dump all my Canon FD lenses and still remember the pain of doing this.

 

In addition to all reasons mentioned above, one more reason why Canon changed the mount: they wanted you to buy a new set of lenses, again, as the sale of lenses was not that great at that time.

 

Canon did it to you once and they can do it to you againg, so be careful how many Canon lenses you acquire, as they may become obsolete, again.

[bobatkins]

"<em>Canon did it to you once and they can do it to you again, so be careful how many Canon lenses you acquire, as they may become obsolete, again."</em>

<p>

True, but then again there's nothing to stop Nikon biting the bullet and changing their lens mount either. In fact there's more reason for Nikon to do it than for Canon to! The sky may fall tomorrow, be warned, it could happen.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Interesting subject.

<BR>I can't at the moment see any reason whay canon should change in the future.Some say the EF-s could take over.Possible but very unlikely.Even if they stick with the 1.6 crop sensor size forever there's still the issue of wanting all or most lenses to be usable on the full frame upper model bodies.

<BR>Then there is the likelyhood of in camera image stabilization.The current full frame EF lenses will have the perfect sized image circle for 1.6 crop sensor IS use

[michael_peters1]

EF-S is most certainly not going to take over.

EF-S is really just EF mount - but the lens can interfere with the mirror on some EOS models so an extra piece was put there so that it would only fit the drebel (unless you use a hacksaw ...)

[lawrence_lee_huber]

I am reading these responses with great humor from the Oct 2023 perspective. 

Canon made a brilliant move going to the EF mount and thus pretty much made Nikon irrelevant today, a distant third .

Now we see the RF mount has come but all your EF lenses back to 1987 are still 100% compatible where Nikon sticking with the F mount way beyond expiration date had to make totally obsolete nearly 70% of all F mount lenses and those 30% are marginal on the Z mount. 

PS, I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses on my RF mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS.

Thank you Canon.

[ilkka_nissila]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:17 AM, lawrence_lee_huber said:

I am reading these responses with great humor from the Oct 2023 perspective. 

Canon made a brilliant move going to the EF mount and thus pretty much made Nikon irrelevant today, a distant third .

Now we see the RF mount has come but all your EF lenses back to 1987 are still 100% compatible where Nikon sticking with the F mount way beyond expiration date had to make totally obsolete nearly 70% of all F mount lenses and those 30% are marginal on the Z mount. 

PS, I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses on my RF mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS.

Sorry for entering the discussion on a Canon sub-forum, but when there is obvious false information posted it is better to correct it rather than let gullible people believe it unquestioned.

While Canon did achieve success with the EF mount, your claims about F-mount lenses being obsolete and somehow "marginal on the Z mount" are not reflecting the facts in any way. While there are some F-mount lenses that don't autofocus, for example, on Z mount cameras (due to the lack of focus motor in the lens), most reasonably modern F-mount lenses work very well on the higher-end Z cameras such as Z8 and Z9. The first-generation Z bodies gave an autofocus experience which was lacking mainly because of inadequate processing power in the camera body, so the camera couldn't keeep up with fast-moving subjects, but the Expeed 7 processor (used in Z8, Z9 and Zf so far) makes them work pretty much the same as native Z lenses. I shot indoor sports with F-mount lenses and mostly these lenses AF excellently. What AF issues there are, are due to the camera's subject detection sometimes finding spectator faces and focusing on them at those times where the athlete's backs are towards the camera; this is largely a programming issue, I believe, and I'm sure they'll figure it out as some other manufacturers have; the camera has to simply keep recognizing the subject when the face is turned away. However, this issue has nothing to do with the lens mount and is a subject-recognition issue. And because Nikon uses a shorter flange distance and wider mount than other mirrorless camera systems, one can adopt the other lenses to Nikon Z cameras if you're fine with that experience.

Nikon was very successful in the early digital era and mostly their current reduced market share has to do with slow adoptation of video technology into their cameras, and some mistakes in product launches (with the initially unreliable Snapbridge mobile app, etc.). Canon and Sony have a long history of making video cameras and so they had an advantage over Nikon especially in the early phase of DSLR and mirrorless video, but again Nikon seems to be catching up and most Z lenses have minimal focus breathing, maintain their focal length very well during zooming, and also the focus is maintained electronically and one can adjust the speed of manual focus rings so the experience of using these products for video is quite good.

If you try a first-generation consumer Z camera then you may indeed find the autofocus experience lacking for some tasks, but again the issue is not so much to do with F-mount but simply that Nikon continued to develop DSLR autofocus for a long time while mirrorless camera (and live view in DSLR) autofocus development seemed to take a back seat. One can readily criticize Nikon for that decision, but it has nothing to do with not abandoning F-mount in the 1980s. As a Z8 user I find all my F-mount lenses to work fine on the Z and in some ways they work better than on DSLRs (more accurate autofocus at very close and very long distances, greater consistency of focusing, silent photography without significant rolling shutter, and and much better image stabilization afforded by the combination of in-camera and in-lens VR technologies where Nikon seems to be the leader currently, even according to some Canon-using wildlife photographers).

What's more, some F-mount lenses can be purchased at low prices on the second-hand market because a lot of people made the mistaken assumption that the lens was somehow at fault for the less satisfactory early AF experience with the first Z cameras.

Canon deserves credit for being the technology leader in the early 1990s and bringing fast autofocus technology to cameras for the first time. However, one would think the no doubt happy users of this technology would not need to came up with  inaccurate claims about other brands' products and post them to publicly readable forums. Many of us Nikon users are mixing new Z-mount and older F-mount lenses and shoot demanding subjects (such as wildlife and indoor sports) successfully and the adapter experience is transparent on the higher-end cameras, even though there are advantages to the newer lenses (such as silent AF motors and optical advantages over older designs).

Edited November 3, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[ajkocu]

On 10/28/2023 at 8:17 PM, lawrence_lee_huber said:

I am reading these responses with great humor from the Oct 2023 perspective. 

Canon made a brilliant move going to the EF mount and thus pretty much made Nikon irrelevant today, a distant third .

Now we see the RF mount has come but all your EF lenses back to 1987 are still 100% compatible where Nikon sticking with the F mount way beyond expiration date had to make totally obsolete nearly 70% of all F mount lenses and those 30% are marginal on the Z mount. 

PS, I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses on my RF mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS.

Thank you Canon.

Have you found a good FD to RF lens adapter? I looked in my camera bag of FD lenses and the only lens I'd like to use on my R7 is a Tokina 500mm mirror lens; my other FD lenses I have covered by EF lenses.

[bravin_neff]

"PS, I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses on my RF mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS."

Funny. I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses, AI, AIS and EF (yes, canon EF) on my Z mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS.

 

Edited January 19 by bravin_neff

[ajkocu]

For those following this thread, I bought a Metabones FD to RF adapter and am happy with its functionality. You have to set Custom Settings to enable shutter release without a lens. 

[hjoseph7]

Despite Canon owning 50% of the camera market, they still lag Nikon when it come to Professional cameras. Not by much I think it's 28% to 20%, or something like that ? I purchased a used older model Nikon diigital camera(D7000)  a few years ago, just so I could use my extensive collection of Manual Nikkor lenses. Most of my Nikkor lenses are AIs with a few being  just AI, so they work perfectly on my D7000. Older lenses don't fare that well. Nikon also incorporated a Range-Finder on some of their cameras, to make it easier to focus since most digital cameras don't have a split viewfinder focusing screen.

[JDMvW]

Who knows?

 

As noted, at the time there were claims that the diameter of the old mount (and the NIkon F, as well) was too small for all the carp they needed to pack in. That seems to be a canard.