Nikon and Minolta were sued by and paid Honeywell many millions of dollars because the violated their patents with their auto-focus cameras and lenses . Canon sought to avoid any possible litigaton. Also Canon chose to turn the page and design a system that could meet their future needs. Nikon thought it was more important to protect the investment of their existing customers. The rest is history.
Jeff
Jeff Winters wrote:
Nikon and Minolta were sued by and paid Honeywell many millions of dollars because the violated their patents with their auto-focus cameras and lenses . Canon sought to avoid any possible litigaton. Also Canon chose to turn the page and design a system that could meet their future needs. Nikon thought it was more important to protect the investment of their existing customers. The rest is history.
Jeff
Canon introduced their ED mount in 1987. Considering the lead time to introduce a whole new design, it is highly unlikely the lawsuit is what pushed Canon to dump their FD mount.
In any event, the lawsuit was based on how camera's determined focus, in this case by use of TCL (Through Camera Lens) technology first developed by Honeywell. A lens mount and how the lens is driven to that focus point had nothing to do with the case.
Thanks Al , so much for setting things aright , I am tired of doing it . Perhaps one day we might even venture into the waters of explaining the nuianced differences between a "closed loop" focus system (nikon) and the "open loop" system of canon , whew wouldn't that be a hoot
>...it makes one wonder the real reason for Canon to switch to a radically different design that killed their existing line.
>...And the flange distance of FD mount was 42mm, whereas the EOS is measured at 44mm.
Interesting. Maybe they had to build a new mount with deeper register to give room for AF in the mirror box...
>I've never come across a situation with physical torque being an issue on a well engineered lens mount from either Canon or Nikon (or other) systems. I'd love to see some examples of where this was proven to be necessary.
If you have a 1 series body hanging on a big white lens which is on a monopod then there will be quite a lot of torque on the mount due to gravity. The less the lens axis flexes from the film-plane-normal the better, as that can affect lens performance/focus-reliability. And if you use big lenses on a camera that hangs on a strap, more gravity torque. I heard only the other day about a press photographer in Iraq who threw himself down for cover, and got up to find the lens had ripped the mount and wrecked it. Mounts get quite a lot of torque. The wider they are, the better they withstand it. It's the difference between trying to snap a twig and a branch.
>If the intent was to allow for symmetrical wide angle designs, then why has Canon not produced outstanding wide angle lenses to take advantage of the new mount?
It has. The 24f1.4, 35f1.4 and 16-35mk2 and arguably others are fairly outstanding. I have used Nikon's 24 and the 24L on a 5D. I know which one I would pick. The mount advantage can deliver slight dividends in quality, price or max-aperture.
>Question is, would it hurt or help Nikon to do the same? And is it really necessary?
Not necessary perhaps, but it's a significant advantage that a photographer investing in a system should consider. Lenses and cameras come and go, but once you're invested in a particular mount, it's a lot more fundamental.
brainiac wrote:
Interesting. Maybe they had to build a new mount with deeper register to give room for AF in the mirror box...
If you have a 1 series body hanging on a big white lens which is on a monopod then there will be quite a lot of torque on the mount due to gravity. The less the lens axis flexes from the film-plane-normal the better, as that can affect lens performance/focus-reliability. And if you use big lenses on a camera that hangs on a strap, more gravity torque. I heard only the other day about a press photographer in Iraq who threw himself down for cover, and got up to find the lens had ripped the mount and wrecked it. Mounts get quite a lot of torque. The wider they are, the better they withstand it. It's the difference between trying to snap a twig and a branch.
It has. The 24f1.4, 35f1.4 and 16-35mk2 and arguably others are fairly outstanding. I have used Nikon's 24 and the 24L on a 5D. I know which one I would pick. The mount advantage can deliver slight dividends in quality, price or max-aperture.
Not necessary perhaps, but it's a significant advantage that a photographer investing in a system should consider. Lenses and cameras come and go, but once you're invested in a particular mount, it's a lot more fundamental....Show more →
None of the wide angle lenses you list are of symmetrical design, which is what I was inquiring about.
As a matter of fact, it's pretty much impossible to design a symmetrical wide angle lens for an SLR camera without interference from the mirror assembly and severe light fall off at the edges of the frame due to close proximity of the rear element to the film plane. (Nikon produced several such lenses for use with film cameras that had mirror lockup capability, including 6mm, 8mm, and a 14mm.) So that theory doesn't quite fit, AND it is also the reason why you will find almost all wide angle lenses for SLR are of retrofocus design.
Interestingly enough Canon has produced symmetric lenses, but not the wide angles that you allude to as being one of the reasons for a bigger lens mount. (Hint: look for Canon's 50mm FD mount lens.)
As far as the example you provided for physical torque, granted that having someone fall on their camera doesn't constitute "normal use". The flange could have been 100mm wide and made of hardened steel and SOMEthing would still have broken. Otherwise I know of no instances where image quality was sacrificed due to a lens or camera causing flex and distortion because the mount is not sufficiently strong enough to support the system in normal use.
Actually at this point we're splitting hairs, so I'll stop this line of discussion.
jmcfadden wrote:
Thanks Al , so much for setting things aright , I am tired of doing it . Perhaps one day we might even venture into the waters of explaining the nuianced differences between a "closed loop" focus system (nikon) and the "open loop" system of canon , whew wouldn't that be a hoot
J
I'll have to build up calluses on my finger tips to deal with all of this typing!!
