brand loyalty

[vuk_vuksanovic]

in terms of camera bodies, i own a pair of leicas, a zorki, a canon, a

contax, a minotla quite and possibly a pentax. of course, i also have

a lens or two to go with each. among this glass is the highly-praised

tamron 90mm macro, which (IMO) has such awful bokeh, that i use it

exclusively for copy work (at which it excels).

 

while at the shop earlier today, i realised the tamron could be

mounted on the little pentax DSLR i'm in the process of reviewing, so

i purchased a K-mount adaptall ring for a piddly $30CDN. now this got

me thinking: how can tamron make their lenses work with just about

any other camera but canon can't figure out how let me use my beloved

50mm FD--their very own child--on any of their DSLRs? i suspect if

there were more purists and less misinformed prosumers, the company

would be dead in the water right now.

 

this isn't just a canon bash, it really applies to all the big

players, but canon seems to be the most guilty.

 

stop the madness ;-)

 

vuk.

[vivek iyer]

You forgot to mention the T-mount lenses.

 

The adaptall works great for manual cameras.

 

With AF, GPS, FEDEX and all that added crap, even Tamron has to make brand specific lenses. A real pity that many of the camera functions are now attached to the lenses

[ray g.]

Vuk,

 

I agree. Along the same lines, I posted a reply a couple of lines down (re Contax distagon) detailing how the Contax Aria can be used with evaluative and spotmetering using M42 lenses with an adapter. With the *ist D, the centerweighted and spot metering patterns are usable. It will even electronically confirm focus. There probably is a reason, but I cannot understand why with EOS and Nikon AF bodies, the options are more limited. A D79 won't even meter with an AI lens.

[ray g.]

that's D70

[mike dixon]

<i>how can tamron make their lenses work with just about any other camera but canon can't figure out how let me use my beloved 50mm FD--their very own child--on any of their DSLRs?</i><P>

You can use FD lenses on EOS bodies--you just lose the ability to focus them at anything but very close distances. Bob Atkins has an explanation of why on his website:<P>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html</a>

[leslie_cheung]

fuck brand loyalty imho;*)

[mike_elek]

When Canon looked into the future, it saw electronics as the way to go. They knew they couldn't do it by adapting the current mount. Well, maybe they could have, but the decided not to do it. And so they moved forward. In the end, it turned out to be a profitable move.

 

Apple Computer did this when it moved from the Apple II to the Mac to the PowerPC. Sometimes, you just have to move ahead without looking back.

[stemked]

Certainly different companies made different choices. When Pentax switched from the 42mm screw mount to the K mount there was a lot a screaming from owners about what would happen to everyone's beloved Spotmatic lenses that were so abundant. So Pentax made it a central focus of their company to back maintain equipment and they have done so with a few notable exceptions (ZX-30/50/60). There has been a price to pay for that of course. Maintaining the smaller lens mount has clearly made it tough for Pentax to match some of the electral marvels of Nikon and Canon like hypersonic motors. If by chance or some really brilliant long term planning Nikon started out with a larger mount and could add the other electronic wonders without having to change the physical with of the lens (mind you you don't have to saw off a lever when going back to an old Pentax ;) ). Both old Minolta and the old Canons had such a small mount that they were going to have to physically change the diameter of the mount to deal with more electronics.

 

Why adaptol works is that the replaceable adaptol works by changing both the diameter and slightly the focal length (the later I believe) to deal with different camera bodies. If Canon or Minolta were to adapt their older bodies to a newer EOS or Maximum mounts I suspect you would have to saw off the end and add a new mount-clearly not a reasonable or affordable route to take.

[fmueller]

Why Canon can't figure out how to let you use your old FD lenses on EOS bodies is pretty obvious. The laws of physics forbid it - at least at infinity focus without glass in the adapter. <a href="http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm">This site</a> explains why, but here it is in a nutshell: </p><i>

 

Canon EOS Register: 44mm<br>

Canon FD Register: 42mm </p>

 

"adaptors have to obey an optical law: the register of the lens system should be LARGER than the camera system. If the register of the lens system is SMALLER, or EQUAL (less than 1mm difference) than the camera system, the adaptor requires an optical element to make infinity focussing possible. Otherwise such an adaptor would act as a macro tube, putting the lens further away from the body than designed! Also, the above non-optics formula only works if the lensmount is a bit smaller than the camera mount.

The extra optical elements are essentially acting as a mild teleconverter; needless to say that this won't improve image quality, nor do you want a teleconverter at all when using wide angle lenses... </p>

 

[...] </p>

 

Many people ask about the possibility of mounting FD lenses on EOS cameras....you can, but not without a large compromise. The following solutions exist:

- Canon high end FD->EOS adaptor: as expensive as the EOS 1.4x, and also contains image degrading optical elements, thereby also acting as a slight (1.26x) teleconverter. Useless with wide angles, and only a real alternative if you already have expensive FD tele's, or can buy one cheap.

- Canon macro FD->EOS adaptor: no lens elements, but you loose infinity focus. Only practical for macro purposes, where infinity focus is not required.

