How did Nikon pull off the switch to AF?

[bluphoto]

Hi guys. Please don't throw me out - I already feel a bit of an outsider even posting here.

 

As you've probably guessed, I'm a Canon guy, but please don't blame me - they were mostly hand-me-downs.

 

So a few colleagues of mine keep digging at Canon because they apparently "keep changing lens mounts". I

mentioned that last time they did it WAS 21 years ago, and 17 years before that. So I thought I'd check my facts

and it appears that (apart from the laughable T80) I'm pretty much right.

 

I started wondering just WHY Canon changed their lens mount when switching from Manual focus lenses to

Autofocus Lenses (from T or A-Series cameras to EOS cameras) and most of the answers were based around the

inability to create a lens with BOTH mechanical actuation (to work with the older bodies) and electronic actuation (to

work with the EOS bodies.

 

I can see why they did that, as a lens with both mechanical and electronic actuation would mean either one or the

other would always be redundant (ie a T90 couldn't use the electronic aperture control, and an EOS650 couldn't use

the mechanical control, so the lens would be overly complex, heavy, bulky and expensive.

 

Fair enough, I thought, but how did Nikon do it? I figure Nikon lenses were always mechanical, and now they're pretty

much all electronic (aren't they?). I've heard that you can use any old Nikon lens on your new D3 / D300 / D700 - can

you use the lens you got in your D300kit on an old 60's or 70's bodies? Does it physically fit? does it actually work?

 

thanks,

Guy

[daverhaas]

Guy -

 

I think the answer to the main question is their engineers were given a task - make our AF lenses backward compatible and they pulled it off. I'm sure there were compromises and design give and take along the way, but they did it.

 

The second question has, I believe, been answered several times on this form and in other places (www.bythom.com) so I'm not going to go into details, other then to say, yes, it's basically true. For the most part the lenses will all mount and work. There are some features that won't work with certain lens/body combination's and there is one combo that is not recommended (i believe it's pre AI lens...Doesn't apply to me, so I ignore it)

 

Dave

[bluphoto]

So how do new Nikon bodies know what aperture is set on the lens? Do you simply tell it using the aperture control on the body?

 

Are older Nikon lenses stopped down during exposure or metering using some mechanical linkage between the body and lens - so the new bodies have both this lever/linkage as well as electrical connections for the newer lenses?

 

Similarly, can newer lenses be used with a 1970's body, for example? Do the old bodies have an aperture setting? Do the new lenses have an aperture ring? How does that work?

 

thanks

Guy

[fredrik_sandstrom]

Those new Nikon bodies that support non-CPU lenses have a mechanical linkage just like the old cameras, and thus know the aperture. The less expensive bodies (D40/D60/D70/D80) don't have this linkage and do not support metering with old lenses.

 

The linkage for stopping down the lens for exposure is mechanical on both old and new lenses, thus not a problem.

 

New lenses work fine on old cameras EXCEPT the so-called G lenses, ie those that don't have an aperture ring. I think it's safe to assume that all new lenses that Nikon will release will be G, thus breaking compatibility with old bodies badly. There are many non-G lenses that are still in production, though.

[bluphoto]

Oh, okay, thanks...

[rseeton]

One Caveat

 

When you use a digital SLR specific lens or DX format lens on a Film camera, you are more prone to vignetting or dark circular corners on the edges of the frame, because digital SLR's frame is 1.5 times smaller than a standard 35mm film frame.

 

Moving the other way (taking the lense off my Film camera and putting on my DSLR) has not been an issue.

 

Good luck.

[Rene11664880918]

I'm an FD user and what I can say is that the diameter of the FD lenses is really small. There was no much room for the

Canon engineers to add an AF feature in there. I don't think it was impossible but I'm sure it was so much easier just to

come out with a new system. I also think it was much more lucrative since everybody had to buy everything again

otherwise I am sure many FD user would had kept using their old lenses. Until now many people keep asking if there will

ever be a digital retro-body compatible with FD lenses. For sure I'd buy one! Rene'

[bluphoto]

I guess indeed it was more lucrative, but of course on the other hand it must have been a huge risk, as those photographers looking to buy a new body were no longer tied into the Canon system because of the necessity to buy new lenses anyway - this being before the time of proprietary flash systems.

[fullmetalphotograper]

To answer question very painfully. Canon in many ways made the decision that paid off very well for them. The early

Nikon AF lenses and AF Cameras were not the best. To understand the impact of AF realize Nikon was #1 in the

professional market before AF, Canon was #2. When AF was introduced the positions switched, and have been that way

ever since. By changing lens mounts Canon was able ad ultrasonic motors and build fast quite lenses. When Nikon

really turned the corner on AF was when they built the F5. This was the first AF pro film Camera that could more than

compete with Canon's pro film cameras.

 

It had taken several years Nikon's Tech to catch up. Now the lens quality and AF have reached parity. Part of this is do

to the personalities of these companies. Nikon tends to be a more conservative company using more proven solid tech.

Canon is more likely to place cutting edge tech. Nikon is Pro Cameras have rep for being a more solid design reliable

design, but Canon is known for being more flexible in adding the tech. This also due to the fact Canon is a much larger

company than Nikon.