>None of the wide angle lenses you list are of symmetrical design, which is what I was inquiring about.
Perhaps I am labouring under the misapprehension that there is a scale of symmetry. I understood that a short register gives lens designers more freedom to design better or cheaper or smaller/lighter wide-angle lenses. When you look at a Distagon 15mm and a biogon, the differences seem stark. Disabuse me.
brainiac wrote:
Perhaps I am labouring under the misapprehension that there is a scale of symmetry. I understood that a short register gives lens designers more freedom to design better or cheaper or smaller/lighter wide-angle lenses. When you look at a Distagon 15mm and a biogon, the differences seem stark. Disabuse me.
There are three major factors when considering lens design: Field of view. Format size. Physical limitations due to camera design - in the case of SLR camera that would include restrictions imposed by use of a mirror box.
A few millimeters difference between Canon's FD and ED mount, or for that matter Nikon, Pentax, or Minolta's mounts, are not significant enough to make a difference in the basic design requirements of lens for a given field of view.
Also remember that large format cameras are not as constrained with limits imposed by use of a mirror box or concerns of portability that are often factors with smaller formats. And their design based on flexible bellows allow you to not only change perspective, but also the distance between film plane and lens flange.
Consider why you won't find a pocket sized P+S camera with a field of view wider than 28mm.
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
That sales person doesn't know his Nikon product line.
All Nikon lenses will mount to and work on a FF camera. The crop sized lenses designated as "DX" lenses will have cropped image until zoomed out beyond a certain point. For example, Nikon's 12-24 covers full frame image circle beyond 18mm setting. The 17-55 covers full frame at around 24mm.
The 18-200VR does not cover the full frame at any focal length, according to Thom Hogan:
True, certainly not all of them will provide full frame coverage, but some do. And even the ones that show cropped image throughout their range still mount to and function on a FF camera. So in essence it could be used on D3's cropped DX mode setting. (Not that I would do this).
The main point I was making is that a majority of Nikon's line-up consists of FF lenses.
>A few millimeters difference between Canon's FD and ED mount, or for that matter Nikon, Pentax, or Minolta's mounts, are not significant enough to make a difference in the basic design requirements of lens for a given field of view.
So what distance, in your view, would be significant?
>Consider why you won't find a pocket sized P+S camera with a field of view wider than 28mm.
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
True, certainly not all of them will provide full frame coverage, but some do. And even the ones that show cropped image throughout their range still mount to and function on a FF camera. So in essence it could be used on D3's cropped DX mode setting. (Not that I would do this).
The main point I was making is that a majority of Nikon's line-up consists of FF lenses.
Certainly most of Nikon's lenses are FF; they haven't had enough time to make enough DX lenses compared to the entire history of the F mount! A lot of their recent releases have been DX lenses.
Just wanted to correct your original statement that all DX lenses cover the full frame when zoomed in to a certain focal length. That certainly would be a useful feature, especially for the 18-200.
I had hoped the Sigma 18-200OS would hit full frame around 28mm, too, so I could use it as a "28-200" on my 5D and an 18-200 on my wife's 350D, but it unfortunately never quite reaches full frame, either.
It is much harder to build a quality Wide angle lenses for a P+S camera that can produce good images. As a manufacturer if you have to choose between wide angle and telephoto for a cheap consumer grade camera which do you suppose the manufacturers will choose? (J.D.'s comment also plays a factor.)
You'll notice the Kodak camera had to resort to two lenses to make the wide angle work at an acceptable level. And it's price was higher to reflect the extra components and technology to make it work.
I would be surprised to see a P+S camera with a zoom range of 18-200. That's not say it can't be done, but the technology required and the cost involved do not justify doing so.
CKrueger wrote:
Certainly most of Nikon's lenses are FF; they haven't had enough time to make enough DX lenses compared to the entire history of the F mount! A lot of their recent releases have been DX lenses.
Just wanted to correct your original statement that all DX lenses cover the full frame when zoomed in to a certain focal length. That certainly would be a useful feature, especially for the 18-200.
Half correct. True that Nikon has been producing FF lenses far longer than DX lenses, but Nikons most recent lenses include full frame 14-24, 24-70, 400, 500, 600 lenses. Before that they introduced a revised 70-300 VR to replace the older 70-300G, again FF. Before that they released 200-400 zoom, and 200 2.0, all full frame. All introduced after the advent of their cropped sensor digital cameras.
At about the same time as their most recent releases they introduced second versions of 18-55DX and 55-200DX lenses, as well as a 18-125DX lens.
I don't believe I said all DX lenses cover full frame, I said all DX lenses mount to and work with FF camera. In other words, unlike EF-S lenses that can't physically mount to a FF body because of concerns with short lens flange to sensor distance and resulting mirror interference. DX lenses mount to, meter, and capture images on FF and film cameras, albeit in some circumstances they will not expose a full frame.
This is silly, now we're getting into semantics. Let this thread fade gracefully before it gets locked.
. Perhaps one day we might even venture into the waters of explaining the nuianced differences between a "closed loop" focus system (nikon) and the "open loop" system of canon , whew wouldn't that be a hoot 