- Aftermarket FD->EOS adaptors: cheap, but contain lens elements, just like the one sold by Canon, and are even worse in optical quality....there are more of these on the market, available for various lens/camera combinations, but all contain these image degrading lens elements. If you want to spoil the good quality of your FD optics, go ahead....;-(( "</i></p>

 

Tamron makes their lenses deliberately with a long register, so that there is plenty of space for adapters to fit them to any camera mount. In order for Canon to allow you to use your old FD lenses on EOS bodies today, they would have to have had the foresight to give the FD lenses a long register back when they designed the FD mount in the 1960. There is nothing they can do now on a DSLR to make it work.

 

Finally, if the FD system used a long register, this would mean you couldn't use other lenses with adapters on FD bodies. That's something Tamron never had to worry about.

[fmueller]

Oh, and BTW, my brand loyalty lies with Minolta ;-)

[vivek iyer]

Though expressed a bit colorfully, I agree with you Leslie.

[peter_phan]

<i>this isn't just a canon bash, it really applies to all the big players, but canon seems to be the most guilty.</i>

<p>

On the other hand, the EOS mount is the most adaptable lens mount currently available. Thanks to the enormous size and short film-to-flange distance of its design, it will accept a very wide variety of other lens systems-- Nikon F, Leica R, Leica Visoflex, Contax/Yashica (RTS), Pentax 42mm Screw Mount, and Olympus OM. Just buy the right adapter of it. You can buy them here at <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm">Cameraquest.</a>

 

 

As for why it won't take FD lenses, it's just pure simple physics, and if they had designed the EOS mount to be able to readily take FD lenses, then it probably would not be able to accept all the other lenses it currently takes. So it's a trade off, not a conspiracy.

<p>

Try any other camera system body and see how many other lens systems they'll take. You'll realize that the most adaptability, let alone any adaptability, the Canon EOS mount is far and away the most adaptable of any of them!

[andrew robertson]

1. It's tough to get together a comprehensive system without picking a brand and sticking

to it, unless you have assloads of completely disposable income.

 

2. Canon's FD mount was even closer to the film plane than the EF mount is. You do the

math. It was almost 20 years ago that they switched, and the benefits of a completely

electronic interface are many. If you look at the kinds of pioneering Canon has done since

they introduced the EOS system, and the hectic scrambling that other companies are

involved in to catch up to them, AND looking at market share, did Canon make a bad

business move? NO! Did they make some folks angry with their move? Sure.

 

3. Nikon is just as guilty with their 'G' type lenses, lenses that don't work on some bodies,

many bodies that seem not to meter with older lenses, etc. Minolta is just as guilty.

[bacsa]

As Leslie said.

 

We are paying well for the equipment we use (well, most of us, at least). Why should we be "loyal"???

[frank granovski]

Good point. That's why I'm always looking for the best bang....

[dan_fromm2]

Hmmm. What's loyalty anyway?

 

In 35 mm SLRs, I started with Nikon. I stick with Nikon because of budget considerations. Replacing my Nikon SLRs and their lenses with anything else won't be cheap. I don't think switching will be worth the cost, so I stay with Nikon. Loyal? No, stuck in a local optimum that's not bad enough to leave for the global optimum. I have no idea what the global optimum is.

 

An alternative to switching from Nikon to something else is buying just and only "another brand" equipment that does something enough better than my Nikons to justify the outlay. But then I'll have to carry more equipment, and that's hard to justify too. So far, the gains from getting a non-Nikon 35 mm SLR and lenses to fit it don't justify the outlay and added pain. Loyal? Not really, just weak of back and not as rich as I'd like to be. Standardization has its charms.

 

My 2x3 kit is a pair of 2x3 Graphics (Speed, Century), a small mountain of lenses, and more roll holders than I need. I use many brands of lenses on my Graphics. Boyer; Elcan; Ilex; Kodak; Konica; Reichert; Schneider; Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson; Tominon; Wollensak; Zeiss. I use three brands of roll holders on the Graphics. I don't have a 2x3 view camera because the Graphics do what I need well enough and because I don't really need movements. Again, carrying two Graphics -- some of my lenses won't work on the Speed, others won't work on the Century, so I need both bodies -- and all those lenses is too much, another camera would be much too much. Loyal? Sort of, to Graflex, but not to lens makers. Standardization has benefits.

 

Now, about bashing Canon. Canon, like Leica, had difficulty developing a viable SLR system. When AF came along, Canon, unlike Nikon, chose to develop a new mount/body system to take what they saw as best advantage of what they'd learned from their struggles with the CanonFlex, FC, and FD mount systems. More power to Canon for learning from experience. Nikon thought things out in advance well enough, or were very very lucky, that they didn't have to make such a radical move. More power to Nikon too.

 

Vuk, there's no stopping technological change. The only thing we poor users can do is choose when to move to new technology. I'm still stuck with pre-AF gear, don't plan to go AF in any significant way -- may replace old Nikons with more modern ones, but not the lenses -- and don't plan to go digital for a while. Its my money. Other people have their reasons for chasing the latest presumably most best. No doubt we're all wrong.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan