retrofocus wrote:
C'on even in the 80s it would have been technically possible for Canon to find an adaptation for old FD lenses with the new EF mount. I am convinced that this was done just for marketing reasons and to enforce sales of new EF lenses
Well, Canon did provide an adapter for old FD lenses to professionals. The problem of course was the prong that stuck out from the back of the FD lenses that made them physically incompatible with the EOS cameras. Hence the adapter which was a 1.1x teleconverter to obtain the necessary distance.
Prongs were 60s / 70s technology which Canon wisely abandoned as obsolete while Nikon clung to it.
@retrofocus: I did not mean to imply that backwards lens compatibility was a bad thing, au contrair. I just said the Nikon system was caught in limitations Nikon engineers accepted as preconditions for their innovation. Nikon's first AF system was, just like Canon's T80 system, designed with backwards compatibility of the old system in mind. When Canon understood the limitations of that they implemented their direct drive AF technology in the new EF mount. They chose to build the widest mount of that time to have the possibility to adapt lenses with a larger back lens element for fast lenses. This was typically for the way of thinking about lens design then, when 85/1.2 and 50/1.0 were seen as top lenses. Also Canon designed their camera bodies with a relatively short back mount distance. As a result today, like others mentioned above, a lot alt lenses fit to Canon bodies very well with an adapter. The Nikon mount for instance, until today compatible with old Nikkor glass, but it's is too small to accept some alt brands with an adapter.
The EOS system has proven to be very succesful and hardly had fundamental changes in it's design. Even a side step to the IX type film bodies had the same EF mount. The biggest change during it's life cycle has been the EF-S line of lenses, that fit to cameras with crop body and have mechanical protection to unintended trials to mount them on a full frame EOS body. The transition to digital has been made swift, for a great part thanks to good engineering in the end of 80-ies to design a future proof system setup. Today, a fundamental revision of the EOS system has become urgent. The rise of the mirrorless camera is going rapidly. As soon as more manufacturers are following the road Sony went with their NEX system, that is: mirrorless with big sensors, Canon is gonna be in trouble. Mirrorless cameras are not just nice for their compact design. They are first and most important much more easily produced, bringing better profitability. Second, the lack of a mirror box creates new opportunities for camera designers. A shorter backmount distance from lensmount to sensor gives better possibilities for new lens designs. New sensor technologies and optical systems to lead the light through a black box that converts light to electronic data is a great opening for new innovations. Imagine smaller, and I mean much smaller, lens camera combinations with better performance than our top models of today. Imagine new, or forgotten ergonomics. Imagine better integration of Electronic and Optical systems than ever before. Before-RAW-processing of lens abberrations. No more distortion, APO chromatic correction of lenses, in body autofocus and after the shot defined depth of field. This is the challenge for Canon. They had a vision when they introduced their EOS cameras. The road is still open, but they need to get awake that a leading position in the market doesn't mean they can sleep and wait. The next steps need to be bigger ones than we have lately seen, else EOSfun will rapidly make place for other kinds of photofun for the mass of DSLR buyers.
I recall in 1990 shooting with my Nikon 8008s and Nikkor 180 2.8 ED AF. Beatiful optic but AF performance was terrible. The little screw driver thingie that drove lens focus was slow and loud. It actually sounded like a robot and kicked when it stopped! I tried an EOS 10S with EF 200 2.8L USM: focus ripped and was silent. I quickly sold my Nikon gear and switched to Canon. The 10S was plasticy but sure focused fast and accurately compared to the 8008s. That cross AF point in the 10S made a huge difference. It took nearly a decade for Nikon To put AF motors in most of their lenses and catch up to EOS performance.
I've been using the micro 4/3 system for P&S for some time and must say that the small size of the cameras are also a big disadvantage. Sure , it is great with a pancake prime but really sucks with larger zooms and gets me to reach for my EOS most of the time.
It took nearly a decade for Nikon To put AF motors in most of their lenses and catch up to EOS performance.
As much as I admired Nikons solution of the screw driven AF from the body, it was also cost effective since the lenses had no AF related components but the screw driving mechanism to the barrel, it was clear from the beginning that this system would never be fast enough to keep up with Minolta and Canon's AF system. To be clear about these system differences, this was not just a matter of the engineering philosophy to stay backwards compatible, but also related to patents. Minolta and Canon owned the most important AF related patents at the end of the 80-ies until the end of the 90-ies. This patent assets have been a great fundament for the EOSfun of our cameras until today.
Monito wrote:
By the way, Nikkor lenses fit on Canons with an adapter, but not the other way around.
Yeah, with stop-down metering...
Btw I fail to see the relevance, Sony Nex bodies allow even rangefinder lenses, is it enough to consider it a better system than Canon?
It's a fact that with most serious Nikon bodies there were (and are) practically no issues with almost all F-lenses of the last 30 years. Try that with Canon. You are stuck with their own Eos lenses (some of which has dead internal AF motors, like a couple of old 28-80/2.8-4L USM I tried) or, well... with manual lenses by other brands via an adapter, go figure...
That is not to say that I don't prefer shooting with Canon, indeed I do and I also enjoy using some other brand lenses Leitaxed (which is due to Eos short flange focal distance, not because of some wise vision by Canon back in '87... indeed FD mount ffd was equally short), but this has nothing to do with their fool decision to abandon the compatibility with their own FD mount.