[ShunCheung]

Back around 1990, there was an article in Popular Photography about the mount change. It pointed out that the

Canon FD mount was not a good design and had several drawbacks. (I am not that familar with FD so that I cannot

point out exactly what those drawbacks are, and it has been a long time since I read that article.) Therefore, Canon

essentially had no choice but to change the mount for AF because they could not built on top of a poor foundation.

Nikon, however, simply had too many established customers with F mount lenses to make a change, and for Nikon,

a change wasn't necessary anyway.

 

Now some 20 years later, looking back, I think both companies made good choices to transition to the AF era in the

late 1980's.

[bobatkins]

Canon could have made the EOS mount FD compatible, but decided not to. There were obvious tradeoffs and it must have been a difficult decision (expecially for anyone with a bag of FD lenses). Canon decided that the advantages they could gain by going to an entirely redesigned mount outweighed the advantages to sticking to the FD. Basically it meant they could start out with an entirely electronic system instead of using a mechanical/electronic hybrid as Nikon did. Canon put the AF motor in the lens and had full electronic iris control from day 1, which gave them a competitive advantage over Nikon for quite a few years.

 

BTW, Pentax took the same route as Nikon, with compatibility with their bayonet mount MF lenses. Minolta (now Sony) took the same route as Canon and their AF mount can't accept earlier MD mount lenses.

[steve_swinehart]

The original Canon mount was the FL. Canon changed from the FL to the FD mount in about 1970. The FD was a breach lock mount. In the original incarnation, the lens was placed on the body and a ring on the lens was rotated to lock the lens onto the body. In the second version, the mount was stationary, and the lens was rotated. The FD mount had no provision for electrical interface between the body and the lens.

 

Therefore, it was nearly impossible for Canon to do autofocus and automatic aperture control easily. To solve that problem, they developed the EF mount that allowed focus and aperature to be controlled electrically.

 

Nikon chose the route of lens mount compatibility (sort of) by using the same bayonet mechanism. However, there are incompatibilities with Nikon lenses and bodies. For one example, the lenses of the '60's and '70's had a "fork" on the aperture ring that provided a mechanical coupling between the aperture ring and the camera's meter. When Nikon changed to in-body metering, you had to send your lenses that had the fork metering system into Nikon to be modified so they would be compatible with in-body metering.

 

Likewise, you cannot get a new lens to work the meter on an old Nikon body that requires the fork for an interface. And, then there are a list of lenses that cannot be used on old or new bodies (old lenses on new bodies, new lenses on old bodies) because either lens or mount damage will occur.

[scott_ferris]

I don't think you can argue very convincingly that Nikon took a well planned approach to the issue. It is simply

wrong to say Nikon lenses fit and work on Nikon bodies, as Steve says there are many special issues with various

lenses, metering, aperture control etc that make it all a big mess. I was a big FD user, the earlier version FL

also worked on most FD bodies, I only owned FD bodies but did have some FL lenses. I think Canon (though I hated

them at the time for doing it) took the better route, the writing was on the wall, electronics were the future,

they embraced that and made a new mount that made no compromises and had a large amount of upgrade potential with

in it, it has proven to be a long lasting mount and there is no sign or need for it to change. The most

frustrating part for those of us with good FD lens collections and EF bodies is that they are one of the few

lenses that you can't get decent adapters for! Yep if you have a good old Nikon lens collection the best new camera

for you to use them on is a Canon with an adapter.

 

Take care, Scott.

[lex_jenkins]

Nikon and Canon both took incredible risks in their choices. If you consider certain realities the choices made sense.

 

The Canon FD mount was the best bayonet mount devised, incredibly strong, especially in the breech lock twist ring lenses. There was nothing about the mount design that involved any more optical compromises than are inherent to any 35mm SLR system.

 

But Canon did not have anywhere near the professional base Nikon had in that era. There was little risk of alienating their most prestigious customer base because most working pros such as photojournalists were using Nikon. Canon took a gamble, decided to totally reinvent themselves, and it paid off. It could very well have flopped but it didn't. Marketing genius, something Canon has demonstrated in every decade.

 

Nikon had a huge base of professional photographers. There was no clear indication of a great outcry for autofocus. Read the professional journals of that era. Most pros knew how to manually focus even to capture action. (Nowadays, in comparison, I see self-described "pro" photographers who rely on autofocus for still lifes, studio/commercial work and posed portraits - almost laughable in some ways.) From Nikon's perspective, scrapping the existing lens mount would alienate a huge support base. A gradual modification made sense from their marketing perspective.

 

As it turns out, Canon's savvy in marketing and technology reinvented the market. Canon didn't merely fulfill a demand for AF; they actually *created* the demand. Pros didn't realize they actually wanted, let alone needed, autofocus until it was perfected. Once they recognized the advantages they flocked to Canon.

 

It was a good gamble. The vast majority of complaints that Canon had "abandoned" it's support base came from amateurs, not pros. Amateurs may provide the financial base, but they don't drive the market any more. They *follow* the market, looking to what the pros use for direction regarding their next purchase.