Nikon weren't smart when they decided to put the AF motor in the body, but Canon could have developped the new Eos system while maintaing compatibility with their old manual lenses, just like Nikon did with the introduction of G-lenses and post F4 bodies.
The short EOS flange distance was a concious decision and wisely so. It was not chance!
The 60s FD technology had the big lever sticking out the back of the lens, which made it impossible to make a compatible camera mount that had modern features.
So, Nikon has had varying degrees of compatibility (and varying is the word) with their F lenses for 30 years and Canon has had perfect compatibility with their EF lenses for 25 years? The latter is clearly the better record.
Marco wrote:
It's a fact that with most serious Nikon bodies there were (and are) practically no issues with almost all F-lenses of the last 30 years. Try that with Canon.
Who cares? How many people care about using those old lens designs from decades ago? Less than a thousand people in this whole wide world? How many lenses and cameras have Nikon and Canon sold in the last 10 years?
eosfun wrote:
Mirrorless cameras are not just nice for their compact design. They are first and most important much more easily produced, bringing better profitability. Second, the lack of a mirror box creates new opportunities for camera designers. A shorter backmount distance from lensmount to sensor gives better possibilities for new lens designs.
Does anyone know anything about the new mirrorless camera that Canon executive promised they'll release in 2012? What mount is it going to be? EF? EF-S? Or something totally new?
I was a Canon F1n + T90 user up until the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary when I was covering the event for
THE CANADIAN PRESS. I tried my first EOS system camera there provided by Canon and right after the event sold off all my FD gear. A lot of photogs were protesting to Canon at that time but I personally thought it was the right decision to come out with a new larger electronic mount ... the old FD mount just wasn't practical for adding electronics. After my first EOS camera I added EOS 1's with boosters when they first came out. Hard to believe that was a 1/4 of century ago !!
I picked up the 650 and a few lenses in April 1987. I had been shooting Nikon since my Dad bought me a Nikon SLR in high school in 1967. His generosity lead to a lifelong hobby. The 650 was a great camera that I used for years and started 25 years of shooting with Canon.
Monito wrote:
... So, Nikon has had varying degrees of compatibility (and varying is the word) with their F lenses for 30 years and Canon has had perfect compatibility with their EF lenses for 25 years? The latter is clearly the better record.
Ok guys, my bad.
I wrote Nikon approach was wiser.
Nope.
They only had more respect for their customers.
25 years later we really don't care about compatibility back with '80s lenses. this is true indeed.
And after all they are there to make money not to protect our investment in their lenses.
Yep.
Hope that Canon won't design a new bayonet for future lenses, especially for those who already bought a couple of long IS II tele and their new TS-E lenses...
Marco wrote:
Sorry but Nikon approach was wiser.
History has proven that you can have G-lenses with all the bells whistles (just like Eos lenses) without reinventing the bayonet and declare the previous FD system DEAD, like it is now.
You can still use most Nikkor F manual lenses on the 2012 Nikon D800 and they can even show correct exif data.
This is sad also because many FD lenses were outstanding.
Disagree:
Canon took the pain back then but it paid off. Without having to consider any of the legacy lenses they could design for the EF mount alone.
How long did it take Nikon to come up with a fully electronic mount?
Now forward to the present day and you can use ANY old canon lens on ANY EF mount body.
But you can't use a screw drive lens on the lower end Nikon bodies if you want AF (let's face tithe users of low end bodies want as much auto as possible) . I get the impression that if they could Nikon would lve to be able to drop the in body AF motor from the whole range .
Monito wrote:
"Cynics know the price of everything and the value of nothing." -- Oscar Wilde
[on edit:] (was referring to a cynical poster, not a company)
Price and profit is everything. At the very least, it ensures company survival. Don't know what I'm talking about? Ask Minolta, Kodak. Still don't know what I'm talking about?
Lens milestones:
Nikon - 30 million in Nov 2001, 40 million in July 2007, 50 million in Sep 2009. 55 million in Sep 2010, 60 million in Apr 2011, 65 million in Oct 2011
Canon - 30 million in Jan 2006, 40 million in Apr 2008, 50 million in Jan 2010, 60 million in Feb 2011, 70 million in Oct 2011
Canon sold 40 million lenses in ~ the last 5.5 years. Nikon took 10 years to sell 35 million lenses.
In early 1987 I was shooting with a Canon A-1 that I couldn't ever see me changing. Then came the announcement of the EOS system - I bought the EOS650 and the EF70-200mm f/4 as soon as they were released. Also pre-ordered an EF28-70mm that I had to wait 2 weeks for.
Didn't take me long to realise that AF was a stellar leap in technology that would mean that my photography would never be the same again!
StuCollings wrote:
In early 1987 I was shooting with a Canon A-1 that I couldn't ever see me changing. Then came the announcement of the EOS system - I bought the EOS650 and the EF70-200mm f/4 as soon as they were released. Also pre-ordered an EF28-70mm that I had to wait 2 weeks for!
Wow that must have been some wait. The 70-200/4 is 1999
Sorry Monito but I wasn't cynic at all.
Quite the contrary indeed... talking about passion for photography instead of desperately defending a brand "marketing decision" just because they have proven to "win" by selling some millions lenses more than another...
But if you like it, I'm happy for you.
You don't need to take it personally mate...
